c3k

What are you doing posting on the forum? You have a patch to get out the door! Back to it, I say! All good points, but instead of talking to an air superiority trained F-15 driver, how about a Marine F/A-18/F-35 pilot? Or F-16/F-35/A-10/F-15E, to keep it USAF? Despite how it sounds, I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, merely pointing out that an F-15 has a totally different mission and different training/doctrine than the other airframes I've listed. If someone's assigned CAS, they MAY drop down to strafe in a future conflict, despite what the planners think today. (That was the point of my previous post: today's assumptions about how a future conflict will be engaged are rarely spot on.) My understanding of the SDB/collateral damage issue in Iraq: I think it's the Navy experimenting with less fill and cases designed not to produce shrapnel (cellulose??). They're looking for the blast radius to define the weapon's effect, rather than a combination of blast (overpressure) and shrapnel. Tuning the blast is done by varying the mix formula and the amount. (Then they need to test its effect on accuracy, release, CG, etc.) So, how much longer until I can start a thread on strafing with UAV's? Thanks, Ken

Cross post: my post above refers to Bigduke6's post number 111. Regards, Ken

Agreed regarding the point of air attack: it is MUCH more effective at suppressing rather than causing actual casualties. At least with area attack munitions: rockets, chin guns. Point targets - bunkers, vehicles, hardpoints, can and will be destroyed. Deployed troops in broken ground, with any sense of self-preservation will hug any depression. A few may get hit. Not enough (depending on saturation of area fire) to seriously degrade their combat power. However, there needs to be time for them to stop hugging the dirt, look around, assess casualties, reform and carry out their movement/spotted fire. If air support stays in the immediate vicinity, so that the just-struck troops see and/or hear the air support, they would be much more cautious in any movement or exposure. I disagree with the last paragraph. Regards, Ken

Strafing? Well, no one would realistically strafe in a REAL war. Heck, you wouldn't even need guns on planes in a real war: the radar and IR missiles are too good. Oh, has that argument been tried? Back in the '50's you say? No guns on fighters? Then Korea and Vietnam came along? Now they ALL have guns? I wonder why... I thought only A-10's and Harriers would strafe. But, that's not our decision. Regards, Ken

Hmmm, I'd also like a "follow ALONGSIDE" command to shelter troops from a particular flank. Regards, Ken

I agree. But a CMC which is vista compatible...

Wow. There's a LOT that's just plain wrong at that link. I'm not a fanboy. I was VERY disappointed with the CMSF initial release. Now, at v1.08 and soon to be boosted to v1.1, CMSF is a very good game. WEGO is the only way I play CMSF. I do not see the problems you linked. Many of them are totally mistaken. Others are misinterpretations. Some are, indeed, valid. But not many. The demo is free. Give it a shot. Regards, Ken

Grisha, Man, I'm going to get myself in trouble. I'm no computer guru, so take this as coming from an amateur: You are NOT using DX10 on your system. Your card is only DX9 capable, therefore you're not in the problem group. (I know there's going to be a highly technical rebuttal. Sorry, I already know that's not totally accurate.) To recap: to be in the known problem group you need a DX10 operating system AND a DX10 capable video card. Mostly the Nvidia DX10 cards are at fault. There seem to be some reports of ATI cards (DX10 capable?) which play CMBB. With a DX10 OS and a DC10 card, if you try to use DX9 (which vista allows) you're really NOT using DX9. The problem thanks to previous posters, is that older versions of DX are NOT supported well by DX10. When you, like Grisha, have a DX9 capable card on a DX10 OS, the DX10 defaults to DX9. DX9 includes support for DX5 which seems to be what CMBB needs to run. With a DX10 card and a DX10 OS, specifying DX9 in vista games' drop down menu only EMULATES DX9, hence no support for the earlier DX5 which was included in the ACTUAL DX9. I think I've gotten that straight. Regards, Ken

Hmmm, I thought CMx2 also used OpenGL. Am I mistaken? I am convinced that DX is out, due to licensing fees. My thought, based on CMx2 using OpenGL, was that Nvidia may have finally optimized newer hardware to render older OpenGL codes, as well as releasing/supporting a new OpenGL version. Ken

