c3k

I've run a bit more testing. The lenght of time the resupplied team spends with the squad does not seem to matter. I put the squad off in a quiet spot, no targets, no incoming, no suppression, no morale effects: no ammo distribution occurred. I terminated the test after 7 full minutes of non-distribution. Regards, Ken

Angryson, Your numbers are what I'd come up with as well. The question remains, why would one team keep all the ammo, such that they're represented in-game with a full ammo bar while noone else in the squad gets an increase in available ammo? Keeping 2,000 rounds for 5 men leaves (giving extra to the SAW) about 7 magazines each plus over 1,000 rounds for the M249. Clearly that shouldn't happen. I thought the game would level the ammo throughout the squad. Perhaps there's a time delay function involved. Regards, Ken

MarkEzra, Thanks for the quick response and posting this where it'll get noticed. Although, I was pretty certain I'd discussed this directly with Steve on this forum in the past. Shrug. Regards, Ken

Gents, I've just tripped across something I don't understand. (Yeah, I know...) A USMC support squad equipped with SMAWs has 4 men. The icon for the unit is the typical man silhouette icon, the same as a normal rifle squad. The title of the unit is "Assault" (in the upper right corner of the unit info screen). Yet, as soon as I split the squad down to its two, 2 man, teams, the icon and the title change. The icon becomes the Javelin (?) missile silhouette, and the title becomes "SMAW". Idle curiosity forces me to ask "why?" Why the change? Why one, not the other? As for gameplay, it's a pain to try to find the SMAW guys when they have the rifleman silhouette, since a lot of other units have that icon. The missile icon is SO much easier to locate. (Of course, they NEVER have a Javelin CLU...) My druthers would be to have a SMAW icon at all times for these guys. Kind of like how the machinegunners get a machinegun icon. Thoughts? Ken

Gents, I reported on this a while ago and thought it'd been fixed. If it is meant to go into v1.11, my apologies. I had a squad low on ammo. It had two or three ammo bars left (USMC 13 man squad). I split off an assault team (5 men) and ran them to an ammo truck. I loaded them up with 2000 rounds of 5.56. Full bar. I ran the team back to the squad. They rejoined. A turn or two later, I selected the fully reformed squad. It showed all 13 men and a full ammo bar. Excellent. Time to attack a building. I split off the assault team again. They still had a full ammo bar. Great. The remaining squad members only had 2 ammo bars. Obviously the ammo did not get distributed. Edited to add: savegame available. Comments? Regards, Ken

Gents, This is similar to the texture bug previously reported. In THAT report, a tall wall which joins a short wall has a missing texture at the point the tall wall meets. _____ a------- short wall---- --------------ground ------- Where "a" is, there should be a texture, which is missing. That's old. What's new: A wall which has a section which has been destroyed only exists in 2 dimensional space. There is no "end cap" or even a back side to the remaining wall section. Savegame available. Regards, Ken

