c3k

LOL... the 13 fps is very smooth. FWIW, I am sensitive to screen refresh. I can see 60 hz...and don't like it. (My peripheral vision detects 60 hz or lower. Straight on it's much more subtle, but still visible. Yes, my career and personal well-being has depended upon visual acuity. Luckily, not so much any more. ) Freesync/Gsync are very cool technologies which smooth out the video experience. I recommend testing it out at a store, if you can. Or at a friend's. Whichever is cheaper.

Sweet. Get another 289, and you'll be able to get that bundle, too.

Hey, if you liked it, show me the love. Hit that heart. Once I get 300 up-votes, I can trade them in for the entire CMBN bundle on the BFC website.

I'd have to say, of all the games I've ever owned, the editor in CM is one of, if not the, strongest. Drawbacks? Sure. It can be a bit arcane, but all of the information is in the manual. Advanced techniques are available on the forum. The editor is a tool which leverages the game engine and makes CM the one game which has always been on my hard drive. Every game owner has the same tools to create battles and campaigns which were used by the developers. That's rare.

Great stuff. Some information. One of my rigs has an i7-6700k cpu. Pretty good. 4Ghz (?), 4 core/8 threads. (I forget if I have it overclocked atm.) It's paired up with an AMD R9 390 gpu driving an Asus MG279Q display. 2560x1440, Freesync capable. I've just upgraded to the latest Radeon drivers, 17.11.1 and played with the game settings. Using FRAPs, this rig drives CM (various games, various battles) at 13 fps. That sounds horrid. In actual use, if that "13" weren't sitting in the corner, I'd swear it was going near to 60 fps. Why? The fps is amazingly consistent. (Remember, movies are shown at 24 fps.) This is the power of Freesync. I can set a target framerate (in the case of CM, the target is 60. Aim for the stars. ), and the hardware tries to maintain it. (My monitor Freesync limit is 90 fps, btw.) I'm using all settings in-game maxed out and have a bunch of AMD tweaks to improve visual quality. All that data? Well, I've got the games installed on a spinner. That affects load times. In-game, I'd be reasonably certain that the game uses RAM. (This one has 64GB installed.) If I created a RAM-Disk and loaded CM onto it (or onto an NVME drive), I'd probably see load times cut down. I don't think there'd be any other changes. My point? Even a decent machine gets hit hard by CM...but it can still maintain an amazingly smooth play experience. Consistent frame rate is more important than actual frame rate.

Savegame?

I like this explosion mod. Gonna share?

Okay...something to possibly look into.

Not at all. They were a new TOE which tried to tie together production abilities and lessons learned. One of those lessons was the effectiveness of automatic weapons. You should find that one complete squad in each platoon is fully equipped with StGs. They're the Assault Squad. You could dive into the editor and strip out the non-StG squads and have as many StGs as your heart desires.

I read an account of that action. It was a pretty desperate time for the US guys. Iraqis had 'em. The Javelin was brand new and one guy on the team had been trained on it. By "trained", he was shown the controls, given a manual, and then they were given a bunch. As the Iraqi mech company came at them, they grabbed the Javelins and launched right away.

Part of it is, to me, the lack of survival behavior by the gunners. As rounds crack by or ping off the shield (if there), they stay on the gun. Now, as an offensive player (or, so I've been told by many who've left in a huff ), I like the gunners' dedication. However, a bit of duck and cover and then coming back up would be good. Or, if you're getting pinged by a rifleman off to your 2 o'clock, swivel the damn gun and spray down the likely areas of cover rather than staying on your suppressive duty. The other part is the ability to hit a tiny target behind a shield. It seems to be a bit over-represented in-game...imho. So, a little too much accuracy and a lot too much of "stick to your gun". The solution? Keep the tracks back so the enemy accuracy falls off such that only a lucky shot hits the gunner.

Yeah...but even so, you'd be well served to keep that gunner's head down or keep that 'track about 300-500m away from the enemy and just use them for suppressive fire, not point fire.

Grrrrrrr.

Not excusing the Javelin behavior, but, you are aware it has a minimum range? (~75m) That may have had something to do with it. Certainly seems odd.

The "Self Propelled Gu" is the German spelling. In English, it's the "Self Propelled Goo". That big tube sticking out the front? It's the Goo Projector. The idea was to lay down a zone of Super Goo; kinda like fly paper. The enemy infantry and vehicles would get stuck and then they would be easy pickings. Welcome back!

If you copied your files over, the original resolution is probably still in the ini file. Update it to match your new resolution.

I'm quoting Schrullenhaft because my post will seem much more accurate and helpful if I include anything he's written. Consider him the Oracle.

If the holes create drag, they're doing their job. Hell, a chunk of rope tied to the end would be about as good.

