Gyrene

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> Hmm, is the consensus on this forum then that Hitler never really intended to invade Britain? That the "planned invasion" was more to mislead the Soviets then an actual plan...<hr></blockquote> I don't think that opinion is in the majority here, but is a point that has some merit, I personally think that Hitler was way over his head in attempting to invade Britain, but he was serious about it nevertheless. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> I think Hitler would have gone ahead with it, had the Luftwaffe been able to achieve complete air superiority. <hr></blockquote> Complete air superiority was nowhere near being accomplished, and I think this is more evidence on how much Hitler & Goering underestimated and underplanned the whole operation, the lack of planning for sea superiority was also another major oversight. If the Luftwaffe had managed to gain total air supremacy the British were still left with the option to heavily mine or even destroy their East facing harbors stretching further the german supply lines and possibly forcing patrolling Luftwaffe aircraft to fly over English AA defenses on a regular basis. Gyrene

Could any of those river barges safely cross the Chanel? Were any used at Dunkirk, for example? If I'm not mistaken they are flat bottomed and have little freeboard. Gyrene

Nope, no changes. I makes you wish that macs still came with Radeons. lol Gyrene

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> OpenGl 1.2.2? Where?!? Er...I hesitate to ask this, but...does it fix the skies for Nvidia? <hr></blockquote> OpenGL is up to 1.2.2 with OS9.2.1, and it don't solve the NVidia problem. Sorry. Gyrene

That's the link! I found my house. Gyrene

On the matter of range, both the 7.62 and the 5.56 are just as accurate at ranges of 400 yards and below, and most engagements happen well within that distance, the 7.62 will have more energy left at that range, of course, but the 5.56 is still considered effective at 400 yards also. I doubt that soldiers in a firefight would care whether they are getting shot at by 5.56 or 7.62, they would not be able to tell the difference much, as if they were getting shot at by a .50 cal. Most, if not all military standard issue ammo are solid core FMJ rounds as denoted by the Geneva Convention (No hollow points allowed) and all overpenetrate the human body and are very good against light cover light wooden buildings & such. The extra penetration of a 7.62 would seem to give it an edge, but the higher volume allowed by the 5.56 evens things out. Miniguns firing 7.62 in Air Force service in Vietnam were held to be just as good as .50 cal's in penetrating the Jungle canopy when fired from Jolly Greens solely due to the minigun's huge rate of fire. If heavy body armor (Beyond flak jackets) ever becomes widespread, then a heavier cartridge like the 7.62 would be at the advantage, but as it stands both 5.56 & 7.62 will go thru common "Second Chance" type vests. One of the more dangerous rounds you can face is the lowly .22LR, whose slow speed leaves a large entry wound and almost always deviates course in the body and does not exit, causing a very complicated and dangeorus wound to treat. Gyrene

If I'm not mistaken it's been done a couple of months ago, someone even a a link to satellite pictures of neighborhoods to help with the map making. Gyrene

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>By Kingfish: The invasion of Britain would not have been Germany's first attempt at amphib operations. The Norwegian campaign was launched with less planning, fewer troops, longer LOCs and against both British and French opposition, yet it was a complete success. <hr></blockquote> I'm not too familiar with the Norwegian campaign, how much opposition did the Germans face at the landing sites? Did they secure existing port facilities or did they land over a beach? Gyrene

"Lewzer" actually. Cmon, you guys really needed a translator? Ph33r my l337 5k1LLz!!!! I 0wNz j00 4LL! GyR3n3

Suppose that the Luftwaffe managed to quell down the RAF and the german Army proceeded with the invasion, my question is: How were the Germans planning on getting their troops ashore? If I am not mistaken, not only did Germany have very little if any experience with opposed Amphibious landings, I don't think they even had any specialized amphibious ships or landing craft other than the odd Land-Wasser-Schlepper. A huge undertaking, like the invasion of Britain, surely would not be the time for Germany to learn the unforgiving art of amphibious warfare, granted that Britain did not have the same amount of time to prepare as Germany did just before Overlord and that Paratroop use could have been very successful. I guess in hindsight it was a smart decision for Germany not to start landing troops before the air campaign had ended, as it would have been doubtful that Germany could have maintained it's supply lines to support a beachhead in the face of the remaining RAF & with Britain's more powerful Navy; Germany could have been faced with it's own Dunkirk. Gyrene

