c3k

^^^^ Another variable could be the amount of cycles BETWEEN video frames. Would a high power graphics card pumping out 120 frames a second result in half the cycles available to the AI as one pumping out 60 frames a second? Thanks, Ken

Redwolf, Those are my thoughts as well. Of course, not having access to the algorithms, or any way to judge the possible outcome of the two approaches since only one approach was done, all this is moot. Would it be possible to conduct a true experiment for this? ("This" being the assumed foreshortening of AI due to ALL computations having to occur between video frames.) I'd think two computers with the same saved game file with VERY different CPU's would be a starting point. Click "go" or whatnot and watch the outcome. The object would be to try to find divergent behavior based on CPU. Thanks, Ken

...Pass the popcorn

JonS, This is a forum. On the internet. About a game. I certainly do not let niggling things such as "facts" get in the way of my posts. If there is something I posted that you think may be erroneous, please give me the Wikipedia entry in question and I'll be sure to bring it into line. Regards, Ken

Steve, Just want to let you know that some OTHER guys made some, er, "tough" posts about CMSF and BF.C. Not me. No sirree. Not me. No need to remove my name from the 1.05 distribution list. Maybe those "others". Not me. I don't see a need for you to browse through ALL the threads during your absence. Do you? Good. Thanks, Ken

dalem, Hah! Don't listen to THEM. What do they know about this game? Perception IS reality. I have found that my enjoyment of CMSF, such as it is, has been increased by placing a blue strip of tape across the bottom of my monitor. Sweet joy! Regards, Ken

Agreed. Bigmac1281, the crux of the matter is that WEGO now works like RT. With mandatory pauses at 60 seconds. And a prohibition from intervening with commands unless at the mandatory pause. The obvious question is, "How is what you just described different from CMx1 WEGO?" I'm glad you asked that... In CMx1, after you plotted your commands, the execute button would freeze the screen while a blue bar, denoting computer progression, advanced. The computer would run all the calculations needed for the upcoming turn. It would do so using AS MANY COMPUTING CYCLES AS NEEDED. If it only took 5 seconds, great. If it took 3 minutes, great. However complex or simple the turn was just didn't matter. Now, it seems that the computer MUST run the game in RT. Then you can rewind if you want. The inherent assumption in this is that the computer MUST calculate all the turn's actions on the fly. This, despite all the computational advances, is inherently less capable than if the turn were given all the resources of the computer for as long as it needed. That begs the question, "What is being left out or short-cut?", and the corollary, "Does it matter that things may be getting left out or short-cutted?" That is the crux. To me. Thanks, Ken

It's a fun exercise in self-control. I prefer not hearing from BF.C until, in a return to their roots, they post a comprehensive patch "when it's done". In the meantime, though, it's fun posting here for the sense of community. Or is it just shared pain? Or, perhaps, a forlorn hope that the many bugs, errors, problems, and frustrations we users have discovered and share are somehow being used by BF.C to improve the product. Regards, Ken

Get CMBB. Wait for CMSF to be fixed.

Sign me up on the "I agree with this" line. Yeah, being FORCED to sit through the bastardized-WEGO (copyright) turns sucks. WHY do I have to wait 60 seconds before I gain control of the replay? If I design a move-to-contact scenario with realistic parameters, it could take a friggin' half-hour of futile clicking before we have an engagement. In CMBB/BO/AK I could just select my desired endpoints (say, just behind the crest of a hill) and in a few clicks have my forces positioned for the assault. Or whatnot. Yeah, it feels like WEGO (THE UNIQUE SIGNATURE OF THE CM SERIES WHICH WAS GROUNDBREAKING AND SET UP BF.C'S REPUTATION!!!!!!) has been ground underfoot and forgotten with a vengeance in exchange for the attempt at getting RT to suck in the tongue-pierced, tattooed, ecstasy-swallowing, 10 second attention span, if it feel good do it, twitch playing, demographically targeted, mass consumer appealing, volume over quality, made in China with extra lead, nipple-ringed, ADHD ritalin swallowing, euro spending, mad-Cow infected, inbred, indolent, lazy, and corrupt gamers market. I feel better now. Thanks, Ken

"Sergeant! Every time one of our squad goes around that corner I hear a gunshot and then the soldier doesn't reply to anything I say!! What should I do??" "Hmm, why don't you go around that corner and find out what's going on?" "Yes, Sergeant!" Bang! Repeat as needed. Regards, Ken

CMBB.

