hoolaman

Well for starters go to ATI and do the equivalent to the steps pandur described above. You do not have a nvidia graphics card! ATI drivers My old computer's specs are similar to yours and it ran the demo (though at very low settings) although I had a slightly better nvidia card with more memory. But for gods sake buy a new computer . Buying today's 12 months old tech where the price has dropped off will still get you a PC 20x better than that old clunker.

I don't know (I expect not), but it would be easy for you to download and install the demo too wouldn't it?

Downgrade drivers to 94.24, try it and let us know if that is successful, I have heard talk that with 16x.xx drivers on a 7xxx series card there can be issues.

That's not what he said. The commander doesn't need LOS to its subordinate, but to give a bonus the HQ must be in LOS to it's subordinate's target. I have never noticed this effect but it may be true. As for satchels, I noticed it is always the squads not taken under fire that throw em. A period of not being shot at will always do the trick. Obviously this is supression/morale related, but I find only fresh-as-a-daisy squads can do it.

Sounds like the preamble to the CMSF manual. You could take that as a compliment to BFC or an insult to the US army depending on your POV. (No slight is intended to either!) [ February 29, 2008, 03:49 AM: Message edited by: Hoolaman ]

I have the same processor and memory (XP though), and a very cheap nvidia card, and I get decent performance . Just buy a cheap $50 GFX card and stick it in, no need to buy a new PC.

It is a little confused which is unfortunate. The 4 & 5 actually refer to the numpad, which is the way to use the positional hot keys as they were actually designed. You can scroll the tabs with the "/" & "*" keys and use the 9 numpad numbers for the commands. Very quick and effective, the only problem being that its far away from the WASD camera controls. 4 & 5 above the letters are camera views.

Try reducing the graphics quality.

Since savegames are not compatible between patch versions I would think the only answer is "yes".

That's an excellent idea for this or any other CM game.

To be fair CMSF had a lot of problems, and some people don't care enough to give a free pass to any game developer, that's their perogative. The game may have taken its time getting there, but Panzer Mike said it best: The pace of improvements now that the big bugs have been killed seems to be accelerating at an exponential rate, and seems to give great support to the CMx2 concept of throwing out the old games for a new more flexible code. Just like the last CM games were steady improvements, CMSF is the solid foundation for more and better games.

Get CMAK and I guarantee your troops will not be firing at King Tigers.

Have you thought about how the crest of that hill actually interferes with LOS? A more useful test would be a 90deg approach and a straight slope edge. The diagonal slopes in CMSF produce the saw edge type of effect of the elevation tiles which might be effecting your results. I mean if you want to check spotting take the terrain out of the equation as much as possible.

Not neccesarily, its the Relict reactive armour AFAICT. Not sure how that would react to solid penetrators though.

Actually babelfish Russian to English seems quite good, I am surprised at the lack of gibberish. Nice links. There is a nice link in there about some of the latest T-72 upgrades with closeups of the reactive armour and stuff. Interesting how reducing the distinctiveness of the T-72 is mentioned. The funny panels around the turret give a very different profile to something every western tanker has inprinted on his brain as an enemy tank. There is also some kind of stealth tarpaulin over the thing. Pic 1 Pic 2 [ February 18, 2008, 01:01 AM: Message edited by: Hoolaman ]

I saw this too Darkmath in the 1.02 demo, but haven't noticed it since then. Still happening?

I know what you mean, a lot of my M1's get track hits causing immobilisation. I never thought it to be odd, although maybe now you mention it the probability of hitting a track might be lower IRL, but who has detailed studies of RL track hits vs CM? Now as ever I guess the weak part of a tank is going to be the tracks, so I don't really mind, the mighty Abrams doesn't have too many other weak points so if a T55 can get a track hit or two it spices the game up.

Yeah, I'm sure you're right, but the "which device did you plug in" thing is pretty odd, being a hardware based thing, its hard to imagine CM causing it. If the sound program is the cause, you could probably shut down the Realtek software and just use the windows mixer? Just theories anyway, hope it helps somehow!

I sugested this a while ago, sort of like having the map in a tall tube type of thing, along with maybe mapping a dedicated texture to the "tabletop". Also cool would be having a near horizon texture and a far horizon texture with buildings and palms and stuff. Imagine a hi-res google earth satellite image under there. Would be cool, same game effect, but much nicer immersion.

I think your soundcard has automatic jack sensing, and if it thinks it has had something plugged or unplugged, it will launch that dialogue. If the new program is launched CMSF will automatically minimise which might explain the weird sounds as it is shut down while the other program loads up. I am guessing you have a loose connector or something, which thinks it's being unplugged. I think in that same plug connection software you can specify another jack as the speaker output, so maybe you could try that.

I've never seen evidence of it like you had in CMx1. Maybe it adds to the ? as mentioned. Yes. WEGO hide+ambush seems much, much improved, in fact WEGO AI seems a lot better all round, which translates into a better RT experience (not that I play much RT). I recall in the dark past Steve answered this one and the answer was NO. A real shame, they are versatile and dangerous weapons, and it's no more implausible them making it to the fight than a T72. I don't know if brush specifically is different, trees were mentioned in the changelog for 1.06, but the Enhanced LOS seems to mean prone infantry in brush or grain are much more concealed.

I think its probably unlikely for TOW's to fail twice in a row repeatedly. If the two-in-a-row thing happens a lot, maybe the game has worked out that the situation your firing unit is in might be likely to cause failures. But I think it would be more likely to see one fail, then a run of good fire, then another fail etc.

I agree, it might be Stryker smoke clouds are too big, thick and frequent. But I guess if you are simulating this stuff, its an issue of what a realistic size and duration of these grenade types are. Maybe its correct but us civvies don't even know. Good point about red smokes, I think it has been mentioned that Soviet Bloc defensive smoke comes from generators spraying fuel on hot engine manifolds. So Russian vehicles should suddenly spawn a massive defensive smoke cloud out their engine bay and back into it, and use their grenades offensively. Hopefully BFC can look at this, but I guess it requires a whole new game mechanism of smoke generation.

Hi Adam, There are a few issues you mention. And as I understand the variables in the engine your assessment that there are tricks or predetermined outcomes with small arms accuracy is wide of the mark (bad pun intended). Firstly, aiming accuracy is modelled, and sometimes appears to be unrealistically bad, especially if the firing unit is highly experienced and misses at close range. But mostly I think it gives a good overall effect, expecially at medium/longer ranges. Second there appears to be a height that infantry in the game will try to aim to get kills. There are of course a myriad of situations that an enemy could be in, and it may be that in many situations you find units aiming at chest or head height as you say when that might not be appropriate. I think the issue with HMGs could be as much about rate of fire as about aiming. MGs seem pretty leisurely about squeezing off pathetic little three round bursts sometimes. Then there is cover, which I believe is given based on what you see visually, along with the possibility to give some abstract value to open ground. So there are a few variables that are simulated in complicated ways, and if the interaction of these do not seem perfect at the moment, I don't think that's due to tricks or abstractions. Higher lethality from firing low at buildings might be simply a bug. You also mentioned concealment, but playing around with my own little LOS scenarios I have noticed pretty good concealment while prone in thick forests and such. It might be some sort of thermal imaging effect giving the advantage to Strykers.

You never go them to go in right? What scenario is that?