Offshoot

After getting muddled about what files were in which brz I made a list of all the files in all of the brz files available so far for Battle for Normandy (all patches, all modules). Maybe other people will find this useful if they don't already have something similar. The list is in the form of an rtf table with columns for BRZ name (as found in the data folder), file name, folder, and file type. This enables sorting by column if you want to, for example, sort wavs from bmps or look at all the soldier bmps available. I have stripped out all non-moddable files from the list to reduce the size of the rtf, but unfortunately uncompressed it is still around 13MB (converted to a Word doc it is about 9MB). IMPORTANT: to extract the file you will need to follow this procedure (for PC - sorry, I don't know Mac): *Download all three parts attached to this post *Put all three parts in the same folder *Use 'rename' after right-clicking and delete the last '.zip' extension at the end of each file so the files end in .001, .002, and .003, respectively (I had to add the .zip to get around the valid file types for the forum) *Right-click on the ~zip.001 file and select the extraction for whatever compression software you have. Try 7-zip if it isn't working. Sorry for the hassle, but I figured doing it this way would make it a more permanent archive than putting it on an external site. CMBN data brz directory list v100a-211_moddable.zip.003.zip CMBN data brz directory list v100a-211_moddable.zip.002.zip CMBN data brz directory list v100a-211_moddable.zip.001.zip

Is it a black cat? Great news about the patch. I've been holding off getting MG until it came out so time to pull the CC pin.

It makes sense but I think it would mean that the menu height is an absolute value in pixels rather than being proportional to the vertical resolution, i.e. it doesn't scale up with increased resolution. Is that the case?

This bit was quite interesting given an earlier discussion in another thread about LOS. But with regards to hits, I assume this was done so the commander could verify targetting? So I wonder if in CM the fall of shot must be seen by someone in the firing tank in order for the gunner to correct the aim, much as happens for artillery, or is it just assumed that the shot was observed?

Link on the very page from the first post - http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html/ref=dig_arl_box?ie=UTF8&docId=1000493771

There's an app linked on the right-hand side of the page that you can download so you can read Kindle on a PC and a variety of other platforms. I got it that way without any hassle and it doesn't look like the app automatically starts up on boot and starts talking to the ether. You can use the app for Gutenberg and other free repository books as well. My only gripe at the moment is that for me the option to change where content is stored is greyed out so it's dumping it into My Docs on C:. It sounds like that applies to the more operational-level chapters? Not really being a grog, I've cheery-picked the more personal stories, which seem to be very much in the golly-gosh and tally-ho style. You're not going to learn much about tactics (unless bailing out of tanks is considered such), but I've found the stories interesting. Something that surprised me is how reckless they seem to be in some of the stories, like it is a big adventure. These have mostly been early war stories though - I'll have to see if the tone changes in the later chapters.

Ouch, I can't imagine how long it took you just to get the in-game image to match the photograph so closely. The problem is that unless you can ensure that the in-game virtual camera lens has the same properties as the real lens used to take the photo and both shots were taken from the same distance, the comparison is kind of moot. The mudguards/hull part does look a bit off though. There are orthographic views available on the web (out of a model?) but who knows how accurate they are - what we need is for someone to go to the museum with a tape measure and calipers

What exactly is wrong with it? My guess is that whoever modelled it used orthographic views to do so and the silhouette is thus probably an exact replica (assuming the orthographic views used were correct). The turret shape is quite complex, however, and it is possible that in-game camera distortion is making it not look the same as you see in photographs, especially close up.

Perhaps because TCs most often aren't standing behind a gun that should be going powpow? But I get your point - how many people complain when their standalone HMG stops firing because it is supressed? I've never noticed before, but is there a 'cowering' stance for troops inside soft-skinned vehicles to lower their profile? Likely not for those sitting, but the gunners? Also, is HT driver behaviour (e.g. reversing out of danger) linked to incoming fire against passengers, even if the passengers aren't in the same unit?

You can take walls down with bazookas but it isn't very efficient because of the way targeting works, i.e., you can't tell the bazooka to hit the wall, just to fire near it. You might get lucky or you might burn all your ammo and have a barn door mocking you. From a quick test (not in MG), it also seems like you need to be outside a certain minimum distance for the bazookas to be fired - purely anecdotal though.

Are you running a build that includes targeting delays for tanks that don't have good elevation to their targets? It would be interesting to see this in action if you have demo charges and get right up 241's backside. RE the shots that killed your tanks: looking at Bil's pictures I don't think there is anything untoward there. It's ancient news so I don't think it is a spoiler to say that the shot that killed your forward-most tank was a front hull penetration. The first tank died from a front turret shot (the turret was pointing forward).

Full list, including CW standalone (3rd and 4th options): http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_virtuemart&page=shop.browse&category_id=36&Itemid=26

I would check in-game to see what actual version the game says you are running. If there is a patch more recent than the currently game-reported version, then likely you'd need to install it.

This is what happens when you spend too much time on leave. Don't get soft now.

So my guess is it isn't really the sun that is coming through but a camera-asociated lens flare that is part of the movie lighting shader set up. If that is the case, it seems that the camera doesn't take into account any obstacles between it and the virtual sun (I ssume the flares only occur when the camera is pointed at the sun). Would it be possible to turn off the lens flare while keeping the other aspects of movie mode?

The question is then, how exactly do you do this? Someone has mentioned the grey targeting line but, as far as I know, this doesn't specifically mean that the TC can see the target but the gunner can't. Couldn't it also mean that the TC and gunner can see the target but the driver can't? We could also eyeball things, but that isn't sure fire either because what you see on the screen is not necessarily a 100% representation of the underlying geometry. If LOS vs gunner's LOF is the cause, then this issue really arises from a lack of information and the presence of information that is not necessarily what you might think it to be (LOS). Given that the main gun on a tank is its primary armament, wouldn't it make sense to be able to determine in-game exactly what the gunner can see? There are tools already in place to see if a unit has spotted another unit, so wouldn't an accurate LOF from the gunner be more useful than the current LOS indicator?

The statement was "I should add that the PIAT is great in an urban environment as you can fire them from buildings without having to worry about any backblast." If the situation of firing RPGs from buildings was the same as before (i.e. PIATs can be fired from buildings but others can not), then the qualifier "without having to worry about any backblast" would be unnecessary. By including this qualifier, it sounds like other RPG weapons can be fired from buildings but with the possibility of hurting friendlies. An interpretation too far?

I don't think so as it would require the geometry of models to be changed, which is the least you would need to do just for aesthetic purposes. For functional purposes - to have steps leading to actual entrances - the coding for buildings would probably have to be changed as well.

Wouldn't it have to be Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord and Market Garden? Is BOMG what you say when a really big shell goes off near you?

Thanks for the clarification. It all sounds very sensible.

Can you clarify if "terrain features" in this sense includes the new ditchlocks and not just the buildings etc? I guess in the immediate/short term the answer is yes, in that someone without MG will not be able to play maps that include ditchlocks, but does BF have any plans to provide a patch so people without MG will be able to play maps with ditchlocks, or at least to include them in a future purchasable upgrade? Because ditchlocks will be able to be included in maps for the entire time period CM:BN covers and are not just specific to the module, it could become quite a hassle figuring out whether you can play certain maps or even opponents.

I thought of this (around the minute mark) -

Otherwise known as 'doing the ostrich' - http://www.break.com/picture/ugc/tank-in-ground-125296

Advertising for fresh victims with personal tales of four-play - I'm almost tempted!

I remember seeing something about having force size not matching map size can mess with the AI plans as well.