Peter Panzer

...get back and keep your heads down, this is gonna be a big one... Admittedly, I am in the minority on this board, which is to say I believe CMSF:M has a respectable amount of room for needed improvement. The game shows flashes of real brilliance, but it never fails to follow up with something to kill the next moment. There are still too many unaddressed details and principal issues, some of which remain from the earliest days of the title, to make v.1.10 a truly engrossing experience. What's more, it appears the title may be moving into the last phase of support. I understand development cycles are not indefinite, priorities must be assigned, the list of suggestions is lengthy, nothing is perfect and BFC needs to pay their mortgages. I am not asking for new, intensive features like those bandied about the board (i.e. amphibious operations, heliborne insertions. etc.). Rather, I am appealling to BFC to please focus on the existing, rough hewn pieces of the game, such as WEGO playback, vehicle pathing and infantry commands, so they function in a convincing, consistant manner before closing the door on CMSF. "Small things" make the game. With all due respect to BFC, new models/content do not mean a thing if players can't use them properly because they do not reliably behave in a credible manner. This one is still a rough gem, it would be a damn shame to leave it so coarse. BFC, please do what is possible to resolve these issues in v.1.11: WEGO Playback: Vehicle pathfinding has taken a surprising step backwards in v1.10, especially when vehicles are around trees. Saved game file available. Vehicles sometimes stutter and hitch in a vertical motion during slow movement. This is accompanied by corresponding stuttering in the sound effects. This happened four times in a period of 12 minutes during WEGO. Multiple saved game files available. Vehicles sometimes hitch vertically when moving over uneven terrain or rotating in place. This is similar to the glitch above, however it happens much more frequently and the sound error does not occur Infantry models sometimes revert to a stark, bolt-upright position ("scarecrow?") at waypoints during WEGO playback. They then resume their appropriate movement animation/posture once the remainder of the squad arrives at the waypoint. The net effect is needlessly jarring and detracts from the otherwise well designed animations. Infantry models often slide (no run/walk animation) into final positions. This occurs frequently. Small arms disappear from infantry models when they are mounting vehicles. Craters, structures and foliage damage does not reset when a turn is played backInfantry Commands: Why can't "Face" and "Target Arc" commands be issued simultaneously in WEGO? If you want to park a vehicle in an alley with the hull oriented to make a quick getaway and the gun pointed elsewhere you are often out of luck. Why does it first require an entire turn to "unhide" in order to then issue a follow up command in WEGO? Shouldn't it be reasonabe to accomplish both in a single turn? "Face" commands cannot be executed by units that are hidingModels: The M16A4 hanguard is too short. The barrel and gas tube of the M16A4 are not exposed the way they are depicted in CMSF:M LAV-25 troop compartment doors remain open when troops mount the vehicle (I believe BFC may already be aware of this) AFV main guns remain at the elevation of their last target rather than realigning perpendicularly with the hullTO&E: The MEU TO&E lists a "SBCT" Howitzer battery (...now that's combined arms) USMC Escort Platoon "Equipment" rating is backwards (Mk19=Poor, M2=Excellent) User entered names ("Rename" function) for HQ units do not appear "in-game"Bless your trodden soul if you actually read all of that.

Scipio: I absolutely love these types of practical, measured and well executed mods! Furthermore, I am a stout believer that it is the "little things" that ultimately make the game. This work definitely brings a new layer of appeal to the UI. Very well done sir. Have you considered redesigning the floating unit icons? If not, you certainly should. Mord: The same goes for you subdued unit base mod - simple and effective. Much appreciated.

Steve/BFC: I understand your team cannot dwell on a title indefinitely and you are to be commended for advancing CMSF as far as you have. That said, there are obvious issues remaining with this game particularly in regard to WEGO playback. In the past, several of the items below were sidelined due to prioritization concerns or because they were "only visual" in nature. If further updates for CMSF are in the process of winding down, please let this be the time to address the following issues in v1.11: Vehicle pathfinding seems to have lost some of its fidelity in regard to plotted waypoints in v.1.10 Infantry models often slide (no run/walk animation) into final positions during WEGO playback Vehicles sometimes hitch vertically when moving over uneven terrain during WEGO playback Small arms disapper from infantry models when they are remounting vehicles in WEGO Structural damage and craters do not reset when a turn is playback in WEGO Vehicle movement playback in WEGO is sometimes choppy. This is typically accompanied by a stutter in the vehicle movement sound effect (save game file available) The M16A4 hanguard is too short. The barrel and gas tube of the M16A4 are not exposed the way they are depicted in CMSF:M LAV-25 troop compartment doors remain open when troops remount the vehicle (I believe BFC may already be aware of this) "Face" commands cannot be executed by units that are hiding AFV main guns remain at the elevation of their last target rather than realigning perpendicularly with the hull The MEU TO&E lists a "SBCT" Howitzer battery USMC Escort Platoon "Equipment" rating is backwards (Mk19=Poor, M2=Excellent) User entered names ("Rename" function) for HQ units do not appear "in-game"If I may suggest one new "feature:" the ability to directionally deploy smoke would be great. I hope you will agree that the items above are by no means pie-in-the-sky requests, rather they are aimed at removing lingering rough edges to existing mechanics. Lastly, is v1.11 planned to be released in conjunction with the British Module or is it on a faster/slower timetable?

