kgsan
-
Posts
129 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by kgsan
-
-
Steve,Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Charles had an AMD system built for him with an 8800 in it so he can fix the problems. However, we are now starting to get reports that the old CMx1 games area also having problems with the 8800. This indicates to us that there are some serious problems with that card when combined some other variable (suspects are multi processors and/or Vista). Obviously new hardware shouldn't be breaking old games. Not ones that have been working flawlessly for 7 years.
The nVidia problem is a top priority for the v1.03 patch.
Steve
It's not just Nvidia 8800 with AMDs. As I posted in the CMx1 tech forum a month ago the CMx1 games are virtually unplayable on my new desktop with Intel Core 2 Duo Processor with 2 Gig of RAM, a 256MB NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GTS, and running Windows Home Premium Vista 32bit.
The games ran fine on my 5 year old rig with a Pentium IV and 128MB NVIDIA 4??? Video card on XP.
So please cast the net a bit wide when looking at these new problems.
-
I'm also stuck at work and would greatly appreciate a copy of the manual as well, if anyone would not mind.
I'm a bit concerned as it sounds like there are some compatibility issues with the game. Anybody running Shockforce on an Intel Core 2 Duo Processor with 2 Gig of RAM, a 256MB NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GTS, and running Windows Home Premium Vista 32bit? If so how does it run? It doesn't run the previous titles well at all but hoping there won't be any problems with Shockforce.
-
That's pretty much the opposite of what I've seen here over the years. BFC IMO have made it pretty clear that we'll never again see a (eastern front) game of the scope that CMBB provided. A "Battle for Kharkov" or "Bagration" modules for a WW2-game are IMO far more likely. </font>Originally posted by ParaBellum:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:
BFC have always said to date that different "fronts" in WWII would have to be done as games, not modules, so CM:Eastern Front would be a possible future game IMHO.
-
Looks like we have the same driver version. Hopefully NVIDIA will be coming out with a fix before too long.Originally posted by KG_Cloghaun:@kgsan
Hi,
I posted on the same trouble as you in another thread but no one responded-
I have the same card (256MB NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GTS)& 32mbVista. I am no expert but I think it's a driver issue. My version is 158.16 - what is yours?
I've heard the closer you get to the latest driver version, you're increasing your chances for problems. If you find a driver that works, please let me know & I will do the same. I'm currently searching for online info on what the latest "stable" driver is.
Thanks.
-
Thanks Schrullenhaft I'll give it a try.Originally posted by Schrullenhaft:My assumption is that this is probably a driver issue . . . .
. . .
For now you may want to turn off antialiasing, anisotropic filtering, vertical sync and possibly mess around with triple-buffering and Mip-mapping detail levels.
-
I recently purchased a new desktop with Intel Core 2 Duo Processor with 2 Gig of RAM, a 256MB NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GTS, and running Windows Home Premium Vista 32bit. CMAK ran fine on my 5 year old rig with a Pentium IV and 128MB NVIDIA 4??? Video card on XP.
However, on the new computer the game now runs exceedingly clunky, although it does run. From some of the other comments on the board regarding problems with NVIDIA GeForce 8800 video cards it sounds like it might be a driver issue. (Is anyone using the 8600 GTS without problems?) However, I was wondering if some or all of my problems might be caused by settings for the video card. It defaults to letting the program set the criteria, which I thought was always problematic. I’ve played around with adjusting the settings a bit without any noticeable change in performance.
Does anyone have any suggestions on what settings for the video card (for someone who is not very technically adept), or is the consensus that this is a driver issue for the newer Nvidia cards and just to sit tight until new drivers are released?
-
Steve,
Thanks for the info. I'm still trying to get my brain around the new QB concept. One thing that still isn't clear to me is the degree of precision involved with the scripting.
I would have thought that scripting would pretty much limit a QB map to one type of engagement type and, as a practical matter, also limited to specific classes of forces for it to be playable against the AI.
However, some of the posters above seem to be saying that a map with scripting can be played with any engagement and force type the player chooses. Is that so, it seems a bit counter-intuitive, but one can always hope.
[ July 06, 2007, 12:02 AM: Message edited by: kgsan ]
-
How many of those are attack maps? Defend maps? ME maps? Ofcos, it also depends on how fast there will be new maps available, the quality of those and how easy they are to get. In the end, I think the auto gen maps will be missed no matter what, its just a question of how much they will be missed. </font>Originally posted by Panzer76:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JaguarUSF:
Would you consider, say, 27 maps to be enough variety to start with?
