Doug Williams

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>For games like DOOM III, Team Fortress II, Half Life II, IL-2 Stormovik, Max Payne, etc. we will need all the speed we can possibly get, I don't want to give up anything I don't have to. Of course, Athlons will be faster by then, as well. But why would I want to waste performance and deal with the virtually guaranteed bugs of XP? Answer: I don't. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But, like I said earlier, if XP is optimized for the Pentium 4, those games you mention may actually run faster on XP than they will on W98 for those with Pentium 4 processors. Why am I arguing this? I don't have a P4 or an Athlon. :confused: I'm gonna go play CM now, which runs plenty fast on my PIII 866/Geforce 2 system.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What is a 32 Bit data path? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It just means the SIMM moves data in 32 bit "chunks". A DIMM moves data in 64 bit "chunks", so it is twice as fast (more or less).

A DIMM is a Dual Inline Memory Module. It has a 64 bit data path, unlike a SIMM, which is a Single Inline Memory Module and has a 32 bit data path. I believe that both DIMMs and SIMMs can have chips on either one or both sides. I do not know what a RIMM is.

Agua, Keep a backup of your CMBO BMP folder. Update it whenever you install a mod that you want to keep.

I know Matt is plenty busy, but I wish he wouldn't "sit on" those new mods so long before posting them. Just dump them in the "untested" area if your busy.

Lee said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The same could be said for games which are optimized for the Athlon. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Which games are optimized for the Athlon? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> And Windows XP? It will run native Windows 95, 98 and ME games in emulation mode, that equals a performance hit, uggh. I'll stick with Win 98 and keep the extra speed, thank you very much. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ahhh, but if XP is optimized for the P4, there may not be any performance hit (for P4 users anyway). By the time XP is released, the P4 will most likely be 2 GHz+, FSB speeds will be faster, Geforce 3 video cards will be common, etc., so today's games will run plenty, plenty fast, I imagine. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And game companies will continue to make games for a long time in the native Win 9x format because that's what every gamer out there is going to be using for quite awhile. A couple years from now, after MS has worked out a bunch of the bugs and gotten rid of that disgusting plan they have to only allow you to install XP on one system without having to pay extra, then I'll consider moving to XP, but not until then. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That sounds like a good plan. I'm still using W98 myself. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And while we are discussing Operating Systems, anyone who is thinking of getting a new system, I would recommend you ask to have windows 98 or 98SE installed in your system, instead of Windows ME. All of the knowledgeable users I have talked to say Win ME is much less stable than Win 95 or Win 98. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I was thinking of installing ME, but really didn't see much advantage to doing that. ME, from what I understand, is basically W98 with some added features (native zip support, etc.) I haven't heard about any ME instability problems, so if I was buying a new system, I would probably want ME, unless you could point us to some web article by a trustworthy source that can tell us otherwise. I find that most "knowledgeable users" are just opinionated (like me). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And lets remember that any of the top systems that have been mentioned here are more than fast enough to make CM smoke, so the point is moot. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are exactly right. Heinz had a good point. Intel will probably soon be switching sockets, which will hurt the upgradeability of the current P4s.

This issue (AMD T-Bird vs Pentium 4) was briefly addressed in the latest (June) issue of Computer Gaming World, page 110. A reader wrote in stating he was going to buy a system from Alienware (maker of high-end dedicated gaming systems), and asked if he should get an AMD 1.2 GHz CPU or a Pentium 4. Instead of answering the question themselves, CGW contacted Alienware and got an answer from them. I quote: "Alienware has extensively tested both processors, and as a result, both processors are very stable and compatible with all your current games. But Intel's Pentium 4 will eventually outperform even the fastest AMD processors currently available as soon as games optimized for it are released. The Pentium 4 also uses the fastest Front-Side Bus of all the processors that are available now, 400 MHz. Another good thing to keep in mind is that the Pentium 4 has been optimized for Microsoft's upcoming Windows XP, which means even more potential for extra power from the processor." -Doug

British troop carriers and the poor old Archer.

