c3k

Normal Dude, LOL! Points to you for that comment. Thanks, Ken

The kill rings on the muzzles of the barrels: does each gun get credited with its own kills only? Or, do they have to share? How unfair if the Tank Commander always orders the same gun to fire first. Ach, the fights they must have... Ken

JonS, Sorry not to be clear. In your previous post, you stated that the single red-bar of ammo for the right-most grenade icon was for smoke ammo. You are wrong. Clear? for hurt feelings. Now, I will expand on why you were wrong. (I attempted to do so in my previous post, but, as you stated, I must not have been clear enough.) I, too, thought the single red-bar may be for some sort of odd ammunition. Smoke was my first choice, but I was open to any other difference. The screenshot, and the unit it is from, and the scenario in which the unit was purchased, were ALL pre-v1.10. Why did I mention that in my previous post? Because it was only with v1.10 that SMOKE became an artillery type. So, I fired all the rounds available to that 81mm section into a 160m circular area target type. I watched the ammo bars disappear as rounds streaked into the impact zone. The very last ammo bar to disappear was the odd ammo bar in the right-most grenade column. Due to Time of Flight, there was a delay of approximately 1/2 minute between the time the ammo bar disappeared and when the last rounds impacted. The last rounds (and the several pairs before it, since each ammo bar represents several pairs (quick math here - 12 total ammo bars, 11 on the left, 1 one on the right, equate to 70 rounds)) were the SAME as all the other rounds, _as far as I could tell_. Definitely no smoke. Smoke was NOT an option for this pre-v1.10 mortar section. No visible differences in impact or explosion. Hence, I still do not know why that lone ammo bar is sitting over there. You stated it was smoke. It is not. I have tested it. I then RE-tested it, using v1.10 and a new 81mm section. SMOKE is available for as many rounds as I have. And, the ammo loadout is the same - 11 bars on the left, 1 bar on the right grenades. The one red ammo bar on the right is NOT smoke only. I have no idea why it is there. I hate to say "bug". Really. Does anyone else have any ideas as to why that ammo bar is there? I'm trying to concisely and clearly communicate to JonS about the red ammo bar on the right grenade icon. I'm not trying to be snide. I certainly hope that the tone I conveyed was not out of place. Now, on to the immediately upstream post by JonS: Awesome! Thank you. The whole point of my starting this thread (again, if anyone has remembered my other ones) is that the PLAYER should have the same INFORMATION as a real FO. I don't care if a battery fires 21 or 23 rounds. I need to know if it can fire the mission I have called for. As JonS states above, a real FO would know BEFORE the mission whether or not the artillery unit could support his request. Right now, CMSF makes that information virtually impenetrably obtuse to obtain. How many ammo bars does a 160 meter linear target light/short use? Anyone? Anyone? I didn't think so. If a real FO called in that target type, would he know if the mission would be supported? Absolutely. Otherwise, UK or US, the appropriate agency (FDC or whatnot) will let him know that they cannot fire that mission as called for. So, BF.C, is there any way you could let the PLAYER see that INFORMATION? Notice that I'm not asking for CONTROL. Not at all. Thanks, Ken

JonS, Well, that didn't seem to work in the latest test I just ran. I was curious about the 81mm ammo loadout. The image I posted upstream is equal to 70 rounds (including spotting round). The last ammo bar to go was the one on the right: I paid particular attention to the incoming rounds after that bar disappeared. The TOF caused a delay between the bar disappearing and the last impact. I could not discern ANY difference between any of the rounds and the last salvo (or two). I had also assumed it might've been smoke, but I could neither order it, nor see it. (This is a scenario I set up under v1.0?, not v1.10; SMOKE would not have been available then. That may be why no smoke was available in the test scenario.) So, that theory went up in smoke. Thanks, Ken

Oh, I thought I'd start a thread on the Air Support UI very soon. My rough idea is to eliminate all the 40mm grenades carried by aircraft However, if Marine cobras (Z model?) still carry chin mounted 40mm grenade launchers, then they would be the only ones retained. Otherwise, each aircraft icon would have its specific loadout shown. Paintshop wonders will be enroute.... Thanks, Ken

Elmar Bijlsma, I was busy painting while you posted. Here's another idea: Obviously this is a rough idea; but being able to visualize the information would be a great help. I'm sure that FO's know how many rounds, or how much time, each mission will be supported with. We, the players, don't have that information right now. Yeah, adding the yellow portion would certainly help the player know how much time (or destruction!) is left; that would add into the ability to cancel or correct the mission. Thanks, Ken

Since I'm using Elmar's suggestion for zooming in, here's a close up view of the 81mm ammo picture; please note the space for more ammo on the left grenade, as well as the single ammo bar added over the right grenade: Again, why is that ammo bar not with the others? Thanks, Ken