-
Well, I certainly don't wish to prod Mr. Rune past the point of endurance, but can somebody confirm what he has said. Must the map have AI plans already scripted? If so, how can the AI follow scripted battle plans if the human player can pick or randomize the AI force?Originally posted by rune:No it hasn't. You select the forces and terrain and the game starts. The maps are randomly picked, so as more maps are added with AI plans if playing against the computer, or plain maps for 2 humans, the more radon the battle. It is not that difficult to understand.
. . . .
Rune
If the above is correct, and I hope I have it wrong, then it sounds like QBs are now just way to randomly pick a game from pre-existing scenarios on your HD rather than a way to generate a scenario according to player chosen parameters.
[ July 03, 2007, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: kgsan ]
-
If it's horses you want, take a look at the Napoleonic game BFC will publish, presumably later this year, Histwar: Les Grognards.Originally posted by Sequoia:You know, part of me hopes they do a pre-twentieth century game first before they tackle the Eastern Front. I know it's a become a joke to say it, but it's HORSES!
With a pre-twentieth century game done they'd already have the code for horses. They could than easily add them in (now waits for post saying cavalry dismounted long before they came into rifle range).
-
Steve,Originally posted by Battlefront.com:You can replay WeGo turns for sure. That already works in the game now. It's replaying an entire game's worth of turns we don't think we can get working for CM:SF.
. . . .
Thanks for the info. Glad to hear that full battle replay is something ya'll will try to get in at some point. One thing I'm not quite clear on from your response: even for CM:Shockforce will there be individual turn replay files which we can save from we-go solo play, or will that functionality be limited to PBEM files (assuming PBEM is in) as in the original CM series?
Thanks,
kgsan
[ November 20, 2006, 06:56 AM: Message edited by: kgsan ]
-
Thanks gibsonm, but I'm wondering/hoping that CMx2 is going to internally store the data so we can playback the entire battle if we want. If I recall correctly, I think the game Myth had that capability uqite a few years back. (and I believe that Histwar; Les Grognards which BFC will be publishing sometime soon will also have this feature). With CM you could view individual turn files by reloading the PBEM movie files(although only from one side's perspective), but I'm hoping that the new game might permit us to view back the whole game, whether played PBEM, Solo, or otherwise.Originally posted by gibsonm:Well I‘ve used Snapz Pro to record QT movies of turns for a while now (the PB is running 9.2.2 which is coming up on 5 years old) but a turn recorded this way in high quality has the following drawbacks:
-
So has BFC told us yet whether Full Movie Playback is in for Shock Force? (Yes, I have tried searching and my apologies to the search grogs if this has already been answered, but while I did find a number of threads asking about this feature, I didn't see where BFC had issued the "word from the mountain top" one way or the other.)
-
Steve, thanks for the response. I think a concern of a lot of us old CM fans is that the game/module approach will only give us coverage of a few narrow pockets of WWII before y'all move on to space lobsters, etc. I think most of us certainly understand BFC's desire to release the games in smaller increments which will allow for a well-earned recoupment of your time and effort. The hope is that if even if you just produce a West-front and maybe East-front WWII game/series, the succesive modules for each would, over time, fill in a lot of the front's equipment and units, at least for the major combatants. However, if the scope of the modules is very narrow, and y'all only plan one or two WWII game/series, then obviously that hope is off the table. I think we are just trying to gauge where BFC envisions going. We'd love to keep throwing money at y'all for more comprehensive WWII coverage if you'll let us.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Kgsan,
We have made no firm decisions. The problem with moving to Ardennes is that means we have to do a winter set of everything plus new vehicles, TO&E, and probably other minor stuff I'm not thinking of right now. It's a lot of work. However, we do have the desire to simulate this setting, so we'll have to see how it goes.
Steve
[ October 08, 2006, 06:47 PM: Message edited by: kgsan ]
-
Steve, assuming the focus of CMx2 WWII stays Americans and Germans in Normandy, if BFC makes a Bulge and/or Market-garden game would this likely be a module or another "Game/series"? I know the scope of each release will be much smaller this time around but I'm hoping that one game/series would cover most of the 1944-45 Western Front (well, not including Italy) over the course of several modules. Or does BFC envision one game/series on Normandy with very narrow modules providing additional nationalities or vehicles?Originally posted by Battlefront.com:It was part of the original announcement and then the first couple of threads of WW2 grog complaints, not mentioned since
Yes, CW is the intended subject for the 1st WW2 Module. Fireflies are a nice little beasty.
Steve
-
OK, so let me understand; having a much narrower focus for their games and much more limited replayability, without random maps, is going to increase sales?Originally posted by MikeyD:About replayability and the random map generator.
