Steiner14

PBEM WEGO.

Michael, that was a joke! But it's funny to see how you changed within weeks from a cynical a..hole into a friendly businessman.

Clever, but i'm a bit sceptic that concept will work with thousands of "beta testers". Seriously i think the problem with the bad review is, that it didn't mention minor problems, but named problems being complete showstoppers. 1) And on the other hand there is the community with very good trust in BFC. But if BFC didn't screw it up then comes a second question: 2) Why is a version after four years of development called v1.0 and given to the publisher? This means, decisive people at BFC must have judged the game being more or less in a final state and not in a completely unfished one! And probably the same people are now explaining, the v1.0 is not a final product. IMO this doesn't fit together and is the reason about the irritations. A logical answer would be, that there were deadline problems, delays, lagging behind the plan. That would explain everything. But until now the community has the impression, things were completely in time - and so these v1.0-reviews and the claims don't fit together. But tomorrow we will know it anyway.

double post BFC, you need a better server...

You are all children, not men!

double post

You bet! It worked great in CMx1 when playing against the AI. I remember the most exciting battle against the AI i had with the iron combat rules (because the AI usually is no oponent). You needed lot's of discipline not to take a fast lookaround, especially when you're in deep trouble, but i still have in mind the CMBB battle, where i had to advance with my Rumanians and only a few SS in winter over an open field torwards a wood and conquer some houses deep in the woods, when i heard the sound of tanks coming from the curved street deep in the wood but couldn't see the Soviet tanks through the trees coming closer and closer. That was an exciting game. [ July 26, 2007, 05:23 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

Hehe, Iron Combat Rules... Do not forget the option to deny free camera movement - camera locked on units only. Would be an excellent option!

There is only one another i know about: Justin Fraenkel, the maker of Winamp. Sold it for many billion $$$ and is now making an audio-sequencer with another programmer, that plays after a few months already in the league of the big boys. Incredible how fast this man can program and implement things. Major companies need several months for what he does in days. My 2 cent about the reviews: Isn't it possible that Paradox gave demos away, without caring? Not at all mentioning what the reviewer should expect, or should not expect and not mentioning that it still is a work in progress? No 1.01-beta-patch? I mean Paradox was also not capable to hold a shipping date. Why not giving demo copies away without caring? [ July 26, 2007, 02:38 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

delayed double post [ July 25, 2007, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

There is something strange going on. Registered 2005 and now the first post to defend a devastating review?

Auch von mir gibt's ein Lob für diese informative und objektive Filmpräsentation.

And i hope a gridded overlay will make it into a patch!

What is unknown is, that most companies offer the same system with Windows XP, if you insist on no getting Vista but XP. If you don't need 4 GB of RAM, you should stay away from Vista. 1. Political reasons. Read the EULA. You accept that MS is contacted and data are transferred without even asking you! If you are a fan of the further destruction of the private sphere and total control of all citizens, then go for Vista and accept the EULA. If you want to make them pay for that, do not accept the EULA and send it back. 2. Technical reasons. Vista is slow and hungry. It's incredible how shameless M$ wastes ressources. The compatibility probelms were mentioned already. No one needs Vista and everyone with some knowledge about computers, will try to avoid and not touch it.

No fog in CMSF? If CMSF has no foggy weather, please could someone from Battlefront comment on fog in the following game or modules? Because i don't play games anymore and CMSF will be the only game (and so will CMx2-WWII) and this means i buy a graphics card for CMx2 only. So it would be nice to know, if there is maybe a preferrable product to get fog definately and beautifully. I was screwed once when i upgraded to a Radeon for CMBO.

double post [ July 24, 2007, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

MikeyD, did you say haze? There is haze? Lot's of haze possible? And is there fog, too?

Redwolf, interesting post. My own experience was, that i bought a GF5600 only to see fog in CM again. Indeed, i never had any issues with Nvidia cards. But i don't want a DX10 card! So what Nvidia-card could i look for, to get the power of a x1950Pro at the same price? I have found nothing.

Ooops!

Is that based on CMSF experiences? The X1950Pro has an excellent price/value ratio now and is also closest on my radar.

Is the old fog-problem on ATI-cards solved? Do cards of both manufacturers show fog now?

Depends on the sucess of CMSF and the new levels that are set. It's possible that a big company makes a too good buyout offer for Steve and the holders of BFC to withstand. Cashing several million $ for BFC and becoming chievs of a much bigger development team could be a very attractive perspective methinks.

molotov_billy there are so many reasons, why it's not good, if he would tell more than BFC planned. Only one aspect: imagine the length of the development process of four(!) years. Then imagine the costs and efforts that are put into adverstisement and distribution. And then imagine, one or two buyers spread for ten days their personal opinion on the net, right when everyone is most interested to get more informations. One or two people can damage a lot, only with their subjective view about things, by exaggerating things they see as negative aspects, or just by not thinking twice before writing. Ten days can be an eternity. Imagine you have worked four years on one project, that is almost finished, you are soon about to present it to the public and ten days before, a nobody gets by accident your papers in his hands and starts to spread subjective informations about it. What would you do? Definately you would try to convince him to shut up. Even this single aspect should make it well understandable, why BFC tried to keep the responses to a minimum. This is a very sensible phase for them and SirReal seems to be gentleman enough, to understand that too. Even more with his new highend computer and the free recieve of all CMx2 games... [ July 22, 2007, 04:10 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

Ok they have backup-systems. But if the GPS-system falls out, the resyncronization of the clocks is lost nevertheless and that leads to the effect, that the clocks drift apart and the accuracy is lost. No matter how good the backup system is. After some time every clock leaves it's accuracy interval and the demands at those speeds are that high, that the clocks need to be syncronized within a few hours. Even if we assume (unrealistical) atomic precise backup-clocks and assume the allowed resync-interval is extended to several days - what is a span of a few days in a big conflict, within the best weapons are useable? [ July 22, 2007, 03:40 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

That's the point. From what i know, there exists no other possibility than with satellites, to create such an extremely accurate distributed clock signal. But if this is the case, and if you know, that potential enemys can switch it off, why is more and more built on it? The principle of diversity on battlefield is ignored if everything depends on one single service. Turn off the light and the whole army stands still. Are there no voices in the US-army, that are warning, to make everything, down to the single platoon and arty-forward-observer, dependable on one single core-service? I mean every $ can only be spent once. And if you already know, the evil neigbour can switch the light off in your house, would you continue to build security system after security system, or would you first make sure, he can't switch it off and if you can't deny that, wouldn't you invest more in tools you can use when the light is off, instead to invest more and more into electronics? The soldiers in the field rely on it. And the damage occurs not only, due to the missing service, but there follows a huge negative impact on the morale, too, if the most powerful systems suddenly don't hit anymore or are even not available. I don't understand this development. Maybe someone can explain it to me?