stoex

The link is two posts above yours, Redwolf. And DX10 or 9 or whichever makes no difference since CMSF uses OpenGL, which is what is broken in nVidia drivers.

The sooner it gets, the older we all get. Which for some members of this community is a real problem .

France, eh? Maybe BFC decided to bring the French resistance from WWII into the NATO module to test it. Will we get cows as well? I'm dreaming of a test setup with a battery of Shilkas vs. a battallion of heifers...

Just want to get these two out there since I have noticed them repeatedly in my recent PBEM games. Maybe it will be possible to address them for the NATO associated CMSF patch - or CM:N, since both would seem to apply to that setting as well: 1) The zig-zagging ordinance problem. This seems to happen every time in my current PBEM. My opponent, playing the Brits, has helo support (an Apache, I think). He is calling it in to liberally spray my conscript Syrian reserves with whatever it feels is appropriate, which unfortunately is a lot . Thing is, all the ordinance fired by this chopper comes on screen zig-zagging like crazy, following the general path to target but oscillating around the straight line horizontally like so many photons. About 50 meters from the target, the rounds straighten out and fly normally. Seems to have no effect on accuracy, happens for all 3 types of ordinance fired from the chopper, and looks ridiculous. 2) The silent hunter phenomenon. Same game, same chopper. Whenever the helo is called in, there is a flyover to acquire targets before the first attack run. We all know this. You get the sound of the helo in flight, while in the air control menu for the spotter the status is listed as 'preparing'. Thing is, I as the Syrian commander don't hear this flyover. The sound simply isn't played on my side of the game. This means I am generally extremely surprised when the first attack run comes along. Seems a mite unrealistic that it should be that way. This is way more annoying than the zig-zagging of the ordinance. Don't know whether any of this has to do with the fact that it is a PBEM, but it seems so, since I don't recall noticing these things in SP mode. It's also possible that is has to do with my PC's configuration, though my opponent is also experienceing the zigzags (but not the silent hunter phenomenon). Screenies and of course saves are available to showcase these problems. Any takers among the BETA crew?

Damn editing rules and auto-logout! Here it is again, hopefully a little clearer: You can keep any and all files you wish in your 'data' folder or any subfolder thereof. CMSF will read all the folders alphabetically and hierarchically (e.g. 'data/afile.bmp' -> 'data/bfile.bmp' -> 'data/a/afile.bmp' -> 'data/a/bfile.bmp' etc...in this case the files in subfolder 'a' will replace the identically named ones in the 'data' folder), ignore non-game-related files entirely, and always replace any game resource file with an identically named file read later on. The only thing you need to be careful of is to make sure the mod files you want to be in use when you start the game to be in folders (and subfolders thereof) read latest. If you want to exchange one sound mod with another one depending on which kind of scenario you are playing or just to test the mods, make two folders in your 'data' folder. You can use one folder named 'a_unused_mods' and one named 'z', for instance. As long as all the stuff you don't want to see is read before the core game files (in folder 'a_unused_mods'), and everything you do want to use is read after the core game files (in folder 'z'), you should be fine. You can keep each mod in a subfolder in one of these two main folders and move those subfolders between the two to switch mods on and off. You can run into unforseen things when you try to use two mods concurrently which alter the same core files, like two different sound mods maybe. If you want to mix and match between two sound mods, you will have to move individual files back and forth to get the combo you want. Am I making sense?

You can keep any and all files you wish in your 'data' folder or any subfolder thereof. CMSF will read all the folders alphabetically and hierarchically (e.g. 'data/afile.bmp' -> 'data/bfile.bmp' -> 'data/a/afile.bmp' -> 'data/a/bfile.bmp' etc...in this case the files in subfolder 'a' will override the identically named ones in the 'data' folder), ignore non-game-related files entirely, and always replace any game resource file with an identically named file read later on. The only thing you need to be careful of is to make sure the mod files you want to be in use when you start the game to be in folders (and subfolders thereof) read latest. If you want to exchange one sound mod with another one depending on which kind of scenario you are playing or just to test the mods, place them in differently named folders within 'data', then rename the folders appropriately before you start the game. You can use one folder named 'a_unused_mods' and one named 'z', for instance. As long as all the stuff you don't want to see is read before the core game files, and everything you do wnat to use is read after the core game files, you should be fine.