Elmar, You're right that the images need improving. Here's an attempt at zooming in: And since that worked, let's pull in a little more: Thanks, Ken

Ahh, the ability to post pictures! If only I could link to a thread about that! Many thanks, Ken

Guys, I've been trying to articulate my ideas on what I think would be an improvement in the artillery UI. Note: for those who are sensitive to any criticism of CM:SF, STOP NOW!! If you continue, I will be forced to assail you with notices like, "This does not mean it's a bug!", and "I don't think the UI, as is, is a game-breaker!", and "This is FEEDBACK to the PLAYER, not MORE CONTROL for the OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVE!" and similar warnings... Okay, now we just have the serious forum browsers left. Whew. Right now we get artillery support feedback in this form: For different set of support, we get this: To me, the drawback to this style is simple: I have no friggin' idea how many times I can call on this unit! I've highlighted the grenade symbols in both the images. Why does the 81mm graphic leave space on the left grenade graphic, but add a single bar on the right? Is that a heavier round? What's going on there? With the 155mm, do we actually get MORE rounds than the 81mm? That doesn't seem true from my experience, yet the 155 has more bars of ammo. (Note: I am willing to call down, separately, all rounds from each artillery icon and do a crater count if someone thinks the 155 gets more rounds than the 81 mortar!) How many of these rounds would be left if I used 1 gun, Light/quick, versus, say, 2 guns at medium/long? Lest anyone think I'm obsessing over round-count, I don't care about the actual number! I am trying to get a grasp on the proportion of available rounds each type of mission uses up. Does medium/medium use up 1/2 of the rounds no matter how large the area target is? If I select "Linear Target" and have a 100 meter line, will medium/medium drop the same number of rounds as Linear Target with a 1,000 meter line? I have no idea. My idea for feedback to the player: The crux of this image (I hope it is visible enough) is a graphic representation of the rounds being called for in the current mission. Note that I am not trying to CONTROL the number, just get FEEDBACK for what the game is using. The bar under the howitzer icon has 3 sections: red shows what the mission will use; green shows what will be left AFTER this mission; black shows the theoretical maximum the unit could've had as well as what's been used. The benefit to this idea is that the player can tell at a glance how much of his support he's going to use up. In my little image, it's obvious I will NOT be able to get another mission like that again. At best, my remaining support from that gun section will only be capable of 1/2 the rounds I'm calling for now. The section beneath, with the grenade icons, becomes superfluous. It is available to add more information, if desired. Comments, ideas, thoughts? Thanks, Ken

oooh, ooooh, it worked! And, silly me, it is far easier than I remembered. Thanks again. I feel a thread with pictures coming on! Ken

Excellent. Thanks for the helpful replies. I did not want to click on "FAQ" since I have no idea what that means. Is there a helpful list of answers to questions like that? ;) FAQ didn't help for my specifics. As I said, I used to be able to post pictures before we moved to this new attachments thing. Thanks to all who posted helpful replies! Now, here's a test.

Gents, Like it says, how do embed screenshots in a post here? (Yeah, I used to be able to do in the old forum, but this "manage attachements" menu isn't helping.) Thanks, Ken

Yeah, that is frustrating. Your video is pretty damning on pathfinding routines. However, there may be an explanation. I couldn't tell where the final waypoint went. I see the MOVE after turning the corner around the wall. I couldn't see which building the waypoint goes into. There is an obvious door just beyond your intermediate MOVE waypoint. Was that your destination? In one of my previous threads, no doubt long forgotten, I decried the game's inability to provide feedback regarding doors. There are, simply, doors in the game which do not work. Sometimes they don't work because of the way the scenario designer has juxtaposed other terrain or features. Sometimes they don't work due to damage, either to that area or its adjoining area. Destroyed walls and other rubble seem to block doors. The dynamic blocking of doors is a great game feature. If a building's rubble falls in front of the neighboring building's door, it shouldn't work. Cool detail in the CMSF engine. I do not know if that (poor map design or dynamic change to the door's operation) is what occurred, or if it is just poor pathfinding. I lean towards the bad door solution based on my experience with v1.10 pathfinding. (In my previous thread about doors, I requested some sort of visual feedback when a door does not work. A bold red "x" across it; a black bar; perhaps a new door texture; anything other than the same graphic as a door that works. Obviously none of that has happened.) Try getting a unit IN that building and attempt to get them to go OUT the door you were trying to go IN. Also, search for nearby damage: rubbled walls, etc. That should prove whether it was the door. If so, then the pathfinding was doing its best to follow your command. Let us know. Thanks, Ken

The treatment of WIA in CMSF is, to me, a hidden gem. I read a lot of the angst-filled threads prior to the release of CMSF and, frankly, did not think a medic-driven game (or even one with medics) would do much to add to the game. I was wrong. I find myself searching the battlefield for my fallen pixeltroops. I always detach some group to go get them. It bothers me to see WIA/KIA lying there. This was unexpected, and helps pull me in to the gameworld. Another reason to doff my cap to BF.C. Thanks, Ken

