Jagdratt

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gyrene: Actually I found macs to be surprisingly old-program friendly. I've ran some positively ancient stuff in my OS 9 iMac, that I was surprised it ran. (Dark Castle and The Colony, for instance) Booting up in 9 is a small price to pay for CMBB. But yes, a pain in the ass still. Gyrene<hr></blockquote> I agree with your observations, but I think this will be a bit different situation. In your instance, you're running older software on a current OS. If I understand the types of time delays we're talking about we will be looking at using an old OS on a new computer. It's uncommon to design a new box to run old system SW. The more usual situation is that the new box may require additions to the current system SW in order to run properly. Hate to be a pessimist, but this doesn't sound good to me.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Schrullenhaft: No, it won't. Until CM is written in the OpenGL graphic API it won't run natively in OS X. The RAVE support in OS X is not to the level that CM and most RAVE-based 3D games on the Mac need. The engine rewrite will most likely include a switch on the 3D API on the Mac so that the game can be run under OS X natively. However this is at least two years from now (my guess) and will probably be seen in CM3 - The Mediterranean Theatre<hr></blockquote> Oh brother. In terms of computers that's a very, very long time. I suspect - based on my experience with Macs since 1984 - that this will mean CM1 & 2 probably won't be running on Macs introduced in 12-18 months time. I think it's unlikely that computer products that far in the future will be friendly with an OS roughly 24 months older than the hardware.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by StellarRat: Doesn't surprise me. I have seen footage of .50's in action. They quickly mow down large trees, tear apart brick buildings and destroy wood bunkers.<hr></blockquote> But can they hit a "hummingbird on crack"? What a great line, I'm going to get a lot of mileage out of that one!

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JasonC: It often happened in reality that a given room would become a no man's land while enemies held rooms on either side of it, each able to grenade the other if they entered it, but not able to grenade the further room securely held by the enemy side. Without SMGs being the slightest use through two adjoining walls. <hr></blockquote> What type of materials are used to construct the interior walls in the types of buildings you're talking about? Current interior walls in North American buildings - 2x4" studs with 5/8" drywall on both sides - offer no protection from even the smallest calibre weapon. Never having travelled to Europe, I'm having a hard time envisioning what type of construction would be used to provide this level of protection from small arms and grenades.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: The British Firefly's ammo stowage caused the bow MG to be deleted. God forbid an American tank not be bristling with machine guns; perhaps this was why they didn't want to adopt it as well? Most Commonwealth tanks deleted the .50 calibre on the turret as well<hr></blockquote> Any information on how common it was for a TC to engage hostile targets (to distinguish between targets that can and cannot fire back at you) with the hatch mounted .50 cal? It seems like a very exposed firing position, on top of an already tall tank. I note that German AFVs that commonlly had top mounted MGs had a small splinter shield. Were those shields actually capable of stopping an infantry rifle/SMG round, or were they more for psychological effect?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Slapdragon: It is actually the weight, in pounds, that an iron sphere of that diameter will be, so you should be able to plug in the formula for figuring the area of a sphere, and multiply the weight of iron per cube inch, and get the "pound" designation. This is approximate, because the iron cannonballs were not pure, and I believe the cannon balls used for the designation where actually hollow, when this system of measurement was first put into place, so your numbers may vary, but they will retain the relationship between each weapon.<hr></blockquote> I think we should all be grateful that the war ended before some brilliant boffin decided to maintain the integrity of the British Empire and its culture by expressing gun calibre in stones or fractions thereof. This likely would have been the final straw that broke the back of the Anglo-American alliance. BTW is it true that the Sherman's sloped glacis was actually designed to deflect small British motorcars whilst driving on the right side of the road in Cornwall?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> the OSX RAVE open GL (known) issue is a big problem and the only known solution at this time is to boot into 9.2.2 for rave based games like CMBO. <hr></blockquote> Drat! Thanks anyway.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gyrene: [ Ugly planes? Any German WWII twin engine bomber/night fighter and any Russian biplane.[/QB]<hr></blockquote> Really? The He111 is a beautiful plane - streamlined and unlike anything else in the air. (never say that, some AF grognard will drag out ten similar planes no one else has ever heard of). Actually the entire early war medium bomber fleet - He111, Ju88, Do215 - was quite attractive compared to the competition. And the Condor has to be one of the nicest looking four engine bombers - which is good since it wasn't a succesful bomber.

A .5 cal "rifle" is currently deployed in the Canadian Army for plinking AFVs. The "rifle" is, of course, scoped and the soldiers are trained as snipers. The difference is that instead of picking off human targets, they're targetting weapon systems. A round placed in the right spot - whether vulnerable exterior sites or through an open hatch, will disable the equipment. Bearing in mind the types of missions the Canadian Army is tasked with - UN peace keeping typically - this is a viable weapon. I'm sure it would be quite useful for disabling military equipment in the control of third world despots, without as much concern about "collateral" damage. My point being that if a single shot .5 round is currently used to disable AFVs, a fully automatic WWII version would be quite capable of the damage you're reporting. I once had a Jagdtiger that went temporarily blind after taking a non-penetrating hit on the front superstructure. The vision line was black in all directions and distances, despite clear sight lines. I withdrew out of enemy sight and in 2-3 turns it could "see" again. I've never had that happen again - was this depicting crew repairable damage to the optics? :confused:

I am unable to run CMBO under OS X. It does, of course, cause the Classic environment to fire up but won't run. The OS is the latest build, my machine is a G4 733 with the nVidia GeForce2 card. Everything under the OS X environment is dead stock. I've read posts here from folks enquiring about an OS X native version, so I assume they're able to run CMBO in the Classic environment. Any suggestions?