Miska

Yes, i want too a option to disable battletimer i have always hated time limits in computer games.

"But, I am guessing that the instances you are referring to are during "all quiet" moments and that you had the camera locked to the unit?" Yes, there was no gunfire or anything else battlenoise in background, that squad was recon squad in a recon mission and all was quiet in a eastern front.

Is there sound contact anymore like it was in previous CM games. In my recent game my squad walked right front of the T62 tank guns which was behind ridge and they noticed that tank when they saw it and were gunned down. In my opinion they should have hear that tank much earlier (i used hunt command).

What is the meaning of buddy aid, do i get ammo from fallen squad member or his special weapons or is it there just to create atmosphere? :confused:

This joke is soooo old

I just want to say that i just love this game, i know it have it's flaws but i know also that it's going to be better and better over time and can't wait it's modules. *cough IDF cough*

I usually launch smoke first then i reverse my stryker as close as possible to the door and then i use fast command instead of assault command.

I just would love to see IDF in this game so if we get enough people to support that idea maybe then battlefront will change their mind

That is odd, i just played Al Huqf scenario as reds and blue forces acted as they should be, attacked and wipe my forces out of map

My humble opinion is that amphibious assault ships must construct like subs and other naval vessels. If i remember correct Operation Anvil was delayed because of allied needed their amphibious ships in normandy. In present system you can make amphibious assaults when you want where ever you want almost free. Just makes amphibious assaults too easy and cheap.

I remember old C64 game Storm across europe where was three playable sides Germany and minor axis,Soviet union and Western allies. I think it would be great if S.U could be played as own side with own diplomacy and declare war independently like against Turkey or Finland. When S.U is AI controlled there could be option to turn S.U behavior aggressive or historical as it is now. Comments?

My Porche is now ready.

This is what i found from internet The Attractive Force of Glass Our hero stands innocently on the sidewalk as a sinister car approaches with a shotgun protruding from the window. Suddenly he sees it, but—blam— it's too late. He's blown violently off his feet and flies several feet backward through the nearest display window. Fortunately, he's wearing his bulletproof vest and survives. If he were not on the sidewalk by a display window, then invariably he'd be blown into a rack of whisky bottles, a giant mirror, or some other large glass object. This happens so often that if we didn't know better we'd think Hollywood had discovered a new principle of physics: the attractive force of glass for shooting victims. Hollywood apologists would explain that the hero was blown backwards by the force of the shotgun blast, and glass objects are in the way 98% of the time due entirely to random chance. Unfortunately the current laws of physics don't agree. A load of buckshot hitting a vest can be considered an inelastic collision. This means that the kinetic energy of the victim with the buckshot stuck on his vest is less than the original kinetic energy of the buckshot before the collision. The "lost" kinetic energy is not really lost, it has just changed forms. Some of it becomes a shock wave in the victim that creates bruises and possibly cracked ribs. Some is converted to heat. Even though kinetic energy is "lost" during the collision, momentum is not. The momentum of the victim is the same as the original momentum of the buckshot. So, the collision can be analyzed using conservation of momentum. This will let us estimate the backwards velocity of the shooting victim and judge whether he would indeed be thrown violently backwards. To make the analysis we have to decide on some simplifying assumptions. As a rule of thumb, physicists and engineers (who should be considered applied physicists) generally start with the simplest reasonable calculation or model when analyzing whether an event will occur. They will also attempt to make assumptions which favor the event's occurrence. The reasoning is that if a simple model with favorable assumptions shows there could be no effect then there's no point in making a more rigorous model. We'll make a simplifying assumption that there is no friction to impede the backward motion of the victim. This would favor the event's occurrence. To calculate the momentum of an object we use the following equation: p = mv Where p is momentum, m is mass, and v is velocity. Before the buckshot collides with the victim, the victim's momentum is zero, since he is not moving. This means that we only have to consider the momentum of the buckshot. For simplicity we will treat the buckshot as though it is a single object rather than calculating individual momentums for each pellet and adding them together. Both of these methods give the same result. After the collision the victim and buckshot stick together and so, again, we only have to calculate the momentum of their combined mass. We'll use a subscript of 1 to indicate conditions before the collision and a subscript of 2 to indicate conditions after the collision. Hence: p2 = p1 It's Not Newton's 3rd Law Contrary to the explanations given in some venues, the fact that shooting victims are not thrown violently backwards by bullet impact forces cannot be explained using Newton's 3rd law. These explanations usually claim that the recoil force on the shooter is an action/reaction pair with the bullet impact force on the victim—simply not true. Action/reaction pairs of forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. They occur simultaneously. While the recoil and bullet impact forces are opposite in direction they do not occur simultaneously. The recoil force begins before the bullet strikes the target. It is generally lower in magnitude than the bullet impact force but lasts for a longer time. By substitution: m2v2 = m1v1 Solving for the velocity of the victim after the collision gives: v2 = (m1/m2)v1 Note that the velocity of the victim is proportional to the buckshot's mass to victim's mass ratio. This ratio is going to be tiny. Using the following values: the mass of the man with buckshot stuck to his vest equals 80 kg and the mass of the buckshot alone equals 0.0318 kg with a velocity of 486 m/s, we obtain: v2 = (0.0318 kg)/(80 kg)(486 m/s) = 0.193 m/s This is about 0.4 miles per hour. Keep in mind that humans can walk about 4 miles per hour. Since our model was set up with favorable assumptions, we have to conclude that shooting victims aren't going to be blown backwards through display windows by the force of a shotgun blast. There's yet another way to view the problem. Conservation of momentum works for shooters as well as victims. In other words, recoil from firing a weapon will give a shooter backward momentum equal to the forward momentum of the bullet and hot gasses from burning gun powder exiting the gun barrel. (Note: buckshot will also include a light weight, fibrous wad placed between the powder and buckshot.) When the bullet strikes the victim he'll end up with only the momentum the bullet had immediately before striking. The magnitude of the victim's backwards momentum will be less than the magnitude of the shooter's backward momentum because the victim will not be hit by the firearm's hot gasses. Also, thanks to air resistance, the bullet will be moving more slowly and have less momentum than when it first exited the gun barrel. If the recoil from discharging a firearm is insufficient to throw the shooter backwards through the nearest window then the bullet also will not throw the victim backwards through the nearest window. There is one other possible mechanism for being blown through a window: involuntary muscle contraction. The victim could be so stunned by being shot that he involuntarily jumps backwards. Since we haven't run this experiment, and have no desire to do so, we can't totally rule it out, but it does seem unlikely. ----------------------------------------------- And here is the website where i found it http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/

You are right

Yes i need to upgrade anyway and reason why the top processor which i mentioned above is so tempting is that i need processing power also other things than just playing games. But if i'm going to play CMSF then i probably need good video card also. So it seems that this will be very expensive project. (And my wife will kill me if she finds out how expensive)