The game reads the folders in the 'data' folder alphabetically, and the files in the ones read later override previously read identical ones. Very simple, really. It means that if there is a file called, e.g., 'vest' in one of the folders delivered with the game, and a mod file with the same name (but a different texture on the vest) in your 'z' folder, the mod will override the original and be seen. The same counts for any subfolders. This is why one names the mod folder 'z' - so that it is read last and the mods become active. And it's also why Chainsaw's '1z' folder contains mods that he doesn't want to see - it is read first and overridden by the original game files which are read later. Hope this clears things up.

For me the advantage of being able to give orders at any time, thereby timing my moves perfectly, outweighs the disadvantage of occasionally missing something due to bad camera placement or watching some other action too closely. But it's a matter of opinion and play style, surely - what I meant was that for me, I can't deny the advantage that I get from playing RT. Despite my best efforts, I sometimes have the feeling in WeGo that some casualties that I took would not have occurred in RT thanks to closer coordination of units and timing their actions. Other folks may of course see this differently. Maybe should have been more clear about that in my previous post. Definitely my primary intention was to say that starting on CMSF in WeGo dramatically lowers the stress level for new players and CMx1 vets unfamiliar with the RT system. I think most people will agree with me there, but again - to each his own.

Yeah, learning CMSF is a long haul, even for a CMx1 veteran. After a year of playing, I still feel I'm improving my tactics with every battle (not least since I just recently started playing a lot of PBEMs). But as stated before, it's a game worth the effort invested into learning the ropes, as the better you get, the more your successes will make you very proud! I strongly suggest taking things in small steps to get acquainted with the way CMSF works: -) Start out by playing only BLUE to learn their strengths and weaknesses (not many of the latter). Find out how to move around and use your assets to max effect. Switch to RED when you have a good feel for BLUE and see how they work, it improves your understanding of how to fight against them as well. -) Start by playing in WeGo, then switch to RT when you have gotten a bit of a feel. Keeps the initial stress level down, though I find overall RT has undeniable advantages over WeGo. -) Start with small battles, and don't go for too much combined arms action at first. Learn how to use individual formations and assets before trying to synchronize them. -) Play battles before you start a campaign. A lot of them, preferably. As a newcomer you may be somewhat successful during the early campaign stages but may well find yourself losing later on because battles become harder and your core forces are depleted. Sucks to find you have wasted a lot of time just to have to start over. -) Use area fire a lot. Hammer enemy positions with max firepower (if playing BLUE). You need to keep casualties low or you will lose battles despite achieving your terrain objectives and/or eradicating the enemy. Similarly, move slowly and methodically when attacking to avoid getting badly ambushed. Ambushes are what RED is about, it's how the Syrians can achieve victories. -) Search and read the forums, there is an incredible amount of good info here. If you can't find answers using a forum search, feel free to ask. Enjoy yourself above all else!

Another +1 to TCP/IP WeGo

Jonny(FGM), modding your hotkeys completely gets rid of the hassle with the different panes. An individual key is assigned to each order regardless of which pane the order is in (movement, combat, special, admin). Also regardless of which pane is currently open - when you press an assigned key, the appropriate mouse cursor appears immediately on-screen (and the associated panel shows as well). This way you are totally independent of the panes. I strongly suggest trying this out as it really is the same system as in CMx1.

Muddy Boots and Jonny(FGM), do you guys realize that the command UI can be set to whatever keys you want to use for each individual command, so that two commands from different panes of the UI no longer share the same key? You can find some info on this in the CMSF manual, or check out this thread. You can even use the same keys as in CMx1 if you want (plus some more keys for the new orders available in CMSF). There are also some hotkey files from various users in that thread that you can just copy and modify. To be fair, I don't think very many people use the relative command pane structure where orders share keys and you have to switch between panes to use them. Personally I think it was one of the least useful design decisions in CMSF, totally non-intuitive and cumbersome to use. Luckily the option of assigning an individual key to each order was included... Sorry if this is not news to you, don't mean to tell you things you already know...but from your posts it sounds like you actually don't know this.

Great news! Almost as good as a Normandy bone! Well...almost... Welcome aboard Philip! Remember not to take any crap from Steve, Moon, or any of us forum members. Aside from that - get the HELL coding! And don't stop 'til NATO is out, at least! As a matter of fact, don't EVER stop coding! Go on! Hop to it! Hex away!

Ken, I think you should have entitled this thread "Flare Bitch Project". Just my two cents .

I run 1680x1050 (16:10 ratio) without black edges or distortion and I highly recommend it .

Love to! My email address is in my profile, send it to me if you like. I adore fighting with recon forces, and with that opposition, it sounds like a doozie!

