karch

I don't want to be seen as coming down hard on either BFC or Apple. I don't really blame either of them too much. Well, BFC, not at all. They've followed every rule, developed in RAVE because Apple told them that's what would be supported for years to come. Then they decided not to FULLY support it in classic X. Too bad, so close, but ther is nearly ZERO chance of them updating RAVE any longer. they don't have the $$ to throw away. As for moving forward with X only. It does make sense to me. They have MUCH more limited resources in OS and Hardware research and development. On top of that, they are making software developers get on the X bandwagon for any serious computing. I think they have to to make X competitive software wise. Developers only have limited resources to throw at application development. 9 and X are 2 platforms that need to be developed for. Yes Carbon apps run in both, but there is probably a lot of duplicated development and testing for both. And with the Mac market share as small as it is, supporting 2 OSs on the Mac just doesn't make $$$ sense. I think they are doing the best they can with the resources they have (and with Motorola screwing up so badly). Heck, I wish Apple won the computer war, but they didn't. I'm just happy they are still sticking around and that BFC is creating software that runs (or Ran )on the Mac, and I'm pretty sure they will continue to support Macs on OSX when CM3 comes out. hey there's always next year and the never ending dream of the processor that will finally smoke all Intel boxes.... we Mac users can dream can't we?

Messages coming from Matt and Charles make it sound like it's impossible to make a patch for CM. The entire graphics engine would have to be rewritten in openGL and that isn't worth the time it would take compared to getting a new engine written for CMIII. I'm seriously considering finding an old Pentium II to use for CM and all the kids software that's not available for Mac, but using a mac for my personal work, photos, imovie stuff and things like that. I'm very upset at the inability to play CM on new Macs, but I'm sure BFC is as well and would change things if they could, but they probably can't without losing tons of money. I trust them and their judgement. If they say it can't be done in a timely manner that wouldn't lose them money and wouldn't impact the next engine rewrite, I'm sure they would do it. S

I don't have any trouble at all playing CMBB under Classic - and I didn't make any changes to the default settings to do this. CMBO won't work under Classic but, for me at least, CMBB works just fine. My machine is a dual gig G4 running System 10.2.3</font>

Pretty sure gun elevation and depression aren't modeled, so you could shoot them even if they were just about beneath you from what I remember reading

sorry, no caps.. typing with one hand... 2 month old baby in other... good point hans , but rather than random, what if, occasionally, you pick a me and realize quickly your opponent has about 50% more troops than you... or more. made that dash to the flags kinda bad. You would then realize the victory conditions were for you to inflict as many casualties but exit the map as late as possible... it could make you really think on your feet and not really know what's in a particular game even if you picked it. Obviously it could be turned off if wanted, like casualties are now.

I was wondering what people would think about unbalanced games as an option. Think of the Germans in the second half of the war.. outnumbered, nearly surrounded, performing a delaying action against an advancing enemy. Do your best to hold off the enemy, inflict as many casualties and get off the map before too many troops are killed. The scoring would have to take into account: - turns holding back the enemy - how many enemy troops you killed - how many of your troops were killed - how many of your troops got off the map - how many of the enemy troops followed ou off the map I've seen posts that some managed game system do this and I'd love to occasionally get a no win game that you have to carefully extricate yourself from. Maybe you don't even know it will play out this way. Maybe occasionally your enemy will get 50% more troops and you just have to deal with it.. It would be a killer if you were attacking and find out your enemy is stronger than you. Could make reccon much more important. Come to think of it, I think it would be even better if it just happened sometimes. You shouldn't always know you will be meeting an even opponent. Any thoughts anyone?

Not to beat a dead horse, but is it certain that you can't have a Mac run at 800x600 in software rendering. using switch-rez you can have it go to 800x600, but it first bounces to 640x480 and then to 800x600 and somehow CMBB sees the 640x480 setting and quits the app. I know i've seen CMBB running at 800x600 in software emulation. Is Charles positive it can't be done? Here are some things to think about 1) if CMBB didn't check to make sure the machine was running 800x600, using switch-res to go to 800x600 in software mode would work 2) check again to see if CMBB can force 800x600 in software mode instead of 640x480

Thanks for the note Matt. I was hoping software rendering could run at any resolution and that the decision was made to force 640x480 because it would run faster. If it just can't be made to run at 800x600 in software rendering, the too bad for me. Thanks for the updade. Please let us know if Charles can look into this.

bump

I see Steve seems to be lurking around here tonight. Steve, is this anything you've known about or have talked about at all? regards Scott Karch

I was wondering if the next patch could change the application from switching a Mac to 640x480 when running in "Classic Mode". I used to play CMBO all the time in classic mode inside OSX since I didn't want to have to reboot to play a quick PBEM turn or a really fast AI QB. CMBO forced your computer into 640x480 when running in software mode and CMBB does too... the problem is that CMBB needs 800x600 to run, tells you it can't run in 640x480 and then quits. I don't know how many Mac users played with software rendering, but I did all the time. Maybe a poll of Mac users that did this and miss it in CMBB. If I'm the only user that did this, then don't bother wasting the coding time. I realize the graphics are what drive a lot of people to play CM. But given the choice to play with software rendering WITHOUT having to reboot, I'd take software rendering 9 times out of 10. Any others?

