GreenAsJade

Can you clarify what you mean by "did not submit a score"? Are these games that didn't finish in time, and you're telling us the result of using their non-finished score, or are these games where litterally no score was told to you (in which case how are they included in the calculation?)? Ta, GaJ

Can you clarify what you mean by "did not submit a score"? Are these games that didn't finish in time, and you're telling us the result of using their non-finished score, or are these games where litterally no score was told to you (in which case how are they included in the calculation?)? Ta, GaJ

Can you clarify what you mean by "did not submit a score"? Are these games that didn't finish in time, and you're telling us the result of using their non-finished score, or are these games where litterally no score was told to you (in which case how are they included in the calculation?)? Ta, GaJ

If the desktop icons are too small for comfort at high res, try this: - right click on the background (desktop) - properties - settings - advanced - set DPI settings to large size Then you have the benefit of high res for apps but larger stuff displayed by windows. The one drawback is that a few apps will have some quirks. Like McMMM did before I fixed it up: apps have to be careful to be compatible with large DPI, and don't always get it right. It's hardly ever a problem though: just something to have in the back of your mind if something doesn't seem right. A less comprehensive change is to choose "appearance" instead of "settings", and choose "large fonts". That is less likely to mess up an application. It will make the labels on icons bigger, without actually making the icons themselves bigger... Good Luck! GaJ.

Size and resolution are two linked but different factors. If you have high resolution on a small screen the units will be tiny. If you have high resultion on a big screen you get all the benefits Lawyer mentioned.

I agree that Squeezing the Melon was the best of the bunch. It had an interesting & spectacular map, interesting premise (unlike Brent, I don't care about the allegedly unhistorical nature of it) , lots of good gear to play with, armour and inf, and action right away. In my AAR I lamented the unbroken trees everywhere that the allies were forced to slog through - a long way on foot, a slow way in vehicles - and I still see that as the one shortcoming. It certainly limits options, and impacted my enjoyment of the otherwise fine scenario. (I had one other gripe in my AAR, re a completely unnecessary and misleading comment in the Allied briefing "The ground is damp, but not yet saturated and should bear the weight of our vehicles if necessary" which I strongly suggest takng out... if the idea is to alert the player to the weather conditions, there must be a better way!) GaJ. edit: note that any comments I make here or in AARs have to be taken with a pinch of salt, because I am one of the lowest ranking players in the world... so what the heck do I know!!?!? [ June 19, 2004, 04:44 AM: Message edited by: GreenAsJade ]

You're a true gentleman, John. Unfortunately, the Axis are _supposed_ to do poorly in Retreat (in the sense that most of them did), wheras the Allies in general seem to have done well: the notable exceptions being me and jjelink (who I only just noticed, much to my joy )

You're a true gentleman, John. Unfortunately, the Axis are _supposed_ to do poorly in Retreat (in the sense that most of them did), wheras the Allies in general seem to have done well: the notable exceptions being me and jjelink (who I only just noticed, much to my joy )

You're a true gentleman, John. Unfortunately, the Axis are _supposed_ to do poorly in Retreat (in the sense that most of them did), wheras the Allies in general seem to have done well: the notable exceptions being me and jjelink (who I only just noticed, much to my joy )

Nope, cancel that. You completely ruined my day. (Kingfish had edited & correted the list before I looked at it, so I do indeed have the worst result in Retreat )

Nope, cancel that. You completely ruined my day. (Kingfish had edited & correted the list before I looked at it, so I do indeed have the worst result in Retreat )

Nope, cancel that. You completely ruined my day. (Kingfish had edited & correted the list before I looked at it, so I do indeed have the worst result in Retreat )

Michael, you made my day!

Michael, you made my day!

Michael, you made my day!

Hah - I have no other explanation for your comment "Don't try sneaking around that hill, I can see you", other than dust gave it away! Maybe you are prepared to stare at subtle colour changes to spot dust instead of using the quick "****f-I"... it's gamey nonetheless! GaJ.

Hmmm - can't help you there: I'm at 1600x1200

Martin " it does give a credible performance of both the limited visibility and the long-range spotting of ovement. If you ask me at least..." I think it would be dramaticaly improved for little coding effort by making dust clouds not appear for "Move". Or not appear for Move for lighter vehicles. The completely indescriminate production of always visible dust dimishes the credibility IMHO. GaJ.

Cool! Much clearer in the real thing than the preview piccy!

These are great. Downloading now. Just one question: what is the effect where it looks like "the paint ran down" from the clouds near the horizon in the clear day ones? I can't say I've ever seen a sky looking quite like that, but then I guess I've never seen a NA Desert either... GaJ

I have the same as Para: 9600Pro. It has text problems with FSAA. But then, I can't tell the difference in appearance with FSAA on and off, so this doesn't bother me! (Is this because I have a high res screen: is FSAA something you only care about on a lower res screen or somefink?) GaJ.

What is a "death clock"?

Yeah - I had a funny thing where a dust trail led up to behind the crest of a hill I was looking at, then the next turn the sound contact appeared on a neighboring rise. Guess where the vehicle really was. If this is realistic, according to you all who sound like you know what you are talking about, then so be it. I'd like to see some of the pictures some people offered. I also take Revs' point: use it to your advantage. But... I thought the whole big thing was supposed to be realism, not taking advantage of gamey features. For my money, if you can get an advantage out of turning on something like F&C graphcs, then that's not realism, that's gamey... GaJ.

What you are missing is that this ISNT a big dust cloud. I think I said, in my first post, that I accepted that fast moving AFVs generate plumes of dust that we probably be seen from miles away behind ranges of hills. But this is slowly moving single light AFVs. The game shows you the difference in size of dust cloud, so it's not as if we're debating how much dust. The point is that in the current implementation EVERY AFV MOVEMENT CAN BE SEEN AT ALL TIMES BY THE ENEMY (during the day). If someone makes the case that this reflects reality, then so be it... I'm open to be convinced. But at the moment this just seems gamey and unrealistic - kind of confirmed by the fact that you can do much better with your graphics set to F&C than realistic. GaJ.

That's exactly it, t4f. The fact that every AFV kicks up dust when it moves, and you can see this dust no matter what, means that there is no way you can sneak AVFs around. You have to assume that your enemy knows where you have AFVs at all times, because he DOES. GaJ.