c3k

Gents, I just got this error, the OpenGL error 14. I went to bed last night having played CMSF until my eyes were sore and my vision blurry. (I lost several Marines due to my tiredness: sorry guys.) All was good. My son played a bit of Sid Meier's Railroads! (patched to v1.1). No problems. I woke up, started CMSF, opened my savegame - problem! I got a glimpse of the map before it crashed. It showed hard, long, striated shadows. They were oriented in the correct direction, just not "normal" in any way. Everything else looked okay. Then the crash with the OpenGL error 14 message. I rebooted: same exact issue. I installed the latest nvidia driver, 182.06 WHQL, vista64. Now there are no problems. Back to obsessing over my men and our mission! (I had been using 181.22 WHQL previously.) 8800GTX, q6600 cpu, vista64. (Temps are always low: in game GPU averages 62-65. Yeah, 8800gtx on air with those temps. CPU cores average around 50. I don't think temps are a factor.) Schrullenhaft's level of knowledge is light-years beyond mine. I'm only posting this as some additional information that may help someone else. Thanks, Ken

Steve, Thanks for the in-depth response on the "why" and the "how". Can we get some more "what"? Meaning, it seems obvious we will have trenches and slit trenches (or shell scrapes, what are presently called foxholes in CMSF); you've also mentioned the possibility of adding sandbags around heavy weapons (would this be akin to a fighing dugout?). What about _true_ foxholes? Will different bunkers be added? Each type with different levels of protection? Concrete vs. log and earth. How about adding skins to bunkers to represent camouflage? Woodland bunker, bocage bunker, wheatfield bunker, etc? C'mon, you know it'd be cool! Maybe a unit spotted the bunker, but that doesn't mean the player needs to. Fortified buildings? I envision flak tower scenarios... Tall fortified buildings with guns in 'em! Can guns be put in buildings or bunkers? Thanks, Ken

Gents, While all the concerns about CM:Normandy that have been posted have some level of validity, could we, err, ignore the game related aspects of these field fortification debates for a bit? Yeah, I know, trying to rein in a thread is well nigh impossible. But, there is a thread discussing these topics as they relate to gameplay. My point in this is to try to break out of the ditch and slit trench paradigm which we seem to be stuck in. What are the REAL field fortifications? How long do they take to create? How often would they be encountered? Etc. Bunkers vs. Pillboxes: who wants to take that on? Does anyone have data regarding protection levels of specific fortifications vis a vis specific weapons? Thanks, Ken

Gents, I've been reading the various fortification threads and there seems to be different understandings as to the definitions of the various types of field fortifications. This is my attempt to clear them up. A trench is a deep (shoulder height at least) linear dug out. It can be of any length from a few meters to a few kilometers (WWI). It does not offer overhead protection. The narrower the trench is, the better protection it offers (less chance of an artillery shell landing in it). Excavations offering overhead cover can be dug into the walls of a trench. A shallow trench, say waist deep or less, is merely a ditch. Slit trenches are shallow depressions scraped from the ground (sometimes called shell scrapes). They conform in shape to a prone human. This is what CMSF/BF.C is calling "foxholes". They only confer advantages to prone individuals. Foxholes are dugouts which allow an individual (or pair) to, at least, crouch under the surrounding terrain. WWII Germans were trained, and proficient, in digging foxholes which had a surface hole snug to their shoulders and deep enough to get their heads below ground. This provides protection from any near hit by artillery up to medium caliber. The smaller the hole, the less chance of a shell joining you. Foxholes are not simulated in CMSF. Fighting positions/dugouts are combinations of foxholes and short trenches. They provide a platform for a crew-served weapon with just enough clearance for the barrel above ground. A team can fit in the dugout. The ends can be excavated to provide overhead cover. Any thoughts? Thanks, Ken

The solution is simple: anti-lithium pills. Every player takes one before starting scenario. The anti-lithium induces a schizophrenic/multiple personality disorder on demand. Assign a different personality to each squad. Ensure that each of your personalities cannot unduly communicate with another (perhaps assign one as "speaker for all"?). Ken

Agreed: the penalty is already there.

I disagree with both above postings. There should NOT be a delay for area fire. Now, you can argue the other side, but here's my view: The platoon is advancing by bounds; the experienced squad leader, knowing they're in the heart of enemy territory with no firing restrictions, advances into view of a cluster of trees (or huts, or a steeple, etc.). "Let's see if we can flush out any bad guys. Hose done that cluster (or hut, or steeple, etc.)." No delay. The men fire. Accuracy/effectiveness will be lower than aimed fire at a known enemy, but there should NOT be a delay. In the case of the argument that it takes time to issue fire orders, well, then it takes time to issue ALL fire orders. Your need for a delay in case #3 will thereby need to be applied to cases #1 and #2. If my men are disciplined and trust my command they will open fire immediately upon the target I direct them to open fire upon. No delay beyond acquiring the target. "Shoot the red barn!" Blam, blam, blam. NOT "Shoot the red barn!" "Huh?", "Did he just say 'shoot'", "He's not the boss of me!", "WHY am I shooting the red barn?", "Which red barn?", "What part of the red barn?" So, in game I order my squad to shoot the red barn. Is it to flush out the enemy that I guess may be there? Or, is it because some other unit, unknown to my squad, has located an enemy unit there? And, does that matter? If I were going to shoot the red barn anyway, should I be penalized if some OTHER unit does that also? These decisions are so very specific it is, IMO, impossible to come up with a generalized rule which would work BETTER than what we have right now. Regards, Ken