Excellent!! Now I can sleep at night. It's been hard, this obsession, but now that everything's good, I can rest. WAIT!! What about the ammo distribution? Argh. Back to staying up late and testing... Thanks, Ken

Gents, Supposedly nVidia will be releasing a series 180 driver soon, called "Big Bang II". Among other items it will include support for OpenGL 3.0. Will that have an effect on CMx2? If nothing else, it may allow modern hardware to better support older versions of OpenGL. I'd like to think it'll bring improvements...that way I can see my recalcitrant M249 gunner in even better detail! Thoughts? Ken

Very nice! (But what will these new airbursts do to my M249 gunner? ) Thanks, Ken

Edit previous post: I did not mean to add the last few sentences. I thought I'd deleted them. There have certainly been posts by BF.C that vehicles do NOT block LOS but do block enemy (?) LOF. Hence, no grey TARGET line due to the BTR blockind the M249, since the LOS was not blocked. However, per previous threads, the line of fire was blocked. At least that's my understanding of it... OCD? Nah. I'm curious and digging into it as deeply as I can with the limited tools available. I'm also curious why it happened. If it happened once, it can and will happen again. That is a coding issue. I've never said it's a BIG issue.... Thanks, Ken

Redwolf would know this better than I would, but I _think_ this problem has been solidly identified as a DX10 issue. If you use DX9 (or earlier) CMBB/AK/BO should work. How do you have DX10? First, you need Vista, then you need a DX10 GPU. So, WindowsXP with ANY video card is fine. Vista with SOME cards is fine (mostly OLD cards). Vista with NEW cards is broken. Nvidia video cards began supporting DX10 with the 8xxx series. So, Vista with 8xxx, 9xxx, or the newer GTX260 and GTX280 will have problems. All this is IMHO. I have Vista64, 8800GTX. No CMBB for me. Regards, Ken

More testing... This is frustrating. I took the savegame just AFTER the M249 gunner swapped BACK to the M4. The M249 gunner reloaded his M4. The live enemy showed again. He switched BACK to the M249!! So, Moon, do you still say the M4 is the better weapon? Argh. NOW he seems to be doing what he should. The split team ammo issue still stands. Hey, savegame available. But, you knew this was going to happen, I found another oddity. I did all this to test the area fire beyond hand grenade range. I ordered the 3 man team to area fire TARGET at over 100 meters. They did. Unfortunately, about 10 meters away was a destroyed BTR-60. The M249 gunner fired his M249 at the area target: every single round hit the BTR-60. I mean, how did he have LOS (tank ignored) but then not have LOF? (I think this was discussed previously: if so, my apologies.) At what point would he stop firing? Oh, savegame available. Thanks, Ken

Moon, Am I to take your response that you do not recognize ANY issues with what I've posted? C'mon: I'm holding a fully loaded M249 in my hands. An enemy pops up about 20 meters away: are you _seriously_ contending that switching weapons is the appropriate response? You don't really want to start a thread on THAT, do you? In my post I grant that 34 meters for the area target may've been too close. I haven't tested that yet (how far can you throw a grenade? I know when I did it that 100' would've gotten me signed on the Yankees!). I am attempting to get the M249 back to normal operations: using it in area fire was my first attempt. Finally, or maybe not , the guy is the frickin' unit's M249 gunner. He has an M249. He has M249 ammo (sometimes); what do I need to do to get him to reapply himself to his proper MOS? If the M4 is the better choice, is THAT why he swapped it in the first place? You know, that place about 4 pages ago when he had a firefight 20 meters away. He fired his M249 for a while, then, supposedly when the M249 magazine ran out, instead of reloading, he switched to the M4? Or at least that's been what's been postulated. And please, don't try invidious comparisons with FPS games. I certainly have not brought up ANY other computer game in this thread. I certainly have never decried any CM game for not being more like an FPS. They are comic strips: CM is a novel. (I won't put words in your mouth if you won't put them in mine.) The M249 team, when I split it, ended up with no 5.56 ammo. Yet, the squad from which it split had started with 10 bars of ammo in the 5.56 ammo window. Steve noted that as a problem which has not ever been reported. I have a savegame. Do you consider it reported? Provisionally, at least, until someone at BF.C requests and sees the savegame? As I stated earlier, I do not consider this an insurmountable problem with CMx2. Yet, it seems something isn't quite right. Is this worth your time to look into it? I don't know. I think I'll make some more tests. And post about them! Have you seen my thread on savegame titles? Yeah, it's because of all these savegames from this issue which has highlighted the fact that I cannot read all 45 characters used to create the savegame file when I look at the 37 character savegame listings. Thanks, Ken