M1: That is looking quite good - enhanced without becoming busy. Nice compromise with the goggles too! They are reminiscent of the SG-1 eyewear produced by WileyX. Here's hoping you are able to crack the code in order to make different versions available. Here are some other miscellaneous points: The dust on the M16A4 is a very nice touch. If you really want bonus points, you could add wear marks around the receiver edges, ACOG, forward assist, etc. where the parkerization has been worn off. Making the pouches woodland pattern is a great detail, good eye. The coloring of the center-carrier magazine pouches is off - perhaps you haven't got that far yet. Frankly, I think the "undershirt," looks fine the way you presented it in the last image despite the color variation.Keep up the good work, this one is shaping up nicely! I am impressed there are folks like you who are able to selflessly devote so much time to the community. Thank you.

...don't get wobbly on us man! Here is my feedback: Can you swap out the stock eye pro for a pair of transparent and/or yellow tinted Oakleys? This may require making the stock goggles transparent and adding new faces akin to your US Army mod. Crafting several alternatives would be fantastic. The stock textures make the Marines look overly uniform and robotic in my opinion. The camelback, horizontal straps and the K-Bar in the fourth image are outstanding! Personally, I would "vote" to remove the carabiner, zipties and the white undershirt. Something about them doesn't measure up to the rest of the work.Everyone's a critic, eh?

I suspected as much - thanks anyways. I suppose this will be one for v.1.11. M1: Glad to see you have started your work on the USMC uniform mod! I am really looking forward to seeing what you do with the eye protection. Hopefully, you can supply several different alternatives as you did in your previous US Army version.

Hello everyone: Can one of you capable folks apply your skills toward correcting the M16A4 in CMSF:M? The current version shows the barrel/gas tube exposed just before the front sight base - this is not correct. When the texture/model was created either the RAS texture was not long enough or the AN/PEQ2 was supposed to be placed further up the rail. I tried some cutting and pasting in Photoshop, but I was unable to correct the issue. Perhaps one of you guys will have better luck. In any event, it would be great to have the primary USMC small arm displayed properly in the game. Thanks for having a look! Here is a reference... CMSF:M An actual M16A4:

I figured out why this "omission" made it "...through months of testing." Turns out the game is working as intended and I was wrong. Go figure. Somehow, I got it into my head the idle animations continue between turns in WEGO. This is not the case - they actually stop after the action phase and begin again during the subsequent turn. Viewing the models during the interim between turns gave me the false impression they were "frozen." Sorry about the confusion. I did note I have only spent a little bit of time with the game, right?

I figured out why this "omission" made it "...through months of testing." Turns out the game is working as intended and I was wrong. Go figure. Somehow, I got it into my head the idle animations continue between turns in WEGO. This is not the case - they actually stop after the action phase and begin again during the subsequent turn. Viewing the models during the interim between turns gave me the false impression they were "frozen." Sorry about the confusion. I did note I have only spent a little bit of time with the game, right?

I originally posted this in the "...First Impressions," thread but perhaps it belongs here as well... Here are some quick points after spending a little bit of time with CMSF:M... The Bad: USMC Infantry lack "idle" animations (there's a joke here somewhere). How did that make it through months of testing? The M16A4 hanguard is too short. The barrel and gas tube of the M16A4 are not exposed the way they are depicted in CMSF:M. The primary small arm of the Corps is misrepresented? Tsk, tsk. On the other hand, every rifleman has apparently been issued an ACOG, bonus. Vehicle movement playback is sometimes choppy. This is typically accompanied by a stutter in the vehicle movement sound effect (save game file available). WEGO playback still needs work in terms of infantry models sliding (no run/walk animation) into final positions and vehicles hitching vertically when moving over uneven terrain. "Face" commands still cannot be issued to units that are hiding. USMC Escort Platoon "Equipment" rating is backwards (Mk19=Poor, M2=Excellent) User entered names ("Rename" function) for HQ units do not appear "in-game."Questions: Could some of the obvious points like the M16A4 handguard and lack of idle animations be added to the upcoming download version of v.1.10? Will the Mk.19 Humvee variant be avilable to US Army units in v.1.11?

