sfhand

I think it would take a dedicated effort, following the release of a new title, to try for major engine upgrades like x64 and multi-core support. Fortunately BF now has 2 coders, so one of them could dedicate himself to the new engine while the other supported the new release and its upcoming modules. This would keep the income stream going while the new/enhanced engine is in development. The big trade off, if this were possible, would be in feature development. I'm pretty sure that right now most people would rather see the feature list expanded than to have an ability to play with larger forces on larger maps (say 4kX12k). While I like the optimism of your 2014 guess, I think you've lost you mind...

Tanks are moving on hunt commands with no target arcs (I assume this means more spotting calculations because of more area to scan). As I said earlier, my theory is that adding units is more detremental than adding map area. Much like your second point, adding players (like adding more map space) doesn't necessarily mean adding more forces, however, we can probably agree that basic human nature will lead to "more" sooner rather than later. So, as a big fan of BF who is neither a game developer, progammer, or game market analyst, I know my views about what smart moves that would/could keep CMingeneral moving with the times are highly subjective. With that being said, from here it looks like time and resources spent on improving the game's ability to take advantage of multi-core 64-bit processing would be well spent. However, I suspect I am wrong because it could very likely mean starting over from scratch with a CMx3 engine.

I just ran a test with ~20 tanks on a barren 4kX4k map with 10m elevation changes (this allows for movement and los checks rather than 2 battle lines 4k apart), everything went well in 2 player hotseat. Over the next couple of days I'm going to add other elements without increasing the force size just to see if adding anything other than units starts to cause problems. I know that a few patches ago I made a 4kX4k map with about 1/2 of it filled in with differing vegetation and some buildings and the editor couldn't handle it (I believe that issue has been fixed). Since then I made another big map, which had pbem file problems as described in the OP, but the editor handled it fine. My best guess, because of that instance, is that the main problem is force size. If that is true, the goal of a multiplayer mode that supports more than 2 players might be challenging (the more players the larger the forces involved, yes?)

I actually just checked the tech support thread, and I agree with the notion of carrying on in one thread, however... I think we've arrived at different conclusions about which thread is the proper place for conjecture - which is why I'm responding here. (btw, nice reasoning about 32 bit software and memory limitations) The following is really tangental to the original post in this thread, but I'm wondering if the newer tweaks in the engine (CM:N, no NDA information is being sought) relating to LOD, new vegitation types, and FOW fortifications might make larger maps less memory intensive. So, if there is anyone reading this who isn't under an NDA and who has some insight into the issue cares to comment I'm all ears... er, eyes.

I'd like to think if the editor is capable of making a 4kX4k map that the game would be able to support it. I'm not sure that's the case, but then I haven't tested it in a while. And then there is the question of force size... I know I've encountered difficulties there as well (not that I'm terribly interested in fighting huge sized battles). For me, I'd rather have the ability to create and play on larger maps than to command multiple battallions - but then I have an agenda...

My partner is very busy with other things and I'm a newb to scenario design, we've collaborated on ideas only so far with a plan for an op, but what we have in mind will take place in WW2 rather than CMSF, so it's safe to say it's a fair ways away. It definitely won't have everything CMx1 ops had, like vehicle salvage, but given a 4 hour game time we're hopeful we can cook something up.

I don't want to give our plan away, but we believe we can "recreate" a CMx1 operation with this engine. We've disagreed about this before? From my perspective mapsize limitations are what prevents making pbem old style operations, i.e., if one could make a large enough map persistent damage isn't an issue. Rather than having a sectional representation of a continuous map(many old style ops were like this) we would just do the whole thing. So, I don't think we could recreate from the beachhead to Carentan because of mapsize limitations. But there are other ops that can be done.

A friend and I plan on making a 4 hour scenario for H2H wego play (I don't know if AI plans are in the works or not) that will play like an operation, with persistant damage of course, provided one follows the rules as described in the briefing. This will be for CM:N.

According to Steve in the latest bone pile: "... As I've said to many of you may times before, we're cautious about what we post because we leave smoothing out graphical rough edges to the very end because they have no impact on game testing or scenario balancing. Which means for a long period of time it's difficult to produce screenshots that truly reflect what the game's status and what it's final look will be. Now that we've started the process of fixing the graphics glitches we feel it's time to post a few shots. More will come in the very near future and then hopefully soon after you guys will be able to post your own screenshots..." From this a couple of deductions can be made. 1) they are at the very end of the production process (presumably feature creep has stopped) 2) we will, hopefully, be playing the game soon after the very near future...