There are a number of different, more powerful explosives that could be used. the main reason they werent usually used in artillery rounds is that they were also more sensitive and could explode from the shock of firiing and so had to be desensitized. I think usually with wax of some sort. Rockets, having a much slower launch and less stress on the payload and shell body, could probably use more potent/sensitive explosives than gun shells. Aside from being able to fire more sensitive explosives, they could fit far more into the body since the body walls could be relatively thin as they didn't have to support the stress of being fired from a canon. Just dragged along by a rocket. So a Neblewerfer could, in my theory, carry a higher percentage of explosives than any comparable shell size, and it could be of a more potent explosive that wouldn't be safe enough to fire in a gun shell. I don't know it this was the case, but it seems to me that it could be. Any Neblewerfer specialists? Here are a few quicktime VR movies of the Neblewerfer launchers at Aberdeen. 360 degree pan

I think I've read something similar a few times. I think it was caused by Neblewerfers. The rockets have their motor/engine at the front firing through a tube going to the base. the last 1/2 of the rocket or so was explosive without much of a case at all so it would be nearly all blast effect without much shrapnet at all. I thought I read the first usage of the neblewerfer was a secret even to the Germans it was supporting. It seemed to frighten everyone. the casualties were noted to have the symptoms you mentioned and the remains of the exploded rockets looked like peeled bananas. There were also notes of the lack of any craters, meaning the rockets nose/engine hit and exploded while all the explosives were still above ground so there was nearly no cratering. This is what I remember reading about them. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Sorry, I meant LOS tweaks. I read that LOS would be reduced looking through wheat fields and other types in certain instances. I was wondering if playing the demo with the new version gave the Soviets a better chance. Also, typing with one hand and a sleeping baby in the other isn't too easy.. caps are tough and you have to be fast because baby may wake up at any moment.

sorry for no caps.. i have a 4 week old baby in by left arm. has any one played yelina stare with the new game? i was wondering if the new los tools make the sov. advance easier. anyone?

Gotta agree with everything you said there. It might not look like it, but I'm a Mac addict. I've known the OSs inside and out since OS6. I love OS X and all it brings to the platform. I really think Motorola and IBM have hurt sales significantly. I don't know if the chip designs just wouldn't support the higher speeds Intel put out, or if they didn't have the money to throw at the problems, but the end results are processors that don't stand up well to the competition. They are good chips and fast enough for every day tasks and even really good serving tasks, but they are just not quite up to par. Now this will change hopefully if we get the light version of IBMs Power 4 next year. I hope. I have an iMac, iBook, powerbook G3, 2 Powerbook 5300s as wireless webcam servers, a beige G3 running OS X server 10.2.2 and a 7600 with a G3 card in it for a Retrospect machine.. I love Macs. BUT I develope real estate software and you know what percentage of our clients use Macs... nearly zero. We have 1 client. As much as I love the new Ti Books, I think my next computer will be a Windows Laptop to help me test software better for clients. If things change and Apple gets more marketshare with my clients, I may be able to switch back again. Kind of a bummer day for me and I;ve really been frustrated with the whole Mac situation. I think the OS is getting better and better, the hardware is great too (cept' for the processors) and there are more and more apps released since OS X. It's just too bad my client base will probably never make the switch. I sure hope I'm proven wrong and corporate america starts switching over to Unix. Then OS X would fit in nicely. Oh well. gonna go cry in my milk here. gnight everyone.

Great! It was bad enough with Mac vs Windows debates, but now there are OS9 vs OSX debates? Sheesh. I agree that is you OS9 system is doing everything you want of it, don't change a thing until you have to. It makes all the sense in the world and will save you lots of money. OSX is missing quite a few of the cool bells and whistles I used to use. Tabbed/popup windows. Man I used those all the time, and all the crap I put into the apple menu. There are workarounds for some, but not for all. The argument that they "Took out all the features" is not quite true. They just haven't had the resources to include every gadget into X that there was in 9. either Apple or developers will rectify that. OSX is a little too slow on my G4 450 and awfully slow on my old iBook, but I can't stand to go back to 9 except when playing CM. It is more stable. Sure you can make 9 very stable if you are carefull with it, but X is stable even if you're not. Big difference. If Motorola/IBM had been able to keep up with Intel/AMD, we wouldn't even be hearing these gripes about speed. It is a very visually intensive OS, taxing processors quite a bit, but if we had faster chips, this would probably be a non-issue. Not that I agree with every aspect of the new OS, I think is more consistent in just about every aspect, moreso than Window or OS9. The biggest reason I've switched over to X is that I can talk to other computers far easier. I can VPN into clients networks that I used to need a Windows machine for, there are more and more great network apps that don't exist on 9. Sharing information and connectiing to OS9, OSX, Windows and Unix machines far easier is a very important thing to me than any of the shortcomings X has. It's not perfect, but neither was 9. I happen to like X much better than 9 ( and guess which OS will be around in 2 years).

