c3k

Funny...that's what a lot of my pixeltruppen say to me, too.

You found the morsel I left behind! Thank you. I shall savor this moment, for it, like the taste of victory, is much longed-for, but ever so fleeting.

Still frozen. Hopefully Baneman (to whom I doff my hat in salute) will be able to fire up a turn and unthaw this aar. (My understanding is that he has some RL stuff that needs to take priority over this. The details are his to share, or not. Please don't grill him about it.) I'm sure the flame of his desire to continue burns as brightly as does mine. Like a torch in the night, this aar serves as a bacon for those hungry for more! I can say no more. Ken

Yes, but testing versus sampling is different. We're not at the test phase yet. We're getting some behavior samples. Repeatable, and saved, and hence useful.

Thanks. Yeah, the buttoned-up passengers getting hits is odd. I can only imagine there's some sort of ballistic drop being modeled, as if the shooters are dropping their rounds in. Or there's something else going on.

Okay...thanks. (I've got a little bit of experience shooting with M16s and, now, AR15s, as well (5,000 rounds total?). Nowhere near the trigger time or experience a combat vet has. I also have fired about two thousand rounds through some Garands, so I've got a good bit of experience with how the two compare. The only stress firing was during several different "shooting village" training/timing runs. Nothing like combat. I totally agree with your range commentary. 300m is about the limit for aimed fire with iron sights at a targeted individual.) Let me put it this way: modern US roof-mount weapons have as much, or more, protection as their WWII brethren. (Some are still unshielded, like some WWII US halftracks. Some have nice armor, sights, and ballistic "glass" on the sides and back.) In the modern-era, (including Somalia), how often have US gunners been shot? Yeah. You can denigrate the training of the US adversaries, and then counter it by saying they fired from unsuppressed, ambush, positions with weapons which are easier to fire than WWII weapons. All in all, it's VERY dangerous to be heads out in firefight. (Of course, it's less dangerous to be heads out and firing then to be turtled in and hoping for the best.) Given that modern US gunners get shot (with equal or better protection), we start getting into the ranges and circumstances when that happens. That would a be a possible comparison to the WWII 251 gunner. Imperfect, but better than just saying, "I think..." Ken

That's what I do...

Representative of normal gameplay is not the same as testing. Fanatic troops will do what you ask of them, every iteration. That makes it easier to duplicate the tests. Heirloom_Tomato is showing some interesting results with his runs. I wouldn't think passengers should ever be more vulnerable than a gunner, especially from the front.

No snark: Is the bolded part real life experience or in-game? If real life, were you taking out gunners or were you manning the gun?

Well, I asked a few specific questions and never got answers. Someone says "it's broken". Isn't that enough for you?

^^^ That's the issue. DID they use tactics as aggressive as some players use? I (and others) don't think so. Remember, the CM games (up to now, with CMFI excepted) are all '44 and on. In '39, the Germans may have gotten away with close assaulting with halftracks, but by '44 the number of auto and semi-auto small arms was far higher than in '39-'41. Plus, halftracks weren't new anymore. So far there's only been some vague "feeling" that it's wrong in-game. If halftrack gunners die at 100m, well, did they die at 100m in real life, as well? It's hard to prove one way or the other using training documents. A lot of training is used to promulgate aggressiveness. That may or may not be how it is done on the battlefield. It's one thing to run about shooting blanks with smoke grenades going off. It's another doing so with real bullets and having just buried your buddy who tried it for real yesterday. A lot of players use bad tactics. A lot of players use ahistorical tactics. After doing that, they complain that something is broken. I wonder what that could be? However, maybe something isn't as accurate as it could be. So....we're at the point where someone needs to show how late war halftracks were REALLY used and what the results were. If someone says that in "battle X" halftracks rushed up to defenders, well, I'd like to know what defenders, what suppressive fire, and what halftrack casualties resulted. That gets pretty detailed and the likelihood of a report like that existing is pretty small. The question remains: how were hafltracks REALLY used in late-war, and what was the casualty rate/vulnerability of the gunners in that role? And then, does the game simulate that? The 250 crossing the trench image: to me, that was just a demonstration of its mobility, not some sort of "how to assault dug-in troops" training. If I'm in a trench and the enemy has some mounted troops in 250s (or 251s), I'd say a prayer of thanks if they tried to cross the trench.

Thanks for digging those up. Translations would make it easier.

Joey boy, thanks for misquoting my username. Demolished your stance is correct. 75 shots and no hits. Now, put my statement in context. Next, look at my other posts about how I'd test this. Next, look at the body of my work. Do you really think I'd consider a single shooter at a single halftrack in a single test to mean anything? OTHER than disproving that halftrack gunners always get shot? Really? Finally, ask if you are being constructive.

End turn: yes, the game is still doing a LOT. It's just not doing the ballistics. It still has to create the models, etc., on the fly, as you move the camera. I don't know how much data-swapping that entails, but perhaps the cpu is doing more in CM then in other games for that.

Yes. The diaries read, "Dear Diary. Today is my first day as a halftrack gunner. I'm very excited! I'll write more, tonight, after the battle." The next pages are all blank, save for the blood splatter...

