Hukka

Ok. I installed fraps for this. First when I loaded Allah's Fist I got 20 fps, then I alt+tabbed and got 32 fps. I repeated this couple of times and got always the same effect. nvidia settings are at "application controlled" edit: And this was with balanced/balanced and 1280 x 1024 resolution. Rune, what resolution did you have? [ September 11, 2007, 03:13 AM: Message edited by: Hukka ]

I installed these drivers and at least the 2nd mission in the campaign is as slow as it was before. edit: E6600 @ 3,4 GHz nvidia 8800 GTS 2 gigs of ram

Didn't work for me either. I have a 8800 GTS though.

I'm finding it very weird that fps drops so dramatically when the horizon comes visible. Could there be something broken with the background? Yeah I know it sounds weird... Usually when I'm looking down on about 45 degrees the performance is good, but when I tilt upwards it becomes a slideshow. I know I can see more objects then, but it still feels a bit odd. Just some thoughts.

I don't know if the changes affected anything, but I actually got some nice resistance in the campaign's first mission. I hope this continues. Pathfinding seemed a lot better now and I could move my soldiers through a wall gap. Very nice. "Show all moves" is Heaven's gift for the interface. Good patch so far!

After the patch I noticed this quite striking checkerboard look in the campaign's second mission. Should it look that way? I have 3D models at improved and texture at better. It doesn't bother me too much, but I'm quite sure someone will say: "Boo hoo! That looks ugly!"

It's 01:49 am here. Gotta go to bed. Maybe tomorrow...

That sounds great! I must try that scenario when it's ready.

I think this would bring a interesting new tactical aspect to the game as you couldn't level half of a town without any penalty anymore.

The manual smells weird!

That's good to hear. I hope it'll be used a lot.

I was thinking, what if the US side would get negative points by destroying buildings without enemy units or by destroying important buildings like schools, hospitals or those Islamic holy buildings (what are they in Enlgish.. moscay, moskay? "Moskeija" in Finnish)? And maybe destruction when the civilian density is high would cost even more points. As for now, at least the campaign missions feel way too easy with the US firepower. This could be hard to implement now to CMSF, but maybe to a future release or something.

Got mine today, Finland. \o/ Thank you BFC.

Windows XP SP2 Intel Core2Duo E6600 @ 3,4GHz 2 Gigs of RAM nVIDIA 8800 GTS w/ 162.18 Graphics settings doesn't seem to affect a lot. Now I'm having 'improved' settings, but I tried with the worst settings and still had poor framerates.

I like the music. DO NOT make an option to turn it off! ...Obviously I'm joking. On the latter part. I really like the music!

What is a 'SOP'?

The fatal blow will come when Niko Nirvi from Pelit-magazine gives a low score. Then the whole Finnish market will suffer and as we know: half of the CMx1's were bought by Finnish people after Pelit praised them.

At the moment the vehicles seem to be quite passive at firing enemy infantry units. I don't know if it's a bug or are they paying more attention to more threathening targets (of course you can't kill anything more threathening with a MG). However it adds unnecessary micro-management to the player to order your units to shoot every target spotted. So I was thinking: how about adding firing rules to your units that affects every unit you got? There could be three levels: 1. shoot everything you see if there's a possibility for a kill (no need to shoot a tank with MG), 2. the standard mode (something like what we have now) and... 3. attack only when ordered (I don't know if this is any good for anything) This shouldn't be too hard to implement as the 1. and 3. rule doesn't have many variables. OR maybe just adjust the tac-AI more aggressive.

In that case I think the WIAs and KIAs would weigh more on the US side in victory conditions. edit: And sorry, I didn't mean to offend you any way.

I'd give it 7/10 now, but there is potential for a 9/10 rating.

I have Core 2 Duo 6600 @ 3,4GHz, 2 gigs of RAM and 8800GTS. Very poor performance.

Random setup would be very nice indeed.

Some people have weird tastes what is fun and what is not.

Yes I suffered from this also in my 5th (or was it 6th) mission where I had to capture hotel buildings at the west edge of the map. I did all I was asked for and I proposed cease-fire. I score only a minor victory as I hadn't wiped all the enemy forces off the map. I only lost one bradley in the fight.

Does anyone else find campaign missions very easy? I've played 5 missions now and only once I've had some real resistance from the Syrian side, and that was on the second mission. Other than that, I've completed missions with very few to none casualties on my side. I've been playing with veteran difficulty. I feel like I'm having way too much and too powerful units on my side. Many times half of my units hasn't even taken any part in the combat. I know that is the way it's kind of supposed to be, it's US vs. Syria after all, but game-wise it isn't so fun. Are the missions getting harder or should I expect to walk through the other missions as easy? Or am I only too good? BTW, how is the elite level? I haven't tried it yet. Do you find it more fun than veteran? I must say, I'm still having lots of fun with the game and really waiting for the next patches which will hopefully squeeze the largest and ugliest bugs from the game.