c3k

nvidia's 175.12 beta is out. I don't know if there's any other newer ones. See guru3d.com Ken

Good idea. I use a widescreen format (1920x1600) so my blank spaces are large. Of course, how slick would it be to be able to click on a scrollable radio traffic chat window, as you describe, and have the camera snap to the unit and, in WEGO, rewind to a point 2 or 3 seconds prior to the event? I did not know this was even being considered by BF.C. If so, that's good news. Thanks, Ken

A shameless BUMP! Why? Because in v1.08 I finished a WEGO turn, THEN I noticed a burning Stryker and one which had been immobilized due to flat tires. Apparently it had occurred several turns previously, based on the positions the surviving crews had managed to take. Sure, I'm a bad CO for not noticing it for a while, but wouldn't SOMEBODY have let me know that vehicles were taking damage or being destroyed? A script at the top, similar to reinforcement or objectives, stating "Casualties" or "Vehicle Damage" accompanied by the sound effect of the break in squelch would be outstanding. Thanks, Ken

A question: do US airbursts (81mm) occur above GROUND level, or above building height? I'm asking because the burst height seems to be the same regardless if the round comes in over a tall building. (Note that I have not tested this.) Thanks, Ken edit: What I posted is in error. After testing, confirmed artillery airburst works as expected. Sorry. [ April 30, 2008, 06:50 AM: Message edited by: c3k ]

Gents, I got too close to the enemy with an Abrams (if ONLY my loader could man his machinegun. HEY! That was a joke! )... Anyway, the enemy fired an RPG at it, effectively. It hit the right side of the tank. The tank showed a yellow circle, "immobilized" on the unit interface, and under the maintenance button (the little white wrench) the only damage was "tracks", a red "x". Okay, pretty self explanatory so far. I could continue to fire the turret armament at its current area target. Soon, I tried a cover arc in a different direction. That was when I found out the turret would not traverse. I am fine having a turret jam or the traverse syatem (and apparently elevation system, as well) get knocked out. But, I had no information available that it had occurred. I can see smoke launcher status, etc., but not turret status. Cool damage tracker. Is there a way of adding that information? Or, is it already available? If so, where? Savegame available. Regards, Ken

Will do. Thanks, Ken

...turn after turn. Savegame available. I don't know if this is being addressed or not. I have a 2 man team. I gave it a multi-waypoint, QUICK, to enter a building. One waypoint in front of the door I wanted them to use. Instead, they sprinted to that waypoint, then ran back to their start position. The doorway waypoint stayed "active" the whole time. The next turn they did the same thing. Next turn I deleted all orders. They stayed where they were. Next, I ordered a multi-waypoint path NOT ending in a building. They repeated the back and forth behavior. Again, savegames available (my note: 18,19,20,21,22). Regards, Ken

Cpl Steiner, Very nice! If you want to simulate the overpass having been dropped, replace the overpass highway with rubble, then tweak the elevations. (The idea comes from a scenario I played: Al Amarah?) Regards, Ken

Thomm, Another related issue. The LOD seems to include shadows, roads, shellholes, and flavor objects as well as trenches. Interestingly, the trenches disappear as the others appear. It's a pretty hard break-off line. In my top screenshot it's the area delineated by the series of red dots. Sometimes I am able to get the details to stay as I move away. I need to start close, wait for several seconds for the rendering to complete, then I can raise the camera position. If I do that, and do not change the field of view too much, the trench graphics stay visible. I know that sounds a bit confusing. Regards, Ken

Large woods fighting seems to be part of WWII. However, right now it's hard to find troops in woods, both enemy and friendly. The on/off toggle for trees helps, but how about a new way of seeing through trees? How about a transparency setting for trees? I'm thinking about a setting very similar to the way buildings work right now. If I have a force in woods, it's nice to see the rest of the woods and still focus on the troops. Perhaps a grid size, 8m x 8m, area (if occupied)? Currently it's all on or all off. (Of course, all I've been doing lately is desert zone. If my memory is wrong, I apologize.) Regards, Ken

Thanks.

