BlackAlpha
-
Posts
151 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by BlackAlpha
-
-
23 hours ago, Hister said:
I'll never understand how you guys can say the game plays smooth. Looks like the meaning of smooth can vary a lot from person to person. I could call it a smooth slideshow if I would have used the smooth word describing my experience with the game and it has been like that on all the different hardware I had in these years up until the beastly rig I sport now. The only thing I haven't yet tried is using gsync monitor that purpotedly makes the gameplay "very smooth" but I am not falling for that any more, heh.
You can try lowering the model detail to the lowest. Test it on a map with a lot of trees. Then bump up the model detail until you hit the point that is not acceptable for you.
27 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:The flicker only appears when the game frame rate fluctuates a lot. It doesn't appear all the time. Sometimes, it's not there at all. Sometimes, it's just barely perceptible. But in other situations, when the camera is pointing in a certain direction, it will flicker like crazy.
I think you rotate the view mainly using the keyboard? I find the most sluggish performance comes from holding down right mouse button and looking around that way.
If you point the camera towards the outside of the map, then the frames jump up and it feels smooth. If you point towards the center of the map, it drops down. This causes a lot of fluctuations.
As for moving the camera with the mouse vs keyboard. I don't think there's a performance difference between the mouse and keyboard. It's just that with the mouse movement there appears to be some sort of acceleration and really horrible mouse lag going on that makes it feel pretty bad.
51 minutes ago, Lethaface said:I don't have the flickering problem with my GSYNC monitor, luckily. And yes CM doesn't run on 165 fps, but I consider this quite 'smooth' and IIRC I have the AA tuned up for CMBS:
At some points it's silky smooth (mainly when looking towards the outside of the map, and at others (like at 7 seconds) it's really bad performance, you were skipping frames like crazy. Personally, I'd recommend you lower the model detail, that mostly fixed it for me.
-
15 minutes ago, 37mm said:
My investigation of the Demo tree issues indicates that graphics settings & resolution have relatively little effect on frame rates... the "tree trunks only" setting makes the game run smoothly under almost any circumstances.
Currently I've also noticed that, unlike other CM titles, it is best to NOT to have a graphics card profile for CMSF2... just allow the base program to do its thing unhindered.
For me it's the same in BS. BS with trees runs the same as SF2 with trees. BS without trees runs the same as SF2 without trees. But anyway, it's why I always play with the tree trunk mode to improve the performance. If you want to play with trees, then you'll need to drop the model detail. Just compare the lowest model detail setting to the highest, the difference is night and day.
-
I've compared the training level to the same training level in BS and the performance is exactly the same. If you don't put the model detail on the lowest or near lowest setting, then your FPS will tank. I find it disappointing how in Black Sea I played with a GTX 680 and the performance was crap if you didn't put the model detail to the lowest. And now I'm playing BS and SF2 with a GTX 1080 and the performance is exactly the same. From what I remember, SF1 had similar issues. There just seems to be something in the engine that destroys the performance, no matter what hardware you run on it.
I'm still hoping that one day they'll do real engine updates (not just these minor patches).
-
We still don't know how it will look like in reality. Concept versions often differ to the real life final versions.
-
I don't think other smaller countries would have the capability to maintain peace if pushed. It would have to be one of the top options. Doubt China would come all that way. It would be the first PLA deployment to Europe as well. People would see this in a negative light.
Especially if you put them on the new border between Ukrainian and Russian/DNR/LNR forces. Keep in mind that putting UN troops between Ukrainian and Russian/DNR/LNR forces would be a win for Russia and a loss for Ukraine. You don't want Chinese troops standing there, enforcing Russia's victory...
It also can't be America or Russia for obvious reasons...
I think it has to be a combination of mixed European and other non-European countries. Just NATO countries (under UN flag obviously) could work too.
But looking at how much fighting there's going on, I doubt the UN will want to participate in that.
Realistically speaking, a UN mission will most likely get vetoed by the usual suspects because it doesn't serve their agenda (US/Russia).