Remember guys, BFC isn't planning an everlasting game this time around. The CMx1 games had such looong development times that something pretty close to 'everlasting play' had to be designed-in to keep people interested & around from one title to the next! Theoretically with the modular x2 game engine, by the time we start to get bored with the initial release of CMSF a cool new module will show up, and when we start to get bord with that a new title will show up, etc., etc. That way we keep enjoying new aspects of the game engine and they keep collecting money from us.
From the perspective of BFC's bottom line, perhaps built-in eventual boredom is a good thing. if the first game released is all things to all people what's their incentive for anyone to buy the second game?
-
Well, my vote would be for "Fictional with Minimal Story." It seems the safest way to avoid problems (or at least to role with the punches) from unpredictable future events, would arguably increase the longevity of the title's marketability, and would allow inclusion of some additional units that many would probably want to play with. Heaven forbid that a near-term future conflagration with some country other than Syria further delay release of CM:Shockforce. We need BFC to get working on its most importent project, CMx2 WWII, as soon as possible.
-
Absolutely, any alien civilization which reaches earth will inevitably be more advanced than our own. From that it inevitably follows that they will be more enlightened, less militaristic, kinder & gentler, and more understanding and nurturing of alien cultures than our own society..Originally posted by Darkmath:I always think those movies where aliens are evil are the most intolerant movies.
That's why my favorite alien movie is "Mars Attacks"
-
I think BFC has said that CMx2 will be playable both real-time and wego.Originally posted by stikkypixie:Now you got me confused, is CMSF still WEGO? Or some hybrid version?
[ August 04, 2006, 06:08 AM: Message edited by: kgsan ]
-
Thanks for the response Moon, glad to hear it.Originally posted by Moon:Yes, rest assured, no change in plans.
Martin
-
Well Theatre of War looks very interesting and it will likely be on my Xmas list at the end of the year. However its raised one concern for me. I hope the addition of this game to BFC'sline-up isn't indicative of a change in strategy for their CMx2 games.
Can anyone at BFC reassure their WWII loving CM customers that CMx2 WWII is still planned as the follow on to Shock Force?
Please, . . .
-
Full movie play back with the option to toggle off fog of war (including play against AI as well as a human opponent) sounds fantastic. This is one piece of 'chrome' I've longed for since CMBO.
-
One question which might clear up, or at least focus, some of the concerns (if y’all are ready to get into this type of detail . . .) is whether BFC is envisioning:Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Now, back to practical stuff...
We are not planning on 20 modules at $45 each. No way. We'll probably release 2-3 Modules per title with a price that seems fair for the content being provided. They will work seamlessly with the previous purchases, or at least as seamlessly within a particular front (I am not promising that you can play Americans vs. Russians just because we released Western and Eastern modules of some sort. Though we might!). You might never get as much content as you did for the past CMx1 games, but you'll have lots of other Battlefront CM type games to choose from instead. In short, you'll not be wanting for things to play even if we ONLY give you the Battle for St. Lo. (which I am not saying is the plan). . . .
Steve
1) a series of modules which together would equal a single uber-front game in the CMx1 series (i.e. have most the units and terrain from the whole front), or
2) a series of modules, from perhaps different fronts, covering situations that the company thinks would make interesting (if smaller scaled) games, but which would not attempt to provide, even over the course of several modules, a “complete” front. From the comments so far, I am inclined to suspect the latter.
-
Steve's comments are reassuring. My biggest concern with the module approach has been with them slicing the salami too thin. His previous reference to the possibly releasing a US v. Germany in Normandy game with a subsequent module coevring the Brits (which in all fairness may have been an off the top of the head, just to give us an idea, kind of illustration) did not sound very attractive to me. Like many of the other posters in this thread, I found one of the great things about CMx1 was its scope and almost endless replayability.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:We do have to be quite careful in the subject matter and scope we choose for each title. We want to make sure that you guys get something that is still fun to play by the time the next module or full title comes out. If we start out with an idea for the subject and scope that later on in development seems to be too narrow... then we'll widen it out a bit.
. . .
As for the modules working with each other... yup, that is the thoght . . . .
Steve
BFC has good reasons not to want to take such big bites again. A reluctance to tackle the whole east front again in one go, along with all the minors, certainly makes sense, but I hope they don't go too far the other extreme. Being stuck with Americans v. Germans at the Bulge for 6 to 8 months doesn't sound too alluring to this customer, even at a lower price; however, I'll trust BFC to find the sweet spot.
[ May 31, 2005, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: kgsan ]
I'm worried about the WWII release.
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Also, I think Feltan makes a fair point above.