nuzrak

I had this problem too with the Mac install Downloaded the 8GB (full install) but only have the same 10 QB files that Freyberg had. Band aid sorted that out but there obviously might be an issue with the Mac installer.

OK, must have been having a senior moment there, I see them now... Thanks Wicky and Lucky for the swift response that forced me to look again a little harder!

Is there a rough ETA on when the Mac versions of these patches will be available?

I don't think there is anything wrong with the way buddy aid is represented in game, it is simple and effectively allows the recovery of weapons and ammo from fallen soldiers; which is realistic enough without overly complicating the whole process. I like to think of it as no more than the guy being stabilized and his gear being redistributed. What I would like to see in the future is buddy aid being worth more under the game hood, in terms of moral levels and possibly even having optional point settings in the editor related to it that effect the game score. At present other than retrieving weapons there is little or no need to risk troops lives giving it I think this is an area of the game that could be added to on the back end that could provide a great dimension to the overall realism; especially in the modern game titles where the US especially put great emphasis on getting wounded soldiers out of the combat area. I also appreciate that it wouldn't be to everyone's taste, so maybe it could be tied to the 'Iron' difficulty level of the game in some way and give us hardcore guys another reason to use that level instead of 'Elite'

Thanks for doing that Vanir, I really appreciate you taking the time to look it over. Feel like I owe you a beer I totally agree, the numbers are not convincing me either that there is an actual issue, I also ran another 30 odd tests and although the numbers still favor the US vehicles I still can't honestly say that it's in anyway definitive and given that we know there is the commander fix coming for the BMP it makes it even harder to justify pursuing this any further. So agreed, let's put this one to rest.

Yes I did, because that`s how I have been running my tests since the beginning, Bradley`s and BMP`s don`t approach side on and I have never been testing the way any vehicle spots from its side arcs. So running tests with AFV`s side on is not going to prove anything relevant to the original inquiry, just potentially cloud the issue further. That said, I have never tried to test static v static AFV`s until this test either, although as Vanir pointed out I may have done so unwittingly, and I actually don`t have an issue with the way that seems to be working. My argument has been from the very start that Russian AFV`s are performing worse than I would expect when facing an oncoming AFV that seems to spot them and KIA them routinely before they ever see what`s hitting them. What Thewood is seeing with the AFV`s side on test is not uninteresting though and makes me too wonder if the fact that the BMP performs considerably better when side on if the misaligned gunner bug has again reared its ugly head? But as I keep stating, I don`t know if there is an actual issue or not, because I don't know if my expectations of what I expect to see are even realistic. Only BFC know that for sure. All I want is for someone who has a actual understanding of the game data and code to confirm either 1) Yes, that is how it is meant to work, the US AFV`s are that superior and the results you`re getting are within the margins we would expect... or 2) The numbers you are seeing for the Kill ratio for the US AFV`s when approaching Russian AFV`s forward facing arcs does indeed seem a little high, we`ll look into it...

I think you've got me wrong, I stated very clearly that I`m not trying to knock the game, what I've brought up here is not a complaint but what I see as a potential bug. I don't think given what I'm seeing my end, that has been unreasonable. You obviously, like me, feel strongly about this game and I would hope you can appreciate how difficult it can be to bring up potential issues without running the risk of appearing overtly critical and perhaps even pedantic... Anyway, have a look at this file, it`s your test on iron settings and the Bradley scored a KIA in 8 seconds! BMP spotting test NUZRAK - 001.zip

Thewood, you`re kind of agreeing with my original reason for running tests to begin with. What I am seeing in games and am seeing and continue to see in the tests does not make sense!

Thewood, absolutely we should do that. I just rerun the test again quickly on iron 5 times and the Bradley is definitely spotting the BMP around 12 seconds into the turn on average, that is a huge difference to what you are seeing which seems more in the 40+ seconds range. I think we might actually be onto something here, but I`m not sure what! Is it possible there are bad builds of the program???