And at this point, why should I use 2+ weeks of my free time for, well, an asshat? You're now on my ignore list. Thanks. Ken

And this will NEVER, in any venue, bring about desired change. Inertia is not a bad thing. BFC created CM and it has specific characteristics. You "feel" one of those characteristics needs to be changed. "It is broken and needs fixing...now." Sburke ran a test, posted the results, and showed how it totally demolishes your stance. BFC relies on data, not "It is broken and needs fixing...now", statements. You want to change something. I am willing to do the work. Like I said, as a beta, I get paid for that. (Crap. If sburke is reading this, that may cause issues. We all agreed to keep silent about the pay scale since he's the only one daft enough to do this for free.) I'm sympathetic, but if the problem doesn't exist, it doesn't exist. SHOW that it exists... Do you have savegames showing 251 gunners dying like flies...when they shouldn't? See, that's the rub. I can a lot of savegames with 251 gunners dying. But, they're getting hit with ATRs in the gunshield, or from the side, or 37mm, or frags. It's hard to isolate down to a rifleman getting a lucky shot. That's what sburke tried showing. (FWIW, when I test, I'll run hundreds of iterations at various ranges. It'll take about 2+ weeks of free time. I'll test Bren carriers, 251s, 250s, M3s, and M5s. I think.) So, "You want a real test?" was a nice intro to your post, but you then followed it with a non sequitur. Anecdotes and observations from uncontrolled situations are not tests. You need to control the variables to ascertain what's going on. Upstream is a picture of a 250 crossing a trench. Look at how exposed those guys are. It would be child's play for anyone within 50m with an auto- or semi-auto weapon to kill them. "Ahh, but that's just training", you'd say. "In battle, they'd act differently". Yeah, like not cross a trench that may be occupied. Shrug. Training is not combat. As mentioned in a lot of other places.

Two points from your post: 1. Adaptive v-sync/half-refresh rate: yeah, kind of interesting isn't it? There's a debate on a hardware site I visit frequently (Several times a day.). The reviewers are asking if fps should still be included in their gpu reviews. A lot of the responses are trending towards "Yes, but only to lend an objective credence towards your subjective evaluation." Which is my fancy way of translating, "If you say card 'x' runs game 'y' better than card 'z', back it up with numbers". As has been mentioned elsewhere, traditional film uses 24 frames per second. (There are differences between film/projectors and computer monitors. Or so I'm told. ) If film looks good at 24fps, why do we need 144fps monitors? Or, why would someone say that running game 'x' at 131fps makes it look so much better/smoother then running it at 97fps? (And, is the monitor refresh synced to those fps numbers? Etc.) We're all starting to realize that fps is a measure of gpu horsepower, not actual gameplay experience. So, you've got performance which subjectively seems better, but the objective numbers don't back it up. I would disregard the numbers. 2. The part I bolded: But it's still not what I would call decent performance when I compare graphics to hardware. Really? What are you comparing it to? Meaning, what other game tracks the ballistics of THOUSANDS of bullets; has individual AI for HUNDREDS of soldiers; computes LOS between MILLIONS of locations; and does it all in real-time while pumping out hi-res models? That's the issue: CM is NOT a traditional game. Using traditional measures of hardware performance will just frustrate you. My example, upstream, discusses this. Perhaps your hardware is screamingly good...and is reflected in your ability to load 8km x 2km maps of the Alps, filled with 6 battalions of panzergrenadier. Or, it loads a turn in 3 seconds instead of 2 minutes. THAT is where you should look for performance. Take those two points and look at what you wrote about occasional freezes and camera jumps. They seem to be two facets of the same issue. That indicates, to me, that the memory/cpu is overly stressed, not the gpu. Is it an older chipset? Slow RAM? Limited amount of RAM? Slow/single core cpu with a lot of background apps open? Etc. (The two machines I wrote about, with specs, was posted because I wanted to show real builds, not try to enhance my epeen. The one has a more powerful gpu (similar class, but widely recognized has having more "horsepower"), but a much older cpu/chipset which, in addition to being slower (3.5GHz vs. 4.?xGHz) is also far less efficient on a clock-for-clock basis. THAT is the key driver of my CM experience: cpu, not gpu.) Capping fps gives CM a better feel. Anything much below 20fps gives me judders...and also my on-screen display. A steady fps above ~20fps makes for butter smooth gaming in CM.

I'm willing to test this stuff...that is what I get paid for. Why do you say the bren carriers protect their crews better than 251s? Let's make a list of what's "wrong" and then go from there.

I'm not trying to be pedantic, but how often SHOULD hanomag gunner's die? I mean, how close do they get before they get hit? How many bullets needed for each head shot? Or, to put it another way, should they be invulnerable (except to a random lucky hit) at 100m? 300m? 500m? Sure, that charcoal sketch of a hanomag belching mg42 fire at trenches as the tracks crush the enemy sure looks cool...but we all understand that's artistic license, right? Once you posit the distance at which you think the gunshield, and the way in which it limits the nature of the gunner's exposure, should render him immune to all but a lucky shot, we can move forward.