Steve, Thanks. So, it seems I've uncovered a problem. Point: "We've not had any reports of ammo allocation issues with splitting Squads before." Well, you have a report now. Savegame available. The team with the M249 gunner had zero ammo whereas the fullup squad had been showing 14 bars. Perhaps this is some oddity. If it is, well, it determined by the computer code. Point: "Also, as I said the M4 will remain in hand until the Soldier determines that he should be using the M249 again." With TARGET or TARGET LIGHT against an area target the M249 does NOT come back. The M4 remains. Okay, more testing...More weirdness. I took the out of ammo 3 man team and gave them 2360 rounds of ammo. I then sent them searching for a live enemy. As you stated, there is an error in the code which treats area targets different than live targets. I found some Syrians. As you postulated, my M249 gunner switched IMMEDIATELY to his M249. Good. Then it got weird. He retained the M249. He'd fired, perhaps, 3-5 bursts, and reloaded the M249 with a fresh box magazine (I assume it holds 200 rounds). Now, there were no longer any visible enemy. Recap: M249 present, freshly loaded with new magazine, all ammo bars visible (14), no visible enemy. I decided to burn off some ammo. I TARGETED some open ground 34 meters away. (The furthest LOS from the M249er's window. Instead of ever firing his M249, all he did was throw grenades. (I'll retest later with a longer distance. Oh, yes. I'll retest..) More weirdness: While under the area fire TARGET command some Syrians popped into view in the house 20 meters distant. What did my fully ammoed up, freshly reloaded with a new magazine, M249 gunner holding his M249, do? He immediately switched to an M4 to fire at the Syrians!!!! The Syrians went out of LOS very quickly. The M249 gunner retained the M4 for the rest of the turn. Hey, what are the odds I have a savegame? You got it: 100%. Savegames available for all... In sum, there seems to be a problem with the TacAI weapon choosing algorithm, at least in regards to the M249 vice the M4. There also seems to be a problem with the ammo distribution system with split squads. There also seems to be a problem with the original decision to switch FROM the m249 - postulated as being due to the M249 running out of amm - because proof exists that once the M4 ran out of ammo, the M249 was then fired...so it had NOT run out of ammo. These could all be rooted in ammo issues and the weight given to firepower from that ammo in the AI routines. But hey, I'm not a programmer: I'm a guy whose hard-drive is FILLED with savegames. Let me know if you want to see any of this fun. Regards, Ken

More testing. The out-of-ammo team with the M249 gunner using the M4: I can consistently regain the M249 but ONLY if they remain out of ammo (as indicated by the 5.56 ammo status window being void of any color bars) and engage an enemy. Then, and only then, will the M249 gunner swap his M4 out for the heretofore hidden M249. At most, the M249 will fire 5 bursts. I cannot determine how many rounds are fired per burst. Perhaps 5. Again, after an ammo resupply, why wasn't the M249 back as being primary? Is M249 belted ammo not part of the ammo carried in vehicles? If not, will that be rectified? If yes, then obviously the TacAI routine needs to be adjusted. Since the M249 has 5 bursts of ammo left, why did the soldier stop firing it originally and switch to the hidden M4? Thanks, Ken

Savegames allow the user to type in 45 characters to identify the savegame. Yet, the savegame menu only shows 38 characters. There is no way to see the missing seven characters. I know, this seems minor. I have hundreds of savegames. I use them for several purposes, not least of which is to torment Steve. With all these savegames, frequently I reserve the last 3 characters for their unique identifier suffix: e.g., 001, 002, etc. I would like to see, amongst previously mentioned savegame improvements, the ability to horizontally scroll for the last 7 characters. I would also like to see the title of the selected savegame prior to loading it. Perhaps a 45 character window with "LOAD: YES/NO" as the toggle would solve both issues. It would import the selected savegame from the savegame menu. Regards, Ken