Well, since nobody else wants to answer, I'll just say that I'm not for it. IMO, it would just add needless complication. I mainly just play for fun, however, so perhaps we should hear more from those who care more about their ladder scores.

Cubbies Phan, Hey! I finally made somebodies sig file! :cool: I'm da man! I can't really take too much credit though, that "Intel compatible" comment has been around a long time. Seriously though, I can see the reasons for buying AMD chips. As was said earlier, Intel just feels "safer" somehow. The current fastest AMDs may be faster than the current P4s for most applications, but that will likely change. We will most likely see 2 GHz+ P4s before the end of this year. AMD, as they always do, will play catch up for a while, until their chips equal or exceed the P4. Then Intel will come out with the P5, and so on, ad infinitum. Competition is good (for us, the consumer, anyway). Too bad Cyrix bailed out.

Jeff, I always by Intel, mainly for compatibility reasons. Say what you want, I've been building my own PCs since the 80386 days and I have come to the conclusion that Intel makes the best "Intel compatible" chips on the market. My 2 cents...

I'm starting to get the shakes again.... :eek:

Maximus, Thanks for the info. Tiger, I really hope you don't mean that you are going to quit making mods for CM.

Quote from CMHQ on 4/20/01: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I still have many more mods to hack through in the upcoming days so stand by as there is much more to come. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> We are still standing by.... (I normally don't like to harass big bald guys, but I'm starting to get the shakes again from mod withdrawal.) -Doug

Maximus, When you brighten a mod bmp like that doesn't that change the pink areas that are supposed to appear translucent in the game such that they appear pink in the game?

That's one nice looking Greyhound! :eek: Where will it be available for d/l when it's finished?

Well, I've seen several halftracks knocked out by .50 cals, but never any tanks.

Thanks, Cubbies Phan, your answer finally cleared up some of my confusion. This brings to mind a question. Does CMBO model the fact that the flexible MG could not be fired if the tank was buttoned? [ 04-27-2001: Message edited by: Doug Williams ]

Ahhh, so that hole directly to the left of the main gun in your above picture is the hole for the coaxial mg? I suppose "coaxial" means the mg can be pointed along two axis....up/down and right/left?

Also, is anyone ever going to mod the poor old Archer? Or how about those British troop carriers?

Tiger, Wow! That's a nice mod. Time to show my ignorance. I see you put the hole in the front of the "gun shield" (or whatever it's supposed to be called...the piece of metal at the base of the main gun). I have seen these holes on several tanks. What are they called and what were they used for?

Nope, I wasn't being patronizing, merely stating a fact, as jshandorf proved. As for a laptop, well, that's another matter. I suppose it does make sense, from a business standpoint, to code games (especially wargames) with low end systems in mind, but it would be nice to be able to have some additional features (more polygons or something) for those of us with 21st century 'puters. Bah, this has all been discussed before, and I'm sure Steve and Charles know what is best. As for the movies, if they have the time, I say put them in. It does seem to set the mood for the game.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Looks great! And the Finns are there. And, most important for me, a technically handicapped man, the minimum video requirement is 8MB. Somebody get me a tissue. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> People are still playing CM on 8 MB video cards? Cmon guys. I don't want to sound elitist, but, if money is tight, brown-bag lunch for a month. That should save you enough money to buy a decent 32 MB video card.

Tiger, Excellent work. I look forward to updating my current Chaffee mod. Let me take the opportunity to say thanks for all the hard work you have put into your mods.

Manx, Excellent. Tiger's work is always outstanding. Your speed with posting mods is equally excellent. I'm not as big a "grog" as some here, so I really don't know if the Americans commonly used camo paint on their tanks/vehicles or not. Most (all?) of the pics I've seen of American WW2 AFVs were non camoed. I understand the Germans made extensive use of camo paint on their vehicles. How about the British?