Steve, Thanks. Let me say several things up front in this posting: I consider the issue dead...I am NOT trying to resurrect it. I am not sore or disgruntled by the outcome. I asked questions, I proposed changes, and you stated that it wouldn't be changed. With LOTS of postings in between. I appreciate the feedback - sincerely. Also I stated that there seems to be plenty of missed communications on all sides. I specifically stated that BF.C was not solely to blame. Now, as I stated earlier, the current behavior is FAR better than having a buttoned up tank have its commander pop up and die when I order them to stay shut. Far better. My initial question about reloading behavior WAS answered. But then the thread morphed and I asked about OTHER behavior regarding the Abrams crew. My questions regarding loader duties prior to armor engagements show that they should be up (see Huntarr, Exel, 76mm). That position was countered by gibsonm, and M1A1TC with, later, 76mm agreeing. To me that seemed like a split. I asked specific questions about the loader and they went unanswered. My goal was only to see if the loader should be heads up (and spotting) at the same time as the TC being heads up. (The OPEN UP behavior.) I interspersed this morphing conversation with the results of SOME of the tests I was running. (BTW, I was very complimentary of BF.C's coding Abrams' behavior.) I believe I was accepting of the answers I was given - if there was SOME SORT of supporting logic. I've just deleted about 100 lines of quotes and bolds and points and counterpoints. I have NO need to rehash this. I even quoted all the answered and unanswered questions. It won't change how this thread meandered and changed. I agree, you were not insulting or abusive. Others were/are. Shrug. My stress testing was quite good. I saw, and posted, on how adept the coding was with the TacAI; manning weapons; separate targeting; remanning lost crew positions. You wrote: I absolutely agree. Regards, Ken P.S. The m249 is the 5.56mm SAW. The loader's machinegun is a version of the 7.62mm M240 . I only note the difference because of the consistent use of M249 in this thread. [ April 26, 2008, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: c3k ]

I've had this as well. All in v1.08: Ambush Tutorial. I'll see if I have a savegame of it. Regards, Ken

handihoc, I'm not sure about features. In the second screenshot I posted the up-close trenches are in 3D. The far-away trenches appear to be 2D. I think that's a great way to save processing; if it only appears 2D because of a level of detail decrease, that's just as good. What seems "off" is the drop out in between the two types of depiction. I'll have to check to see if I have drop-out with grasses. Thanks, Ken

Elmar Bijlsma, Thanks for the response. Do you think this should have its own thread (dealing with communication) or continue here? I'm open either way. Responding to what you just posted (no acrimony): My original post was April 15th at 12:11 p.m. In the next 24 hours there were a total of 4 more posts. The posters were, in chronological order; M1A1TC, c3k (myself), Exel, and Elmar Bijlsma (you). Now, I'm not saying I was hard done. I AM saying that there was, and is, a LOT of talking past each other. So, your statement that I had an answer to my main question and a reply from the devs within 24 hours is not quite accurate. Which of the 4 posters represents the developers? As for an answer, I did see two opinions; one supporting present behavior and one against. Later, within 48 hours, Steve did post a reply, but it was a question, not an answer. (I do not feel I deserve or am entitled to direct developer responses. However, I did post a link which had detailed information in my original post. That was obviously ignored.) I don't want to beat a dead horse. I no longer care about the behavior. It is what it is. But how do you prevent the constant lack of clear communication to and from the developers and each other? I think a new thread may be the more appropriate. Your opinion? Thanks, Ken

Steve, Thanks for the response. I consider this a dead issue now. "Dead" in the sense that BF.C has spoken very clearly about priorities and how this issue will be handled. Thank you. What anyone else thinks about it does not matter. (No sarcasm.) However, I would like to take a moment and point out some issues this thread has highlighted. I feel I can do that since I started this thread. Also, I was away from any internet connections for the last week, so I missed a chance as this thread wound down. It seems that some of my viewpoints have been distorted. It also appears that there are plenty of preconceived notions regarding the situations presented here. (I.e., tanks fight tanks... that presupposes there are tanks there to be fought. Or, M1's sitting at crossroads in a town is a function of COIN or occupation; CMSF is about conventional phase of an invasion you're not grokking that; etc...) Another data point being the screenshot I posted with a single M1 being swarmed by an entire battalion of infantry. That was NOT something I was using to advocate rewriting code. I used that situation to test the TacAI in the M1. It did well, and I stated that. It also offerred surprising depth and fidelity. Yet, BF.C posted that I was using unrealistic scenarios. Shrug. Again, the MG/Tank behavior issue is dead. However, the rampant miscommunication that has taken place is somewhat typical, unfortunately. Direct questions are asked and not answered. I'm not pointing only at BF.C; there's plenty of blame to go around. As well, it seems that certain viewpoints are rated higher than others. That is normal behavior, but is not always the best way to find the truth. (Not that I think my viewpoint is "truth".) Take this perspective for whatever it's worth: when issues pop up on this forum there is room for major improvements in how communications and ideas get exchanged. Thanks to all who participated. Regards, Ken

