metalbrew

Tooltips would be great. Watching the video twice is confusing. For turn based players, a single playback with VCR controls really makes a lot more sense (ala CMx1). I know... this isn't CMx1, but the double playback has extremely low usability for me. The WASD camera controls seem broken, using them results in very choppy movement. Conversely, the mouse camera controls are way too twitchy. I attempted for 5 minutes to get a directly overhead view of a Stryker from view level 2 and finally gave up because the controls were way too twitchy. The on screen compass is counter intuitive. The red needle (north) rotates with the camera instead of the bezel moving. I realize the purpose of this perspective is to give the player a true reading of their direction, but the compass analogy isn't behaving like a real compass so it's confusing. If it was really a compass, clockwise rotation would cause the needle to rotate counter clockwise. The movement/combat/special tabs have me bewildered. I assumed prior to getting the game, the purpose was to have a quick-tab interface to the orders interface. I thought 'mi' would result in move-quick and 'cu' would result in combat-target, etc... Unit sizes, is there no analog to the old shift-c of CMx1? I realize this older feature throws the unit scale way off, but it helps see how the battle is unfolding. I miss that. LOS tool? I'm confused during move planning without this tool. If there's an analog, please someone tell me and offer some LOS planning strategies.

My earlier report may have been overlooked, but I'm running an 8800GTS with the latest drivers (162.18 which are the ones that released 2 days ago) and I'm not experiencing problems. I don't think the 8800 is a problem at all. CM:SF is also running fine at 'best' quality with an older nVidia 7900GS for me with the drivers from May (forget the version number, but it works fine) Hey folks, I can't guess exactly how your machines are setup, but be sure you look beyond video drivers for updates. Most folks that play an asortment of games are good about drivers, but also a lot of CM fans run old hardware and primarily really old games. Check that your motherboard chipset and processor drivers are the latest as well.

I have an nVidia 8800GTS with the latest drivers (162.18) and the game is working fine at 'Best' quality throughout the video options. The only quality setting i haven't enabled is vsync because in the past I've found it to be a big performance hit in high-end FPS games. I'm not seeing any of the performance issues folks are reporting... except when I try and use WASD to move the camera. Using the keys to move is like swimming in tar, which is a shame because the mouse camera is too twitchy. A request, please look into the WASD choppiness and lower the twitchiness of the camera when using the mouse (btw, my mouse is set for 400 DPI while playing the game, I've always found this is the least twitchy setting for most games). I'll be happy to spout more tech specs if anyone finds it useful, but I'm not seeing any issue at all with my nVidia card.

Sorry, but i have to disagree.</font>

He's a game reviewer, one of the better ones actually. He's not a grog and never will be so I discount most of his comments about why he thinks helicopters are missing or why there needs to be more HEAT rounds in the loadout. His comments about the performance, AI, UI, and pathfinding in the 1.0 build are echoed at 3 or 4 other reviews though. It's not really his problem that he was sent the 1.0 version, that's between Battlefront and Paradox to sort out. For me, personally, I'm OK with a flawed release as long as it's patched soon. For Battlefront it's disappointing, first impressions are usually taken as the gospel in the gaming industry. I know they hoped for a wider audience for CM:SF.

I believe it's 350MB, which will easily fit on CDR.

I really really want to like CM:SF. Tomorrow we'll see how the game turned out.

The anecdotal accounts I've read of the MGS autoloader is that it is not very reliable. When loading jams occur it's very tough to sort out because the MGS turret is very cramped and the autoloading mechanism takes up most of this space. These opinions are from threads I've read on Military Photos. The autoloader carousel holds 8 rounds and the vehicle has 18 rounds total.

The guy standing is the FNG.

You think this is an important distinction and it's simply not. Again: your premise is wrong. The only people that believe the Insurgent mission is to oust the foreign invaders are the 16 year old suicide bombers and apparently yourself. The Insurgents are fighting to get their share of the money and power in Iraq, nothing more. The notion of jihad is simply a rallying point for the weakminded fools. You can cry all day about fact versus opinion but if you don't bring germane facts to the discussion we may as well be talking about the weather.

They don't spend most of their time fighting US troops, they spend most of it killing civilians (and each other). </font>

That's the essence of my opinion too. I don't like the media monkeys one bit but unfortunately Uncle Sam can't be trusted.

Well, I strongly disagree, if the LOS checks really abstracted out to a grid. A unit behind a wall sees what his squadmate in front of the wall? I probably just don't get it right </font>

I thought so too. Additionally, the LOS calculation is done real-time too, so if a unit fires a shot at an enemy and while the round is in the air another unit happens to get in the way then there's a good chance the interceding unit will be hit rather than the original target. Pretty cool. In CMx1 games the calculations assumed the flight time of the round was instantaneous so this didn't happen. It's a 1 in 100 event, but when it happens I'm sure it'll give me a chuckle.

Yes, the new engine uses relative spotting. The map 'knows' what map locations are visible from any given square. If enemies occupy squares that can 'see' each other, then an additional calculation is done to determine if the individual units have LOS to each other. If they have LOS, then they can attack each other. If the map changes, the pre-built table is recalculated. So the map table is a way to optimize the software, if units aren't in map grids that can 'see' each other there's no need to do LOS calculation. Only units that have a chance of seeing each other have an LOS calculation done, but when the calculation is needed it's done on a per unit basis (and I believe this is done to the level of the individual soldier and not just squad level). I remember reading that members of the squad can almost instantaneous relay spotting information to each other. Then the info flows up the chain of command and back down to other units under the same chain of command. So, eventually you get borg spotting but it happens in way that simulates actual battlefield information flow and confusion. So yes, the system has changed and the ideas I've read sound like they're well thought out. No more borg spotting without a realistic flow of information.