You are quick on the draw today M1. I was thinking more along the lines of what you did above - that is perfect. Hell, now that I've got you on the line, I wouldn't mind seeing you retouch the Marines Camelbacks too. Thank you for being game and for lending your time!

M1A1TC: Thanks for the lightning reply! That would be great, your work really adds a lot to the game! If you also authored the Syrian Face Mod, thank you for that as well - talk about raising the bar....

Here are some quick points after spending a little bit of time with CMSF:M... The Bad: USMC Infantry lack "idle" animations (there's a joke here somewhere). How did that make it through months of testing? The M16A4 hanguard is too short. The barrel and gas tube of the M16A4 are not exposed the way they are depicted in CMSF:M. The primary small arm of the Corps is misrepresented? Tsk, tsk. On the other hand, every rifleman has apparently been issued an ACOG, bonus. Vehicle movement playback is sometimes choppy. This is typically accompanied by a stutter in the vehicle movement sound effect (save game file available). WEGO playback still needs work in terms of infantry models sliding (no run/walk animation) into final positions and vehicles hitching vertically when moving over uneven terrain. "Face" commands still cannot be issued to units that are hiding. USMC Escort Platoon "Equipment" rating is backwards (Mk19=Poor, M2=Excellent) User entered names ("Rename" function) for HQ units do not appear "in-game."The Good: Capturing the essence of the combined arms doctrine of the USMC - more than just new hardware, the game delivers a sense of the differing tactics and organization between the US Army and the Corps. That's big, good job! The Abrams testicles finally dropped, area fire with the 120mmm is now possible - thank you! New US Army AFV's - ERA and TUSK, two great tastes that go great together. Off map cover arcs - much easier to use and more effective. Secondaries - fabulous touch The ability to check LOS in the scenario editor Action spot markers - more information regarding pathfinding is a good thing. New sound effects, especially the CAS/Artillery - informing the player of in-game activity while adding to immersiveness in a convincing way, very well done. New vehicle models - a strength from the very beginning, CMSF:M continues the trendQuestions: Could some of the obvious points like the M16A4 handguard and lack of idle animations be added to the upcoming download version of v.1.10? Will the Mk.19 Humvee variant be avilable to US Army units in v.1.11?Mod Request: Would someone be willing to mod the USMC infantry helmet to remove the googles? The opaque, black eyewear makes the infantry look too uniform and robotic.Someone did a fantastic face mod for the BLUFOR infantry way-back-when, perhaps that fellow is still around?

Roger that.

Thanks Moon. It has been hinted that the list of fixes in v1.10 is somewhat substantial - I am very eager to see it for myself! To confirm, v1.10 is included as part of the USMC download, right? As always, thanks for taking the time Steve. Alas, the sun will still rise. Frankly, I was thrilled to see the addition of the US Army IFVs. Especially welcome is the ERA equipped M2/M3's - anything to potentially take some of the edge off of the tandem warhead stuff floating around. True - better to know prior to release so I can delete my current force selections and have a clean slate ready for the "first team" hardware. Congratulations to all of you for wrapping up the first module. Like the others, I am looking forward to giving it a good shake down.

A few quick questions: Will the new US Army AFV's in v.1.10 automatically be applied to existing scenarios with the appropriate "Equipment" settings when the latest version of the game is installed?I am hoping to avoid having to manually reorganize BLUFOR units in all of my scenarios to get the desired force mix after v1.10 is available. Will a comprehensive v1.10 "fixes list" be part of the USMC download?The new models and TO&E are very impressive, but it is the improvements to the game mechanics that interest me the most. Thanks for any clarification.

Piecekeeper: No problem, I actually thought it was pretty funny. I am beginning to develop a warped sense of pride in reporting issues and making suggestions that, apparently, only I find nettlesome or helpful. Bonxa: I agree with hoolaman, don't be shy about posting any bugs you are encountering. Otherwise, you will be left waiting several months for the next patch release to find out if they can be addressed - better to report them now and let BFC make the call. Poking into the dark corners of the game and giving our feedback to the developers whether it regards "gamebreaking" or "minor aesthetic" issues is one way the community can help the game reach its full potential. I simply wish there was a way to better close/update the information loop between when an issue is reported and when/if it is to be corrected in a given patch. In any event, there is a lot of great, new stuff in store for us with v.1.10. I can only hope that some of the outstanding, old issues on my "cannot-lead-a-fulfilled-life-until-this-is-fixed" list have been tended to as well. What do you have to cajole these guys with to get them to cater to your personal whims?

