Cameroon

Heh, this would totally be easier to troubleshoot were I at the machine. Do you get any sound when it starts up (with the intro movie in)? And I imagine you've got the latest NVIDIA drivers installed, but have you tried the Beta version? It's got a fix for Quake Wars, which is OpenGL as well, so maybe it would help you out...

This is at the launch of the game? For me, that has to do with setting AA/AF in the Nvidia control panel and is cosmetic only; clicking brings up the menu screen. Maybe try setting the Triple Buffer option in your Nvidia control panel? I thought I saw someone mention that somewhere as a fix to the intro movie not showing up, maybe it would help your problem as well?

Ditto - I'm almost sure alt-tab worked in 1.01 for me though. No biggie as windows-D takes me to the desktop anyway </font>

Nope, not Vista - WinXP SP2. For awhile I was using the 94.24 drivers since they gave the best performance (going to try them again tonight if I can), but the 163.67 drivers appear to work about as well for me. Inbetween versions suffered from massive FPS penalties.

But does the same apply for those of us with 7950s and similar? I had started to write a different post and ended up with the reply to Hukka and accidentally left off that I've got a 7950 GT w/ 512 MB of RAM. I get playable framerates, but they don't change no matter what settings I turn on/off in the control panel. Campaign mission #2 and Allah's Fist both get ~20 FPS pre-alt-tab and 24-27 after with just about any combination of AF/AA, screen rez, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if the G80 memory bug is affecting the G70 series as well and I figure there's a good chance that any improvements for the G80 series will trickle down for me. I also figure it's good to get information indicating that it isn't just G80 owners that are getting performance changes from alt-tab or similar tweaks.

I've been poking around with alt-tab and it appears that it raises the FPS because CM ends up shortening the draw distance for 'doodads' (2d graphics of grass and such). Try this: Do the alt-tab and record your FPS Now, use shift-] to increase from Balanced to Better and record your FPS Use shift-[ to go back to Balanced and check your FPS again If it's like my experience (7950 GT w/ 512 MB), you'll be back at yours starting FPS. Run through the procedure again and you'll probably notice after the alt-tab that the grass isn't drawn as far out (again, if it's like my experience).

Grrr - reading this here at work makes me really wish I were home playing CM We're all getting hit by the QB troop purchasing (Mishga and I were discussing it in the tech support forum) and it's really unfortunate since it does make a good QB that much harder to come by. Still, I'm looking forward to getting home sometime tonight and trying out the first volume. Thanks for all the effort everyone!

Heh, yeah, especially when they don't have any actual artillery to call in!

Sadly I just ran through a bunch of impromptu testing with hotseat QBs in 1.03 and here's another classic: The attackers have 43 regular conscripts, the defenders have 131. That was with a 20% force reduction for the attackers. The force picks were ok a couple of times, but would also come up with force selections like the above. I'm ok with not purchasing my units if the computer doesn't do stuff like that (note: both forces were Syrian Light Infantry and were conscripts)! [Edit] To be clear; I don't mind difficult battles that are not "even", but in setups like those illustrated here there's not even a remote chance for one side.

John's right (and I'm too lazy to go find the quote as well ). While it's annoying to have to retarget, I think I'd be more annoyed to have my MGS run out of shells during a 1-minute WEGO round

Yeah, it seems a lot more reasonable with a -30% modifier. Probably something that needs looked at though, I should probably go find one of the QB threads over in the general forum or here and add that bit in (if it isn't already). [Edit] Hmm... actually -30% might be a little too drastic, I'll have to try -20% and see how it goes. [ September 08, 2007, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: Cameroon ]

Then it isn't just me, I didn't think 5 to 1 for a Probe made sense.

Personally one of the things that I find _really_ weird is that turning on 2xAA and 2xAF increases my framerate compared to forcing them off via the control panel (7950GT). It's so counter-intuitive, but it's easy to replicate.

I just finished playing a Syrian v Syrian QB and attached is the screenshot at the end (I was on the defense): My question; does it seem to you like that's WAY too many attacking infantry? 256 attacking v 52 defending or just about 5 to 1. The scenario was (supposed to be) a probe and both sides ended up being conscript Syrian infantry. Anyone else seen these kinds of really outrageously mismatched numbers?

Huh, nice catch on what the discrepancy between manual and game I know that there are a variety of errata in the manual, perhaps that's one? If not, then it sounds like a potential bug (or at least the need for clarification both in the manual and in game).

Truppenfuhrung, they can - just not smoke designed to block Thermal cameras. Since Strykers use that kind of smoke, they can't shoot out of their own smoke screens. Get a Syrian unit to pop smoke, though, and the Stryker should be able to fire through it.

Perhaps because they were all "MOVE" orders?

Then you never had your tanks shot through a building in CMx1? There were plenty of times where an AFV had LOS (and thus LOF) through the corner of a building in my games, so that engine had its LOS/LOF issues as well.

Have you tried the 94.24 drivers? I don't know what card you have, but I get a massive, positive framerate difference with 94.24 compared to any of the recent releases (even the beta 163.44). As in 10-15 FPS. Also, it seems that it now actually is good to have the affinity set to both cores on my C2D

Absolutely great first impressions for 1.03. Sadly, it's likely I won't actually get to play through until after the weekend. Even worse since it's a long one for me. I do feel a cough coming on though....

To throw more info into the mix: Intel C2D @ 2.23 Ghz 2 GB RAM Nvidia 7950 GT w/ 512 MB Windows XP SP2 Here's a framerate comparison, just with driver changes: Campaign Airport Attack (2nd or 3rd battle) 163.44: 20-21 FPS w/ shadows off, no AA/AF from starting viewpoint 94.24: 35+ FPS w/ shadows off, no AA/AF from starting viewpoint I'll be sticking with 94.24 for the time being, NVIDIA definitely broke some part of their OpenGL path. Battlefront: I'm more than willing to help out with tweaking settings, changing drivers, testing builds, etc. but will be out this weekend.

Is that the one that's caused by not having a setup area for the AI plan(s) painted (which is not a bug so much as a needed QA check on the published QBs) or something else entirely? I'm not referring to creating the "Setup Zone", but actually painting in the setup area for the AI's plan(s).

I think that route works well, unless you're playing a scenario against a human who knows that it's worth his or her while to drop a particular building or buildings. That's why I'd like the enhancement I described above - it's side specific and so can be asymmetrical even if the other side "doesn't play fair".

Raptor, I'm not sure if this is possible because I don't think the game considers who actually caused the destruction. If both sides get negative points for the objective, destruction will just result in a draw. </font>

Agreed, except that the problem is that we do have to tell the AI where we want it to go pretty much exactly. That's even been flat out stated by BF that if we want the AI to go a certain path, we have to plot it. That's fine, except that then the movement between two waypoints needs to be refined so that the vehicle makes an actual curve rather than just a turn. In CMx1, if I wanted to make the vehicle retain a high rate of speed, I would plot out a nice wide arc. In CMx2, because the AI doesn't drive a straight path between two points (because it looks for cover, etc.) that will end up backfiring. Getting a smoothly interpolated arc through a waypoint would, it seems, pretty much fix the problem with units overshooting waypoints and/or making ridiculously slow turns.