Alarmer

Yes wolfe !! Thank you much the Rage3DTweakers game util was indeed the cause for the gamma probles. I found it in registery folder called game util/game gamma/ there was combat mission afrika korps.exe and some registery key after it. Deleted it and the normal gamma is back again! Quite and coincidence that game util and CMAK use the same key for gamma changing , and bad luck too Hope this helps somebody else too.

thanks wolfe that sounds like a good tip since iam using r3dtweaker. I shall look into it

Bumb I have hard time believing Iam the only one whos gamma settings isnt working as it should. Ati Radeon with 3.7 catalyst should be pretty common. Does anyone know what registery thing I should remove or what I should do to cure this gamma trouble?

Thank you for your quick answer ! Ill try that del preferences now. .. update: I delled the preferences file but Gamma was still the same super high. It seems to be setted deep down in registry or something. Since reinstalling didint help. When I pressed alt-g in game it little by little increased gamma, there was no like "medium" --> "high" gamma jump or anything. And no matter how much I tap alt-g the gamma refuses to change. But as I come back to desktop it is almost completely white which in my books is super gamma Rebootting and activating color pad in catalyst drivers change the gamma back to normal. Might seem like a small issue, but I have not seen this kinda thing in any other game. Should be doable by BattleField also ? [ December 12, 2003, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: Alarmer ]

Hi there. I seem not to be the only one with gamma probs here. I have Ati radeon 9800pro with 3.7 cats with Windows XP and the first time I adjusted gamma it worked. Iam not quite sure how should the gamma alt-g work since I only could get higher gamma not lower. After that everytime I boot up CMAK the gamma doesnt work. But my desktop is in super gamma mode Can I change this somehow? Or do I need to unisntall? How nice, I uninstalled and installed again. The super gamma stays. Now this really is a issue. Thanks. [ December 12, 2003, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: Alarmer ]

You sound like a narrow minded person. WWII has been over for over 50 years, there are no Nazis anymore.

Heheh this is hilarious.. Guess some of you dudes really dont game other than CM games, well you dont need too hot card for that. Generally ATI at the moment has slightly better drivers, performance and definetly costs less than Nvidia cards.Not to mention better AA quality on ATI and Nvidias driver cheating. My personal opinion is that Titanium cards were really good bang for the buck these new FX cards arent really worth the money they make you pay for em. Mayby some of you really should read couple hardware forums and see where things are going nowdays

who or what is gunnybunny? Iam just a basic strategy gamer from Finland.. The graphics dont matter in a strategy game but then again asking for more isnt like screaming a blody murder is it.. I mean good graphics can be a huge realism factor there is no doubt about that. And somehow the "our pc:s cannot handle it" comment is quite out of date so to say. Since this isnt really a real time game, I bet the time new combat mission engine comes out our hardware is more than cabaple of handling more troops in screen and more polygons. The problem must be in hardware because not to sound too blund if your a artist or so, creating little bit better looking troops cannot be a serious problem. Btw iam sorry i didint notice the improvements that allrdy are there, now that I compare the new troops are clearly improvement. Hopefully the trend holds its lead and in CMAK we see better troop graphics. Tanks imho are superb just the way they are, and they can be allways modded.

Yes they look nice dont they But one thing annoyes me to the utmost limit. Why cant Battlefront just add more polygons to the soldiers as well.. They look so bad honestly, I wish they would do something to em just for the sake of realism feeling. And I truly wait that in their next engine every soldier is drawn

Iam no programmer but I have had some programming classes and surely I know CMMOS isnt the most complex program there is. To abstract it (alot), you press a button and it copyes/overwrites the files which you would have to do manually without CMMOS. If they alrdy included it some mods and CMMOS with CMBO CDV version mayby this isnt impossible suggestion

Hi there. I find it bit frustrating time to time install all CMMOS programs etc. I was wondering why dont Battlefront make somekinda small program into next CM game and easen up fellow modders life alot. Iam no programmer but iam sure it woulndt be huge effort?

Great Idea! Actually I was thinking something like this in a question mode when I came to this forum. I was to ask how large are example MG42 firing area fire is supressing? is 10*10 square box are or how is it determined in CMBB? Overall the idea of setting area fire boxes and the ability to choose how much support weapons fire at a turn is great idea!

