Fly Pusher

Make smoothies, not war...

Make smoothies, not war...

Make smoothies, not war...

Certainly. Even wose than pointed sticks ! Self Defence Against Fresh Fruit

Certainly. Even wose than pointed sticks ! Self Defence Against Fresh Fruit

Certainly. Even wose than pointed sticks ! Self Defence Against Fresh Fruit

Unless the hydro-phumatics change the compression in response to a tilt sensor. Its not rocket science. Even my old BMW 5 series estate has a self leveling suspension that compensates when something heavy is loaded into the back.

I was wondering if the suspension had some kind of self-levelling ability so that the frontal armour was always presented at the most effective angle to incoming fire (for example to minimise the exposure of the belly plating when cresting a ridge). If this is the case then the front bogies would have less travel if they hit an obstacle so potentially making for a rougher ride. On the other hand, it would also mean that the gun stabilisation system would not need to depress as far to compensate for going up hill – possibly important if the degree of depression is limited. Can we get word regarding whether this is modelling reality or just a glitch ?

I agree. They would not abandon an essentially intact AFV with all the bits and bobs still attached and leave it sitting arround - even if it had been immobilised. My guess is that SOP dictates that some poor bugger was left behind to mind the vehicle. I bet he was either distracted in a big way, not paying attention or fell asleep. It happens...

Excellent news. I hope it all works out. Good luck...

Not being technically inclined I find this quite surprising (although very welcome ! ) . I had assumed that the port from the Windows version to produce a Mac Intel version would be relatively straightforward (given that they use the same processors). I thought it was going from Windows to PPC that was the toughie. I am also surprised that a Mac version would have to be coded from scratch. I thought that most of the heavy lifting was done by the Mac specific compilers that crunched through your source code and left 'only' the details remaining to be fixed by hand. Just shows how little I know....

Although it would be nice to see a game I can play now with my existing G5 based hardware I can certainly appreciate that the effort to make this version of the game would probably be disproportional to the sales it would generate. After all, its a market segment that will only get smaller. And if the G5 native version takes another 6 months, this proportion will be even smaller than it is now. However I would like to argue that expecting a Bootcamp / XP (or Vista) combination to capture more than a tiny proportion of the Mac community is probably unrealistic. As Steve said, its one thing having a dedicated games PC with a flaky unstable system. But quite another to expect Mac users to put up with re-installing a partition on my main computer every few months. A computer that, in my case, contains essentially my entire digital life (10k photos, music collection, E-mail, work etc etc) Therefore I would like to make the heartfelt plea that an Intel native CM:SF version be very seriously considered. The proportion of the Mac community that could run this will only increase over time and they will all have hardware you know is up to the job. Also, it seems that at present Macs are gaining in market share (all be it from a low base) and so the investment of time required for this port could be amortized across a growing user base over a reasonably long term. Obviously your going to do what you see as best for yourselves. But at least this way I have the chance of playing this game one day after I upgrade my present system. Thanks.

While I am sure you are right that the G3s and G4s out there are probably not really up to the task, I wouldn't say that the people in between represent only a 'few'. Although not having any hard numbers to hand doesnt exactly make this argument particularly convincing.... Personally, I would be hesitant to embark on installing Windows on an Intel Mac under boot camp. Although its probably not THAT bad, I use Macs precisely so that I DONT have to deal with Windows issues. (eg viruses, trojans, mall ware, key loggers, having to install device drivers, inane dialogue boxes etc) And with the outrageous gouging that Microsoft is inflicting for Vista in Europe (apparently up to $400 more than the same thing sold in the US) I'm not sure its even financially a viable alternative. Especially in a few years when XP has passed into history. Obviously others will have their own views. But I somehow doubt that that many Mac people will dabble with Windows under boot camp. After all, if they really wanted to dabble with Windows, they would probably have bought a PC. Just my $0.04 worth....

Mikey Do you mean Intel Macs maybe ? Although I fear you are right, I certainly hope not. This would cut out a very large proportion of the installed base (all be it a decreasing proportion). Remember that Macs tend to have much longer lives than is normal in the WINTEL world and there are a lot of not that old G5 based systems out there which really ought to be up to the job. Sorry, but I'm just not going to go out and buy [and install :eek: ] a copy of XP and a new Intel Mac just to run one game. No matter how good the game is, I just dont think I could justify the expense (or trauma ). Fingers crossed....

Maybe a silly question, but have you written to then to ask ? Maybe its no problem....

While I accept the reasons Steve gave above, I would personally go for this big time. Having grown up almost literally in the shadow of the 'iron curtain' during the 70s and 80s I remember the palpable fear that the Soviet Pact would invade and the situation would rapidly escalate to global nuclear war to 'save' us from communism. I think there would be a lot of Europeans now in their 30-40s who would be very excited by this. Although probably a non-starter, much has been said about how flexible the 'new' engine will be. If Steve & Charles are not interested, maybe a viable group of those that ARE interested could be formed to do the bulk of the work 'under license'. Just a thought....

And Bren tripods !

That, to me, looks much more like a giant Space Crayfish. Nowhere like as nasty as Lobsters.... But significantly more manuverable than the Space Mussles, Clams and Limpets. Personally, I find Space Welks offer the best balance.

Every opinion is as valuable as another when expressed well. You passed that test This is indeed the crux of the issue. Do we need a backstory? If so, then we have to go fictional. If we don't need one, then perhaps we can stick with Syria. But if we go with Syria then we should also stick strictly to Syria's force structure. By going Fictional we get to ditch the need for a backstory as well as the requirement that we limit what can appear on the game. The thinking is without the backstory why does it matter if we call it Syria? </font>

I am not suggesting that its unreasonable at all. Indeed, as already pointed out, it no doubt reflects the profesionalism of the troops involved. They took their time to do it right without endangering non-combatants any more than absolutely necessary. Rather I am wondering how such long time spans can be reasonably, yet accurately, represented in a simulation such as CMSF. This is why I was asking about 'variable turns'. When not much is happening turns could last 5 min (for example) while at frenetic times of intense action they may only last 20-30 seconds. In this scheme it would be how much thats going on that would determine the turn length (within limits). This is all no doubt set in stone by now. Its just that I hadnt noticed any 'official' comment. Although its certainly possible that I missed this. Just a thought...

The thing that struck me about this report was that the battle lasted 6 hours. My underrstanding is that this kind of small scale encounter is what CMSF is designed to model. But a 360 turn scenario strikes me a something strictly for the hard core fringe of wargaming aficionados. Was there ever any word from on high regarding variable trun lengths ?

Albert Are you running the PC versions under Windose XP and Bootcamp or the Mac versions in classic ?

In my oppinion Boot Camp on Intel Macs is bad news for the rest of the existing Mac community in the medium term. Why should a developer go to the trouble and expense of porting to Mac OSX when the current systems will run the Windoze version just fine ? Hmm....

Naturally this wasnt helped by US based support of the IRA during much of this time (NORAID etc). Only after the US was itself the victim of large scale terrorism was a stop finally put to this shamefull practice.

This has already been established beyond any reasonable doubt.