Seedorf81, I understand your frustration with Sdkfz251 gunners being killed off, seemingly too rapidly. When you say that US halftrack gunners', "...dying rate doesn't compare to that of the Sdkfz's...", do you mean you don't compare them because it's apples to oranges, or do you mean that US halftrack gunners don't die as often/fast as Sdkfz's? If the latter, I would suggest a controlled test. I would -think- that the halftrack gunners should die faster/more often that the Sdkfz, due to the gunshield on the German vehicle. However, that would only be beneficial at a certain range. (An unsuppressed rifleman should be able to hit a 6" target at 100 yards. Toss in whatever combat modifier to that accuracy you'd like (6" at 20 yards due to fear, excitement, adrenaline?), and adjust the test accordingly.) So, there would be no difference at a close range, but once the range increases, then that gunshield should help...a lot. I like the suggestion of a cower animation to passengers to try to get them to duck down. It is my opinion/belief that the armor is correctly modeled for the various halftracks. Getting those heads below the rim of the armor would be beneficial.

I am sympathetic to the desire for better performance in-game with higher-end computers. But...I also see the NEED for adequate performance for low-end machines. To me, the oddity is comparing the performance delta with the computer delta. Double the computer does NOT get double the game performance. But, does it matter? I say, "No". I've found my gameplay to be far smoother when I cap framerate to 1/2 my screen refresh. This is NOT a first person shooter or a "twitch" game. Steady fps is more important to me than hitting the highest numbers. (And, while I don't consider myself a hard-core gamer, my wife and my gaming library may disagree. I've built over a dozen rigs for myself, used to use all sorts of 3rd party tweaking/overclocking/hardware mods/etc/etc. I keep 3 running game rigs at home (2 sons: what kind of father would I be otherwise?). About to upgrade my 1090T to an i7-6700k. That'll be nice. I guess admitting it is the first step? Crap. Maybe she's on to something?) A lot of gaming "feel" is subjective. The only way to compare games from one user to another is frequently done by using a qualitative measurement. That has been framerate, historically. That may not be appropriate to some games...like this one. I've found that using a high-end computer allows BIG maps. It allows FAST load times. It allows FAST turn times (blue bar). For example, the computer I mentioned above, running an AMD Phenom X6 1090T cpu (I've got it at 3.5GHz...I think. Shrug.) with 8GB of ram and an R9 390 (8GB) gpu (note the gpu is way "oversized" for the cpu/ram/mobo...because the cpu/ram/mobo are about to be replaced...) with an SSD for the OS and game: It is excruciating how long it takes to load a specific pbem series I'm in the midst of. I open the turn, the orange loading bar begins, and I walk away for another cup of whatever the time of day dictates I should imbibe. I can usually come back about the time the turn is ready. Or I beat it. (Computer is upstairs from kitchen. I frequently get my own drink so my intern can continue researching whatever it is that I've assigned.) Another machine, i7-4790K (stock, 4.5GHz?), 32GB ram, GTX970, can load that same turn almost faster than I can say, "Intern! Fetch me my drink!" The framerates on both are VERY similar. (One may hold steady at 28-30, the other may run 24-28. Or so.) The loading times (orange bar) and turn computation times (blue bar) are totally different. If one takes 5 seconds and the other takes 1 1/2 minutes, does that mean it's only 1:25 faster or 18 times faster? Improving "performance" by 1,700% is significant, isn't it? If I just compared min/max framerates, the two machines would seem to have performance numbers which are far closer than the loading times. I would not try to measure CM by framerate. Having said all that...I would be ecstatic if BFC found a way to run CM in such a manner that it could use all the cpu cores available. Yes, performance seems like it could be improved, but it depends on what you think "performance" means.

THIS is pure genius. Only someone familiar with Officer/Enlisted Evaluation Report system could craft such a well, err, crafted paragraph. I hope this got you your promotion...ahead of your peers.

It was this sort of "shooting the surrendering guy in the back" which occurred in one of my early CMBN beta tests. There are several "gaming moments" which are indelibly etched in my memory. That was one such moment. Totally gut wrenching when I saw it. That's one of the reasons why I heavily prefer the WeGo play: you can catch moments like this which occur across the battlefield. In RealTime you are probably going to miss it...forever. Heirloom Tomato: Nice test. Like others, I've noticed this sort of behavior for awhile and assumed we all knew about. (The way the game can increase the yellow/red/brown WIA status based on further wounding.) Pretty cool, huh? Your test was a nice way to see the benefit of buddy aid. I try to use it as much as I can. Not only does it help me get better weapons (sometimes), but it helps the WIA/KIA point balance at the end of the game, and I also get to keep any change I find in their pockets. Find another game this detailed. Ken

The front looks really good! Someone must've had a sharp eye for detail to get the barrel/mantlet positioning just right like that. Hey, the model-building elves in CM are amazing. I still love seeing the steering levers and whatnot INSIDE some of the tanks. Holy cow... And, for all the nay-sayers who ding this series, what OTHER game understands and shows the difference of having mesh coverings, or not, on their King Tiger engine decks? Ken