Happy Independence Day never-the-less. Yankee Doodle went to town a'riding on his pony. Stuck a feather in his cap and called it macaroni.

Getting to play the demo before release would be great, but personally I'd rather have a chance to start reading the manual right now. I figure the game is complex enough that it'll take a few weeks to understand all the new info. So split the difference and get the manual and demo out before the release date?

You're refering to my original post several weeks ago? If so, sure I searched. I read the comments. After reading those comments, I noticed Steve mentioned that he didn't feel PBEM was widely used feature in the CMx1 games. So I posted my testimony toward PBEM as my +1 vote. Go back read my thread, I'm not lying and I can read and listen.

</font>

Sure I made that post, right after you made this post. ...and if you look even higher up in the thread, the entire thing begins with you being an over the top jackass to a customer who asked for PBEM. What a dumbass. What a bunch of horsecrap. I've heard every emotional, unreasonable, illogical, and down right asinine argument for PBEM in addition to all the reasonable ones. The answer to all of them is the same: We want PBEM in. The only reason why it won't go in is if it is technically impossible. Please, explain to me how this very simple statement proves your point. Otherwise, you've proved my point that I'm not being listened to. Becket, Yup, that's what it all boils down to. An unreasonable and irrational demand based on a single feature. I agree that PBEM is important, but it is ridiculous to make any case that states the game would not be worth a damned if it doesn't have it. And what's the point anyway, since we've already said hundreds of times that we want the feature in. Here's how this idiotic conversation (and it is idiotic) goes each and every time: PBEM Bigot - you have to put in PBEM. It's the most critical thing in the whole wide world. Me - we agree that PBEM is important, but it might not be technically possible. That's the only reason why it won't go in. PBEM Bigot - PBEM is more than important, it is the only reason I get up in the morning. Put it in. Me - we agree that PBEM is important, but it might not be technically possible. That's the only reason why it won't go in. PBEM Bigot - you're not listenting to me. PBEM is important, put it in!!! What is wrong with you? Me - we agree that PBEM is important, but it might not be technically possible. That's the only reason why it won't go in. PBEM Bigot - obviously I'm not making myself clear enough. I represent 99.99999% of your customers because I say so. And because I represent 99.99999% of your customers you have to do what I say. And I say put in PBEM! Me - we agree that PBEM is important, but it might not be technically possible. That's the only reason why it won't go in. PBEM Bigot - ARGH!!! You're still not listening. Look... it's the only way I play the game. I love PBEM. You HAVE to put it in. Me - we agree that PBEM is important, but it might not be technically possible. That's the only reason why it won't go in. PBEM Bigot - I can not believe this arrogance! I made you who you are today, you MUST LISTEN TO ME DAMNIT!! PUT IN PBEM or ELSE! Me - we agree that PBEM is important, but it might not be technically possible. That's the only reason why it won't go in. PBEM Bigot - you still don't get it. I will demand, demand, and DEMAND that you bend to my will because I am important. And I demand that you put in PBEM. Now, what do you say to that? Me - we agree that PBEM is important, but it might not be technically possible. That's the only reason why it won't go in. PBEM Bigot - what the f is wrong with you? Why is it that you can't grasp the simple fact that PBEM is critically important to my personal tastes? What do I have to say to make you understand that you MUST put in PBEM? Me - we agree that PBEM is important, but it might not be technically possible. That's the only reason why it won't go in. PBEM Bigot - I'm going to storm off this thread now and stew in my own juices for a while. I'll come back in a few weeks and start up a new thread and demand PBEM again, because there is a chance you'll have seen the light. Me - we agree that PBEM is important, but it might not be technically possible. That's the only reason why it won't go in. ------------- Worst of all, throughout this whole repeated idiotic repetition of something that shouldn't have gone on for more than 10 posts, we keep saying that it looks good that PBEM will get in. Recently I even said that chances are extremely high that it will get in. Yet still, the PBEM Bigots out there aren't satisfied. That menas neither simple logic nor reassurances that they have nothing to worry about aren't good enough. To repeat an overused quote: "Insanity is defined as repeating the same action over and over again and expecting a different result" Our position is the same now as it was the very first time it was brought up. It is insane to think that after all this time we're going to say "oh, looks like PBEM isn't technically possible. Check back in 2009 for the totally rewritten, dumbed down, and technically backwards version of CM:SF instead of the one we were planning on releasing soon". Nuts! Steve </font>

You realize that I'm not asking for PBEM functionality in this thread or outside of the thread I started a few weeks ago? Probably not, I expect you don't read or listen very often. Let me help you read between the lines: You're a rude fool and you're acting this way without any possible gain on your part. QED you're a troll.

Here's the thing, you want the fight. That's really all you care about. If you really wanted PBEM threads to die you wouldn't wade in every PBEM post swinging. But yet, here you are, again. I added my thoughts to this thread more or less to point out how you get entertainment and sport from calling customers stupid. You're possibly the only forum admin I've ever come across that's an active troll on their own board.

What a bunch of horsecrap. I've heard every emotional, unreasonable, illogical, and down right asinine argument for PBEM in addition to all the reasonable ones. The answer to all of them is the same: We want PBEM in. The only reason why it won't go in is if it is technically impossible. </font>

If anyone isn't listening very well, it's BFC.

Forgive me if this is simplistic, but we own the Stryker. Paid for with our taxes. Does GD actually own the brand image? Someday, very soon I'm sure, our troops are going to war with Yahoo.com fighting vehicles and Taco Bell rifles. If the media can use images of the vehicle without worries (for their own profit) why would BFC be held to a different standard? With the flood of crappy games using Strykers in their artwork you'd think this issue would be hashed out already.