Cameroon

No infantry until they add it 'cause there won't be any game code that understands the "concept" of an infantry unit. Unless they jump up and tell me I'm wrong. What they've said seems pretty clear.

Thanks for pointing out that article Steve. That does sound like a viable possibility. Though, honestly, I think I'd rather see CNET get a little (big?) egg on their face. I'm sick of rumors being "reported" as "news" and "fact" by all of our news outlets.

I'll throw in my 2 cents and say that I feel that it's 99.99% unlikely that Apple is going to switch to an x86 (aka Intel/AMD) architecture. It would be suicide in every conceivable area for Apple as a company. However, Intel could manufacture or develop and produce PPC chips, or chips for a device, or something like that, without Apple hurting themselves. Assuming that the .01% possibility occurred, to make it "seamless" would be impossible. The fastest x86 chips to date couldn't emulate a PPC fast enough to make any "legacy" application work at a reasonable speed. It would drive out all the commercial Apple developers who've had to go from 680x0 to PPC and OS 9 to OS X for a niche market (of which I am part). It would destroy the "elitism" that a lot of Mac fans feel. It would demolish all of the marketing and positioning of PPC vs the "wintel world". Basically, they would throw away all their advantages (minor or not) for something that isn't terribly important (Mhz) for most people who buy Macs these days. "Hard core" gamers will buy a Windows machine for the titles, and those are your consumers who purchase high-mhz Windows systems. Switching to an x86 architecture wouldn't make any game developers suddenly switch to the Mac. The problem for game developers isn't the chip under the hood, it's the OS and libraries. So it isn't like we (Mac users) would get anything out of it except marginally faster (maybe) processors. Bottom line, I think the size of the rumor is bogus and ridiculous. I could see a "using an Intel chip for something that isn't a Mac" or partnering with Intel to make PPC chips, but not a shift to an x86 CPU.

Creepy, that, is cool.

All the stuff that's been posted so far indicates that you're free to mod units of the same basic supported types (see the post by Claytonious in the announcement thread). However, until infantry is a basic supported type, you won't be able to make infantry that moves like infantry. I suppose you could just give them very tiny wheels Personally, the units I want in an expansion or "post-release" release are infantry and walking vehicles.

Yeah, but since there's no walking mecha in DropTeam (or at least that's the impression from the posting about modding new vehicles), I don't think we'll be seeing above nifty models.

God, that would rule. Mmmmm.... geez, now you're making me want a game that likely won't ever exist. Of course, I also would drool over a tactical 'Mech game by BFC. And crunchies can definitely play a role unless you only play the current set of MechWarrior titles. If you ever read the books, crunchies were often involved and not just to squish. To throw my voice into the whole Cold War thing... I'd definitely be interested, but I'd rather have the western European setting first.

I Am Not A Lawyer (IANAL), but... TGB Software is the developer for both the LGPL Demeter engine and the DropTeam game. As such, they're free to re-license the Demeter engine (with or without modifications) as they see fit. So the LGPL version may actually be different than what TGB is using, even if they have the same name. It could also be exactly the same, but simply relicensed for inclusion into DropTeam for other reasons.

I got a memo that said all messages about DropTeam were supposed to be placed in this thread...

Go ahead, make my day. </font>

Really looking forward to seeing how this turns out. I'm very interested in seeing what a RTS plays like with all the extra detail to combat. I know it's extremely early to ask such a question, but will we get a demo?

You need to be able to change the hotkeys so that you can control the game with keys with which you are more comfortable. It drives me nuts that I can't change the keys to what I want. Sure it's a boring feature to add, but that doesn't make it unworthy. And I totally agree with you, flamingknives, on being able to bookmark certain viewing positions. It would be so nice to be able to bind whatever the current view parameters are to a hotkey. I wanted that even when all you could really change was the angle of the current view. I also wanted the sound to turn off during turn calculation, because turn processing was quantifiably faster without sound on my Mac at the time, but that's another issue entirely Hopefully it won't be an issue in CMx2 anyway.

Glad you got it figured out

Hopefully a new release of the Omega drivers or getting the official nVidia drivers will clear up your white vehicles. As for the FX v GT card... I don't know enough about the nVidia line to make any definitive statements. My feeling is that you won't really notice any performance differences unless the card is being pushed to its limits. You may want to find a review that compares the two, at least to know what to expect from your card.

