Jump to content

PeterLorre86

Members
  • Posts

    138
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About PeterLorre86

  • Birthday 04/15/1986

Converted

  • Location
    NEW JERSEY

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

PeterLorre86's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (3/3)

0

Reputation

  1. I'd also pay for a fix for vista. And the Nvidia 8000 series for that matter. Which ever is causing the problem. Service pack 1 has been released for vista recently, has anyone tried it with CM1 yet to see if that does anything for the compatibility issues?
  2. Nvidia Geforce 8600GTM (m is for laptop i think) with Vista does NOT work with CM1. Also, since 1.06 i have had performance issues with CMSF too; low FPS, crashes, etc. Even with XP SP2 compatibility on. For the love of god, i implore all of you to avoid vista like the plague. Nothing but compatibility issues since day one for me.
  3. It was in the spirit of that statement by the topic starter that i posted my opinion of the UI system in CMSF, i was not trying to be "arrogant" nor "counter productive". I was careful to use the lines "in my opinion" and ended my post with "well thats my two cents on the issue". I also never said Battlefront was "not listening" or "ignoring the other side of the argument", but I'm not sure that was directed at me specifically. What i meant by saying changing hotkeys was a work around was not really that i dislike changing hotkeys or that all games that allow you to change hotkeys have horrid UI, in fact i never said CMSF had 'horrid' UI. The hotkeys are only part of what makes the UI clunky or confused IN MY OPINION. Also, changing the keys by text file would probably not kill ME. It might kill others (or kill their experience with CMSF at least) however, perhaps those who do not bother to sign up to or read the forum, or perhaps those who missed the few threads about changing hotkeys with the text file. I am not saying you cannot improve the UI by changing hotkeys. I am saying that the unmodified UI is less then ideal, to the point of it having a negative effect on the gameplay. To my suggestion of a 'show all right click menu' you say: I agree, 36 commands, that would take up a lot of space. I went in game just now, and depending on which unit i selected i had from 15 to 22 available commands. I don't think it would be impossible to show all of these in a right click menu. It was a random selection of both red and blue, infantry and vehicles, squads and weapons teams. I am not sure there is a unit that uses all 36 commands at once. In CM1, German tanks could not use Human Wave, Russian SMG squads could not button up. Can anyone tell me how many commands the right click menu in CM1 showed? Vista wont let me check for myself... Your second reason was This is a great feature btw, to allow different orders per waypoint. But to solve this with a right click menu, which shows all the commands at once, could be done most simply with color coding. But anyway, i(we?) am(are?) falling into the pattern you point out of arguing one's opinion. I have stated my opinion, you tell me why it doesn't work, and i feel obligated to defend or clarify why in my mind it does in fact work. So maybe we are running in circles at this point, you acknowledge that the UI needs work, and I must accept that it probably wont end up the way I personally would like it. Never said that. </font>
  4. What was nice about the right click menu in CM1 was you could use it as a tool to learn the hotkeys, as the key is displayed next to the order. With higher resolutions i don't think it would be too big, probably about the same size as the CM1 drop menu was with its lower resolutions. And you could always use sub-menus if it was too big. The Homeworld series is an example of a very intuitive UI with a mouse menu that also used sub-menus. I would say CM1 is another example, although once i learned the hotkeys i rarely used it. The UI in CM:SF is clunky and confused in my opinion. It is the reason i rarely play CM:SF. Non-adjustable waypoints is annoying, its nice to hear that some people find this step backwards tolerable but for me i cant ignore it. It's also nice that show all lines/targets is finally in, can we get that without having to have a unit selected? (To clarify, as this sounds sarcastic rereading it, i mean this in the literal sense as it is written) Another solution or improvement would be maybe having it so just clicking on the ground while a unit is selected issues the basic move order, and clicking on an enemy would issue the target command. That way basic commands can be issued and playing in real-time with out pausing ever 10 seconds can be done. Not sure how do-able this would be though, or if it would even turn out well. It would certainly reduce some of the tactics, strategy, or realism that keeps this game from falling out of the war-game genre. The points by c3k and others about 2 function processes are important, as in my experience it seems like to get anything done in the game it takes twice as many mouse clicks then i would expect. This is a major turn off as far as my wanting to play the game. Change the hotkeys you say? Thats a work-around. If thats to be the final solution the game should have an in-game options area for changing this. Learn the hotkeys you say? / is reverse, / is bail out. / is also on the other side of my keyboard from many of the other controls, so i have to look down to find it. The tabbed system adds unnecessary confusion. If your going to use a system like that, it needs to be apparent what tab you are currently in. Yea it's in the bottom of the screen, but if im gonna be staring at that every 5 seconds i might as well be staring a a right click menu that shows all the commands at once. I want to like this game, i really do. CM1 was so great, i think what frustrates me the most is seeing great features from that game replaced by different and less functional versions in this game. Then the creator of the game comes and tells me that i am in fact wrong, CM1 was actually a terrible game and no one liked it. Maybe i just have to get used to it, but its been 7 or 8 months already since i got the game, i would think that would have happened by now. It's frustrating all around. Well thats my 2 cents on the issue anyway.