What dalem just said. (I, too, am a former ASLer. Being able to pick my forces and PLAY is what I'd like to see.) Thanks, Ken

Hmmm, A large communication issue seems to be the recurring lack of a dedicated bug/known-issues thread. Many of us WANT this game to work. In fact, we may want it to work more than BF.C does. Who knows? Whereas we all (should) realize that BF.C should NOT comment on what fixes are being implemented, it would behoove them (BF.C) to at least post an acknowledgement to the many messages highlighting anomolous behavior. In short, ANSWER THE CUSTOMER WHO CARES ENOUGH ABOUT THIS GAME THAT THEY TRY TO BRING SHORTCOMINGS TO YOUR ATTENTION SO THEY CAN BE FIXED SO THE GAME ACHIEVES THE POTENTIAL WE ALL WANT IT TO REALIZE. Comms check? Over. Thanks, Ken

Aye.

If I may distract you from the vituperative argument about a list which probably does not exist, I _AM_ a customer. I bought CMBO, CMBB, CMAK. I bought extra copies of all for various friends and relatives. I pre-ordered CMSF - deluxe collector's edition. Not just one, but two. Yes, I've got the $130 receipt to prove it. One of them is still in the shrink-wrap. I am very disappointed with CMSF. BF.C violated their mission statement. CMSF was released in an execrable state. There ARE fundemental flaws with v1.00. CMSF veers from the igougo model which was a key characteristic of CMx1. It seems tacked on. Real time? I'm not interested. Beyond the maximum scope of platoon leader it seems a stretch. If I want "real time", I'll play fun games like Company of Heroes, Supreme Commander, or Warhammer 40K. Oh, and I'll play EACH of them on my LAN at home. Something CMSF's real time (with an absolutely deplorable GUI!) is not able to do. QB's are important to CMx1. It seems the user base must make up the lack of QB's in CMx2. Shrug. Maybe it will. I hope so. The longevity of the CMx1 series, to me, is its ability to game the many "what if" scenarios. I can create an unrealistic, but fun, QB in a few SECONDS. CMSF lacks this. So, I am not a fanboy, nor am I whining. I am a customer who is very disappointed with a shoddy product from a developer who reneged on the promise implicit in their mission statement. Do I "get it"? In my opinion, yeah, I got it and I won't get fooled again. Never again will I throw money at BF.C in a pre-order to support development issues. Am I allowed to have these opinions, or do I need to spend more money? Regards, Ken

Hmmm, I always though the deepest fear of all humans (the Peng being excepted since no-one there can REALLY be called "human"), a sub-conscious, cross-cultural, since time immememorial fear is the fear of being eaten. Sure. Laugh. But you'll rue the day you face a hungry predator bigger than you! Carry on. Ken

Cpl Steiner, I have read 7 threads. One of them twice. Let me know what the total count ends up being. Thanks, Ken

SlapHappy, You could be correct. I've just built a new system on Vista-64 using a logitech USB mouse. I have not loaded the logitech drivers. I haven't seen any other issues with the right click NOT working on any other program. With the many issues in CMSF I was/am curious if anyone else has this. It's minor enough that some may just overlook it. Yet, it adds an extra step every single time I try to order anything. Thanks, Ken

Gents, Something, perhaps, for a future patch. If I have a unit selected such that its info panel is visible, I can left-click and order any available action. (Whether it DOES it is an entirely different matter! ). The manual and PDF state that right-clicking should de-select, "release" the selected unit. It does not. I must right-click TWICE to release my selected unit. Anyone else have this issue? Thanks, Ken