By the way, you cannot put UN forces only on the Ukrainian/Russian border. It would invalidate all the fighting done in the last 12 months and it would magically make Ukraine win and Russia lose. So, Russia would veto that. You have to make a compromise of some kind if you don't want Russia/US to veto it. Russia doesn't want to lose the ground they've gained and the West/Ukraine doesn't want Russia to gain more ground.
-
...he basically said "Back to topic please", i think that was easy to figure out.
And the topic is not ArmA vs. CM...Gotcha, no more Arma3 vs CM...
...ArmA3 runs much better on my PC then CM:BS...
Wait a second, you're cheating!
-
That kind of attitude is clearly out of place on this forum.
Well, you came with a snarky comment saying that we should stop discussing whatever we were discussing, and so I sarcastically asked you what you think we should be discussing. The question still stands: What do you think the topic should be?
-
If I wanted to know how realistic arma is I would go to arma website, search for arma info on youtube etc. Really couldn't care less when reading CMBS forums.
And again, comparing the two products, is an exercise of masochism.
Forgive me your highness. Which subject would you like us, your lowly servants, to discuss next?
-
So you compare a Coop Multiplayer tactical shooter with a Single Player tactical wargame ?!
Why not? Somebody was wondering how realistic Arma is. You then came in and wanted to proof that CM has a much more realistic damage model and is therefore a lot more realistic in general. And the rest is history...
-
Thewood1, the ArmA you describe is a ArmA modded with 5+ mods and played exclusively in MP !
Also, ArmA is still a FPS, you can play it like CM (commanding squads and vehicles while viewing the battlefield from above) but that makes not much fun, try telling a (AI) MG team to setup their MG in the second floor of a building...try it and cry...try telling a (AI) tank to drive backwards 50m and pop smoke...please try it.
That has nothing to do with which game is more realistic... I think now you are just trying to bash Arma for no reason.
Sure, Arma has problems with AI in urban areas. But CM has problems with the AI as well. Go play against the AI in an urban area in CM, they are mindless zombies then. Arma has similar issues. In the open, the AI fares much better, that counts for both games. However, one thing to keep in mind is that Arma has a dynamic AI option that can make strategic decisions on the fly, while CM AI is mostly static/scripted. This does not necessarily make Arma more or less realistic, though.
CM is not meant to be modded. Arma is mainly a multiplayer (co-op) game that is meant to be modded. Different type of games.
-
Artillery "magically falls out of the sky" ?!
Do you know that the spotting, calling, correction is done by the AI in CM ?
Look, I'm not saying CM is not realistic. All I'm saying is that Arma is more detailed in some aspects. If you want to go full realism in the artillery department, you can use mods in which a player needs to call in a proper fire mission, then another player on the other end of the line inputs that information into a firing computer, and then sends that information to a player manning a weapon who then fires, then the first player adjusts fire and that loop continues. That's a much deeper simulation than CM does, in which it loosely simulates artillery by playing around with some numbers behind the scene.
Although CM is really good, it's not the most realistic game out there...
-
I think, and I speak as someone that has played ever BI game since OFP, that is a very optimistic description of ArmA II/III. It is not reliable. It will frequently break serverside, and the forums are full of pissed off customers with regard to the absurdly high system requirements to get any kind of fidelity out of it.
Besides which, I don't even think the comparison works. They are totally, totally different things.
About the realism argument... Speaking as someone who has played Arma in a realistic fashion since like Flashpoint, Combat Mission has the upper hand in a few areas, but Arma certainly allows for a more accurate simulation than CM does.
The thing with Arma is that the developers aim to create a good technical platform on which the fans can create good mods. So, if you don't use mods, then you are missing out and Arma may seem a bit lacking. But if you play Arma 3 with some of the latest realism related mods, than it's the most detailed simulation that can still be classified as a game.
But yeah, comparing which game is better can't really be done because they are of different genres. Each game is good for its genre. And they are both some pretty hardcore tactical simulations.
By the way, Arma 3's popularity can be thanked to it's modding scene. Something to keep in mind is that not everyone plays that game for it's military simulation possibilities. A lot of things can be simulated in that game and as such some people only play roleplaying mods/missions in which people pretend Arma 3 is like real life and they go around making money, eating, working, etc. See here:
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=225716527
-
I would doubt that, the damage model in ArmA is hitpoint based. ArmA3 is a infantry simulator but vehicle combat is bad.
