Cameroon

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by gibsonm: G'day, For a while now I've put up with the 640 x 480 res that Open GL 1.2.2 gives me in CMBO. Previously under 9.1 I could easily get 1024 x 768 out of my G4 Ti PB. However the upgrade to 9.2.1 brought with it Open GL 1.2.2 and lower resolution and that's no longer acceptable. Open GL 1.2.1 appears to provide 3 main components: ATI drivers Open GL Quicktime 3D My question is, which of these to I need to downgrade to in order to restore the previous resolution (instinct suggests that QT 3D can stay) and if I do backout to 1.2.1 what features of OS 9.2.1 will I loose?<hr></blockquote> This isn't an answer to your question, but it might be of interest. I've got OS 9.2.1 w/ OpenGL 1.2.2 on a G3 B&W. My resolution doesn't change at all when I play CM. I know this for certain because resolution-unaware applications aren't affected. I would imagine that you could downgrade OpenGL without any problems. Just replace the OpenGL extensions would be my guess.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Sven: [snip]Can debris really knock out an M36?<hr></blockquote> It wasn't the debris but the blast from their shot (90mm HE round) that hit too closely. I was playing a scenario recently where a Stuart HMC did the same thing. It fired too closely to itself and knocked itself out.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42: How did you make this clip? A friend and I were thinking about trying to do the same for our film class. We've tried hooking his PC up to a VCR and recording but it only does black and white with no sound. That actually looked kind of cool because it looks historical, but I want to know how you got the jumpy frames and grainy faded look.<hr></blockquote> Well I don't know about the effects (though various Adobe products probably factored in), but the actual recording was probably done with Snapz Pro (for those Mac users out there, Ambrosia SW). It's the only Mac product I know of that could record the gameplay like that. Of course, I could be wildly wrong on what was used, but I feel pretty confident Chris

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by michael: Further to the spotting question... Does this apply to AFVs? Here's an example: A section of infantry sneaks or crawls into scat trees right in the LOS of an enemy unit, say, 200m distant. More than likely the section will not be seen. BUT, what if an AFV, say a Sherman, "moves" into the same area? Does the AI determine that AFVs are ALWAYS seen as soon as they enter a units LOS? OR is determination of "seen" based on silouette? I'm trying to determine if I can basically sneak a tank through some scat trees, or if I should just go for it.<hr></blockquote> AFAIK, no unit is automatically visible. However, one must take into account exactly what one is attempting to sneak. Tanks are big and made out of metal, they have large and powerful engines, thus tanks are really loud. They don't sneak Imagine the noise and movement that a tank crashing through a stand of trees would make. Unless your enemy's infantry is deaf, I doubt you'll sneak a tank anywhere

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Jarmo: Might be good, but I'm wondering if using BMP's instead of resources would slow things down. There must be some reason why everybody uses resources, maybe it's just easier?<hr></blockquote> As a Mac developer myself, I imagine it came down to convenience. Iterating a directory and doing file name comparisons isn't as convenient as asking the resource manager for resource number X. Couple that with a mis-read of people's desire for hi-res mods (so I've heard) and resource files were a nice solution from a development standpoint. Re: slowing down, well that would depend on a lot of factors. If you just want to compare loading a PICT from a resource vs loading a BMP from a file, there shouldn't be any difference in either direction that a user would notice. What goes on behind the scenes, however, could make a difference.

[Edited because I am an idiot ] [ 10-30-2001: Message edited by: Cameroon ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Mud: Hrmmm. It's definitely a WAG, but does the detonation probability have anything to do with ground pressure or nature of vehicle (wheeled / tracked)?<hr></blockquote> I can't say I've done any research to support this, but I've always thought that it was ground pressure based. It makes sense to me, because I wouldn't want my AT minefield to reveal itself when a jeep ran through it by destroying the jeep. I think I implied this because infantry won't set off an AT minefield, which only makes sense if the field is pressure sensitive.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MrSpkr: You'd think so, wouldn't you. I recently saw a King Tiger popped by a 57mm AT gun from the front at a range of about 130m. Bad hair day for the KT.<hr></blockquote> You want bad hair day? Recently saw a Tiger get taken from the front by a Stuart. I think the Stuart commander then went into shock as it was another few moments before I heard the cheering . Granted, it wasn't a KT but it WAS a Stuart that did it. Curse the weak points (not really, after all it was my Stuart).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio: Who is talking about five years? I hope CMBB will be already out in less then 5 month! Haven't you seen the CMBB screen shots? All I know about the graphics is that they use Hi-Res textures instead of the CMBO Low-Res. Well, all my mods are HiRes anyway, I only want to know if CMBB also use the same file format - bmp and wav.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> While I only can quote hersey, I believe CMBB still uses BMPs (I don't know about WAV, but I would imagine so). Even without that, CMBB uses the same game engine so it's logical to assume that BMPs and WAVs are still in use. Of course, you know what they say about assuming

Hey, there's some hope for the Graphics 5 & 8 files. It seems that CM will load the graphic from ANY of the resource files it normally loads. For example, I cut resource #3350 (that's the M8 side panel) from Graphics 5 and pasted it into Graphics 3 and it worked fine in CM. So with effort one could shuffle resources on their own to stuff in those extra armor mods. Making MCM do this would require it to get more sophisticated with its error handling, search algorithm and reversion code. That is, it wouldn't be much fun to write Of course, I also don't know how CM loads the resource files. It may load only those files with textures it needs (so maybe it doesn't load the winter texture files if there's no snow), in which case my "solution" would be prone to problems. If I could wish for "my one update request" and have it granted, I'd want Mac CM to be re-written to use BMP files in subfolders of the Data directory. That would make so many things so much nicer all the way around (and I'd probably even take a stab at writing a Mac CMMOS). It'll never happen (hey, maybe it did for CMBB?), but one can dream.

Ah, well you can disregard the question. After downloading (and actually reading the readme ) I see that not much if anything could be done for the other texture files. Ah well, guess it's time to pick and choose from my hi-res textures.

Oooh, nifty. Talk about coincidences, I've been thinking about what I could accomplish if I wrote a mod manager myself. While the 16 meg limit on resource files/forks (what brain-dead idiot decided that was a good one?) sucks for winter textures, it also hurts when using Hi-Res mods. I re-realized this when my M8 turned up almost entirely black. Is there a way around this (short of re-writing CM to use BMPs on the mac instead of resource files)? I'd play around myself, but if you know off-hand that'd save me the trouble

The reason I ask is because I had decided to play a QB tonight (600 pt, german armor vs comb. arms) as the Allies. I ended up with 3 vet. 'zooks and an M8 as my AT assets. And then guess what I see rolling my way, a KT! Nothing could scratch the thing (even from 33 meters). Didn't help the AI too much, though, as I still managed a major victory while the KT prowled around my rear looking for shots (nasty terrain). So, outside of divine intervention, has anyone been able to KO a KT with a bazooka team?

I've played this as the Allies a couple of times (winning) but was wondering if anyone had any tips for minimizing the Ally loses. The best I've been able to do still leaves me with burning hulks everywhere. For those interested, my "best" came the last time I played. The initial Tiger turned broadside and a Cromwell IV plinked it, letting me rush some tanks up the flanks for later side and rear shots. In fact, two Cromwell IVs took out 2 of the 4 Tigers (a Firefly took the other 2). I was still left with close to twenty vehicles destroyed to the 5 Axis machines.