c3k

Sigh. First I'll have to correct MikeyD's post for grammar and spelling... Ken

Ah, the sound reasoning of seasoned profesionals. So, it would seem that even professional writers, which I am most obviously not, have need of someone to double check their work. In this day of "self correcting" word programs it seems even more likely that the wrong word, not just a mistakenly spelled or used word, may get through. So, since the many posters here have successfully concluded that the only qualifications I bring to the job of checking BF.C's printed manuals would be my ability to read and write English (to a debatable degree) and my willingness to lend a helping hand whilst foregoing any recompense, are there any PROFESSIONAL proofreaders willing to volunteer? Thanks, Ken

Secretly, at BF.C, all the workers are happy. Even Charles, bubbling away in his jar, releases a happy thought. Why? Because all the anger over the state of CM:SF at its release, including the egregious mistakes in the manual, are now being directed at ME. I'm happy. Thanks, Ken

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Are we really about to compare forum posts to a published book? If so, LET LOOSE THE DOGS OF WAR!! However, I don't think ANYONE - least of all me - would want a roving forum editor to swoop into ongoing threads to add the errant apostrophe or correct a misused synonym. Thanks, Ken

Melnibone, Aha! That link is perfect. Thank you. It appears that there is hope. Well, for an updated PDF file, not for the hard printed manual for which I paid extra. Do I get a free bottle of white-out and a sample collection of random letters? Thanks, Ken

Rollstoy, Forgive me, but, before I answer your post, allow me to demonstrate a little English knowledge. Perhaps you meant, "To what language are you referring?" or that, "I found the English one pretty well written!". Pedantic of me? Of course! But seriously, you did not find it replete with errors? I could do a page check and post every single item, but for that, I would demand pay for my time. Thanks, Ken

...for free; gratis; no strings attached. Yes, having received both my pre-ordered ultimate editions of CM:SF (or whatever they're called - as a show of faith in BF.C), I've just finished reading the manual. I WILL PROOFREAD - FREE OF CHARGE - THE NEXT ITEM YOU PUBLISH FOR SALE. Please, for the love of God, let me do this. If not me, choose anyone else who has passed 3rd grade reading and writing. The misspellings and grammatical errors are ridiculous and rampant. How did this get sent out the door? I could use an internet translator and get similar results. I will sign an NDA. I will not seek pay or recompense. I don't even need a my name painted on the side of an in-game tank. Why must this product be so amateurish? Gah! Ken

Bradley Dick: Yes, but my point being a SINGLE round for rifle ammo would be a higher contrast to the MULTIPLE machinegun rounds. (As well, the various other bits of gear and capabilities represented by the icons are a bit, um, vague in some cases. E.g., the "Breach" tool - modern battering ram - looks very much like a rocket launcher. A sledge hammer, for an off the cuff example, would have a higer recognition factor and contrast.) Don't even get me started on the other icons. Statisoris: Sorry to get your hopes up. My refence to the v1.03 release was from a previous thread. Steve mentioned, when queried for a specific date of release, that it would be, "...soon. A few days...", at which point the OP stated, "There. You have it from Steve that the patch will be released Tuesday at 4 p.m." Or something like that. It was all in jest. Except that the patch should be out soon. Thanks, Ken

Hmmm, How did this drop to page 2? What, with the v1.03 patch scheduled for 2 p.m. on Tuesday, there's still time to implement these changes. --> for the humor impaired. This was a shameless self-bump. Thanks, Ken

... regarding the ammo panel. The rifle ammo icon is too close in appearance to the MG ammo icon. My suggestion is to use a single bullet for rifle ammo and the multiple rounds (in a linked belt) for MG ammo. Please implement immediately. You may credit my name in the next release. Carry on. Ken

