mazex
-
Posts
252 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by mazex
-
-
BFC doesn't need to license Speedtree technology.
The tree rendering in CM:N is just fine, it's only the movement of trees in heavy winds that cause such a drastic performance loss.
I suppose SpeedTree not only renders static trees but also trees that are moving due to wind, and then I guess they do it rather optimized, otherwise they should be called SlowTree?
Anyway, the trees in CM:BN actually looks better than I had hoped for so as you say, it's mainly the movement due to wind that is a problem. Not that I think the performance is bad anyway - but I have a high end rig and compare the performance with CM:SF version 1.0 
-
I wonder how expensive SpeedTree is to licence? Just add all the trees and flowers and focus on the tanks and game mechanics instead? Now they have already spent a lot of hours on their own trees so the ROI will get a serious hit
OK, looking here you get SpeedTree for $10.000:
http://www.speedtree.com/sales/
So if they spent more than 100 hours on their trees they are already on the downhill on that investment....
And just look at the tree library you get for that price:
-
Returning from a long absence I have to say it's damn nice to get rid of the desert and the US high tech vs men with beards and AK-47:s!
In WW2 it simply feels good being good
The enemy is definitely bad wearing evil looking black leather coats and has better weapons to top that! That is something to fight against! Popping a battered Toyota Pickup from an Abrams is quite different to getting a lucky shot on a Panther with your trusty Sherman... And playing Germans can be fun too - you have better stuff including evil looking uniforms and machinery, but too little of it...And then the terrain... It looks really good in this iteration, and running max on everything it's really smooth (have a high end rig though - 2600k @4.5 and a GTX580). The AI and game mechanics also behave a lot better than I feel I have a right to demand from a computer game developed by a bunch of people that can go in same car on their way to a Friday beer
Thanks a lot BF, and even though I was disappointed at the CM:SF setting I am happy you did that first to iron out the bugs to give us this nice game rather bug free! Bought CM:SF and all expansions to support you but hardly played it at all for the reason on the first row...
/Mazex
-
Backing stuff up on a DVD-RW is quickly done. And usually there's space for extra stuff - patches, mods, whatever you don't want to look up every time you have to re-install the thing.
Backing up to DVD? Isn't backup what wifes or kids computers are really for
-
Just got off the phone with Steve and Charles, they're planning a CM: Normandy Cowbell Edition. The package will come with a full life-size cowbell in it. It's gonna take the wargaming scene by storm.
Only ONE cowbell? It definitely needs more cowbell!
-
Well, I have stationary E8400 clocked at 3,66Ghz with 6 GB memory and a GTX 275, and the only game it has problems running is CMSF... Like it anyway
-
This post made me buy BF even though I don't have time playing it now
-
A big thanks for the effort Hunter! No shame shall fall upon you for pulling the plug after all that effort!
Being a full time developer myself I have tried many game projects that has failed utterly... None of this size - but even a tiny game takes a lot of time...
Python is one of my weakest languages - otherwise I would be interested in at least trying to do something with it. If a lot of others joined in...
I hear others circling in on the API for "talking to" CMBB... Moon - is it OK to use that with some other code? Thinking of a less ambitious lightweight version of CMC written in C++ or C#...
Thanks Hunter! /Mazex
-
Ohh, I would never talk bad about Massive Entertainment that did WiC. They sure are a dedicated bunch of talented developers... I was talking to their CEO at a party recently about them selling a stripped version of the WiC graphics engine cheap to Battlefront, but that would naturally never work with the publishers etc. It would be an interesting mix though. BFC focusing on the hardcore game play stuff and not having to worry about getting those fancy DX10 explosions to run on both ATI and Nvidia hardware. Martin is well aware of the CM series and we played a bit of CMBB together at a party in my place some year ago...
-
Well, as the OP I have to add some thoughts as people seem to frown on main stream stuff like Gamespot. I generally agree that user reviews are rather useless in general - but somehow I tend to look for big deviations between the "real" review and the user reviews. If a game gets a review of 8.5 and the average user review is 6.9 after 150 user reviews I tend to get a bit cautious. Never underestimate the masses. In those cases I pick some random user reviews to see if I find someone that looks like it's written by someone with similar preferences like myself. If I find a number of well written user reviews that give low scores with a motivation that seems plausible - I listen. It's the same way the other way around. A low score on a "real" review written by someone that I realize have different priorities than myself, and some well written user reviews that point in another direction satisfies me that I should maybe take the "real" review with a grain of salt.