Thanks for both reports. Kirq, just for curiosity, what kind of graphics card do you have and what options in-game do you use? Regards, Ken

I've received confirmation from Thomm that he has the file. If anyone else wants to see it, the url is: http://www.mediafire.com/?jaz5azdmdmz SPOILER ALERT: the file is from the TF Thunder campaign, first battle, about 15 minutes into it. I'm not sure how long it will be there or what other limits mediafire places on files. Thanks, Ken

Possibly. As I stated in the original post, I had just loaded a team (artillery spotter) in the Stryker the previous turn. My assumption is that the team was loaded into the Stryker by the end of the previous turn, but the animation had not finished. Both members of the team are in the Stryker. If the load animation, represented by the ramp, has not finished, but the Stryker "status" is loaded and ready to move, then there's obviously a disconnect. Elmar Bijlsma: thanks for the suggestion. I'll look at gmail. Regards, Ken

Thanks. I just uploaded it to mediafire. (First come and all that...) I'll post the url here, later. I want Thommson to have a chance to download it first (I don't know what bandwidth limits they have). I appreciate the suggestions from gibsonm and YankeeDog. Thanks. Regards, Ken

Thommson, I'm unable to email the savegame. It is 12.2 Mb in size. Zipped, it is 12.2 Mb in size. That didn't help. I'm sure my ISP limits me to something under 10 Mb. Do you have any suggestions? I'm not beyond snail-mailing a CD. Regards, Ken

Gents, I've had a problem with the trench graphics dropping out at a mid-distance. Up close, they look fine. Far out, they look okay. In between, they don't exist. I've had this issue for some time. The following are from v1.08. (Operating an nvidia 8800gtx; best/best graphics toggles.) Screenshots... Overhead shot to orient on the next view: This is taken from the white circle, above: As I said, I've had this for some time. It occurs in every trench in every scenario. It affects gameplay because the distance I place target lines onto trench zones is right where the trench cloaks itself and disappears. Does anyone else notice this effect? Thanks, Ken

All, thanks for the fast response. Thomm: savegame will be sent shortly. Just hit the execute button and watch the Stryker Fire Support Vehicle. gibsonm: yes, it was a fresh 1.08 game. Panzerfest: my thoughts too. Re-read my original post - the ramp's maintenance status is a bold green "+". It shows fully operational. YankeeDog: KITT would be greatly appreciated right now... Regards, Ken

Gents, I have a Stryker which started the turn (WEGO) with its ramp down. It had just loaded a team in the previous turn. I ordered it to FAST down a road. It did...while dragging the open ramp. I checked the damage; ramp has a bold green "+" indicating it is okay. Is this a bug? Savegame available. Ken

Thanks all. Gibsonm, I appreciate the responses you made, above, with no anti-social overtones. Again, do the RAAC M1A1 SA AIM (did I get all that in the right order?) Abrams have a remote fired .50? If so, when would you reload it? If it were out of ammo, that implies it has been used. Wouldn't you want to have it ready again? My intent is not to paint gibsonm into some sort of corner, nor do I think that's what's happening. Merely, I would like this game to flow more smoothly. Right now it seems that the binary status of Abram crews is an obstacle. The ONLY way to get the loader up is OPEN UP AND TARGET LIGHT. The ONLY way to get the TC to reload an empty .50 is to OPEN UP. BF.C, if you don't want to fix this for me, think about the children... Regards, Ken