I assume by "Andreas" you're referring to me ('cause he's the author of the sig I use). The Omega drivers (http://www.omegadrivers.net/) are not the official nVidia drivers, which could be the cause of your problems. The driver version would be visible from the Device Manager, but also from whatever control panel the Omega drivers use. In any case, I would suggest that the next step be uninstalling the Omega drivers and installing the official nVidia drivers. I figure we might as well keep the discussion here, so that if others run into the same problems they'll see the questions & answers (hopefully!).

Hi Sarge, you could pretty easily end up with old drivers (perhaps not ancient, but old). Drivers are updated fairly frequently, but pre-installed drivers and drivers included on driver disks are often NOT the most recent. Did you do fresh installs of the CM series or copy the folders over (not that that should matter, but let's cover the bases)? Did you check to make sure that you do have the latest drivers?

*smacks head* *sigh* Ok, after reading the right part of the CMMOS user readme, CMBO-style mods appear to be working.

I'm in the same boat. I just re-loaded CMBO and decided to give CMMOS a shot, but so far most mods that I downloaded from CMHQ get an error about not being a CMMOS mod. I thought perhaps it was a info.txt and description.txt issue, but adding those to the zip files that didn't work -- well, didn't work. I compared some that worked (like Tanks A Lot's buildings) with some that didn't work, and other than the description.txt and info.txt files, they were the same.

With the Panzer III Ls and IVGs, I believe (not having CMAK, but having CMBB) that what you're seeing is that, because of the angles, the Shermans are effectively "gaining" some slope to their armor while the Panzers are "losing" some slope. As for the Tiger, I would guess that the first penetration actually caused a KO of the Sherman, but the crew didn't immediately bail (see the forums or manual for info on the "death clock"). If the crew doesn't know the target tank is dead (no crew jumping out and not on fire), then they keep putting rounds in it.

I migrated from 9 to X over a period of about a year back when X first came out. I liked X a ton, but CM kept me rebooting into 9. As time progressed, however, I got less and less interested in booting in 9. It has nothing to do with the UI and everything to do with the fact that X works better. At least for me. I don't suggest hasty changes to those in printing and graphics professions, I've seen the nightmare that can ensue trying to get color matching et al back the way it should be Anyway, on to my unfortunate situation. If I buy CMAK, I likely won't play it because my G3 tower is now a headless server running X (it's not an option to have it running in 9, it's serving things and 9 has a tendancy to be a bad server ), my G5 can't boot into 9, and the aging iBook would play it like a dog (it can barely handle CMBB and I have to run CM over the 100mbit LAN). I really would like to be able to support CMAK, BTS and BFC. And even more, I'd really like to play CMAK, but I'm thinking I won't be getting any more CM until the next engine release. I'm not complaining, per se, but I do wish an option existed to get CM running in OS X now. At this time I just live vicariously through the forum

Because I have a life and a job? WWB </font>

Wish we could have a cover arc per turret Don't worry, I know it's wishful thinking. Still what's wrong with wishful?

Well, I'm seriously hoping that dust clouds fall under appropriate visibility rules, similar to the way sound works. Obviously dust clouds should be visible to troops who could see them, it's the nature of movement over dry, dusty terrain. And dust can rise pretty high, so simply being behind a small hill wouldn't necessarily help. So far we've been playing in a system where dust thrown up by a fast moving vehicle isn't a factor, so I'm very glad to see this being added. I'll be disappointed, however, if dust is visible everywhere by everyone all the time. It would make the feature rather useless, so I feel confident it's already been (or is being) addressed by our friendly developers. Probably it was something thought of in the very beginning.

The manual states it as 10% up, 10% down so I would say it probably is 1:1. With one caveat, I don't know when the experience changes are made (that is, before or after the casualities are removed from your OOB). So it might be possible there to end up with more experience level changes in one direction than the other.

Take a look at the "Scenario Talk" forum (or the Tips & Tricks, can't remember which -- I think there's a link in the CMBB AARs list too). It was gone over a bit, since it was so #@#$$# difficult