I'm really looking forward to Africa/Med/Italy/Balkans for CM3 with the new engine. I hope after that they release CM4 with, either the whole Western Front from 1939 to 1945. There will obviously be a large gap in time where no fighting will take place. The research is already done primarily for D-Day- end of war. From what I seem to recall reading, the research to build the game is a very large part of their development. Models would either have to be tweaked, or created from scratch.. but hey, you could get your M16 Meatgrinders on the western front this time!! Then CM5 to be a revisit to the Eastern Front.... I'd LOVE for CM4 to actually be 1939-45 Eastern and Western fronts.

I really have a feeling that tanks getting bogged/imobilized is not a calculation as detailed as you are hoping. The ground itself is an abstraction, I'd guess that there are some calculations that happen each second for each vehicle and based on the ground, ground condition, vehicle ground pressure and any modifiers, you either bog or not. I just think it's more abstracted than it seems you are expecting. If I'm wrong, I apologize. S

Do you have any screen shots or saved games? forward them to Matt.

Wow, I hope you can get in. Do you have a digital camera? I know this is a real stretch, but if you would be willing to take a bunch of pictures and panorama and 3D shots, I might be willing to loan you a digital camera with a wide angle lens to take pictures. As many as they allow. I took nearly 3000 over a 4 day stretch at Aberdeen. I have a 2 year old boy and a 3 week old baby boy and I just don't see me getting to Moscow for another 20 yrs or so. If you take a look at some 3D panoramas and QuickTIme VR Object movies I took from Aberdeed, you'll see what I'm hoping for. 360 degree pans VR Objects I'd be more than happy to teach you how to take the pictures, the 360 degree panoramas really would help people get a feel of scale between different vehicles and for the museum. The 3D objects are just cool because you can look at the same vehicle from different angles. Please let me know, I would love to see the museum and I'm afraid I'll have to do it through someone else. Please let me know if you're interested, I'd do all the stitching and 3D work for free. you can contact me at scott@karchfamily.com

I'd say no, at least one thing you have to worry about is higher polygon count for all the models. vehicles and people. This may slow down the frame rate some. just my 1/2 cent to ponder..

Actor, For the panoramas I used both PhotoVista (Mac or Pc versions) and the stitching program that came with my Canon digital camera. The 3D objects I made using Apple's Quicktime VR Studio. There are a number of programs out there to do this, just search for quicktime VR. The best way to take any of the pictures for a panorama shot is with a good tripod with built in leveling and notches or measurements so you know how far to rotate the camera between shots. The cheap way is to stand and do your best tripod impersonation and rotate around the axis of the camera. That's what I did. The 3D object movies aren't nearly as good as they should have been. Make sure you get a wide angle lens so you can see the whole barrel. To make a perfect object, the camera should be pointing to a hidden point in the center of the tank and have the camera rotate around the tank in equal increments always pointing to that central point. Also make sure you stay the same distance away from the tank if you can. I ended up taping a piece of thread to each tank and using the thread as my radius to walk around the vehicle/gun so I would keep a good approximate distance. The thing I later realized, was it is more important to get as much of the vehicle in the picture as possible instead of pointing to some magical center point. If you have a digital camera and are really interested, let me know. Especially if someone is near the Kubinka museum, the Finnish one I see, Bovington or the Patton Museum. I'd love to see those grounds. If someone were willing to take the pictures with instructions, I'd be more than willing to spend the time stitching them all together for you. Please let me know.

I've posted these links before, but there are lots of new members that may be interested in seeing some of the vehicles there. Some day I'll get a full website put together of all the pictures I took, including all the US tanks. Until then Quicktime Panoramas At Aberdeen Quicktime Object Movies of Aberdeen You're only connecting to a 384k DSL line, so have patience with the download times. Sorry.

LOL!!! edited because I'm a doofus. BTW Dan, we had a baby boy on Oct 18th. 8 pounds 9 oz and loud as a dickens. Everyone is healthy and rediculously tired. I haven't gotten one game of CM in since the baby was born! [ November 05, 2002, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: karch ]