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)

Yes you are right and i must buy new graphic card anyway because my current card is AGP and if i buy new processor i need new motherboard and PCI-E card. My current MB is socket 754 and i need socket 939.

My thought was that do i really need so powerful processor. 500€ is much of money after all even though much below market prices

I wouldn't compare car tires to processor. To me it's more like a engine.

Friend of mine is selling one month old AMD 4600 64b X2 processor for less than 500€ (625 USD) maybe i should buy this and build new PC around this processor.

I'm going to upgrade my PC so is there any news what is recommend system specs? I know this is asked before but then Steve said that more info is coming in end of the year.

Based on website warfare.ru (i dont know how reliable it is) the new russian T-95 remains in development due to financial restrictions here is the story A new new Main Battle Tank, which was initially planned to enter service in 1994, remains in development due to financial restrictions. It is under development at the Uralvagonzavod Plant in Nizhniy Tagil [Potkin's bureau] which was responsible for all recent Russian tanks apart from the T-80. "URALVAGONZAVOD" (Ural Carriage-Building Plant) in Nizhny Tagil has manufactured a variety of products, ranging from universal type 8-axle rail cars and tanks of the highest quality to the T-34 tanks which had no rivals in World War II. State acceptance trials of the new tank started at the Kubinka Proving Ground in August or September of 1998. Very little information is publicly available concerning this vehicle, including the official designation, which is apparently still designated under the developmental "ob'ekt" nomenclature. It is suggested that this new tank will weigh about 50 tons, though with a lower silhouette than other recent Russian tanks. The primary armament is reportedly a 152mm smoothbore gun / ATGM launcher with an ammunition load of at least 40 rounds, which may be placed in an unmanned gun pod on top of the hull to lower the silhouette and increase survivability. The new design also places far greater emphasis on crew protection than in previous Russian tank designs through a unitary armored pod inside the hull. This new tank is apparently in competition with the T-80UM2 "Black Eagle" modification, and may remain unable to secure production funding due to its higherr cost and the potential for upgrading the existing T-80 inventory to the "Black Eagle" standard. ----------------------------------------- So maybe the Omsk factory has still hope. And yes i was registered when i bought my first Combat Mission game (a bundlepack actually) and now i read about this new game and i wait it very excited

Thanks Bigduke6 but unfortunately i dont understand Russian language

It was little surprise to me that russians manufactured MBT's also for export only. Is there any chance that this is also modelled for syrians or it is just too expensive? http://armor.vif2.ru/Tanks/MBT/b_eagle.html

Based on some sources he is actually from Israel because he has video camera attached on his optics and israelis use this kind stuff also ("if it's on the internet then it must be true") [ January 18, 2006, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: Miska ]

This might be a little bit off topic but i found interesting article from internet Elusive sniper saps US morale in Baghdad Commanders weigh their options as 'Juba' notches up more kills Rory Carroll in Baghdad Friday August 5, 2005 The Guardian They have never seen Juba. They hear him, but by then it's too late: a shot rings out and another US soldier slumps dead or wounded. There is never a follow-up shot, never a chance for US forces to identify the origin, to make the hunter the hunted. He fires once and vanishes. Juba is the nickname given by American forces to an insurgent sniper operating in southern Baghdad. They do not know his appearance, nationality or real name, but they know and fear his skill. Elusive sniper saps US morale in Baghdad Commanders weigh their options as 'Juba' notches up more kills Rory Carroll in Baghdad Friday August 5, 2005 The Guardian They have never seen Juba. They hear him, but by then it's too late: a shot rings out and another US soldier slumps dead or wounded. There is never a follow-up shot, never a chance for US forces to identify the origin, to make the hunter the hunted. He fires once and vanishes. Juba is the nickname given by American forces to an insurgent sniper operating in southern Baghdad. They do not know his appearance, nationality or real name, but they know and fear his skill. Article continues -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "He's good," said Specialist Travis Burress, 22, a sniper with the 1-64 battalion based in Camp Rustamiyah. "Every time we dismount I'm sure everyone has got him in the back of their minds. He's a serious threat to us." Gun attacks occasionally pepper the battalion's foot and mounted patrols, but the single crack of what is thought to be a Tobuk sniper rifle inspires particular dread. Since February, the killing of at least two members of the battalion and the wounding of six more have been attributed to Juba. Some think it is also he that has picked off up to a dozen other soldiers. In a war marked by sectarian bombings and civilian casualties, Juba is unusual in targeting only coalition troops, a difficult quarry protected by armoured vehicles, body armour and helmets. He waits for soldiers to dismount, or stand up in a Humvee turret, and aims for gaps in their body armour, the lower spine, ribs or above the chest. He has killed from 200 metres away. "It was the perfect shot," the battalion commander, Lt Col Kevin Farrell, said of one incident. "Blew out the spine. "We have different techniques to try to lure him out, but he is very well trained and very patient. He doesn't fire a second shot." Some in the battalion want marksmen to occupy rooftops overlooking supply routes, Juba's hunting ground, to try to put him in the cross-hairs. "It would be a pretty ****ty assignment because he's good," said Spc Burress. "I think it's a sniper's job to get a sniper, and it'd probably take all of us to get him." American snipers operate in teams of at least two people, a shooter and a spotter, the latter requiring more experience since he must use complicated formulae to calculate factors such as wind strength and drag coefficients. Some worry that Juba is on his way to becoming a resistance hero, acclaimed by those Iraqis who distinguish between "good" insurgents, who target only Americans, and "bad" insurgents who harm civilians. The insurgent grapevine celebrates an incident last June when a four-strong marine scout sniper team was killed in Ramadi, all with shots to the head. Unlike their opponents, US snipers in Baghdad seldom get to shoot. Typically they hide on rooftops and use thermal imaging and night vision equipment to monitor areas. If there is suspicious activity, they summon aircraft or ground patrols. "We are professionals. There is a line between a maniac with a gun and a sniper," said Mike, 31, a corporal with a reconnaissance sniper platoon who did not want to his surname to be used. He spoke during a 24-hour mission on a roof during which his team ate junk food and urinated into a bottle. During daylight they lay on the ground, immobile, to avoid being seen. "It's not a glamorous life," he said. There was no sign of Juba, who tended to operate further east, but the team spotted mortar flashes and fed the coordinates to base. Mike said he had shot 14 people in Somalia, three in Afghanistan and one in Iraq. "It's not like you expect it to be, an emotional high. You just think about the wind, the range, then it's over with." Sniper fire is only of the threats for an American military that has suffered heavy losses this week. Yesterday another soldier was killed in Ramadi, west of Baghdad, adding to the 21 who died in attacks on Monday and Wednesday. Roadside bombs account for most of the lives lost, and the size and design of the explosions has led investigators to conclude that the insurgents are learning bombmaking methods from other terrorist organisations. Yesterday's New York Times reported that the techniques used by Hezbollah in Lebanon were increasingly being seen in roadside bombs in Iraq. An unnamed senior American commander quoted by the paper said bombs using shaped charges closely matched the bombs that Hezbollah used against Israel. "Our assessment is that they are probably going off to 'school' to learn how to make bombs that can destroy armoured vehicles," he said.