Hmmm, Jippo's experience may be a cause for concern. Since it seems that all his actual "Russian tracers are red" statements are based on being a FINN. I postulate the following: real Soviet/Russian/CIS forces use GREEN tracers. The factories which supply export items to, oh, say Finland, are under strict guidelines to CHANGE the color of the tracers. This is obviously needed since any future Russo-Finn war would be confusing because they use similar weapons. Brilliant! That's how you can tell a Russion T-72 from a Finnish T-72 in combat conditions. I have solved the conundrum. Carry on. Ken

Matchstick, Um, that's all well and good, but you've totally left out the first part: what would the doppler effects be at your postulated .2c on the color green being compressed? If the TRUE color shifts to red as it travels away from you, then it ALSO shifts towards blue as it approaches you. THAT means the target - call him unsobill for the purposes of this demonstration - sees the compressed/higher energy color. From his vantage it's green. What is the TRUE, zero velocity, color? Please do the maths and respond (ignore the effects of brane space). Thanks, Ken

Gentlemen, I have just realized why you two are arguing about the color. You are BOTH correct. Jippo (excellent pictures BTW) says they're red, unsobill claims green. It's obvious from Jippo's pictures TAKEN FROM THE AFT PERSPECTIVE that the tracer's red. That, my friends, is doppler shift. If you were in front, I surmise, the tracer would appear green. An experiment: I propose a fully filmed experiment in which one protagonist gets shot at while filming the incoming rounds, whilst the other fires and records the results. Any takers? (A picture is worth 1,000 words...) Kem

Hmm, "CM:Somme '16" It has the cool double entendre engendered by the use of "Somme" and "psalm". That ALONE makes it THE BEST TITLE EVER. Now, the gameplay would make for the BEST GAME EVER. You could play the Brits/Commonwealth: "Right, chaps. Dress right, DRESS! Straighten out those ranks. Steady. Foward, 'ARCH!" Or, the Germans: "Hurry, Heinz! We need more machinengun ammo. My arm is getting tired of sweeping from right to left, to right, to left..." Yes. It needs to be done. Ken

Hmm, what is "fashism"? Is it some sort of militaristic imposition of one's fashion sense on a society? I'm curious, because I too deplore what I see young people wearing today. "Fashists" are bringing back the clothes I threw out when I was 10. Now they're the new style. What gives? Not that I have great fashion sense, but my bell bottoms, hip-huggers, and white belts disappeared with disco. Thanks, Ken

With a double load of cannister, that would be great to have on a duck hunt... Ken

Capt. Toleran, The tire on the turret indicates advanced engineering. In case of a roll over, the pnuematically pressurized tire aids in a "bounce" to help upright the vehicle. Should that fail, and the vehicle remain inverted, the tire is used to extricate the vehicle from the line of fire. This is accomplished by, while balanced upside-down on the turret, having the gunner quickly rotate the turret either clockwise or counterclockwise (depending on the threat direction) and wheeling the vehicle away. It doesn't quite roll, manuevering more in a siderwinder style, but still able to sidle back behind terrain. Does that help? Regards, Ken

AAAHHHH!!! My neck hurts just looking at those poor SOB's. Whose head really sticks up like that when they're on their belly? I mean, whose UNBROKEN neck can flex like that? Or is that flexibility something that's demanded by Syria's military? Ow. Ken

Hello? Am I the first to reply on this thread? Hello...hello... Oh, I see the refresh monkeys have been here first. Thanks for the news!! Ken