Jason1980, Thanks for the quick response. I've dug around a bit and found the following: The changes made to my software prior to this instability showing included the following updates: Kaspersky Anti-virus - from version 8.0.0.454 to v8.0.0.506 Nvidia Geforce Driver (from the nvidia website) - from version 180.70beta to v180.84beta Nvidia Physx (part of the driver packages in v180.70b and 180.84b) updated w/v180.84b to v8.10.13 On to the logfiles........... Event Viewer, Custom Views, Administrative Events: The program CM Shock Force.exe version 0.0.0.0 stopped interacting with Windows and was closed. To see if more information about the problem is available, check the problem history in the Problem Reports and Solutions control panel. Process ID: 1460 Start Time: 01c9604d26bbfa41 Termination Time: 27 Next, under Problem Reports and Solutions, CM Shock Force.exe Description A problem caused this program to stop interacting with Windows. Problem signature Problem Event Name: AppHangB1 Application Name: CM Shock Force.exe Application Version: 0.0.0.0 Application Timestamp: 00000000 Hang Signature: ab4e Hang Type: 0 OS Version: 6.0.6001.2.1.0.256.1 Locale ID: 1033 Additional Hang Signature 1: 09bf7e7ba9fc3e9ec83837d79c232824 Additional Hang Signature 2: b027 Additional Hang Signature 3: 2d20bd8dcc2e10f4863b59a6d81dfbd0 Additional Hang Signature 4: ab4e Additional Hang Signature 5: 09bf7e7ba9fc3e9ec83837d79c232824 Additional Hang Signature 6: b027 Additional Hang Signature 7: 2d20bd8dcc2e10f4863b59a6d81dfbd0 Also, in Problem Reports and Solutions, Video Hardware (for the same date/time as the CMSF error) so this may be the root cause (or just a symptom!)... Description A problem with your video hardware caused Windows to stop working correctly. Problem signature Problem Event Name: LiveKernelEvent OS Version: 6.0.6001.2.1.0.256.1 Locale ID: 1033 Files that help describe the problem WD-20081217-0914.dmp sysdata.xml Version.txt View a temporary copy of these files Warning: If a virus or other security threat caused the problem, opening a copy of the files could harm your computer. Extra information about the problem BCCode: 117 BCP1: FFFFFA8009B2A4E0 BCP2: FFFFFA6002823AB0 BCP3: 0000000000000000 BCP4: 0000000000000000 OS Version: 6_0_6001 Service Pack: 1_0 Product: 256_1 The files listed in this error, above, are available, but I don't want to post them unless someone thinks they'll be useful. Meanwhile, over in my task tray sits a new icon. It is a yellow triangle with an exclamation point in it. /!\ I would think that means something, yet there is no information bubble when I hover my cursor over it, left click it, or right click it. On to the reboot..... Thanks, Ken

Gents, I've discovered a new behavior with CMSF. While scrolling through the savegames, using the in-game menu, and clicking "Next" repeatedly, I can induce a lockup which results in a white screen. The white screen is accompanied by the mouse cursor which assumes the vista "I'm doing something" symbol which is an open circle colored with a shifting blue pattern. This is similar to the old windows hourglass icon next to the cursor. The specific parameters seem to be quitting a current game, selecting "Load", then clicking "Next" rapidly. As in two or more clicks per second. The list of savegames will freeze, usually after a dozen or more pages of "nexting", then the white screen appears. I'm running Vista64 Ultimate on a q6600 with an evga8800GTX card. I have noticed this new behavior after changing two other items of software: I've just upgraded from Rivatuner 2.20 to 2.21 (NO overclocks, just fan control: I made NO changes to any Rivatuner settings between versions); the other change was probably more significant. I went from nvidia Geforce driver v180.70beta to v180.84beta (I have Physx enabled). I would think that the nvidia driver would be the most likely source of this new issue. Is anyone else running 180.84? Is anyone else running Physx enabled? Has anyone else noticed this issue otherwise? I will repeatedly encounter the same problem after the initial occurrance. I must ctrl-alt-del out of CMSF. Upon reopening CMSF if I attempt to access a savegame by clicking "Next" the whitescreen reappears. This secondary occurrance is not dependent on multiple or fast clicking. A reboot clears the problem. Finally, I would like to think there's a logfile somewhere of this problem. Vista recovers, and says it's searching for a solution. Whatever. Anyway, since the OS is running, I'd assume a logfile of the error gets created. Where would it be, and is anyone interested in seeing it? Thanks, Ken

Ah yes, fond memories of THAT battle...

