Jump to content

leakyD

Members
  • Posts

    320
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by leakyD

  1. Great pics. I love the skirts on the T-62. The fuel tanks on the KO'd '62 are interesting. Those things are supposed to be removed before action. I'm sure they're empty on the vehicle (or they probably would have burned up already). Thanks for sharing! "Meanwhile, Georgian and Western diplomatic officials said that Georgia had offered a cease-fire proposal to Russia, though Russian officials did not acknowledge receiving such an offer." Perhaps the Russians need an example of how they intend to "manage" territories in the "near abroad"?
  2. Good stuff, JK. Thanks for the links. I like the last sentence re: May 9 parade: "Those who wish to see Russia a weak and divided state were disappointed with the parade of May 9th, and we can only hope that they will be even more disappointed in the future."
  3. "Since then Russia has made clear in word and deed that it will do anything to prevent Nato’s expansion on its western and southern flanks." I think we'll be seeing a LOT more of these types of actions as NATO (aka U.S.) tries to rolls up as many countries as possible into their organization. So, when's the Russian Module coming out again? Oh, and please make sure we get to play with these: http://milparade.udm.ru/25/034.htm
  4. As Wicky said, Bootcamp is the best solution. VmWare/Parallels will not work w. DirectX, and therefore, not work w. CMBB/AK. Also, save yourself some headaches and use WinXP. You'll get much better results.
  5. CMBO will work in Vista. CMBB and AK will work, but Fog will not show (at least it doesn't on my Vista install). There's a discussion on using CMx1 in Vista in the CMBB forum: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=82613 Once you upgrade to modern video card (8xxx and 9xxx Geforce series), you're going to have issues playing CMx1 in Vista. I just spent most of the weekend re-configuring my machine to dual-boot XP/Vista. I'll play most of my games in XP, but when I get a new video card, I'll use Vista for DX10 gaming. After my upgrade, I'll still be able to reboot into XP for CMx1 and other stuff. Hope this helps....
  6. aw heck...that's some complete *suckage*.... So, the only "single box" solution w. a DX10 card is: 1. downgrade to XP, or 2. create a dual-boot system, with XP on a separate partition. What a total drag. This VM crap need to get out of the enterprise! I'd opt for #2, so you can play the modern games w. DX10 support in Vista, and reboot into XP for all the other stuff. I used to use System Commander, until I moved everything into VM's: http://eu.v-com.com/product/System_Commander_Home.html Gonna have to go back to the old ways when I upgrade. Back to the future? LOL ....
  7. my curiosity is peaked, so I gave it a go: CMBO demo loaded in VPC 7. Haven't played yet, or tried BO, BB or AK. I'll try loading/playing with these later... but, so far, VPC7 *seems* to be OK. *hopefully the attachment thingy works*
  8. are you saying VPC doesn't support DX in it's own VM's? If so, I guess DX isn't worth the hassles of incorporating into VM apps. Thanks MS, for making DX a total PITA to work with! I'm surprised there hasn't been a "consumer" VM app built yet. Maybe someday, when VM tech is used in the home more. Remember when a home server was considered *really* geeky?
  9. well, the only thing left is VPC: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/winfamily/virtualpc/default.mspx I don't have time to test this week, but next week is good. I'll post my findings here unless someone beats me to it. Edit - Nope, no CM's in any VM's.
  10. Wow. That's whacked. I run CMx1(BB and AK) and CMSF in Vista, so I've never tried loading CMx1 in a VM. If you were on a Mac, you could try Parallels, but, your probably not. Hmmmm...perhaps try Parallels in an OS X VM? hehe...just kidding..... Do you think using an older OS in a VM might do the trick? Perhaps Win98? Or, perhaps an older version of VMWare (3.0 or maybe 4) and Win98? 3.0 came out in 2001, so, I would think it would have better support for Win98/NT. Just an idea....
