Scipio

Talking about Syrian AT - am I the only one who thinks that the AT-3 Sagger sucks completly??? Firstly, it has minimum range of 500+ meters, and all rockets I've seen flying so far went into the ground long before they reached the target. I already wondered if it's a bug...

But the 'cutted edges' problem is already visible in the windows preview, that's why I don't think that it's a coding problem only...

Okay, thank for explaining this. If I understood you correct, the Alpha channel defines in simple words only 'visible' or 'not visible'. If the visible part of a texture is semi transparent (such as an explosion) is hardcoded!? What I still do not understand is: why are the edges of my explosion cut off in CMSF, but look as soft as they should be when I open the same file in GIMP??

Meade, I completly disagree to your opinion about Iraq and 'Stan'! But please excuse that I don't point it out in detail, since this is 200% off topic for this forum, and from past experience I know that it is 500% senseless for Europeans to discuss US foreign politics with US citizens . I hope you have understanding. If you are interested into a different point of view, I recomment 'War made easy'. It's an US documentation, BTW.

We had a little discussion about problems with texture transparency in the design forum -> Look here. Now I have a question about textures to BFC: is there a special reason why you still use v3 Bitmaps? TIF format for example offers a much better transparency support. I'm just curious...followed by the demand to support TIFs from now on of course!!!

Just my thoughts on this. Something that seems to be forgotten is the unsymetric nature of CMSF (and modern warfare in general). I think not the Syrian casualties are the core problem, but the scenario design is. If you setup a conscript syrian company vs a Marine company - what can we expect? But if you set that the US casualties may not be more than 10-15%... different piece of cake in regards of the scenario winner. It's like the real world. The US may have the best equipted and trained forces in the world - but they still can't win the war in Afghanistan or Iraq (Russia/Chechnia is another example). I do not say that they are losing the war. But they are also far away from a victory. And I think that's something the scenario designers should keep in mind: the Syrians can not win vs the US in terms of kill ratio and such. All they can achieve is deceleration, encumbrance and frustration.

ND, the file you've sent uses transparency with hard edges, but that's not the problem I have. In my case are the fine structures replaced with hard edges. Can you please gimme advise how to do that in Gimp? I can't figure out how to select the Alpha channel as layer, or how to copy the alpha channel from one image to another. But obviously there must be a way - as you have mentioned it works in the original explosion...

I have made some testing, but the NSV has never appeared, only the DshK, no matter which equipment level or formation I've selected. Can somebody please inform the UNO and the pope about this serious issue!?

Silly me :eek: *slap myself in the face*! I have corrected this error and also replaced the wrong AT-4c picture. Version 1.02 is @ CMMODS now!

For those who are still waiting: the mod is now released to CMMODS!

You have :eek:? Yes, I'm very curious! I've send you a PM with my email adress! Please Please!!!

Steve, are you sure about that? Just as a side note, when I created my weapon icons mod, I found neither a green/yellow file nor a silhouette file; but I believe there's a texture file... John, thanks for the info regarding the naming conventions!

Okay, here can you DL the zip: http://www.unitedwargamers.net/visual/temp/z1.zip

I have a suspicition why my bmp loose quality in CMSF, while the same file still perfect in Gimp. Is it possible that Gimp can save files in v4 or v5 bitmaps? This late versions of the windows can handle transparency much better; v5 can even be used as container for a TIF. Programms that doesn't support v4/v5 bitmaps can still read them, but ignore everything that's beyond the standard v3 bitmap. As I said, that's just a suspicion, I've found this infos when I googled fo a solution... missinginreality, I'll prepare a zip for and upload it on my site. BTW, I guess it's important to mention that the original source is a dds file from 'Crysis'

The manual lists a NVS 12.7mm machinegun. I assume they mean the NSV 12.7 : http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg02-e.htm Manual typo...tsk tsk tsk . Has somebody seen this in the game? Or is it used on vehicels only?

I wonder if it ain't possible/senseful to support uncompressed TIF. BMP seems to be a rather odd format for transparency support.

CMSF textures are bitmaps, or to be exact 32bit RGBA bitmaps in BMP file format. Each pixel uses 8 bit to define the red, green and blue value + 8 bit for the magic alpha channel, wish defines the level of transparency. Sounds very simple, but working with BMP-alpha channel is a nightmare. I've started a thread about it just today!