First, thanks for the screenies. It looks pretty good overall, and I hope will be a blast to play. My notes (or criticisms): jpg 14-55-38-60: the animation of US forces lying down looks very unnatural physiologically, and also unnatural physically. jpg 15-04-57-49: again, lying down, the bodies appear to float over the road, due to non-attached shadows. jpg 15-06-35-24: the US soldier closest to the camera has a peanut head. Seriously, is that a size 2 helmet? The guy is whacked. jpg 15-15-10-24: the Syrian RPG gunner appears to have a severe hip injury, based on his body positioning whilst prone. Additionally, the shots with US soldiers in Strykers uniformly appear to have the wrong scale. I know the Stryker is big, but the soldiers are far too small. They appear to be 3/4 scale. Again, this is for soldiers INSIDE the Strykers. Finally, the Air Support icon on the GUI. It appears to be an A-6, although that could be a result of the scale of the shot. Obviously, that's just a place-holder for a REAL, active inventory ground-attack capable aircraft; right? Like the F-35, F-22, F-15E, F-16, F/A-18E/F, etc, etc. Take these comments in the spirit they're meant - to improve the game BEFORE it's released. Thanks, Ken

Hmmm, Reading "Death of the Leaping Horseman" by Jason Mark. It's the operational history (each day gets its own chapter) of the 24th Panzer Division from September '42 through its immolation in Stalingrad. Very detailed. Perhaps a bit too tactical for your purposes. "Soldat" is a good read for the 1st person perspective. Von Mellenthin's (sp?) book was quite good for the German perspective of various operational missions. Otherwise, Glantz would be the best bet, using his various operational studies. Regards, Ken

This is a shameless, self-promoting....BUMP

BF.C, First, thank you for sharing and posting the latest videos of the latest beta build. It's great to see the game in action. My "bug" comment regards the 34 Mb download, linked in Madmatt's thread. In one scene, the camera is behind a Stryker with two men shooting from the roof hatches. During the exchange of fire, the Stryker's M2 Remote Weapons Station (System?) slews from facing 12 o'clock, to face 9 o'clock - where the firefight is occurring. Great. However, after a few rounds from the M2, the weapon slews back to 12 o'clock. That seems to be very much amiss. It takes the weapon and the sensors out of the immediate fight. (I seem to remember a similar behavior in CMBO which was repaired, whereby vehicle weapons would IMMEDIATELY default to 12 o'clock the instant a target lock was lost.) In a real fight, the weapon would stay trained an the last known enemy position. Therefore, in the video the behavior seems very wrong. It would seem to be better for the RWS to stay aimed at the 9 o'clock position. If I am wrong, I offer my apologies. This observation is meant only to improve the game. Thanks, Ken

MikeyD, Good point. Civdiv, Please, I'm really not defending the Osprey. Note that I agree that it would be almost sure to be destroyed in an environment with active defense. As well, seeing pictures of the interior from which every single cover panel has been removed to save a few pounds tells me it's not ready for prime time. My point was that the IDEA - not the machine as it exists - had a lot of positives. Also, a lot of arguments against it could be countered. The 19 deaths in the one crash were due to inadvertantly entering its own vortex, a phenomenom known to helicopters, but which requires a high sink rate after hovering to encounter. (Your blades create a downdraft. If you enter you own downdraft, you then need to fight it. Say a 3000 feet per minute downdraft: after entering it, to stay level, you'd need to climb at 3000fpm.) So, now they have descent rate limits. For what it's worth, if I were king, I'd have bought new CH-53's with modernized avionics and engines. Refueling is a poor option. (Tanker availability, time, equipment failures etc.) Better to toss a fuel blivet inside, and add a few more helos to make up the lift requirement.

civdiv, , you haven't actually addressed any of my points (not that you NEED to). Um, so if the USMC develops a CH-46 replacement, would it be different? Like, um, say, a tilt-rotor? As for power loss, the Osprey should (and has been tested) to enable continued flight on a single engine - just like the CH-46. Why couldn't the Osprey glide in a total power loss? Or do you suggest that everyone on every military transport have a parachute? Perfection is the enemy of good enough. As for lighting fires and blowing roofs off, damn, that's a great tactical advantage you could hardly have hoped for, let alone designed it. Thanks, Ken Edited to change "CH-24" to "CH-46". If anyone knows what a CH-24 is, let me know... [ April 17, 2007, 01:53 AM: Message edited by: c3k ]