Well, there is some armor simulation being done (not every hit will result in a kill, depends on where you hit and such), but it is more simplified than CM in that aspect.
On the other hand, Arma simulates a lot of things that CM does not. For instance, does Combat Mission have a realistic radio simulation with signals that can bounce off the environment and such? Arma does. Arma also has a more accurate join ops simulation because you can have an actual person doing all the different roles, which comes with its logistical, planning and command issues. Artillery is a lot more awesome, making it so you have to adjust fire and such. You can even use something like this to make that task easier (it has a fairly realistic simulation of how it works in real life to find the range difference between two points):
I could go on and on...
To compare to Combat Mission. Radio simulation is more simplified. Artillery magically falls out of the sky. The different units have an all-seeing eye because the player controls them all directly, resulting in some pretty unrealistic scenarios. Etc, etc. In Combat Mission's defense, the scope of the game is much more limited, while Arma allows you to simulate every single thing.
-
tactical combat simulators
Did you try Arma? That's one of the best tactical combat simulators out there. With a few mods, it's a lot more realistic than Combat Mission even.
-
Unlikely. The first Stryker brigade was deployed to Iraq in October of 2003, six months after Baghdad fell.
You're right. I'm probably misremembering it. But it was a lighter Brigade Combat Team of sorts.
-
I think we'll probably see more emphasis on high-mobility infantry formations like the Stryker Brigades....I expect the tanks that are around will be pushed further into infantry support roles a-la 1917 while more nations turn to mechanized infantry for everything.
One thing to keep in mind is that in Iraq the Stryker brigades got their asses kicked when they ran into tanks and couldn't get out of the way fast enough. All the maneuverability and sensors won't save you when there's a tougher enemy standing right in front of you. And APS is not going to stop a 125mm shell coming your way.
-
So, are jets effective at taking out helicopters, and more specifically, helicopters armed with air to air missiles?
-
That attack air would have to slip through in terms of sensors:
PATRIOT
E-3 Sentry AWACS
Ground based early warning radars
Fighter based sensor systems
Other NATO radar platforms (which are largely designed to share a common operating picture with US assets)
From those sensors, any number of fixed wing assets can be massed on the attacking element. If the initial waves are ineffective, more planes can be vectored to target (unlike SAMs) until the enemy aviation is no longer mission capable.
Then if they're bopping above the horizon Patriot might just zot them anyway.
If the enemy attack dodges all those sensors, all those planes who's only job is to spot and destroy enemy CAS or strike assets, the ability of a M6 Linebacker to save the day was zero. Four stingers will not stop the sort of onslaught that would have to exist to bypass that sort of layered defense, and the howling hoard of thousands of PAK-FAs that do not exist would simply pop the M6 like a zit before flying to strafe the tank company to pieces with dual AK-47s fired out the window because you are describing a situation that is so craycray I find it worthwhile to talk about it using that word.
The Linebacker was like issuing a shotgun to a tank crew to fend off enemy infantry boarding the tank. If the infantry slipped through everything else, and is now standing on my turret, that shotgun would be mighty helpful. But it would only be helpful after EVERYTHING ELSE HAD FAILED SO CATASTROPHICALLY AS TO BOGGLE THE MIND (the rifles are for if we have to leave the tank, not some sort of alamo defense).
The M6 was canned after this process:
1. Army cancels ADATS
2. Someone decides we still need SHORAD
3. More or less, the M6 is made from nearly off the shelf parts
4. M6 more or less doesn't really do much. In large exercises, if red air closes with blue forces the M6 is just not enough to matter. Deployed, what enemy air existed was something the M6 couldn't help with
5. M6 and ADA soldiers serve as adhoc infantry.
6. M6 vehicles are refurbed to replace higher mileage M2/M3 platforms.
It wasn't super useful, even in its heyday.
But wouldn't a helicopter be able to slip by those sensors? And even if it doesn't slip by the sensors, a sensor won't kill the helicopter, right? You still need a weapon to kill it.
-
And anyway, if we had MLRS then the forum would be deluged with "Why no TacNukes??" threads.