I have seen this several times when playing the Syrians and have wondered much about what it is. Your picture has just tipped me off and I think I know now. This seems to happen when a Platoon HQ unit is destroyed and one of the squads takes over as platoon HQ. The soldiers in the second fireteam are no longer shown in the GUI and their gear (like the RPG) is shown in the equipment box. They are all still active, however - at least as far as I have been able to tell. One of my squads in such a situation has definitely used its RPG in any case. Still, it is an unsatisfactory solution in my opinion. BFC, please fix or do sumfink!?!

PT, I can post 'Hasrabit' to the repository if you like...have had it on my PC forever, my first attempt to play it through was foiled by the BFC-hacker rootkit which killed my OS. Luckily I had it backed up and am now through 4 missions. Don't have much time to play right now but I could certainly upload it to the repository. Or are you planning to update it before you rerelease it?

Don't be upset with Elmar, Wiggum... Once a year him and his little buddies get permission to have a water-balloon fight on the asylum parking lot, which obviously gets him rather excited. So he forgot his manners and tried to pass off a photo of him and his friends right before the action as a screenshot from the NATO module. After it's all over he gets an extra dose of...well, whatever that stuff is they give him, gotta be pretty potent...and he goes back to his regular drooling and - well that's it really. Drooling. So cut him some slack, will ya? It's really not his fault Oh, and it's Finnish camo because Sergei brought the outfits. They get to invite friends from other asylums as well

I have decided to take my protest to a new level by not giving orders during the replay phase in any, I repeat, ANY CM battle that I shall play until...uhm...next Wednesday. Maybe longer! We must intensify our efforts, brothers!

There, fixed that for ya...

Agreed. Nothing but bull left in this thread.

My rebellious nature once again rears its ugly head...I am with the dark side on this one and solemnly pledge not to buy CM:Normandy until it is released! Furthermore, I shall steadfastly refuse to use the Repository until it is back online!!! Take that, BFC, you...you...you...you dastardly PRIORITIZERS!!!!! Ha!!!!!

Steve, I see what you are saying - and I may have overstated the urgency of my plea. I probably did, in fact . One thing I didn't factor in was the fact that as you stated not long ago, Infantry AT weapons will not be split off in teams in CMN (as they were in CMx1 and also in part for the Syrians in CMSF), but instead the Shrecks and Zooks and such will be allocated to infantry squads. Or is this dependent on doctrine and only counts for the US forces? I can't remember... I do agree that the system as proposed, if it is well-implemented, potentially combines a high level of realism with limitations on gamey use by overly cunning players and should be a good addition to the engine on the whole. It is certainly a GREAT way to organize heavy weapons squads with their fire and ammo/security teams. The only real problem I see is this, and I quote: Of course it requires the player to do this, but this is actually something I as a player see myself wanting to do regularly, particularly on defense in the bocage. You know, my German platoon gets shot up a bit along a hedgerow, I order them to fall back to the next hedgerow, regroup and set up a new ambush. In this case, and I repeat I see this happening quite frequently, it is of the utmost importance - and also realistic - for my platoon leader to organize his forces according to how many men and what kind of weapons are left in each squad or team. True that if the fighting is heavy, his choices may be limited and things will have to happen fast, but that's exactly why he will take care to place the remaining heavy weapons and any ammo available for them in the important places. The riflemen can go wherever, basically. And in this situation, small groups of soldiers should be getting the Shrecks and ammo, to be mobile and have better use of cover. If the AI then turns over the Shrecks to the almost full squads, this will not only render the two man team ineffective, it will also endanger the large squad more if they become the prime target for tanks because they have the AT assets. Sure I can then (hopefully) split off an AT team from the squad, but that will reduce its size even more and still leave the two man team that previously carried the Shreck ineffective. This is where the AI algorithm will have to prove itself most... Hope this makes sense. On the other hand, time will tell and things can always be tweaked in a patch if they are found to not behave ideally. Doesn't change anything about the fact that CMN is shaping up to be a great game .

Out of time for editing, so here are some more thoughts on the subject: Even if only ammo gets shared, this could lead to situations where the player will be left with two units with not enough ammo, as opposed to one with and one without. At the very least, it will probably mean players will have to think twice about how and when they position units next to one another, for fear of AI ammo sharing ruining or compromising their plans. I have a feeling the mechanics (as I understand them from Steve's post) will be more trouble than help in many a situation. If I misunderstood, please clarify - if I understand correctly, I strongly urge BFC to rethink this addition to the engine. Be aware that sharing "based on need" (quote Steve) does not take into account the player's tactical needs and plans further on in a scenario. Sharing ammo is not a "now" decision only... Cheers