OK, it could be the Iron settings verses the Elite setting I`m using, but as far as I understand there is no difference in the spotting times between the two settings just the way information is populated along the C2 chain which is not relevant in this test. But you`re correct, it is weird that we are seeing such different results though,, on average the Bradley has been spotting the BMP around 12 - 14 seconds on my box! What type of box are you running? Mine is a Win7 64bit Quad core...

There`s something wrong with my computer? That`s not a very helpful statement, maybe there`s something wrong with your computer... see how that works? I ran the test you posted more to prove what Vanir has already stated, that the results of spotting between two static vehicles means very little, it`s not unexpected that we would see wildly varied results on such a small number of runs, we would need to run it hundreds of times to get good numbers and of course I`m running it hotseat!!! Your test is also not relevant to the issue at hand which has never been about how AFV`s spot each other from two static positions!

Vanir, I'm not disputing that I occasionally experience some amazing runs of bad luck playing these games; just recently in fact in CMRT I had two T34/85's perform an almost perfect double flank on a Panther only to see the first ones shot ricochet off the Panthers turret and KIA the second T34 as it closed in... the Panther naturally proceeded to show the surviving T34 how it was done properly! But I'm still not convinced that simple bad luck is what I'm seeing in these instances, but it also stands to reason that if I'm having a horrible run of luck and only seeing the outliers then I would think that! I'm also not sure why vehicles performing a hunt move don't count as moving? The Bradley of course stopped as soon as it spotted the BMP but it made the spot while moving in the hunt command not after it stopped, whereas the static BMP in almost all instances failed to spot the Bradley as it moved up and even after it began firing. How else can this be tested? My original emphasis was to test the how often static Russian AFV's failed to spot AFV's moving into their forward facing arcs, because I believed they were under performing and I believe the test does a good job showing that and reveals that they are really bad at it. But the issue is clouded by the known commander bug, because the commanders did spot the Bradley a number of times; so it's probably not worth pursuing until the 1.02 patch is live. But what I really don't know is if this is even a problem with the engine as such or just a symptom of the artifact as you suggest. Unfortunately I don't have the save file from that turn where my T90's got smoked, CM Helper clears them as I go and I wasn't fast enough to think of keeping it as an example, I only have the following turn where the T90's are all sad and perforated, which looks very pretty but won't tell you much - wish I could work out how to post images though as its quite the scene! Thewood, I ran your test 10 times and the Bradley spotted the BMP first and KIA'd it 7 times. The other 3 times the Bradley released it's smoke as soon as it was lased. The BMP never fired once!

I did not test with target arcs, it was just a standard hunt command for the moving AFV and nothing for the static vehicle...

The last test I ran had the moving vehicles performing a ‘hunt’ command over a small blocking ridge line to bring its forward arc into the forward arc of the static vehicle in open ground approximately 100m away. What I would expect to see is the static vehicle to have the upper hand most of the time or at least a change in the numbers in regards to the BMP; It just seems logical that even the BMP with its narrower spotting arc should get, in theory, a bump in spotting the high profile Bradley moving up over a rise in front of it. I know sky lining isn't modeled in the game, but silhouette is a factor I believe? But the numbers so far seem to show no significant change in spotting chance for the either vehicle, static or moving! Again, it’s too small a test to be definitive, but it does seem to confirm, at least to me, a trend some of us are perceiving right across the board with Russian spotting. For example, I am playing a game H2H right now where I had 3 x T90AM’s in woods covering a relatively tight open terrain corridor between a hill and woods. A basic good key hole position. They were all systematically KIA’d by a M1 that moved into the open ground approximately 500m away in two turns. None of the T90’s spotted the M1! Now, that just doesn't seem right to me... and again its not conclusive because it's a single event, but it does seem to happen with frustrating regularity to Russian vehicles. As to what any of this shows / proves you’re absolutely right Vanir that it might not show anything more than the game engine working exactly the way it should and if that is so, then that’s great, we can put this subject to rest and move onto a tactics discussion on how to make the Russian forces more viable for H2H play. Bottom line though is that until we hear officially that there is an issue or not, more extensive testing needs to be done, and with more than just Bradley's and BMP's. If I get time I'll try to do that because my gut feeling is still that the spotting is not working quite the way it should be...