I have spend nearly a week now trying to create some new explosion effects. This becomes really a nightmare for me! The explosion shall be transparent, what works okay in the midle of the explosion image, but terrible at it's edges! While I'm working with the pictures (in Gimp, BTW) everything is perfect. When I save the image as 32-bit RGBA BMP, it looks like the edges are cut off in the Windows preview, in Paint Shop as well as in CMSF. When I load the picture with Gimp again, it still looks perfect. When I save the same picture in TIF file format, it still looks perfect even in the stupid Windows preview. What am I doing wrong? Or is the BMP format simply not the best format for transparency? Can somebody enlighten me, please? :(

Meach, what you describe is simply routed, including this Scot. I also doubt that US soldiers prefer to hide in Syria for a month... Martyr , in reality are POWs often listed as MIA, but since CMSF doesn't simulate POWs... Clavicula_Nox, difficult to comprehend, but I doubt that CMSF counts 'dead' and 'dead & defaced' separately!? Anyway, I have moded my 'strings.txt' file, so 'Missing Men' are now shown as 'Routed Men', at least on my PC .

I wonder about the 'Men Missing' info on the end game screen. As far as I know, this info shows the number of men who were routed and disappeared during the battle. Wouldn't it be better to list them as 'routed' (what can be done, by the way, with a simple change of the 'strings.txt' file). I think to name the routed soldiers 'Missing Men' is deceptive, cause in reality are the 'missing' ussually the same poor guys who are buried as 'Unknown Soldiers', cause they couldn't be indentified anymore. In this sense is the term 'Missing' is especially false for the US forces, since they had no 'Unkown Soldiers' since Korea, AFAIC. (Excuse if this info is wrong)

I have a small idea about the individual soldiers info - I mean the green text list at the lower left corner of the screen. It's IMO a little bit confusing that I have no info available about the soldiers who are not on the map anymore. Would it be possible to still show them on the text list? For example 'Dead', 'Wounded', 'Routed' and 'Evacuated' (for the wounded after buddy aid).

Sounds to me like you're talking about the invention of a new technique to CMSF, but hadn't we the discussion of inderect fire by on-map units already since CMBO? It wouldn't be unrealistic, depending on the weapon system, of course.

I have no problem with that, but there's still a a difference between 'not perfect' and 'not realistic'!

It seems to me that the pathing has changed to, but my observation is something else. When a vehicel ends his move, its rather difficult to predict it's facing in dense (urban) terrain or when other vehicels are close. It often ends up making stupid moves until it shows it's back towards the enemy and such things. To use a facing command doesn't help, since it is exectuted not before the movement commands is completed. It's just a feeling, but this seems to be worse in 1.1. Also still a problem (since the very beginning of CM) are two vehicels cross their path. I have two ideas that may help and are maybe even feasable : We have a target spot marker for infantry movement now, maybe it is possible to have on for vehicels, too? Make it two coloured, green is the front, red is the back for example. For the second problem - since we have now a chain of command as a must, all units have a 'rank'. They have, BTW, anyway, when youuse the keyboard to click to each unit one by one. Wouldn't it be an idea (in program terms) that the vehicels with the lower 'rank' must stop, while the higher ranked vehicel can drive first? Would maybe also help to end the chaos when two or three vehicels try to reach the same target... Just ome thoughts

I must say that I'm very pleased that command delays are neither in RT nor in WeGo, and I really hope they will never make it back. The whole concept is in my opinion just adscititious, and Steve has perfectly written down why: Adding a command delay means simulating the chain of command from the player to the unit - but the player is not just the commander on the battlefield, he must compensate what the unit can not do, cause no computer can simulate it: make independent decissions. Beside that: even if I can do much more micromanagement in WeGo, I have other disadvantages - once my orders are given and the action button is hit, I have no chance to intervene like I would have in RT. So adding a command delay for WeGo, but not for RT, would mean to add an artificial disadvantage for WeGo. BTW, just for the files: I prefer Wego. I don't have a problem with RT in general, but since I love to play PBEM and also love to replay turns, RT is just not my thing. So I really would be very pleased if Steve and Charles use their time to iron out the PBEM bugs (such as the vehicels-dive-into-earth-at-the-start-of PBEM-replay-problem) and waste no second for command delays