CommC

I have created a new mission which is on a 4x4 km map. I am getting an out of memory error with this, v1.05, followed by a crash to desktop. Is there a bug with larger user created missions? I thought the max map size was 6x6 km, why can I only create up to a 4x4 km map? My system: 6850 dual core 3.0 Ghz processor 2 Gb ram 8800 GT 512 MB vid card Thanks

Its not just one card or just nVidea. I have an ATI x1950 pro 256 exhibiting almost the exact behavior as the 8800 cards: low framerates, 9-10 fps at the beginning of Allah's Fist and others. It looks a lot like a bug, because as soon as the camera dips below the horizon, framerates jump up to 30 to 40 fps.

I had to re-establish my user name a month ago, but I have been viewing these forums for years. I thought the Peng Challenge thread was just as stupid 7 years ago as it is now. Isn't there a general topics forum this thread could be transferred to? That way it wouldn't clutter the folders dedicated to discussion of CMSF.

I would also really like to see this feature... a game replay for RT mode. Many other complex RTS have this feature such as COH. Its a great learning tool, and individuals can post games for people to review to learn strategy and tactics. If a narration is added, then it really becomes a useful tool.

Can't the forum moderators shut these kinds of threads down? Please.

umm.. not multi processor, its a somewhat older P4, 2.8 GHz I think the crashes are due to the mouse bug, I turned off the "fix" to get better precision selecting things...

I tried this driver (7.9) and the quake hotfix... I have the ATI x1950 AGP card... The framerate seems somewhat faster, but still highly dependent on which vehicle you are looking at, or if there is smoke, etc. Also, I'm getting crashes now.... but then again, I got crashes with the old 7.7 drivers

yes, but javelins don't seem to kill T-72s anymore. Ultimately, the 8x8 m terrain abstraction may not allow for a sufficiently accurate sim to be playable. i.e. the frustrations may outweigh the ease of use benefits. For example, will a tank be able to approach the top of a hill to reach a hull down or turret down position with this abstraction? Need to do more testing to see how this works.

I wish to add my opinion and suggestion that BF consider switching to DirectX instead of OpenGL for the Combat Mission series. Is this a practical impossibility to switch at this late date for CMSF? I think the graphics card manufacturers have focussed more lately at making their drivers (and cards) compatible with DirectX, with OpenGL being a lower priority. Or for whatever series of complex reasons, good or bad, DirectX has a better chance of being a consistent standard which will yield the best chance of success across the broadest range of graphics cards, processors and operating systems.

Well, this is probably not relevant to the main point, but the problem of the "disappearing" waypoints is easily explained as being due to the 8 x 8 m grid abstraction, and is not a problem at all. When the vehicle reaches the outer edge of the 8 x 8 m grid containing a waypoint, the program thinks it has reached the waypoint, shown in the center of the grid, and takes it off the display. When the path line is redrawn, the line is drawn from the vehicle to the next waypoint, and since the vehicle is at the edge of the 8x8m grid, it looks like the line or waypoint has shifted. Again, all this behaviour is just the code operating within the 8x8 m grid abstraction. I wish BF would add the feature to toggle the display of this grid as an overly to the map, also showing the center point of each grid square, since this is such an important part of the game.

RT ... I don't like WEGO because I can't stand to watch my guys doing dumb things and not being able to intervene. With the giving orders while paused feature, RT is just like WEGO, except you can stop at anytime to give the appropriate orders. If only BFC would implement a replay feature with RT, we would have the perfect system.

The US Army already has its multi-million dollar armor simulator(s). The graphics are poor but servicable. They have no need for small-frys like BFC.

Make sure you are using the latest ATI vid card drivers... cat 7.7 or 7.8. I upgraded to 7.7 and that reduced a lot of the crashing (I also have an ATI vid card x1950 AGP).

See my post in the other thread on this. Try turning off the ATI left mouse click setting if you have it on.

The other possibility is the ATI left mouse click setting. If you have that turned on, it could cause the problem (in v1.02). I have seen something similar, where after a scenario was running a while, it became almost impossible to select a unit or place a waypoint. Try turning off this setting if it is on.

Yes

Quote: "LOL. I have no idea what game you're trying to describe. Something with a 3 hour advance to contact perhaps?" Michael: A modern armored vehicle can easily travel at speeds of 60 km/hr or so ... thats only 20 minutes to cover the entire 20 km map.. on 6 km map, thats only 10 minutes to travel across the entire map. Where are you getting this 3 hour timeframe? Game designers need to seriously think about what they want the player to do and what contributes to victory vs defeat. If you just line up two armies in front of each other and shoot it out, you will have missed much of the depth and essence of modern armored combat. Maneuver to flank and use of terrain is everything. I hope whatever game emerges from CMSF development will consider these aspects of armored warfare.

Many of us have dreamed of a combined arms company level sim for years and I applaud the efforts of BFC towards this end in CMSF. I think 1:1 and RT are essential for such a sim. We just need to persevere to get the kinks out. The feature to be able to give orders while paused may seem simple, but is a major breakthough in the thinking on the topic, in my opinion. The challenge is to get the tac AI, armor/gunnery model, 3D terrain model and operational AI, all working and accurate within the computing capacity of today's PCs. I think this can be done, but it will take some skilled programming and some compromises. I, for one, am more willing to compromise on terrain detail in favor of a more accurate combat model. But I'm a little confused about the apparent satisfaction in the community about the scale. To me, the scale in CMSF is one of the biggest negatives. The maximum map size is only 6 km, which is only 1.5x the range of the tank weaponry. This doesn't allow room for maneuver, tactics, etc. with armored vehicles. We need a 3D engine that doesn't bog a computer down and can represent both larger maps, at least 20 x 20 km, as well as sufficient detail in urban areas to accurately model infantry operations in buildings, etc. Other programs have done this on the PC, so I know it is possible. I think the current way CMSF handles infantry in buildings is a great step forward, and just needs some tweaking regarding LOF/LOS issues, etc., to be perfect. I am thrilled with Battlefront's efforts so far with CMSF, and I fully support their efforts to push forward with improvements and enhancements. I have, and will be, voting with my pocketbook. Battlefront: Carry on... please and don't be discouraged by the whiners... [ August 12, 2007, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: CommC ]

yes, but still needs some patching