IMHO
-
Posts
1,054 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Posts posted by IMHO
-
-
On 2/28/2021 at 4:45 PM, Bud Backer said:
use the Browse feature to find the exe of the game you want to have use the discrete GPU. You can set that by clicking on the app once it is added, and select Options. There it gives you a choice of windows deciding, or the integrated GPU or the Discrete one
It doesn't work on my laptop. Since I changed my preferences to system processes it's not anymore. I was primarily interested in high GPU use by DWM and likes but I changed a lot. Now I've been able to roll back it for DWM and like but CMBS displays all the showings it's somehow uses display distance settings for iGPU. Before that switches between iGPU and dGPU to individual CMBS process worked just fine. Now the changes to graphics settings does affect the texture quality but not the display distance. In terms of display distance the game behaves as if it were on an Intel iGPU on my old MacBook Air.
-
On 3/1/2021 at 8:54 PM, fireship4 said:
Cool. More stories like that if you can.
Well... You understand I kinda "can" only what was posted (and vetted) in other (Russian language) sources?
My primary interest in guy was in Cuban Missile Crisis (that was my crush of university years ) and the Soviet decision making in beginning of 80s. But in principle he was the head of the whole of Soviet Foreign Intelligence Service Analytics since 1971 and he was quite open (or open enough? ) so that made him quite an outstanding person. Plus it was not a kind of free-for-all course - there was a compulsory pre-selection - so there were normally about 12-18 of us who had his undivided attention for few hours once a week. The discussion normally dragged on pretty much into the late night.
-
22 minutes ago, Schrullenhaft said:
Yes, you can force CM to utilize the discrete GPU by creating a 'profile' within the discrete GPU's control panel for 3D settings (I know that is true of Nvidia and I assume it is probably true of AMD too). This isn't the game's fault.
Nope, does not work. It somehow inherits GPU from some Windows processes. It used to run on my NVidia GPU but since I played with reducing power consumption by setting some system processes to iGPU it no longer will. I set CMBS to use NV GPU via both Win10 setting and NVidia Control Panel. But it's just won't - tries to run on iGPU nonetheless. It seems it's hardcoded to use "default" GPU. Looking forward to Steam comments - those guys are no used to stone age software
22 minutes ago, Schrullenhaft said:It supposedly tries to take into account how much memory may be needed by the display and other details.
It uses 10% - there's plenty more to use. With every other sensible game there're some settings to use... Just not with Cmxx - like Communist Party in the Soviet Union: "We know what's best for you".
-
Bigger UAV - Gray Eagle (?)
-
Russian answer to Gray Eagle
-
SOF day showreel
The most interesting part (at least to me
)- the use of kamikaze drones:
-
@Ultradave
Seems like CMxx was made to run on VERY old rigs (with sole GPUs).. So it's not a scare about integrated graphics - quite the opposite. It's just one won't have the bang for one's investment into expensive two GPU laptop rigs CMxx will run just fine it's just the picture will be ugly. By ugly I mean one will have a viewing distance limited to something like 500p-1K meters. After that - one has to camera-roam the map.
-
- Display distance - is there a way to force it? It seems display distance is hard-wired to the graphics quality and CMBS decides for the user what s/he wants. I don't need hi-res textures, I just need to see further. CMBS is using just 10% of my dedicated VRAM and another 80% is available - it just decides not to use it and limit the display distance.
- Is there a way to force CMBS to use dGPU in a dual GPU configurations? Hint - it now a STANDARD configuration for all laptops that are not dirt cheap. NV control panel or Win10 Advanced graphics settings does not help as well as Win10 graphics settings. CMBS always reverts to default iGPU should it be set for desktop window manager.
-
1 hour ago, Fatgreta1066 said:
I'm looking at an ASUS laptop
CMBS runs on my old Macbook Air. I actually have more trouble running is on a laptop with NVidia 1070 - CMBS defaults to iGPU instead of dGPU so the picture is just marginally better than I get from 3 times more expensive hardware.
-
Well... It seems CMxx does not know about dual GPU configurations and simply inherits GPU from DWM (?). So the problems with Steam might be Steam App inheriting GPU from DWM them CMxx inheriting GPU from Steam. My (used to be) 3.5K USD NV1070 laptop runs CMBS no better than 1K USD MacBook Air with integrated Intel graphics. The problem sprang up when I tried to confine DWM to iGPU only.
Desktop with sole 1080Ti card runs CMBS properly.
-
33 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:
Well, there is DPICM now. So, if you are using HE artillery against tanks it is now doubly wrong.
Well I'd argue about "wrong"
There was a topic some years ago about RL effect of heavy (122mm-152/155mm) HEFRAG bombardment on armored vehicles. I gave the RL test range data - CMBS severely underestimates it IMO. Plus in CMBS the damage to sights and other equipment may happen only if there is a direct top hit. FRAG effect for nearby explosions - however close - is not modelled.
-
6 hours ago, Pete Wenman said:
Difficult to say as armour dominates in most of the stuff I've played
Is HE arty support deals more damage to armored vehicles than in CMBS? More mobility kills? More damage to sights?
