thewood

I hadn't seen that thread, but ist unrelated. My testing has encompassed both wooded and completely clear terrain. No difference. Rant on// Related to the thread you put up...that's the stuff that frosts me over about this. I try not to get too worked up over it, but how can anyone consider this even close to being realistic. It has to be a factor of that damned 8 x 8 gird. If 1.04 doesn't address those type of LOS/LOS issues, I am shelving it. Rant off//

yours looks like a grapics supercomputer compared to mine.

Let Syria present the proof. I've seen nothing but rumors so far.

The Times isn't good enough.

Plus the two idiot guys from the squad stuck up in the back. I have yet to get them to button. I ran extensive testing when 1.03 came out and found that Strykers of any variety are reluctant to fire at spotted infantry over 400m away. Sometimes they do a little dance and spin in place slowly like they can't bring the .50 to bare. When fired upon they will sometimes fire a few bursts back. I keep switching back to 1.01 to test and they blaze away under the same parameters. There were some long dicussions on this in the tactics forum also. Looks like what I feared, collective short attention span on the forums. That's why I bumped it.

Bump to see if can get Strykers firing on their own again. I have posted several times on this and haven't seen if BFC thinks it is a valid isse. With patch work winding down after 1.04, I'm hoping this makes it in.

I would hope this would be in 1.04. It was ID'ed weeks ago and only seemed to show up in 1.03. As I said a few weeks ago, it is just one more thing that makes the game a little tedious. It has become too much like work.

I have that too. Does everyone have this issue?

Its guilt by association because testers are many times looked upon as an insider for the developer. So if a game comes out crappy, a lot of fans lump testers into the guilty party pool. This thread and a couple of others like it are all proof.

I was a beta tester for a squad level tactical wargame a few years ago. We found numerous gameplay issues and were assured they would be addressed. I had signed an NDA that was pretty ironclad. The developers released the game despite having major gameplay issues and we beta testers were crucified as having failed the community. I will never beta test again. I don't blame the community. I mostly blame the developers. The lesson is not to sign an NDA for beta testing unless you trust the developers are going to deliver a decent product. Not following that guideline, you take your chances and take your risks. If you think a company is not listening to you or is in a contractual bind, you better bail if you don't want to be associated with the company and the product. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Developers exploit the enthusiasm of their fan base through the beta test system. There are many games out there where I have said to myself that beta testers should have seen the problem. More times than not, they probably did. Developers are 100% to blame for releasing product prematurely. But beta testers do not get off scot free. There is guilt by association, that is part of the price to pay. If you aren't ready for that, don't sign the NDA. I worked for a large factory automation company that produced some of the most complicated SW in the world to run machines and factories. Great expense was made for legal agreements that went both ways for beta testing. Product was not released until all beta testers got to sign off on it. I have always been amazed that gaming beta testing is so one-sided.

Isn't the whole point, designing the games the paying customers want to play? I wonder how well CMSF would be doing, if it was the very first CM game, without the loyal customers buying it, simply because of BFC's reputation with CMx1. </font>

I don't think he was diparaging your work. I think he was just pointing out that QB's were a lot easier to do in CM1. They were. Yes there were limitations, but I find the CMSF mapbuilder at the same time more powerful, but at the same time more tedious to use all that power. OOB selection doesn't exist, picking a map doesn't exist. I don't even bother with QB's. It is better for mr to just build a scenario on one of your maps and play hotseat with myself.

You mean you don't notice the regrouping at EVERY waypoint. Is that how they taught you to march. Move 15m then everyone stop and reorganize. All while under fire. This seems to be par for the course no matter the speed. I have seen two contradictory views on waypoints. When you point out the pause/regrouping at waypoints people jump in and they just use one long waypoint every time. When you point out problems with AI pathfinding, some people jump in and say you should use more waypoints. Well which is it?

Wouldn't it be cool in Falcon 4.0 if you bailed out and then had to comtinue on to destry your target?

I heard the Iraqi army in 1991 asked BFC to fix or do sumfink.

Most of the CMSF scenarios I have played seem like there is a more of a variety of tactics, but no strategy...if that makes any sense. In CM1, I spent a lot of time on set up and positioning in the first minutes of the game. Most of CMSF has you already in the thick of it, many times with enemy fire hitting you in the first minute.

I take offence at that, I don't even know you.

There was a long thread on this a few weeks ago and testing was done and it seemed under certain conditions it might have a minor effect, but wasn't major. BFC has yet to comment from what I can see.

I guess Steve was right. CMSF may not be for us old timers.

It also seems forum traffic is off quite a bit. It was pretty busy for a while after 1.03, but seems pretty slow with a few regulars. Its not that much busier than the CMAK forums.

Yeah, I've stopped posting issues because people jump in with all kinds of wild speculation without really reading the post and the thread usually degenerates into a he said-she said. My suggestion is emailing Steve directly with issues.

Actually, I think 1.01 should count and three patches in a month is a lot. That's both good and bad.

A long time ago, there was a discussion about objects being deleted, but still on the map and invisible. It was a discussion about pathfinding. This may be related to that. IIRC, Steve confirmed that it was an issue.

Look at the title...just wondering what the status was.

bump