I have a mental image of Steve furiously pedaling on an exercise bike set up to power a small electric generator, whilst the ice-laden trees lay on the ground outside, enmeshed in fallen power lines. Sweating profusely, sparks flying from the ad hoc nature of his wiring, some wires dip into the jar to keep Charles powered, while the rest powers his mainframe so we can get our patch! Keep pedaling! Regards, Ken

Ooops. Time for an edit. In my first post, I did not, as I had supposed, credit this discovery to anyone else. That was a lapse on my part. I had meant to. I apologize to anyone that may've offended. In my post, just above, I did, belatedly, give credit to SlapHappy. In honesty, although SlapHappy has certainly posted about this before, I do not know if his was the first post on this issue. If there is someone else who should share in this, accept my apologies. Thanks, Ken

MarkEzra, You're welcome, although, as I stated in my first post and SlapHappy has reiterated, the credit should go to him, SlapHappy, not me. He has posted about it this. It was his post which heightened my sensitivity to this issue and led to my not being satisfied with the status quo. Thanks, Ken

Thomm, Absolutely. Try a few experiments yourself. Also, others have also posted about this in the past. This occurs where two different buildings abut each other. It may occur in other circumstances. My title may be misleading: I do not think you can fire from the corner of a solitary building. Again, two buildings adjoining ---> ____A___ ____B_____ Where A meets B there is a gap. Use your camera to move around the outside. You'll see the gap. Now move inside and you'll see the HUGE opening. Now, put some troops inside and some of their enemy outside. Ensure there are no other windows or doors. Watch the fun. I can (much later today or tomorrow) post some savegames. If you like, you can run an experiment on your own. Spoiler follows............ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * USMC: Road to Hama... Spoiler coming up! Stop here if you don't want to ruin the surprise!!! * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Okay, here it is; open up Road to Hama. You start at the gate to a town as a USMC platoon. Just through the gate, to the left, is a long low building. Inside of that building are a bunch of Syrians. The only openings visible are two doors. The long building is made up of four (?) conjoined buildings. From the gate to the town the first and third building backs have doors. All the rest is smooth. Run a squad back there and stop them between the two doors. They Syrians WILL shoot them through the gap between the building elements. This is true of many other situations. At least it's consistent. Regards, Ken

Gents, As many of you know, there is a graphic/gameplay flaw in buildings right now. At the junction of two walls, there is a gap. ____ _____ That gap appears minute from the outside, but from the inside of the building it appears larger. Say a few inches from the outside view and about a foot (or more) from within the building. (I think this also occurs at corners, not just junctions of straight wall sections.) This occurs when two buildings abut each other: XX The junction is imperfect. The gameplay effect is that a blank wall (or one which APPEARS blank) instead offers a beautiful firing loophole for defenders INSIDE the building. An approaching attacker may think he's in a blind zone, when he is suddenly sprayed down by the defenders who have been watching. Now, I don't think this was a conscious design decision, but I can live with it as a gameplay effect. You could assume the defenders created a firing position. My preference would be to seal the gaps; if you want the defenders to see that side of the building's approach, put a window there. Anyhow, three questions: Is BF.C aware of this issue? Is BF.C going to repair this issue (assuming they see it as a problem)? What is the likely timeframe of an assumed repair? Thanks, Ken

Tanks! Ken

Gents, Just noticed this. I'm playing "USMC Road to Hama" (and am being severely punished as USMC due to haphazard leadership and lack of a plan!). Anyhow... I have two Marine style M1 Abrams. They both have the hull number "<133". Only, they only have that hull number at a distance. As I move the camera in (and/or zoom (x) instead of actually move the camera), the "<133" disappears. It disappears from both tanks, each side, at approximately the same distance, roughly 80 meters. I'm using an nvidia 8800gtx, geforce 180.70beta drivers. Anyone else notice this? Thanks, Ken