Well, you know an idea has legs when the thread is dominated by off-topic, late-evening-posting Swedes and your own rambling. Can I at least get some love for this part? Here are a few things I would welcome fixes for in v.1.10: M1's will not use their main guns when executing an "Area Fire" command when targeting open terrain or unidentified targets. Infantry cannot execute a "Face" command while "Hiding." AFV guns do not realign to a paralell position with the hull of the vehicle after engaging steeply angled targets.

The Steel Beasts list is somewhat similar to what I have in mind - thanks for the example. I am curious about the utility of adding a "preview" phase in the patch cycle whereby a more-or-less specific list of bug fixes is presented to the community for feedback. Again, the key piece being that BFC would remain in the driver's seat of the "user comment" process. Currently, issues are reported across the forum and then disappear from view perhaps to resurface after the update is released. Could an intermediate phase be useful in this process? For all of the diversions a game community brings, it can also be a valuable asset if tapped into appropriately. I see the customer base as more than a source of revenue, but also a wider source of ideas and a bulwark against insularity.

Is there any interest on the part of BFC in posting the bug fixes that v.1.10 will bring to the fore prior to the update's release? This could be a valuable way to garner broad, last-minute feedback from the community with the added benefit of allowing time to implement any potential suggestions. Obviously, BFC would maintain their design schedule, filter suggestions and assign priorities, however this kind of pre-release communication could provide a great opportunity to get some useful distance from the work and further open the door for any "good-catch" moments from the customer base. Here are a few things I would welcome fixes for in v.1.10: M1's will not use their main guns when executing an "Area Fire" command when targeting open terrain or unidentified targets. Infantry cannot execute a "Face" command while "Hiding." AFV guns do not realign to a paralell position with the hull of the vehicle after engaging steeply angled targets.Any thoughts?

Hello George: Thank you for the quick reply. I am not trying to embarrass or "tattle on" the tester I was working with as I found him to be a friendly and devoted fellow, but I believe he may have slipped up in protocol if what you state is correct. Please let me know what I can do to help and my thanks to all of you for your work.

Another little bug taken out of the mix - well done. It really is a pleasure to see the community, testers and developers working together to advance the game! Beta Testers/BFC: I am genuinely curious, is an error like the one c3k reported considered an "aesthetic" or "cosmetic" issue? To be up front, I recently reported a bug dealing with AFV gun elevation not reorienting, but was informed this was a low priority item and a bug report would not be submitted. Can someone please help me understand the bug report "chain-of-command?" If an issue is reported and confirmed shouldn't it be passed along to the developers? Shouldn't the developers decide the priority of bug fixes with the Beta Testers serving as the community contacts and "proofing" agents? I am not looking for any drama here, rather I am looking for a touch of clarification and consistency in the process. As always, my thanks.

Hello Dima: File sent - details are included in the body of my e.mail. Your responsiveness is very much appreciated. Hopefully, this will be an easy one to correct as well! By the way, if you fellows really want to get fancy, showing stabilized main gun systems tracking a point on the horizon while the vehicle moves over broken terrain would be a splendid detail. Recoil would be nifty as well. All in due time I suppose - keep up the good work.

Thanks Mark - hopefully that will be an easy one. Question: Can the issue with AFV main guns sometimes remaining depressed after engaging low angled targets be addressed for v.1.1? Just as often as not, the gun will fail to re-elevate into a parallel position with the hull after doing so. I originally thought this was the visual cue for a damaged main gun, however it appears to just be a bug. This can be reproduced by placing enemy infantry in very close proximity to an AFV causing the gun to depress. Once the infantry is eliminated, the main gun will remain at the low angle for the remainder of the scenario. Oddly, it will elevate when engaging new targets, but will then return to the depressed position afterwards. I have especially noticed this with M2/M3's. I hope this helps. Please let me know if additional details are necessary.

I will certainly do my best to make this small, upcoming mod available to the community after the release of the USMC module. I see it as a way of giving back, especially to all of those who have added so much enjoyment to the game for me over the years. Will do. As a starting point, it would be great to have different portraits assigned to AFV crews, JTAC's, FO's, etc.. I was a bit surprised to discover this was not already in place. Then again, if we can get flyover sound effects for CAS, who is to say?