Gents, Thanks. I've done a little bit of web-browsing and come up with the following information regarding U.S. 155mm artillery ammunition. There are currently two types rounds of interest here: the M483 and the M864. They seem to be quite similar (to me) except the M864 gives up some submunitions capacity in order to gain base-bleed capability so the "mother" round can gain greater range. Here's what globalsecurity.com has to say about the M483: The M483A1 delivers 88 dual purpose anti-material and anti-personnel grenades - the M42 (quantity 64/projo) and M46 (quantity 24/projo). The M46s are located at the base of the projectile and are heavier/thicker and have a smooth interior surface that enables it to withstand the shock of firing and set back. The M42 grenades are scored for greater fragmentation and are place to the front of the M46 grenades. The submissions have a shaped charge warhead that penetrates 2.75 inches of homogeneous armor. Antipersonnel effects are obtained by fragmentation of the submissions body." As for the M864: "The M864 projectile is a dual-purpose ICM projectile that incorporates base burn technology to increase its range. The projectile is capable of delivering 24 M46 and 48 M42 dual-purpose anti-materiel/anti-personnel grenades at ranges out to 29 kilometers." So, the M42 submunition (grenade) is optimized for fragmentation while the M46 is anti-armor. EACH round (M483 & M864) carries 24 M46 anti-armor submunitions. How many of those can reasonably be expected to hit a tank? Double hits, misses, ineffective hits, etc. I see references to the M77 grenade (that being the preferred term for these bomblets) as well as the M42, M46 and the newer(?) M80 and M85. It seems that a new fuze (M223) is being developed for the M80/85 to greatly reduce the unacceptably high level of duds (1-5% in Iraq in 2003). My remaining questions: What are the M80 and M85 capable of? What is the footprint of coverage for a 155mm round using the M80/M85 (I assume these are the new DPICM rounds??)? Withing that footprint, what are the expected effects? Will a massive shower of fragmentation bomblets rip off antennas, ruin optics, jam ring mounted machineguns, destroy smoke dischargers, ruin ERA blocks, or otherwise rain damage upon an AFV such that the stats tracked in CM:SF's damage model needs to be adjusted? How will anti-armor bomblets REALLY kill AFV's? Is it all engine directed? Crew compartment? Etc. Thanks to all who have real knowledge on these matters. Regards, Ken

JasonC, Thank you. I knew the British had developed SOME sort of guided mortar round. I'd forgotten which caliber. So, DP ICM bomblets get dispensed via airburst and individualy seek IR targets. Shouldn't CM:SF therefore NOT have impact craters from 155's? Instead, there should be airbursts followed by multiple smaller airbursts as the DP ICM munitions acquire targets and detonate (they detonate several meters over their targets, true?)? That would lead me to think the damage model versus vehicles should be MUCH more varied. I would think outright kills, crewmember injuries/deaths, LOTS of engines getting knocked out, some fire control/gun barrel/sighing issues (rarely), etc. Instead, right now all we have are contact fused impact craters which can cause track degradation and the rare direct impact which sometimes causes catastrophic kills. Thank you, Ken

Agreed. So, it seems like the targeting label shows what it is targeting. If it were more detailed it would show "building" when I moved the cursor over a building, etc. That is why I am confused: there are NO INFANTRY!! Why then does the cursor show "infantry"??? It seems to be irrelevant to the artillery mission. Yet, the internal CM:SF engine is identifying SOMETHING as being present when it is not. Bug or just a non-sensical glitch? Thanks, Ken

Hmmm, Multiplying the dimensions Cpl Steiner gave us from Wikipedia give a VERY rough approximation of the volume of the Stryker and Amtrac. Stryker: 49.9 m^3 Amtrac: 84.6 m^3 Hence, the Amtrac has almost 70% more additional volume. Couple that with the Navy's propensity to stack men tightly in a confined place (no buggery jokes!) and you could easily cram a lot of Marines into an Amtrac. Enjoy, Ken

Gents, Again, this could be my total lack of understanding of how CM:SF is way cool. I think it's a bug. I'm playing a custom built scenario which tests U.S. artillery. The ONLY U.S. units are a battalion HQ spotting for 12+ artillery units, and a hidden away Bradley. On the Syrian side are about 50 T-72 Turms. The T-72's are buttoned up, tightly confined, and trapped on the far side of a strip of marsh. Can you say "turkey shoot"? The purpose is to test U.S. artillery. On with the bug... When the U.S. Hq selects an artillery asset, then uses "Point Target" the spotting cursor appears. (That orange circle crosshairs thing with a triangle coming out of it.) When I move the cursor over the T-72's the associated verbiage under the cursor will be "Target Infantry" unless I tweak the position ever-so-slightly to get it to change to "Target (armor or tank??)". There's no infantry. They're buttoned up. The option to choose the desired artillery target type (armor, infantry, general) is NOT in that initial targeting step. Why does it do this? What does it matter what the verbiage says? Obviously, this will be fixed in v1.05. Thanks, Ken