Ooops, one more question: since the runs will/are perpendicular, how is that established? Is it pre-determined based on friendly board edge? Ie, parallel to whatever board edge is friendly? Or is it based on set up zones? How will gun runs by Harriers/A-10 be used? As they are now, point targets? Regards, Ken

I'm not sure it's a matter of sticking _with_ it as much as banging my head _against_ it. I've got savegames available. Of course. Regards, Ken

Thanks! Ken

So, to recap: the M249 gunner used the M4 and only the M4 until the ammo for the M4 totally ran out. The ammo ran out because, despite starting with full green ammo, then ACQUIRING 2,360 rounds for 6 men (an even distribution, not saying that is what is modelled, would yield 390 rounds per man) giving a full ammo bar, all green and all bright green bars illuminated, the team with the M249 gunner ended up with NO 5.56 ammo after splitting the squad. Earlier it was stated that the gunner stopped firing the M249 because it ran out of ammo and that unslinging the heretofore hidden M4 (possibly acquired through buddy aid) was faster than reloading the M249 (which might not even have any ammo due to a separate ammo tracking for belted 5.56 vice loose). So, the M249 gunner, with no extra ammo was able to fire a few rounds from his M4 at the enemy. I assume these were his final in-magazine rounds. Now, the ammoless M4 was deemed less useful than the M249. The M249 rematerialized and fired. Until it ran out of ammo, a few rounds later. Perhaps the M249's utility is measured against the M4 on a round for round basis. If the M249 only had, say, 15 rounds left, then the M4 with a full 30 round magazine was better. The TacAI would not switch to a lesser weapon. Nor would it switch to a better weapon while in the midst of firing. (Hmmm, M4 down to 14 rounds, swap to M249 with 15 rounds. Two shots later switch back to M4. Continue as needed to zero rounds. Ugh.) Is that correct? That would make some sense. However, it flies in the face of the reason given for switching TO the M4 in the first place: that the M249 had run out of ready ammo. If the M249 still had ammo in the magazine, why stop firing the first time? If the M249 did not have ammo left, where did the final M249 shots come from? How do I re-ammo an M249? Thanks, Ken

Addendum. This really sucks. In a weird way. Next test: I reloaded the 6 men with 2360 additional rounds. Now, instead of 10 bars of ammo (total red through green) they have 14 bars, the maximum visible amount. I had them area fire. The M249 gunner had to reload his M4: he kept the M4. Next, I ran them back into the building 20 meters away from the Syrian building which still had Syrians in it. Unfortunately, the M249 gunner did not get a good firing position; there were too few windows. He did not fire his M4. Okay, tweak time. I started outside the building with the reloaded squad. I split the squad. Weirdness: the M249 gunner was in the second team. When I split the squad, first team had full (14 bar) 5.56, empty 7.62 and middling 40mm grenades and hand grenades. Second team had the same grenade and 7.62 levels, BUT ZERO 5.56!!! Regardless, I sent this ammoless team into the building. They saw the Syrians and engaged them. Both M4 gunners fired several rounds. The M203 gunner fired grenades and continued to do so. THE M249 REAPPEARED!! ARGH. Both M4's out of ammo. No ammo bars at all. The M249 only fired several rounds. They never fired any 5.56 again. So, why the hell didn't the ammo resupply yield any belted ammo???? Steve, I appreciate your patience. I also enjoy the hidden thoroughness with which this game models combat. I'd expect nothing less. Two questions remain: How do I get the M249 back in action? Why did the split squad keep ALL the 5.56 ammo in one team? Regards, Ken

Steve, Yes, thanks. But, I will still test. I want to find that M249. You are telling me it is there. I have not seen it reappear. What do you suggest I do to get the M249 back in action? If it does appear, that would confirm what you're saying is happening behind the scenes. Right now, that has yet to occur. Given a fully reloaded squad - at the point the 6 men resupply with 2,360 rounds of 5.56 ammo on top of the green ammo bars they already have, and the M249 gunner is in good condition - how do should I test for the presence of the M249? Thanks, Ken