  5. I always wonder what these threads are, always get here too late...
  6. This excuse is really not valid. Others have pointed out how sand and corrugated steel can quickly and easily be made into top cover for foxholes and trenches. But also contradictions are brought up by making this point. When people complained about the 'blandness' of desert warfare, we were told by battlefront of Syria's diverse climate. Then when we ask where the top cover is we are told the arid environment would not provide the material required to create top cover. Do craters even do anythings as far as cover? My men seem to die just as fast as when they are in the open. Hopefully the new LOS improvements will make them less visible, and i am hoping, more cover. I would say the real reason is closer to what Barleyman suggests, that the engine simply cannot represent it at this point. Sorry if i come off as overly negative.
  7. what!? where they can do that!? i need to know, please. i would like to use it. </font>
  8. A related question, why cant red resupply? Is it a bug or something? Red special forces can resupply, so why not regular syrian units?
  9. Set up a symetrical blue vs blue situation in fairly open terrain at 200-300 meters distance and see if you end up doing anything other then telling your guys to fire. There is no flanking or manuver of any kind once the firefight starts, and this leads to boring gameplay. It all boils down who starts killing more of the other guys first. Player adjusted leathality is not the solution, how can you talk tactics if everyone is playing a different setting? I think the solution more accurate small arms fire model with respect to cover, los/lof, and accuracy, all which i think should be looked at and improved.
  10. The only complaint i have about routing is that there is no notice given. I guess this can be seen as realistic, but playing RT, i look away for 3 seconds and half my men took off when i wasnt looking. I think it would be good if on the status text on the left it would say 'routed' rather then just disappearing, but to me its not that big a deal. I'm sure a couple of Iraqi generals complained about this during the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003.
  11. Actually this may be a problem with the map design, not the game. In the editor you can choose roofs that have no concrete barrier between the two, and that allows you to walk between the roofs of each. Even the larger of the two walls lets u do this, and u can still keep the surrounding outerwall if u cycle through enough times. Still i agree men should be able to climb small concrete curbs.
  12. Just had my sagger crew wiped out from 300+meters by one squad(on the move no less). My saggers were crawling up to the crest of the hill, and killed imediatly after cresting. Wasn't able to get it on video though. Close range the explanations given by Steve make sense. But 300+meters, crawling to the top of a grassy rise? How could they see my men, much less acurately kill all 3 of them with thier first volley? While running mind you! Still, close range works great IMO. 4 of my recon squad walk up a hill and meet face to face with about 30 US soldiers. One of my guys bolted, two went straight for the grenades and managed to throw one each, the last was killed with his jaw dropped in suprise. The whole thing was over in 3 seconds. Caught that on video, i would upload it to utube, but it exceeds the size limit. I was very impressed, exactly how i would expect things to work in the real world. But 300+ meters!? Come on now.
  13. Just to clarify, i was using the QBG map packs. And the problem could be avoided simply by extending the zones away from buildings. However i was just able to get the same result by unloading an AFV too close to the edge of the deployment zone. Its good to know walls are being worked on.
  14. Well i just played a couple of quick battles and for me the results where on the good side of mixed. It is still early though, as i said only played a couple quick battle. Still noticed some of the old bugs that bothered me in previous versions, for example LOS/wall confusion. Also this has happened a few times not sure if its noted, during set up phase in buildings on the edge of deployment zones sometimes my men slip into the non-deploy zone from which i cannot retrieve them until after the game begins. Sometimes this is not a big deal, sometimes it gets the guys killed. But on a positive note i did notice improvements. My BMPs used their AT-5s vs armour without the delay and suspense of previous versions, the Bradleys i faced seemed to use thier TOWs more too. Dismounting seemed alot cleaner as well, my men didn't really try to do anything too stupid, at least while i was watching them. In open terrain i didnt really notice any LOS issues, it was only in city environments or involving walls that i had problems. So far it looks like 1.05 is another step in the right direction. To voice some honest criticism, i would say at this point the clunky interface is what i find most discouraging, as the bugs seem to be fading with every patch. Thanks for 1.05
×
×
  • Create New...