Redwolf

Welp i had enough i sold my AMD card and bought an nvidia card :kekw:

I guess still pending, but I make my own patches. With Steam you can select a proton version down to a specific game, so I set CM games to use my own patched proton, while the other games use the standard.

AMD graphic card?

That's why I linked to the German wikipedia page. It has a map:

It should have everything available.

Matrix didn't release it yet. You can only do that when the Matrix and Steam releases are out.

Matrix didn't release it yet. You can only do that when the Matrix and Steam releases are out.

I find, and I mean no offence, for any game I'm really invested in, do research, provide a lot of feedback, get involved with the community, particularly Grognard games, I'll get burnt out and take a year or more off the forums. There are a lot of reasons, one of them is that the time between patches or developer updates is really difficult, especially when many of these titles are so close to what I'd like them to be, with mostly janky issues, engine problems, etc. holding them back. 

I think it’s great that you can buy the game here on BFC and still get access to the Steam key.
With Steam you can install a title on as many devices as you want, it only checks that you aren’t trying to play the same game on different machines at the same time.
I like to try new devices, use multiple machines and VMs. I reformat my OS every 12-18 months, meaning reinstalling the game on the same machine. Currently I’m over my limit for my BFC account for some CM games.  I’ve even had to purchase a game a couple of times.
With Steam I can install the game as many times on as many devices/VMs/ etc.  I just wish Steam had the MacOS version as well.  Steam is fully multi platform, I don’t understand why they limited CM to Windows only on it.  I assume Slitherine/Matrix are just afraid of MacOS.
Looking forward to Battlefront releasing all the games via Steam.
@BFCElvis Can you please have the Steam icons replaced with the standard BFC CM icons?  The colorful circle logos are so much nicer and easier to distinguish than the dark armored vehicle icons used for Steam installs.

March 27, probably this year.

But which year?

No, I asked Elvis and he said the installers in the user accounts are already updated. I think it was in this thread.

You would think an automatic process would be possible to keep the QB selectable units in sync with those in the scenario editor. Either to generate the code for both, or at least a sanity test that you can run before release. Doing it by hand is problematic as you always overlook some things.

This is what flight sim X-Plane does in a situation similar to CM: non-working OpenGL drivers, but working Vulcan API. Like with ATIAMD cards and newest drivers for CMx2.
Bring your own OpenGL to Vulcan mapper. Where "your own" means the free one from Mesa.
https://www.phoronix.com/news/X-Plane-Zink-Shipping
[quote]
As written about last year, the Laminar Research developers responsible for the incredible X-Plane flight simulator software have been working to make use of Mesa's Zink for leveraging OpenGL atop Vulkan to thereby avoid vendor OpenGL drivers that can vary in quality across platforms. With X-Plane 12.04b3, that goal is finally realized.
[/quote]

This is what flight sim X-Plane does in a situation similar to CM: non-working OpenGL drivers, but working Vulcan API. Like with ATIAMD cards and newest drivers for CMx2.
Bring your own OpenGL to Vulcan mapper. Where "your own" means the free one from Mesa.
https://www.phoronix.com/news/X-Plane-Zink-Shipping
[quote]
As written about last year, the Laminar Research developers responsible for the incredible X-Plane flight simulator software have been working to make use of Mesa's Zink for leveraging OpenGL atop Vulkan to thereby avoid vendor OpenGL drivers that can vary in quality across platforms. With X-Plane 12.04b3, that goal is finally realized.
[/quote]

But the question is - don't you have to cover some new area/timeframe? If you already did all the attractive ones you can only do them again with a CMx3 game. As long as it is CMx2 engine v5 you have to move [i]somewhere[/i], no? Is there a 100,000 copy theater left?

Don't mess with patches and packs. Download the complete installer from your user account.
I don't need any of that Win8 or admin stuff.

Don't mess with patches and packs. Download the complete installer from your user account.
I don't need any of that Win8 or admin stuff.

Well, BFC has to do something after the modules are done. So it is either doing a CMx3 and going round again (starting with Normandy) - or new theaters for the "shut up and take my money" crowd.
 

They had CMSF and still made CMSF2...

I would weigh in on this in support of @PEB14. This issue has ruined some games where the troops just do absurd, stupid things that really do not reflect reality in the slightest (ie. walking into an obvious, open-ground kill zone and getting mowed down accordingly) in order to fulfill the move command. I would concede that there is, indeed a reality factor in having troops 'check out' whether they can traverse such barriers, but if we go that route, then if it's not possible, they should just stop, and a notice be made to that effect (that they can't find a way through or over). Either that, or they should just stop, and the game load the new movement course it wants to give the Truppen so that the player can review in the next phase whether they want to enact that or something else. In fact, that last one is probably the best solution of all and would certainly reflect the reality of the troops advising that they need to go another way!
However, in general, there are some places where one has to also concede that it is a game, and the nuances of reality a little too hard to come by. This lack of verification of movement orders before they are carried out is the greatest complaint I have always had against CM, and it really does take away from its playability.

I’d also like to know the LAV-AT bug story. I was one who reported it and found out it had been reported a long time earlier. It is far removed from shell casings - it has a significant impact on scenarios where the vehicle is present (and there are a few). How come it has taken so long to fix (and maybe still not fixed now, unclear if current patch has fixed)?
From this customer’s perspective, more focus on significant bug fixing would be appreciated, together with greater clarity as to whether it is a confirmed bug and whether it has been reported and eventually accepted/fixed waiting for next patch. If there is a way that we can help with that it would also be interesting to know. 

It also runs in Parallels for me on Intel. It will not run on Apple Silicon Macs with Parallels.
It runs well enough to answer a couple PBEM moves. But I have the very last Intel Macbook Pro with the faster one of the i9s and the big AMD graphics chip. It runs native Mac CMx2 very well, but in Parallels it is just usable, not necessarily fun.

There certainly is a communication problem about bug tracking. The Gill ATGM in CMSF2 is also unfixed in the new patch, although it is completely broken.
I vividly remember Elvis asking once "which bugs?", while at the same time (buried in semi-random threads) reports of such bugs were in the minds of people. The mechanism of catching the attention of a beta tester who can then transport that to the official bug tracker is obviously not working.
Given how expensive it is to make a patch release such opportunities shouldn't be slandered. 

There certainly is a communication problem about bug tracking. The Gill ATGM in CMSF2 is also unfixed in the new patch, although it is completely broken.
I vividly remember Elvis asking once "which bugs?", while at the same time (buried in semi-random threads) reports of such bugs were in the minds of people. The mechanism of catching the attention of a beta tester who can then transport that to the official bug tracker is obviously not working.
Given how expensive it is to make a patch release such opportunities shouldn't be slandered.