I think it's a cool idea. Grogs will probably hate it. Gyrene

What are you trying to open with? Stuffit Expander, I assume? Have you tried dowloading the file more than once? If you still have a problem I could email you the patch if your email account can handle the 5.6Mb size. Gyrene

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> Shooting Hitler in 1916, or finding him a girlfriend in about 1922, might have made all the difference, no? <hr></blockquote> Don't forget "Keeping him away from goats" Gyrene

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> The basic problem with these arguments is that they often attribute infalilibility to one side while assuming that the other side would have made the same mistakes all over again. <hr></blockquote> My main reason for even bringing this up. I've yet to see one of these "what if's" from the Allied side, as opposed to the weekly "If Germany had Me262's in 1943 the Allies would be toast" threads. Just trying to balance the board a bit Gyrene

There are hundreds of discussions on the web about "Germany would win if" topics, dozens in this forum alone, so here's a twist: What could have the Allies have done to win the war quicker, perhaps one year or more earlier than they did? Would a heavy tank like the M6 having showed up in Europe made a difference? Maybe even the T28 & T29 prototypes? Should the Americans have pushed more aggressively at Anzio? What if France had held out longer? Could the US in particular, be able to afford to put the Pacific campaign in the back burner & turned the USMC & MacArthur's forces towards Europe? Should the USSR have been better prepared & trained to tackle the Germans "Just in case?" Some stuff to mull over. Gyrene

Sounds hopeful, I'm really looking forward to not having brush textures replaced by flag .bmp's & other oversize resource weirdness! Gyrene

I read on a thread here on this forum a while back that the Mac version of CMBB will use the same Data folder system as the PC version instead of resource files, is this true or is this something for CM2? I hate having to hand fix resources after adding high res mods and a PC like system would be welcome. Gyrene

CM runs great in my UNIVAC, the graphics are a little slow on the paper tape printout, but they look great. The UNIVAC helps to keep the house warm too, almost like being in a tank. Gyrene

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Why would it be illegal for BTS to update their own code to Apple's specs for RAVE under X? <hr></blockquote> I thought you meant to tweak the RAVE extension itself. My mistake. BTS can do whatever it wants to CM, of course. Gyrene

I was trying to make CM run on my Sinclair ZX-81, but I ran out of memory after loading only the CM icon. Gyrene

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> Wondering: Why recode to carbonize? Why not just 'fix' the current RAVE engine to make it compatible with the RAVE shim in Classic? That can't be that big a change for a single developer. At least that way CMBO and CMBB would be playable under OS X / Classic and 9.X without any of the current issues! Apple's developer site has all the info on the current RAVE stuff. Has anyone proposed this yet? <hr></blockquote> Well, I suppose I third party could tweak the Rave extensions to get CM to work (And maybe fix the GeForce drivers while they're at i ) It's way beyond me, and it's possibly illegal for BTS as a company to do, same as it would be for Apple to patch CM, but maybe some kind independent soul could tackle this. Gyrene

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> Yeah, I put a Radeon in my 8600, and it works great. <hr></blockquote> That is a set up I'd like, I've been toying with the notion of hot-rodding an old power mac and the 8600 tops my list. (9600's are nice, but still too much, plus they don't always have the A/V ports, which is something I could make good use of.) I'm very impressed by old macs' ability to hold their value, an old 7500 can still be brought to current standards and is still worth some money bare, can't say the same thing for a PC of the same age. What did you do to your 8600 to bump it up? How do other games run on it? I love the Radeon card, I ditched the GeForce2 MX card from my DP 533 G4 and I will very likely be replacing it with another ATI card when the time comes. Gyrene

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> I counted 56 elephants to boot normally but 67 elephants to wake from hibernation <hr></blockquote> Are there little animated elephants in Win 2K? Just curious Gyrene

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> Maybe if more people contact Apple? <hr></blockquote> I have Apple's service plan for my new Mac, so I'll start bugging them about it. Gyrene

Thanks for the reply Jaypee, but i should have been a little more specific on my previous post. I got the game to run like you did, in software rendering mode (i.e. no help from the video card), and what I was wondering is if anyone actually got CM to run with hardware acceleration in anything above 640x480. Gyrene