  11. DX5? Isn't that Win98/NT4 only? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directx#Release_history Software is OS dependent, not VM dependent. The VM will support whichever OS the CPU supports. Heck, I know some folks running DOS in a VM, just for the heck of it. Runs REAL fast! I even have an OS X VM, using OSx86... has issues, but it's fun to load up and play with. In due time, it'll be bug free and I can run OS X with my other VM's on the same Intel box. Currently, I have the following OS's in their own VM: Win98SE, NT4 Pro, NT4 Server, Win2kPro, Win2KServer, Win XP Pro, Win2003Server, OS X 10.4, SUSE linux 10.3 and Ubuntu Desktop 8. Hence the need for a new CPU/RAM/Video Card. I can't run more than a couple of OS's inside of Vista on a P4 2gb RAM. Additionally, the host OS assumes most of the overhead, even if you assign dedicated RAM to the VM. Ideally, I should be running XP, with Vista in a VM. I'd get better performance. But, Vista is the future, like it or not, and the sooner I get used to using it (and knowing workarounds), the better. A LONG time ago, I had 6 boxes in one room. Thank GOD those days are over....Virtualization has been an Admin's Holy Grail. So, to answer your question: Win98/NT4 support DX5, and those are the OS's to use in your VM. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_machine PS - if you really wanted to be a geek, you could run CM in a separate OS/VM and play TCP/IP on the same box (you'd have to configure the VM's IP's manually). You could them play a battle from both sides at the same time. Might come in handy for scenario designers.
  12. I've been on Vista for a little over a year (it sucks, but XP sucked when it first came out, so, in another year or so, Vista *might* be decent). I run all my older games in virtual machines w. WinXP (or even Win2000 - better performance), and use older video drivers if need be. Interestingly, I'm considering UG'ing to a quad core w. an 8800 soon. They seem to have XP drivers for the 8800 that are not DX10 only: http://www.nvidia.com/object/winxp_2k_97.94.html I used to use a 2nd box, but now with intel macs and VMWare, I don't have to waste the floor space/electricity. Hope this helps.
  13. Gotta give them time.... The way I see it is: CM:SF is, what CM:BO was: The Beginning CM:BB came out, and it cranked the engine up a notch. Plus, they gave us Eastern Front tactical combat. What WWII nutball didn't have a orgasm over that! CM:AK came out, and we had a pretty good WWII sim, but hit the ceiling in terms of the what the engine was capable of. Plenty of scenarios came out from the community that put us back into Normandy and allowed us to play the original CM scenarios with a better engine and graphics. It was great to see the CMx1 engine come around full circle. CM:SF is just the beginning with the new engine. I am confident BFC will fine tune things (ahem: you are reading, this right BFC?...) accordingly, and we will be rewarded with better experiences as time moves on. I'd like to see fast fwd, shorter turns (why can't we toggle this stuff on/off?), and better QB (not to mention a more capable AI) as well, but c'mon: put CM:BO next to CM:SF and I think you can see significant progress. Also, remember: CM:BO didn't get "final" until it hit v1.12. CM:SF has some room to grow still. In 5+ yrs, when quad core CPU's are "old tech" we're gonna be in a whole different CM. We can look back with nostalgia at how CM:SF started, and reminisce about the CMx2 engine and how much fun it was. Finally, if/when BFC decides to use the CMx2 engine in WWII ETO, we will be in for a treat. All the data is there. Let them iron out the CMx2 engine kinks in the modern world, and give the Hive-Mind (still called Charles in Terran language, yes?) something new to work with for a change.