Freesync is free. AMD only charges a few cents for screen manufacturers to use the licensed technology. The "cost" comes in when you realize that only AMD cards can utilize Freesync. Nvidia charges ~$200 (+) for the Gsync license fees. Those screens show that price. Again, only Nvidia cards can use Gsync. (Some of the Gsync monitors are 144Hz. Those are more expensive than vanilla 120Hz and then they also add in the Gsync fees.) CPU. Although the game is cpu bound, there is more to it than just "does my cpu meet minimums or recommended". CM, like most games, is not even close to multi-core capable. It has offloaded one of its subroutines to a second core (if available), but most of the game runs on a single core. (This is a simplification...because that's about the limit of my understanding. ) Core speed is more important than multicores or thread throughput. (Most cpus are pushing multi these days, and bragging on it. None of that helps CM.) So, a good core speed is more important than more cores. (I wouldn't put less than 4 cores/4 threads in anything these days. Gotta let some background stuff run...) In addition to the cpu core speed, the data throughput is important. I don't know what that means wrt CM. I do know that "better" rigs run CM faster. I don't know if bus width, memory controller, RAM speed, RAM size, swap file, cache size, pipelines, or anything else matters more than any other. All else being equal (big weasel words there), an AMD 12 core/24 thread "Threadripper" (gotta love their marketing names!) at 3.5GHz will not run the game any faster than an i3 2 core/2 thread cpu at the same 3.5GHz. AIUI. Maybe some day... A balanced system with emphasis on data manipulation rather than video creation will provide a better CM experience. IMO.

@Hister Some comments. Your buddy who stated that the 2560 vs 1920 screen shouldn't be that much of a strain...must be talking about other games. Those games may be cpu bound, not gpu bound. In that case, the 33% greater load your widescreen places on the gpu is not the limiting factor. However, be sure that 33% greater pixels on a screen is, and will be, a 33% greater load on the gpu. Every time. It may not cause a 33% change in fps...but that's because of other factors limiting the framerate. For CM series, as IanL stated and you've discovered, there's not a lot of link between gpu and framerate. This game is MUCH more dependent on data throughput than other games. On one of my rigs I've got CM on a hard drive. A WD Black. This particular rig has 64GB of RAM. That doesn't matter. The load times are ridiculous. I cannot imagine the amount of data being pulled off the drive and manipulated. Putting CM on an SSD makes a HUGE load time difference. That gives an inkling of the data being pushed around. For smoothness, I've found that using Freesync/Gsync gives great results with CM. Those low frame rates don't seem so slow when it's all linked. Ken

Known.

Ahh. "Shuttlecock", as in all things from the motherland, sounds so much better. TBH, I was not fully caffeinated when I tried to pull the proper word. I shall reset the coffeemaker timer to an earlier hour so this will not happen again.

The holes helped. Think about a badminton birdie. The lack of mass behind the cg means that the aerodynamic center is aft of the cg...leading to a stable, non-spinning, round. Or, to put it in "normal" terms: the center of mass is in the front of the object. The aerodynamic center is further aft. That's the role of the holed sleeve. These would be fired with "blanks". They had extremely short ranges, so accuracy only had to be "good enough". (I have my suspicions that the main role was to keep the men's morale up so they would stay put when the enemy tanks first started coming their way. After that, it was moot whether or not they wanted to leave. They were already committed.)

Well, I decided to fire up "BP1 The Copse" on a much more powerful machine...and only got 20fps with that initial shot. (Now, 20 is 33% better than 15...). This machine is MUCH better than the FX8350/670 rig. I do keep all options checked and I have not dug into my various control panel AA settings and whatnot. @Hister, I'll dig into this a bit. Remember, though: My fps went way up once I moved the camera around. There may be something with one of the high-res (close LOD) models which eats up gpu cycles. And, I'm running some mods. In order to get apples to apples, we'd have to rip into all that stuff.

@Hister At IanL's request for assistance, I'll my info. (Hey, if Steve wants you to move this, I'd suggest a Moderator move the entire thread...) I've got a machine with roughly similar specs. GTX 670 (4GB of Vram, vs the "standard" card's 2GB) vs. your GTX 660Ti Let's dive into those, for the moment. I've got mine driving a 1920x1080 screen. Yours is pushing a widescreen 2560x1080. So, simple maths tell us that your card has a 33% greater load on it...for every frame...than mine does. Looking at hardwarecompare.com (which only lists the 2GB version of my card), some interesting stats pop up: Mine is 24% better at Firestrike; 33% better Memory Bandwidth; 33% better pixel rate. None of this is directly transferable to CM performance, but it does give a sense of how our cards stack up. I feel comfortable stating that the 670 4GB is probably about 33% better performance than the 660Ti. (Call it 25% if you want. Shrug. These are rough comparisons.) Given that performance difference AND the extra pixels your card is pushing, with our cards and our screens, I'd expect my 670 to perform about 75% better. (1.33 * 1.33 = 1.76. 33% better performance times 33% fewer pixels). Rough numbers. (By the way, I'm working this out as I type. That performance difference is FAR greater than I'd expect. CPU: the machine I'm looking at has an AMD FX 8350 (running stock at 4GHz). It has 16GB of Ram (crap! I just checked: the RAM is only at 1600MHz. WTF?) , running Win10 on an AMD mobo (Asus M5A88M, bios v1702). (After this, I'm going to have to rip into that RAM and see why I have it so low.) Comparing CPUs, there is about the same difference in performance. Overall, I'd expect about 33% to 50% better performance than you're seeing. Let's boot it up and find out... Huh. I cannot find "The Copse". Back in a jiff... Edited...and I'm back. Loaded "BP1 The Copse". All in-game options as high as they go, same screen location as you and FRAPS shows 15. More, anon. (This is worse than I thought...but still smooth. It is also the lowest I see. If I move the camera around, my fps goes up to 60 (where I have it capped).)