Forgive my ignorance, but are rifle squads going to be splittable? If so will there be as many options as currently allowed for a US rifle squad in CMSF? How about the Germans? I don't much about it as I'm not a grog, but I have read around these parts that the German infantry unit was organized around the MG42 (please let me know if I've got this wrong).

Wow! And a Pavlovian response from me too... literally! This is going to be sweet.

Dare I hope for... pre-orders?

bumping until I see a BT or a BF...

To add some perspective, I would be glad to pay $50 dollars for movable waypoints. I'm sure many WEGO players would. See the problem with this approach? I'm pretty sure BF spends/has spent a lot of time analizing their "development path" to get the most bang for the buck as well as the best gaming experience for all of their customers. I, for one, don't think they need to explain their reasoning to the customer base as we only have a very minor investment in their games compared to them. That they do explain their reasoning, when they do, is just an added bonus as far as I'm concerned. As much as I think moveable waypoints would enhance the WEGO experience I also know it would have virtually no affect on RT, which means it is, unfortunately for me, probably a very low priority. An event log would be completely unnecessary for the WEGO player and as a result I imagine it would also be a very low priority for that reason alone.

I don't know who did what, but I really want to say, post 1.31, thanks for fixing this how ever it happened. (an aside to ken, I too will be replacing an 8800gtx soon and I'm seriously considering doing so with 2 HD6870's in crossfire. Has your HD6870 remained issue free since your earlier post?)

Looking at if from a different perspective, the problem isn't because LOS is calculated from the center of the Action Spot but, in the screenshot example, because of the height it is calculated at. I wonder if the initial Action Spot line of sight check could happen from preset heights dependent on an adjacent Action Spot slope variable, i.e. when the adjacent Action Spot is nearly the same height as the current the current LOS height would be used, and when the Adjacent LOS is many meters lower a higher LOS height (depending on how many meters lower) would be used. Assuming that the Action Spots are square, this variable height should only come into play when calculating the variable height in the direction of large height differential. The other directions should remain at the default height. Those are the ramblings of this madman...

Jgstrick, welcome to the world of CM. Hopefully the somewhat steep learning curve won't throw you off. Were I new I'd check out the menu button in the lower right corner of the user interface. There you will find a button labled hotkeys which give you your control options. Personally, I don't really use the keyboard much to select units, but rather to specify movement type or facing, everything else I do off of menus, but then that probably won't suit playing RealTime if that is what you want to do. I would suggest playing turn based just to figure out what the control scheme is without being under fire, either that or use pauses liberally if playing RT (not sure what pauses the game in RT since I don't play it). Aside from that, try to plot movement using concealment and take your time advancing. As outmatched as the Syrians are they can be quite lethal if you throw caution to the wind. After you've become accustomed to playing and if you decide to buy the game I would then suggest playing against human opponents. I most of what I have learned has been the result of playing superior players and paying attention to what they do. I'd also recommend the Tips and Tactics section of the forum if you haven't already...

Thanks, I've got my fingers crossed...

Can you do this here? http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=285148#Post285148

I'm interested

I had this problem too, in fact I expected to have to deal with it to make this post - surprisingly I didn't. I never had it prior to the hacker attack, but that proves nothing. I keep my computer updated and I use IE explorer at the default security setting. There are so many variables at play it is impossible to determine what the issue is. I too have no problems at other sites just as none of my other opengl games have lighting issues... just sayin.

From the NATO readme. CLEAN INSTALL: Below is a brief step by step instruction on how to do a clean reinstall of CMSF. If you do not have a Module listed below, simply skip the step. Don't forget to UNLICENSE your keys on the previous PC before reinstalling on a different PC! 1- install the base game, Combat Mission Shock Force. This will typically be v1.00 or v1.01. 2- install the Marines Module. This will update your game to v1.10. 2b- use your Marines Module license key to activate. This will activate both the base game AND the module. 3- install the British Forces Module. This will update your game to v1.20. 3b- use your Britihs Forces license key to activate. 4- install the v1.21 Patch. This will update your game to v1.21. Make sure to select the correct components (modules + Base game) to update. 5- install the NATO module. This will update your game to v1.30. 5b- use your NATO module key to activate. This will activate both the base game and the module in one go. For me this is not an issue, but for one buying a module package it sure sounds like it may be... Am I correct in thinking earlier modules remove the need for the Paradox patch?

This is news to me...

One of the reasons for moveable waypoints is so one doesn't have to spend a lot of time plotting SIMPLE movement orders in wego. As one who seldom, if ever, issues complex waypoint orders I find this indirect characterization of the wego player somewhat amusing.

I'll bite... why do you believe most players prefer to play Realtime?