When I read a review that says 9.1 and the average of 150 user reviews is 9.2, it's a safe bet to say that the game is a good one. That does not mean it is a good one for me or you! In this case I wanted to rally some of you to bolster the 6.9 as I would have looked at it in the way described above for a game that I was not as deeply involved in as this. We are all interested in increased sales for CMSF - right? If only the grogs on these forums buy Marines we will all lose in the end. We do need fresh cannon fodder to keep BFC in business until we get to old for war games (= dies). If some 18 year old "kid" that has only played Company of Heroes and World in Conflict before gets his eyes on a review on Gamespot (if they do one for Marines) - the risk that he is affected by a bad user review average may cause a lost new fan of the CM series. Young people are more affected by Web 2.0 stuff like user reviews than us old grumpy men that only listen to what is written in a dark corner of a forum known to a few thousand grogs...
I'm also rather sure that a potential reviewer will at least glance at the average user score before putting their own verdict. Why would a professional reviewer do that? They sometimes listen listen to what the masses say, if they don't, they would be out of work rather soon... Would you completely ignore a user average of 9.1 with 500 "voters" if you where balancing between putting an 8.0 or 8.5 score? I wouldn't...
/Mazex
-
There are only 6 user reviews there with a currently weak average of 6.9. I think that score for Marines is way to low after the great 1.10 patch... It's an influential site so go there and add your opinions if you disagree with 6.9! It requires registration but it's not that hard - m'kay?
Here's mine:
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/combatmissionshockforcemarines/player_review.html?id=610858
/Mazex
-
I can confirm this. I have the Paradox version of CMSF (living in Sweden so I preordered the game at a local store). Downloaded and installed the Marines module this Saturday and it works great. It's really nice to be able to play the game without the CD and the eLicencing system works great. Add your key the first time and then you never see it again. I used it before for CMAK and I never had any problems with it there either.
Very nice to be on the same platform as the rest of you - not having to wait for the Paradox patches...
/Mazex
-
Yep - this is like a new game. Now infantry combat is REALLY fun and with so few bugs it makes it very easy to forget some of the remaining path finding issues with the vehicles. I've just played through the first three missions in the old campaign to try it there - and I've only been really pissed one time, when half of my Strykers refused to go through a hole in the wall at the barracks (mission 2). Had to blow a 50 feet wide gap in the wall to get all of them to do it... In version 1.0, I had cursed the code 10 times before even getting my vehicles around the berm at the first mission to face the enemy!
As good as it works now I'm starting to think that BFC deserves some defense contract... If they could buy the Close Combat engine, this is so much better now (would never have said that until 1.10).
I'm really starting to think that the return to WWII will be a glorious one with palm leaves under the Tigers treads
With CMSF 1.0 it would have been a disgrace to the CMx1 heritage!/Mazex
-
Thanks Everyone for this GREAT enhancement!!!
Didnt even took any time to post my appreciation, I was busy playing the game
Strange, since I basically did the same as you, only I chose Red. Drove my T-90's up in two big groups and there was a big armor clash (nice performance!). My two companies were almost destroyed with around 4 immobilized T-90's left when my 3rd Company game as reinforcements. The US still had some 3 abrams. I moved in the third company and they just took out remaing abrams with no real difficulties.
I guess the biggest difference between the T-72 TURMS-T and the T-90SA is that the latter has got more staying power and targets much faster. It can absorb quite a number of M1 main gun rounds and so has more time to shoot of that deadly 125mm apfsds.
In another level my T-90 took out abrams from the front while the abrams failed to penetrate it a couple of times.
Well, maybe I was lucky? Takes a lot of luck for 30-2 in tank combat (and one of them was only immobilzed as you can see from the losses of only three men and one wounded). Here's the after action report:
/Mazex
-
Played first battle. Bad Moon Rising. M1 vs T90SA. I have only one thing to say.