-
23 hours ago, Bil Hardenberger said:
What is Bil planning?
Tanks at the hamlet on the right flank feel just fine. So you can try to move your formidable tank force on the right flank all the way to the Soviet hill and go up a bit. At least on Google Earth and original Weyhers topo there's a covered ravine one can use. And up the Soviet hill you may find a position that both dominates from above direct avenues of attack on the town over the center yet stays untouchable to Soviet armor at their current positions up the hill. Soviets will be vulnerable to flanking fire if they move directly. And should they try to go over the hill to dislodge you from above they will be clearly seen both against the skyline for your tanks below, and being on the move they will have a disadvantage in spotting to your TOW guys. Easy kills IMO.
-
1 minute ago, The_Capt said:
Short answer is no but we can talk after release....
OIC. No worries - it's just more convenient to follow AAR being able to check lines of fire. We'll keep our fingers crossed for the Easter
-
@Bil Hardenberger, @Pete Wenman, is the map itself - without the OOB - available anywhere? I mean CM readable format.
-
@The_Capt, @Pete Wenman, is the map itself - without the OOB - available anywhere? I mean CM readable format.
-
2 minutes ago, Rice said:
I wonder if there's a way to connect any tube that vents gas like on the AKM.
Point 18 on the photo. Shall we switch to some other place to discuss this? Just not to clutter the beautiful AAR thread.
-
30 minutes ago, Rice said:
Any photos of these firing ports? Very curious as to their design then.
Just don't ask me how it's supposed to work
-
-
On 2/22/2021 at 8:18 PM, Hapless said:
Testing as many Syrian MG teams as I can fit in a BMP-1 shows that they only seem to fire their AKs though.
I'm sure I've heard an SVD and PK fired through a firing port
@Rice, first ports to the left and to the right will accept PKMs happily. The rest are AK only. AFAIK
-
Agree with a note that NATO had way more tactucal nukes than Soviet Union so Soviet troops would have been on a receiving end probably more often than NATO. It's hard to believe NATO units would have gone down one by one without resorting to thosands and thosands of warheads on hands.
-
25 minutes ago, mrzafka said:
I mean retaliation with chemical weapons after first use of chemical weapons ... Then all the things you wrote about - everything taking twice as much time, huge difficulties in performing even the simplest tasks - would equally effect the opponent.
Wouldn't it be World War one again, equally miserable for both sides with no one getting significant operational advantage?
Chemical weapons are made in such a way as to degrade pretty quickly exactly not to have a long lasting area denial effect for the side that chooses to use them. Like you planned for the wind forecast but the agent lasts for few days and then what? Wind changes and now your front line troops are sitting in NBC suits seeing **** while your opponent runs unhindered. AFAIK the planned use of chemical weapons was to temporary deny some terrain to the enemy, restrict mobility of some enemy units, severely degrade their combat capabilities for a given time period. NOT to turn some areas into permanently inaccessible post-apocalypse wastelands.
Basically you use the weapon then you quickly exploit its effects and by the time the dust settles you hold key terrain and enemy units are in encirclements.
40 minutes ago, mrzafka said:Desert Rock exercises were conducted in the 50s. There were some significant tactical and technical changes in the following decades.
Sure, "significant tactical and technical changes" were implemented as the product of that research
Like Soviet tanks hauled around hundreds of kilograms and even tons of polyethylene liner.
-
2 hours ago, IanL said:
As a teenager in the 80s there was a time when I was not so sure that our leaders nor the Soviet ones understood that
Khruschev was deposed in no small part due to the fright and consternation he made Politburo to go through with Cuban Missile Crisis. They honestly believed he was too unpredictable to lead a nuclear power. Actually the guy at the university was very knowledgeable about this event. Being a personal friend of both Castro brothers, the Spanish translator most favored by Khruschev and even being the very station officer who personally interviewed Lee Harvey Osvald when he dropped by the Russian Embassy in Mexico complaining he was being followed the guy was extremely interesting person to speak with.
-
3 hours ago, Ultradave said:
Everything slows down. Everything you do is harder.
Correct but to simulate this in CM you don't need big badaboom CGI. You just set troops' experience level, morale and voila, you have a post-nuclear conventional fight with zero development effort.
3 hours ago, Ultradave said:Traveling through a fallout zone is much more manageable than through nerve agents.
Actually nerve agents (like organophosphates like VX) normally degrade into metabolites pretty quickly.
3 hours ago, Ultradave said:Speculation. Tactical nuclear weapons have never been used.
I'd disagree, nuclear explosion effects on combat troops are well researched. See Totskoye and Desert Rock exercises.
My primary interest in guy was in Cuban Missile Crisis (that was my crush of university years 
U.S. Thread - CM Cold War - BETA AAR - Battle of Dolbach Heights 1980
in Combat Mission Cold War
Posted
It's irrelevant IMO. For a vehicle to be fired upon even simple gunner's target acquisitions and decision to fire would take seconds so an average ATGM speed would suffice. There are really much bigger gaping holes in CMxx model.