Thanks. But, how do I change the ammo available to my RPG gunners? I haven't seen that 105mm round. Is it a function of unit quality in the editor? Ken

It seems to me that the issue revolves around #3. What is the difference between a tactically astute player placing suppressing fire on a SUSPECTED enemy position and placing fire on that same position because his god-knowledge TELLS him the enemy is there? In case #3A ("A" for "astute" ), there should be NO delay, NO penalty. In case #3B ("B" for "Blast the place my OTHER unit saw an enemy) there could be an argument for a penalty. If the player knows the enemy is there, it is through knowledge gained by a friendly unit. If another friendly unit does not share that information, but the player knows it, the player can direct the unshared unit's fire with uncanny accuracy. Now, tell me how to tell the difference, in computer code, between an astute player and one who is using information he shouldn't? Putting a penalty would create the same problem; now the astute player is unrealistically penalized. Regards, Ken

Yeah, this is a recurring theme. Without adding more to what I've posted on this, I'd LOVE to see another change. Right now if my Bradley (for example) runs out of TOW's, the combat buttons change. Now, let's see if I can remember this... To fire a TOW, I use TARGET. When I run out of TOW's, the TARGET button STILL WORKS! Oh, that's right, the TARGET LIGHT button disappears when the TARGET weapon system no longer works. Grrrrrrrrrrr. Ken

Gents, I'm aware that the BMP's 73mm smoothbore fires an RPG round of 73mm diameter (anything larger would present an interesting engineering dilemma ). Okay, so the BMP has some 73mm RPG rounds; some are HE, some are HEAT. They get fired by the autoload cannon. Internally, it can carry RPG rounds for its passengers. In one game, my reinforcements have appeared. An RPG team in a BMP has an RPG-7v1 with a nominal diameter of 93mm. The team has one single round; a 40mm HE. The HQ unit in the same BMP also has an RPG-7v1. However, they have multiple rounds; 93mm HEAT, 85mm HEAT, and 40mm HE. I want them to ACQUIRE more. (More is ALWAYS better.) All the BMP's EVER carry is 85mm HEAT. Why? I mean, is there a legitimate reason NOT to have 93mm HEAT or 40mm HE? Marines get an option for their 40mm grenades. Another question: bigger is also ALWAYS better, but what are the relative effectiveness differences between the 5 different RPG rounds in game? (If there are more than the 40mm HE, 73mm HE, 73mm HEAT, 85mm HEAT, and 93mm HEAT, what are they?) My experiences with Red forces is somewhat limited, so it may be that I just haven't run across any other type of extra ammo. Thanks, Ken

I want to see a small bridge over a steeply banked stream collapse as a Tiger II drives over it. That is sooo needed. Then I want the NEXT Tiger II to drive across the top of the first one. Oh yes. Wooden bridges can't be forgotten. Even small foot-traffic ones. And trestle bridges. How can I play "Van Ryan's Express" without a friggin' huge trestle bridge? Build me my bridges!!! Ken

Steve, "Action slices"; sounds cool. You keep that one, I'll keep my "blast measles". Thanks, Ken

Yeah, this is a known issue. I posted on it and got a two page discussion, including Steve's response, back in September: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=83773 In a perfect game world you could area fire at anything you see. Steve has posted about why that can't work right now. The next best solution was what Flanker15 posted in the previous thread: if a "?" exists, be allowed to target the "?" as if it were an enemy unit. (This presupposes two things: the reason you want to area fire is due to known enemy activity; the known enemy is no longer in LOS (if it were visible, you could fire at it, albeit with a grey LOS/LOF line)). If an enemy has just disappeared from LOS, a "?" marker appears. So, allowing "?"s to be a target, is that possible? Thanks, Ken

Did you say "Gavin"? Ken

The ubiquity of the 40mm icons being used for EVERY piece of air-to-ground ordnance has been something I've posted on (complained about?) in the past. Hey, I even tossed out suggestions to improve it. Like, oh, pictures of the actual ordance with numbers instead of bars to show how many they've got. At this point, I can only hope (fervently) that the NEXT game (not module) gets a rewrite in this area. Ken

Hmmm, was it centered over an icon of a 40mm grenade? If so, it's anyone's guess. Ken (Proginator of several air support UI request threads.)