COOL!!
Well, I'm not that sure about "Bad Moon Rising". Flat map with a bunch of tanks in one corner each and almost no briefing at all. Some kind of "hello world" scenario to test the engine I guess, and in that case it failed to impress me. Drove my M1:s straight across the map (real time - veteran) to the enemy corner, stopped when I got in contact with the enemy and got one tank immobilized and one destroyed - the Syrians lost 30 T-90:s and all crews accept 3 survivors that where hiding in the carnage. I would have expected more from the T-90 I guess...
Having said that, Marines still feels very good - especially the infantry combat! Lot's of improvements there!
-
hmm you should have some floating blue unit icons? did you turn the hotkey off?
Ahh, finally I get it! Yes, I did turn them off long time ago as I think they clutter the map. Thank you very much!
@Steve:
It does bother me though that there is no way in the normal unit information GUI to view/select the passenger unit... It would not be that hard to do some small infantry icon with the text "passenger" or something. I could also show the name of the unit and if you clicked it you selected that unit instead. As it is now, I have to use those floating icons that I think spoil the map view... As a "budget" option, how about this: select the passenger unit if I click the green "passenger circles" (the left red arrow in my image above).
/Mazex
-
Just a small observation... I played a scenario that I did for 1.07 in 1.10, and it seems the AI does a much better job now. Got my ass whipped in my own scenario using my "normal" tactics... When you do a scenario, you play it so many times that you always win - but not this time with 1.10
It moved the units a lot faster/more efficient so the advancing AI was right up to it's destinations a lot faster. I may just be coincidence but still - I like it!The new feature that shows the underlying actionspot when issuing a move command to an infantry unit is just brilliant. Instead of getting upset that the infantry does not go exactly where you thought they would go - it show the "truth" - that you order them to an area and not a point. For me, this does a lot for immersion, even thought we knew there was a grid before, we did not really know how it looked...
/Mazex
-
There should be an infantry icon by the vehicle icon that you can select. Then you can go to acquire etc to get javs.
Thank's for your reply - but I guess it's me being stupid instead of blind
Which icon do you mean? The only difference in a "loaded" stryker from an empty one that I can see is the green "position" circles beeing green, and that the option to "dismount" has been enabled...Look below where I have marked this with red arrows.
Stryker with infantry onboard:
Stryker with NO infantry onboard:
-
OK - I has been a while since I played CMSF waiting for the Marines - just got my download finished and it looks really promising!
There is just one thing that I have forgotten - and scanning the manual I can not find it (it probably is there somewhere).
How the hell do you select units INSIDE a vehicle? I want to aquire stuff BEFORE unloading. As it is now I have to unload the troops inside my Stryker to "get hold" of the unit inside and then embark again to get that friggin Javelin - while under fire...
Am I blind or is it so obvious that I do not see it?
/Mazex
-
Well, when I did my military service we used the M240G and on several occasions we fired a full box of 250 bullets in one burst... If I had people storming my position, I would not let go of the trigger. In normal cases it was naturally short 5 round bursts that was practiced...
I remember one occasion a cold winter night when we had eight M240G:s with three barrels each and did 250 round bursts with all MG:s - then switched barrel at the same time the loader switched ammo box. We had those 8 MG running with sqeezed triggers for something like 10 minutes with the short delays for switching belt and barrel. It was a night exercise and ALL the bullets where tracers being fired at an old ruin in the middle of a field. What a sight... The dust cloud from all the hits on the stone building completely obscured it after a while. Why? The regimental budget had not been spent so to avoid getting cuts in it for the next year we had to spend all the ammo we could during a weekend exercise... Besides, it was meant to practice last line defense in the case you had hundreds of russians storming your position screaming "hurraaa". Why belts with only tracers? They are more expensive...
/Mazex
-
OK - to secure that further patches are not delayed - let's all chip in to buy Matt one of these for Christmas
http://www.hitecelectric.com/en/diesel_ups/system_description/
-
Mazex,
Sarcasm - noun - the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
The problem here is not that you're being sarcastic, it's that you're not doing it very well. I never said water wasn't important, I said it was less important than other things. You completely missed that point and tossed the baby out with the bathwater. Which is exactly the point I was making about some small, but VERY vocal, percentage of our customer base. You guys make us want to give customers less, not more, so keep it up and we'll not include grass for the temperate setting just to irritate you more
...