1. Add every soldier visible and leave the dead ones laying in the battlefield. This would create alot of being there feeling. This might reduce the scale of combat mission battles but I would be willing to do that sacrifice. Anyways really big battles in CM games arent that enjoyable they tend to take lots of time and you allways forgot to move somebody. Ofcourse this is my view only but I think CM has always been ment for little skirmishes not huge battles. Now if somebody dares to say that the Hardware isnt up for every man modelled in the field I disagree.. R9700pro will be the low end graphic card when CMX2 will hit the streets. 2. CMBB good in graphic sense and in strategy games graphics dont mean that much but I would like to see improved graphics aswell.. Sadly the graphics are what sells games and CM games have easy and working gameplay in my mind, so why not beefen up the graphics and surely sales will rise too

Hey ALT-TABing helps also with ATI 3.1 drivers and FSAA enabled Works fine now

Hey ALT-TABing helps also with ATI 3.1 drivers and FSAA enabled Works fine now

Hello there. I just installed CMBB 1.02 US version to my computer and was quite shocked when I fistly opened up the game. There was no version number in lower corner. When I hitted the scenarios button there were no scenarios!! Just empty list with nationality flags normally. Well I panicked a bit but then started mess with ATI settings. I had just installed catalyst 3.1 drivers which are btw really good. I disabled anistropihic filtering. no go. Then disabled FSAA bang scenario texts were back. Mayby somebody could tell if this is ATI:s or Battlefronts problem? Since with 1.01 and catalysts 2.5 FSAA worked ok with cmbb.

Hello there. I just installed CMBB 1.02 US version to my computer and was quite shocked when I fistly opened up the game. There was no version number in lower corner. When I hitted the scenarios button there were no scenarios!! Just empty list with nationality flags normally. Well I panicked a bit but then started mess with ATI settings. I had just installed catalyst 3.1 drivers which are btw really good. I disabled anistropihic filtering. no go. Then disabled FSAA bang scenario texts were back. Mayby somebody could tell if this is ATI:s or Battlefronts problem? Since with 1.01 and catalysts 2.5 FSAA worked ok with cmbb.

I agree Rarity is a good thing.. What I wanted to say is that I now realise that when you play quick battles and both partyes buy "best" troops there are ,result is allways non historical battle.. right ?

Excelent replyes and most informative Thanks Now after reading your posts Iam coming to conclusion that CMBB rarity has little bit fishy smell in it :/ ??

Yes i forgotted, the Armor strengh tables may vary because of the speed of projectile and ammo type etc. My mistake. Guess iam just one of those guys who read lots of authentic war stories and want to see em come real in CMBB. I understand the "stories" are just mayby lucky individuals. Otherwise there wouldnt have been any destroyed Tigers or T34 i guess

I have been looking for good eastern front book but then again I think iam asking too much when i want it to have overall info on big battles and about small skirmishes (what we are playing in CMBB) . I got a good answer from a fellow in last thread that with allmost 100% chance everykinda battle you imagine in CMBB was in eastern front thanks to huge scale , but still i would like some realistic standards to Quick Battles. Too bad nobody has doned any kinda general list and tips about creating a good realistic Quick battles. Or I just havent found it yet.

1) How historical is a meeting of 3 PIII 50mm with 3 T-34s modele 41 ? I really dont know, could you enlighten me thanks. 2) Does your historical sources describe a battle of PIII 50mm vs T-34s modele 41 and state penetration is impossible ? If yes, what are your sources ? Dont have no sources I have been looking for good eastern front book but have not yet successed. I just compared CMBB in game data and well, they say its pretty impossible :/ 3) Why is your opponent coming as close as 500m if penetration by 50mm AP is not possible in-game above than this range ? If i were him, i would safely kill your panzers from 1500m away... We have gamed meeting engagements. So both have used tanks to support infantry to capture objectives. Ill try those scenarios ps. My knowledge of eastern front is limited. I asked for advice in my last thread " how to create historical quick battle" , but didint get too much help. I know T34 in beginning of war wasnt really common enemy , t34 and kv1 were about 20% of russias tank force , right? so i guess 3xpz3 vs 3xt34 isnt quite realistic..

Darn wheres the edit.. Iam talking about early war T34, 41 year mostly. We are playing early war battles with friend and iam usually beating him with ease with 4xpz3 vs around 3xt34 . I havent played with Tigers much yet since we are advancing couple monts per game. But if T34 are easy to pop up with early pz3 I wonder if Tiger I are having the same kinda bad habit? I havent doned any tests atleast yet :/

Yep I meant the 50/L60 .. Now everywhere i read it should be "impossible" to penetrate T34 frontal turret. I check the penetration table and compare it to T34 frontal armor values and angles, shouldnt be possible. :/ I just readed a post here about armor strongness and T34 should be stronger. I allways destroy T34 from front (since they are hard to flank in cmbb) but in war stories and combat manuals they say it should be only possible with side/rear close range hits. Iam now talking early was 41/42 equipment like pz3. No need to yell , i just wanted to bring the article up since i considered it a good read. And at the same ask some simple questions

http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lakes/3457/tiger1.htm and the article