Thanks! Ken

Sorry, I'd missed the initial conditions you posted. The AI may consider the launcherless M4 better if it induces a lighter load for movement. (I don't know how the AI determines weight carried penalties, but that's the only fig-leaf I could come up with!) It seems like you've found something here. Good luck! Ken

stoex, In a previous thread I wrote about an M249 which had disappeared. Instead, my SAW gunner was using an M4. "WTF?", I wondered. I posted about it and found out what happened. Earlier, my SAW gunner had performed medic duty on some poor sod. At that point, the squad the SAW gunner belonged to gained the injured guy's weapon; the M4. The CMSF AI therefore kicked in. It recognized that in some cases the M4 was the preferred weapon over the M249. (Now, there were issues with THAT! BF.C looked at the TacAI and tweaked it. The TacAI now makes very good decisions regarding which weapon to use if an individual has more than one. These TacAI results are determined on a case by case basis with the individual capable of changing weapon during the turn. Thanks BF.C!!) Why the long post? Simple: did your HQ team at any point prior to this screenshot perform medic duties on another soldier? If this is part of a compaign, it may even be a carryover from a previous battle. If they did perform medic duty, I would posit that the soldier who is swapping back and forth from the M4 to the M203 is actually carrying BOTH weapons. The TacAI will allow him to swap. It will control which weapon he uses. So, did they do their medic duty? Regards, Ken

Steve, Thanks. I'm sure your time is at a premium, so I appreciate that you took time to read this, think about it, and respond. In lieu of a "Repeat Mission" command, how about add a "Continue" command? That would keep the same rate of fire on the mission currently underway. That would obviate the need to specify type and duration, plus is seems a bit more real life. "Keep it coming, just like that!", is a quick radio call in any language. It gets stopped by either a "Cease Fire" or an out of ammo condition. The "Repeat Mission" has a place, but in a two hour battle in which I've fired 4 or 5 missions, how do I specify which mission gets repeated? I agree that it should be possible and it should result in a much quicker response time. I'm just not sure how you plan on doing it (unless it's just a gleam in your eye at this point). I still like my measle dot idea. (Oh, I will lay claim to that as the working description of the impact/blast icons.) You say it'd be hard to implement: are you some sort of girly-man programmer? Too hard? Bah. Get to work. I want v1.2, CM:Normandy, the Brits, and a WHOLE NEW Arty/Air interface. And I want it tomorrow! Thanks, Ken

Check your system compatibility with cmx1 before buying. The tech support forum over in the cmx1 section has some good info. Basically, dx10 dropped support for the earlier dx4 or 5 which cmx1 used. If you're using vista AND a dx10 capable card (nvidia 8 series or higher - I don't remember offhand which ATI cards are dx10 capable) your system defaults to dx10 (if you SELECT dx9, it is still using dx10 to create the dx9 calls, so that won't help). If you have a dx10 CARD but only a dx9 OS, you're good. If you have a dx9 CARD and a dx10 OS, you're good. It's the combo of dx10 card and dx10 OS which results in corrupted graphics and single digit fps rates (if you get it running at all). Good luck. Ken

More... Low walls and olive groves (?) fill in at a longer distance than woods. The cutoff is selective and different for different terrain. The alt-tab out and back does NOT consistently reduce the drawing distance. Having tried it again, the distance is back to 1100 meters for low wall and about 900 meters for woods (whose graphic looks like a pine tree shaped cone which changes to a deciduous tree when you move closer to it). Puzzling... Ken

missingreality, I've got an evga brand nvidia 8800gtx which has 768Mb of memory. I'm running an intel q6600 overclocked to 3.0ghz, using 8Gb of Ram (Vista64 so all ram can be used). Drivers: nvidia's latest WHQL package, v181.22; I use Rivatuner v2.22, but only for fan control on the 8800GTX; the GPU/VRAM speeds are stock for the card. I only use stock textures/models for CMSF. (At least for now.) I've just run a little test using the map from the second mission of PaperTiger's outstanding Perdition campaign. The cutoff for trees/terrain seems to be hardcoded at precisely 1200 meters. Hmm, I just alt-tabbed out of CMSF to post this, then went back to double check my numbers. Now the tree cutoff is at precisely 900 meters. I will continue to alt-tab out of CMSF and back to this message and see what I get each time... 800 meters... 750 meters... Obviously, alt-tabbing in and out of the game is inducing a change to the cutoff point for the LOD calculations. In each case it is shortening the cutoff distance. Is this indicative of a memory leak? Regards, Ken

That first shot looks a lot like Map 3. And yeah, I remember seeing the writeup on what you guys were doing in one of the computer gaming magazines and hoping that you would do it right. Thanks; you did. Regards, Ken