People can accuse us of not having our priorities straight, but that doesn't mean such charges actually hold water. Heh
Steve
Well, I thought my post was pretty sarcastic but then again, English is not my native language so I guess I have to practice more
I do understand that few teams are as limited on resources as BFC, and that important things have to be put on the "next version" list that you really wanted to have... I'm really happy that you got the bugs in the version 1.0 release straightened out and I guess that I can live without water for a while more, but it was one of the things that I really missed most when the 1.07 patch made the game play more as I had hoped from the beginning. Being from Sweden I take some collective guilt as I guess it was Paradox pushing the release, which is a pity as it gave the game reviews it did not deserve. Lets hope some of the big gaming sites does a "fresh" review when Marines arrive to correct that.
Anyway, when I do my own missions (which is something I kind of like to do in the CM games) I tend to use a lot of water. Therefore it was a great disappointment when I realized that there was no water in CMSF. Look at the following excerpt of the briefing for a scenario that I did for CMSF:
"There is a small city ahead of us called Jalil that needs to be secured, as well as the crossroads nearby where two important roads to the sea split. The sea is just two miles ahead so we should be able to smell it soon! We are ahead of the Main forces and we need to secure this city to keep the momentum of the attack! If we succeed, we will be able to get to the Mediterranean today. That will split the Syrian forces in two - and we will be able to get those desperately needed supplies by sea."
download link of scenario: http://web.telia.com/~u55702101/CMSF/charlie_dont_surf.zip
You can guess what I would have liked to have in the western end of the map...
I also guess that my attempt at sarcasm came from the fact that I had hoped that water would make it into the Marines module. There's something with the name or sumfink that made me dream of that... ;-)
/Mazex
-
The other truism is that uninformed customers always second guess everything we do. Everything we do right could be done better, everything not included should have been included, things included could have been done with out, etc. It's maddening and the primary reason most game developers want as much to do with their customer base as most of us want a sexually transmitted disease. Be thankful we're dumb enough to buck the trend
Oh it's been a while since I was here... I must say I never heard anyone indirectly comparing their customers to sexual diseases. That's fresh. Glad to hear that the small insignificant terrain feature in Syria called the Euphrates will be available in the third iteration of the game. And the Mediterranean coast line for that matter (not that it has any strategic value).
As a long time customer, I feel that I have the right to be sarcastic if you take yourself that right - m'kay?
/Mazex
-
Is it only me - or do the images look a bit "sharper" in some way (if you know what I mean). Has the graphics engine been updated in some way?
Nice going anyway. I just don't get it how one dev can pull this off... You'll get my 25 dollars the day it's released as you have proven that CMSF is a game to build on in the > 1.07 patches...
/Mazex
Anyway, the trees in CM:BN actually looks better than I had hoped for so as you say, it's mainly the movement due to wind that is a problem. Not that I think the performance is bad anyway - but I have a high end rig and compare the performance with CM:SF version 1.0 
First Impressions (CM:BN Full Release)
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
I just friggin love CM:BN so far. Finally we have something that quite obviously blasts CM1 out of my hard drive!
Sure I have bought CM:SF and all the modules to support this second coming, and I was misled to play it in real time after the Tac AI was so stupid in the first versions that you had to baby sit it all the time - making the beloved WeGo impossible. Vehicles going in weird paths, units acting like they where mad/suicidal etc. I suspect that the latest patches of CM:SF is also this good but to me it was a hallelujah moment finally going back to WeGo with confidence that my troops would act OK, and having the playback which is naturally completely unrealistic - but it's just so nice to replay that Panther penetrating hit from 10 different angles
A big thanks to you guys who did this. I really hope some big gaming sites review this and give it the score it deserves so you can get some deserved payback for all your efforts. The graphics are now actually so good that it will not get axed for it and the new comers to the series may stay long enough to realize how good this game really is!
EDIT: And I love that manual too!