  14. Maybe you called in a "MOAB" arty module without realizing it?
  15. Yes, the Syrians have them. However, the specific weapon systems (and tactics) the Syrians (and other RED forces) have are *quite* different than what the Russians have (and tactics employed). Traditionally, Russian units have access to weapons/technology that other countries are denied. This has been Russia's way of having a little insurance in case one of their satellite countries ends up needing a little "intervention" (Czech, Hungary, Afhganistan, Chechnya, etc). From the Global Security site: ...but, not so with the Russians. They even seem to favor this type of technology over "standard" munitions. Look at the Beslan hostage scenario here What in the HELL were the Russian units thinking, when they used (highly volatile) thermobaric technology in a hostage situation with hundreds of school children? Is this just further evidence of the Russian military's lack of regard to human life? ...and if they're perfectly willing to use this type of technology on their own children and neighbors, what the *hell* are they going to pull out of the hat with a foreign enemy? It seems, for the Russian military, when using these types of weapons, collateral damage is a non-item. It's irrelevant. Whatever! This is why I feel that when RED forces include Russian units in a future module, things are going to get VERY interesting for the BLUE player (that is, if these weapons are included and modeled correctly). [ June 16, 2008, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: leakyD ]
  16. If the CM series are going to be living in the land of "what if's" and "maybe's", then having BTR-90's for RED does not seem far fetched. It's simply a matter of time to have it (and other weapons) included in a "themed" module. I don't really see these as "wonder weapons", but am surprised at their level of accepted use, despite their volatility. If RED forces (ie - Russian) are going to be modeled, it seems these types of weapons will have to be considered for inclusion to their units. And that, I feel, will create many interesting tactical situations for us to play with.
  17. The use of RED thermobaric weapon technology will be QUITE a force equalizer, especially in MOUT. From the Wiki for the RPO-A: Basic rocket is thermobaric? Holy "Fire in the Hole", Batman! What's even more interesting, is Russian SOP for using these weapons. SOP seems to be: Use wantonly and generously. No problem. Really. From the Wiki: Remember the pics of Grozny? I always wondered what hell did that damage... It seems the Russian ability to create *significant* short range firepower has continued *quite* well after WWII. So, when's that module coming out, again? [ June 14, 2008, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: leakyD ]
  18. According to these folks: BTR-90 ...it's a new chassis, with upgrades. For me, BMP-2's are not impressive. I'd rather have a bunch of BTR-90's, w. better maneuverability, for hit-and-run tactics. BMP-3's, OTOH, might be an interesting alternative...
  19. Thanks for the link. Some good stuff in there. What I wanna know is: When do we get to play with these?" BTR-90 Or these?: RPO-A (click on the first link from the search results [uBB doesn't like "%" in the link...]) or a couple of these! (it says "short range"...): TOS-1 [ June 16, 2008, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: leakyD ]
  20. Yup, that can be done in SCENARIOS and CAMPAIGNS, but not QUICK BATTLEs. Unless you know a SCENARIO/CAMPAIGN is designed w/r/t/ ammo levels, you have to deal with the "vanilla"/"standard" TO&E ammo variable. So, the suggestion was an option to add this variable to QB's.... to add the supply variable for those not wishing to take (or having) the time to design scenarios that take supply into consideration. The idea of being penalized for using various ammo should be treaded lightly, I think. In certain circumstances, it may be justified to use a javelin (or 2!) to take out a sniper. If the mission calls for timely movement to an objective, and said sniper is holding up a whole company of infantry, the unit shouldn't be punished for this weapon. It was the right tool/weapon used to accomplish the mission. I understand the concept behind limiting "over-use" of ammo...and, yes, *something* should be implemented...it just has to be thought through, if greater realism is the end goal.
  21. 3 crew + 6 infantry = 9 troops
  22. Perhaps, as an additional option, a checkbox(s) could be added to the Quick Battle choices: ON: Standard, or "TO&E" Supply OFF: "Realistic" supply, with variable shortages. I think this could help alleviate the issues of FULL AMMO QB's, and help those wishing to play these kind of environments without going through the time of creating a custom scenario/campaign. There'd have to be a LOT of programming of the various variables, so, not sure if it's a worthwhile effort at the moment...but, it'd sure be a nice feature... As a method of force "equalization", perhaps have a QB where Blue has "realistic" ammo and Red has "Normal/TO&E". That'd be interesting, for sure... From my experience, most units are rarely FULLY supplied. There are peak moments of FULL supply, but for the most part, it's "STFU and make due with what you got."
×
×
  • Create New...