stoex, That video of the pickup truck exploding after being hit in its saddle-style gas tanks (outside the frame, beneath the sheetmetal, just ahead of the rear axle); it is one of the most famous examples of the so-called "news media" staging a fake event. They rammed the truck repeatedly by another car at the exact right angle. All they got was leaking fluid. Not very good for the ratings. They then RIGGED an explosive charge in (or next to) the gas tank. They blew it at the appropriate moment on the next ram; that footage was what they aired. They forgot to mention you'll only explode like that if you detonate an explosive: oooops. That is one of the myriad of reasons the "news" is held in such low regard. Regards, Ken Edited to add: crawl under your vehicle (or any neighbor's or coworkers). What you will find is that the gas tank is outside the frame. In fact, most cars these days are frameless. The gas tank is only protected by the bumper and/or sheetmetal. The saddle placement protects the fuel tank from the most common, rear, collision. So, you could argue that the "news" story which led to the change in pickup truck fuel tank placement may've caused more property loss and injuries (if the rearward placement has caused more fires). My understanding of these things is that fuel tank design in modern automobiles focuses on robust plastic containers and various one-way check valves such that tank rupture or fuel pushing out of the refill line is less likely to occur. The design assumes impact forces on the tank instead of trying to locate a "brittle" tank in a safe location. Hey, I'm talking about "tanks"; does that make it on topic? Ken

MarkEzra, Thanks for the response! As long as BF.C is aware of it, that's all I could hope for. (In the greater scheme of things, I love that the wrong color shell casings can even be a topic for discussion in a game simulating engagements up to a battalion in size!) Thanks, Ken

Just rechecked and still have white shell casings in USMC scenario from the CD, as well as TF Narwick. Ken

Another USMC MMG bug: MMG deployed in midair, hanging over a cliff whilst the men operating it were up on the plateau. The cliff was to their left as they faced the target. This limited the floating MMG's field of fire somewhat. (Although, it DID fire.) Savegame available (USMC v1.10). Regards, Ken

Tux, Great read! Ir's quite enjoyable, thanks. Ken

Tuomio, Nice. I'd change the standard operating procedure you've just outlined NOT to take effect during QUICK. Sometimes I want to QUICK into a building I _know_ does not have enemy; I don't want to expend ordnance in that case. (I don't use FAST - ever.) I'd love to use your SOP under ASSAULT into a building. Now I ASSAULT and combine it with a LIGHT TARGET area firing into the building. That technique is very sub-optimal. Your script seems like the "right" way to enter buildings which you suspect harbor the enemy. Regards, Ken

Elmar Bijlsma, I think that the best CMSF scenarios are far better than the best CMBB scenarios. In that regard, I agree with you; CMSF quality CAN be fantastic. However, the longevity of this game is its scenarios; the complexity required to build a GOOD CMSF scenario is greater than that needed for CMBB. That is what I took away from Bigduke6's post. And I agree with HIM that the very complexity has given rise to a paucity of GOOD scenarios. The on-disk scenarios in CMx1 were vastly outnumbered by the user-created scenarios. A lot of those scenarios were quite good. I do not get the same sense of good user-created scenarios being available. I've used CMMOD's to get some; the repository for a couple others. There doesn't seem to be as many available as there were under CMx1. (Given an allowance for sepia tinted memories distorting what CMx1 was like a year plus after release, I do not think the perceived lack of CMx2 scenarios is only imagined.) As Bigduke6 stated, the complexity of scenario design has driven away some talent. The sameness of the tactical situation (Blue advancing into Red kill-sack), drives away some downloads. So, the possibilities are immense for great scenarios. I applaud the folks whose work has given me greater gameplay; THANK YOU! However, there does seem to be fewer scenarios out there. Thoughts? Ken

Thomm, your comment about user friendliness, or the lack thereof, in the editor is spot on. Although, game editor interfaces are often substandard, being a developer tool given to the community as a goodwill gesture; in CMSF it is THE key to the game. I find that various UI issues are the remaining hurdle to this game (as evidenced by my various threads on UI tweaks). Well, that and a healthy scenario library! Regards, Ken

Ah, that's useful. So, Sham-13, you did NOT follow the default install routine, but instead manually overrode it. (I used to do that on my various XP machines, but I want to let Vista do its thing.) Is the install routine operating as expected in Vista? (for BF.C). One other item: when inside of CMSF and I select "Savegame" the various USMC scenarios drop their "USMC" prefix. The prefix is there, such as "USMC: Rahadnak Road" in the "Battle" listing ingame. Yet, the savegame defaults to "Rahadnak Road". Is it supposed to do this? Thanks, Ken