hoolaman

I could handle area fire being resolved in the game mechanics based on the tiles, but I hate the way it graphically really does snap to the middle. Why not let you target line be placed anywhere and have the whole tile sprayed with bullets instead of snapping to an arbitrary point and directing all the fire to that one point. It looks awful.

An excellent question that has been asked in many forms but has to my knowledge never been answered in an official or unofficial way. Steve has said that LOS is based on action spots. Okay we know that. Is there ANY more finely resolved LOS calculation than these 8x8 tiles? There really needs to be for a military sim where the difference between a turret down observation point and a smoking wreck may be a matter of inches. A person trying to hide in a combat situation may do so with varying degrees of success. But that relates to identification not whether you can see something or not. LOS really is binary, at least for the spotter. If you stick your head over the top of a trench to have a look around, it is a world of difference between three seconds ago when all you could see was dirt. If you extend that to a vehicle's sensor package popping over a crest, it is everything in a game like this.

'Card, what is your sig line from ?

Maybe it would be different in a really hot conventional type scenario where they can't just hang around wherever they like. Maybe the proximity of air support could be specified in the scenario design? Your video does make me wonder why there are no modelled aircraft in the game (graphically I mean), and no AA of any sort in the game, it would be great to see the helos buzzing around, and not unrealistic. It would also be great to see them blasted from the sky by 30mm AA fire.

The smoke and dust is great except it gives away the poisitons of vehicles.

Personally I think the demo is quite bad and doesn't really have missions that showcase the game. I would suggest waiting for the new demo with an extra mission.

I know the team is busy, but I was just wondering if maybe BFC could bring the blog out of retirement. I would love to see updates about what is going on behind the scenes, and it would be a good place for more developer diary type behind the scenes info to be collected in one place, such as how things work and how they were intended to work. The forum here doesn't provide much info of a constructive nature anymore, so the blog would be good PR too.

I must have missed the announcement where you were left in charge of the entire forum. If you actually have been left in charge of the entire forum (god forbid), why not ask BFC to give you moderator powers so you can lock all the topics that offend you and ban people who make posts you don't approve of? People will take a bit of stick from the BFC crew, but not from "some guy".

They were also suggesting that if a decnt AI opponent was going to take another 18 months to code, that head to head play only would be a good compromise.

If "Reverse-Slope" means "hull-down" or "target partially obscured" wouldn't it be better to use these perfectly descriptive terms? Reverse slope is a specific military term understood by most CM players to mean the defender is totally obscured on the other side of a hill. Using this term in this context is very misleading.

What is the point of this post? The other thread is no more constructive or answer-filled than this one.

Oh, one more, how about a hi res skybox, or even better, two skyboxes, a near horizon and a far horizon. The map edge might be here to stay but it could look so much better.

Little Things: How about tooltips for newer players/demo players? Still as important now as the day of release when everyone complained about them.

I don't own a Mac, but I think a Mac version would be an excellent opportunity to re-launch the game (now it's finished ) and generate some more positive press and get it re-reviewed. It might be worth devoting extra attention to the Mac port from this perspective.

In a vacuum his comments stand quite well on their own. But what happens when I inject a little bit of context using his logic? This is what one gets: "As it stands CMx1 is totally unrealistic and has fundamental design flaws which have NOT been improved or corrected in 10 years of development" All I am doing is carrying his logic, completely unchanged, to a relevant contextual connection. If he really can't enjoy CM:SF for the reasons he has stated, then I am completely baffled by how he could have played CMx1 beyond the demo. </font>

The new, smaller "Game Paused" text looks much better.

I can't speak for BFC but I suspect the answer to is: Because that is a lot of work with very limited resources for zero financial return to benefit a miniscule user base.

Obviously the reason why people, like yourself, object to me brining CMx1 into this discussion is that you want to think of it as a Sacred Cow that is beyond criticism. Because afterall, if you are arguing that CMx2 is not good enough because it isn't realistic enough, and I can show how CMx1 is less realistic than CMx2, then by carry through of logic you must also find that CMx1 wasn't good enough either. Since you don't want to face the reality of your own line of reasoning, it bothers you that I keep bringing CMx1 into discussion when someone is trying to argue that CMx2's realism is crap.</font>

But nobody here was talking about CM1 or comparing it to that game but you Steve. They were talking about a specific issue where you currently have better playability with the US side but not the Syrian side via splitting squads.

I tend to agree with Abbott's post above. I think people mostly said WEGO was completely unplayable, not RT. And that is why people keep "defecting" to RT, because they are frustrated by the bugs and limitations in WEGO.

Maybe I have a mental problem but I love Youtube comments. Its like a cascade of grafitti on a wall. Some are intelligent, most are Homer Simpson-like in their idiocy, but I love it even if it's just "you are a dumbass lol"

Charles fixes it and the Beta team breaks it, this goes on about once every 24 hrs A new patch release and a challenge to beta test it the beta testers report issues and bugs that need attention. Steve says it should be any day now and I think he is correct. </font>

I am just as much a naysayer as the next guy, but why don't you post in one of the other five or so "CMSF is good/crap" threads just on the first page of the forum? What do you hope to achieve by your post? Incidentally, which option did you take? Would you do the same again?

Don't forget the demo is still 1.02, so you should wait for the 1.04 demo before making a judgement.

^^^ Yeah, lets leave a few issues for old times sake! I assume you mean are we worried that 1.04 will not fix the issues left in the game. Well Steve did say there would be a 1.05...