Hmmm, none of that is what I saw. Edit my upstream post. It actually occurred in the 7th battle of the TF Narwick campaign. No icon for the enemy other than "?", but my move point plotted into their building revealed them. But only for a moment. However, I could repeat that momentary glimpse at will as frequently as needed. It was simultaneous with the building turning transparent when the waypoint went into it. After that, all I had to do was select my unit with that waypoint. However, it was all under v1.08. So, if nothing's changed in the code which could account for that, it still may be a minor issue. Otherwise, it's not. Thanks, Ken

Steve, Good to hear! I am glad you're not going to try to please EVERYONE. You should just focus on ME! Thanks, Ken

MarkEzra, Interesting! It was "Blues for Allah" for me, as well. How does the intel setting work? If, as in this scenario, you get 100% intel, why do you get only flashes of the enemy? How would it work at 90%, etc? Thanks, Ken

Lethaface, Thanks. You make a lot of good points, and I certainly don't take any offense at either the points or how you present them. In this specific case, I am presenting two items: crews not swapping and the smoke discharger going off when the original crew gets back in its vehicle. As for the first, I really don't care if it's meant to be that way or not. If it is meant to be that way, that's something I never knew. The smoke thing is obviously not supposed to happen. As for others, like the M249, I am not on a crusade to find and/or exploit flaws in CMSF. However, when something goes awry in a scenario, I will post it. I do that so that BF.C can determine whether it's worth their time to address it. If I am told I am wrong, that what I posted is in error, fine. If I am told that I am correct, that it is a true game error, but it won't be fixed due to cost/benefit, that's also fine. I will, obviously debate it if I'm told I didn't see the behavior which occurred (after I doublecheck it!). Why? I think that soon CMSF will be done. I don't know when, but whenever BF.C says, "This is the final patch" I want CMSF to be as close to perfect as it can be. Blind "fanboyism" does no favors to anyone. So, no ambush for the game code. I will continue to explore anomolies and post them! (Unless BF.C has pronounced the issue closed.) Oh, and many, many, times I find that I am losing large chunks of my day to playing and enjoying this game! It is in a very good state right now. Thanks, Ken

Yeah, I could either way: crews are specific to that particular vehicle, or they can operate any of the same class of vehicle. (What about Hummers and trucks? Let anyone drive?) Of course, it's not like my opinion on this matters, I'm just curious what it is supposed to be. The smoke discharger thing obviously isn't right. Thanks, Ken

Gents, I know this is minor, so take it for what it's worth and how it's meant. When I zoom in on my little guys and watch them move, it seems that every single one of my troops has some slick grease on the bottom of their boots. All their feet touch the ground as they move, then their feet slide backwards as they move forward. Also, in QUICK, it seems like they're moving in slow motion, with the added discrepency of the sliding boots. This is NOT the "my men slide into position during playback" issue. (I'm okay with that, since we've been told it's needed for data conservation purposes.) This is during the actual action phase of a turn. Since I don't know what speed is represented by, say, QUICK, I am not saying the men are moving too slowly. Merely, the animations do not sync with the speed they ARE moving, AND that the animations always show feet sliding to the rear. Like I said, a minor request. Thanks, Ken

Same flash occurs in the following circumstance: enemy IN a building, spotted, but no details so just the "?" icon. If you plot a unit to move INTO the same building, the building will appear transparent. When you select your unit with the move order, you get the same momentary flash. It reveals whatever enemy is in the building. (It MAY be when you select a move order for that unit. It happened a week or so ago - repeatedly with the same unit - but I problably have a savegame available.) Note that this is in WeGo vs. AI, not in PBEM. I have not tested to see if this works for enemy units with no icon whatsoever. Meaning, if you happen to plot a move into a building with hidden enemy units and are looking at that building as you select your unit. Ken

Oh, that hurt. I've been travelling to Amsterdam quite a bit recently so I had, what I thought, was a reasonable range of mental images of Elmar Bijlsma. Then you had say that he's Dutch. Now, all I see is the gold lame, rollerskating character from Austin Powers. It hurts, and now I feel a little dirty... Thanks guys. Regards, Ken

mikkey, See my thread about AAV's. Thanks, Ken

Steve, Thanks. Obviously the load bearing capacity of thatched roofs will need to be worked in. Can you imagine how horrible CM:Normandy will be if a machinegun team can set up on a thatched roof and DON'T fall in? Of course, they may only sink in, and be bogged. (You will certainly code in the fleeing rats and birds which leave just prior to a thatched roof collapse, right?) Oh, and they burn: man, do they burn! Glad to hear palm trees won't be there. I almost suspended my pre-purchase until I read that! Tongue firmly in cheek, Ken