Kieme(ITA)

Definitely true, you will never make some complainers happy, because they are only as long as they can complain. And guess, what, if single soldier placing was there, they would complain for "too much micromanagement"

Given the fact that the difference between 30 and 60 FPS is barely visible, you are just bashing for no reason. Optimization can be improved (multi-core) but if it's the case it's not just to run on huge FPS. If you really can't play at 30 it's your problem.

You should keep that for yourself. What makes you think you are entitled to such kind of generalization??? I enjoy multiplayer a lot, but also the campaigns and single missions. CMSF nato campaign is an act of beauty (and I personally enjoyed the british one too), not to mention CMBS campaigns. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean it's a useless thing or something people don't like. The good part is that BFC will keep making them in future titles, so I belive most of the user base likes them.

I have 25/35 FPS on a 2x2km map with a tank battalion on it.

Yes indeed, more like a CM3x iteration of the game. I think that what Vin explained could really be the way to go to make a step forward.

I run all setting at maximum, and HD textures. So the problem is not for everybody. I don't even have a 5000$ rig.

I am running several HD mods, some of them are 4x the size of the originals.

Of course CMSF runs better than CMBS, there are simpler models (in terms of damage calculation), no shaders and generally less detailed maps. But if you bought CMSF in the first day it was released you should remember how terrible was the optimization (allah's fist?). Now I can run CMSF/RT very smoothly (much better computer than 7 years ago), and even crank up texture sizes like I did. But I also hope there will be multi-core support in the future. (this will also lead to more stuff to be implemented) Finally, comparing CM games to blockbusters with hundreds of millions Worth Investments is Always a wrong way to deal with the subject, those titles are streamlined to be usable even by different platforms.

I would never give up the CM interface for that crap of the other game.

I understand. Smaller squares would change many things on the world though. Did you think about trees, for example? Such a small square would allow for 1 tree each right? So, to have a dense forest, the engine editor might switch to a "paint tool" that hits all squares at a given radius, while if you want a light forest, such tool would fill only few squares. And what about those kind of units that cover more than 1 square each (a tank)? Did you think about those? Maybe this is the reason actual squares are large, to accomodate any vehicle?

No, I wouldn't ever want to go back to abstracted infantry. It would make the game go back instead forward. I would also like to see some improvement to infantry Handling, but I guess that it will take a rework of the grid system that is in place now. Vin, interesting. But is there a reason to keep the squares? What about exagons?

Thanks a lot! I have made an upload. The image to be attached was winrared too, was that right?

Small maps are intended for small forces. It's not the game's fault if you pick a small map considering the size maps can reach with latest CM games. If you want to have the highest possible manouvering options pick a medium force and a huge map. There's more room than anything you will ever need.

4) you can use target arcs. The smoke grenades are mounted on the turrets, make the turret faces a given direction and then order a pop smoke command. You can't order both in 1 turn, so you need first to give a cover arc command or a face command, then order the smoke discharge. Alternatively, you can give a movement command of any kind, let's say several waypoints, and you can order at one of those waypoints to pop smoke, if the vehicle has a cover arc facing a specific direction before it reaches that given waypoint it will pop smoke in that direction (even if the purple line is facing another way), it works, you can try in the editor. 2) BTR and BMP-2 will toss smoke at 100m, I have not tested other vehicles. The tanks should all have a 50m radius. 3) US smoke concept is that of a single vehicle self preservation, so because of a matter of time to deploy they are used at very close distance. 1) I really don't know which one, I know most of the vehicles have 2 sets of smoke charges.

It's a matter of tastes, And tastes, as any person will tell you, are not really a surface to debate on, since there's nothing right or wrong. Besides, it's interesting to distinguish artistic choices, such as the "tabletop effect" of the terrain map. (thinking of alternatives, there aren't many others, none capable of adding any great realism - not a case the most realistic games out there are Always set on an Island, quite convenient). As regarding the glitches, tech support forum is that way--->

I am also one of those who could live years with the actual graphics (maybe with some little additions, such as the shaders had been), and would prefer something like a revamped multiplayer.

Well, not an easy task to make a list without SF installed anymore. But IIRC there's a Whole bounch: what comes to my mind are the independent buildings and quite a number of options for the walls/fences, both in terms of type and shapes available.Many more flavor objects types have been introduced in later games too. Also, UAV, APS, precision arty, amphibious vehicles, electronic warfare, are all interesting additions. In terms of graphics, normal maps for vehicles, troops and buildings were not available to CMSF, as well as the Shaders. Flame weapons are available also to CM Normandy with the vehicle pack if I am not mistaken.

You should be able to do it, just remember to save in 32 bits the bmp file, and make sure all the blanked dots at 100% blanked. Only problem I see is that it will make the wall look like paper thin:

Nice graphs BTR, do I read them correctly? That's about 50m of spacing between the infantry and the BMPs, and between BMPs?

122mm howitzer precision strikes. The effect seems similar, no penetrations scored ever, although it's possible that the collateral damage to subsystems is a bit heavier. Now, a screenshot that might have something more to tell: weakpoints. As you can see there are 4 hit marks. -number 1 = this one caused massive sub system damage, especially to the tows/targeting/ir optics/lsr warn and it appears to be very consistent, the hit is right there, the damage caused massive, although not capable of destroying the vehicle, and rightly so, because the damage was somehow absorbed by the large outside element which is the tow launcher. -number 2 = right on top of driver's hatch. Now, I am not an expert and I don't know how much armor is there, but from an ignorant point of view maybe that should be some sort of a weakspot, or maybe not. -number 3 = this shot resulted in a "hit weapon Mount". Ok, although it didn't destroy the main gun. Granted it's on the mantlet, but I wonder if such a shot might cause a serious trouble with the gun elevation system if not the gun itself. Another case where I would say: that should cause a destroyed gun. -number 4 = like number 2. I don't know if the vehicle engine was destroyed by this shot, the Bradley was immobilized already by other nearby explosions (tracks hit), anyway, this is another example of potential entry point for a HE explosion that might (Always from an ignorant point of view) have some other effects on the inside of the vehicle (killing people).

So, seems that 120mm mortars are coded so that they simply can't penetrate the top armor of a Bradley. Being this correct or not I don't know. Anyway, here are some screenshots of tests: The tests tend to go this way Always. Tracks being destroyed (probably by the nearby explosions) are a sure thing, then, sub system damage of various kind happens. Never scored a penetration.

Had some troubles with connection so I can't post again on the reply above, I did some extensive testing with the 152mm rounds, and they Always penetrated somewhere and destroyed the Bradley. I'll try some more tests with 120mm mortars and 122 howz.

BMP-3 and alike never finish to surprise. I have recently witnessed several similar situations: A BMP-3 driving at full speed, hit by an ATGM, destroyed, few seconds later a BTR-82 passes by, secondary explosion on the BMP-3 (huge), the BTR-82 is destroyed. A BMP-3 hit by a 120mm mortar round, huge explosion, nearby BMP-3 destroyed as well. I belive you can't qualify for a CMBS player if you never lost something else due to one of your BMP-3 explosion.

That's a great find. I can still remember few years ago when I looked at Iraq and saw the classic entrenched tank positions, probably from 1991, by means of their positions. There's a whole lot of traces that a trained eye can clearly recognize.