When was the last time you saw a tactical nuke being used? You probably don't know. When was the last time rocket artillery was used? Probably five minutes ago...
-
How many battles and wars have been lost through complaisancy, neglect of key weapons sytems and underestimating the enemy. The 1940 Battle of France is a fine example of what can happen
Problem is that, in this scenario "the next war" is the one that was least expected. The one against Russia. Sure, NATO countries (or at least some of them will commit their forces. But here's the elephant in the room. European countries have been slashing thir defence budgets as well in order to balace the books following the 2008 Financial Crisis. The same sort of thing that happened in the 1930s.
And in 2017 the time has come when those cuts will have to be paid for. And the price will have to be paid in blood and quite possibly in early battlefield defeats. Just as happened in 1940. I am not saying NATO will lose the war. they probably won't as long as the political will is there. But it could prove a long and costly struggle and the risk of defeat is certainly there.
Particularly if leaders and militaries are complaisant as they were in 1940. France and Briain had good equipment in 1940, sme of it as god or better than anything the Germans had. But t was the Germans who won the 1940 battleof France and in only six weeks. Indeed, theWehrmach had essentially won the campaign fter he first week.. France 1940 should be an object lesson.
That may be, but I like to think that these days we are better organized and the western coalition has kept involving itself in all sorts of wars, so we do have the experience on how to work together properly.
-
Isn't decoys and swarming a logical answer to APS? It will make ATGMs more advanced, but with things like Javelin they're going that route anyway. A decent sized missile should be able to deploy some submunitions/decoys. Another possibility is jamming, but I don't know how feasible that is on such a small scale.
Anyway, they came up with a solution to reactive armour so I'm sure ATGM manufacturers will solve this too.
A solution yes, for now (firing two projectiles almost at the same time), but as you can see, missile based weapons become bigger and bigger to try to keep up with tank defenses. First they had to become bigger to be able to penetrate the armor. Then they had to become bigger to be able to do fancy maneuvers in the air. Now they become bigger to try to fire off more missiles at the same time. How much bigger can they still get? Not much. But in the future they will need to be able to do even more fancy stuff to be able to reliably bypass APS... As soon as APS acquires the ability to reliably destroy two incoming rockets/missiles, infantry based anti tank weapons will become near useless because you can't really improve them further - a person simply won't be able to carry it. Then, you'd have to use the really heavy missiles and fire them in volleys exactly at the same time. Meanwhile, vehicle mounted missiles will become much larger or they will have to fire bigger volleys to be able to penetrate APS defenses, which means they will be able to carry less ammo and reloading will become a huge pain in the butt.
-
Back in the 1980s the US expected ground forces to come under Soviet air attack if the balloon went up in Germany but the wars fought by the US since the end of the Cold War lacked a credible air opponent, certainly after the first couple of days. It looks like a classic case of preparing to fight the last war. But what happens if the "next war " is against someone like Russia or China whose airforce coulsd put up a credible cotest for the air, at least for a while.
I think both John and I agree hat this is a serious error by the US Defence planners, procurers and the military. Perhaps it was done to balance the books, perhaps for other reasons. But mistakes like this have often had to be paid for in blood. If this game highlights one real world lesson it is the danger to the US military of the neglected air defences and the price that could be paid for neglect and complaisance in a near future conflict.
We all know what happens to armies that are not prepared.
I don't think the US is not prepared. They probably simply don't need more anti air units. Who will they use the anti air units against? NATO is not going to invade Russia or China or any country that has a considerable air presence. In the event Russia or China attacks the West (one way or another, like for example in Ukraine), then there's a good chance NATO forces will rally under the same banner. This means, the US can count on the support of other countries who can provide them with better short range anti air units.
Remember that NATO is more than just the US... Other NATO countries may not have as large of an army as the US, but some of them do have some really good stuff.
-
Maybe the US expects other NATO countries to provide anti air units when needed, ie. against Russia?
-
I see people talk about jets a lot. What about helicopters? What if Russia decides to use a lot of helicopters?
SF2 demo game engine enhancements?
in Combat Mission Shock Force 2
Posted
I totally agree.