Gryphonne

I did these experiments in the early days too make a tiny island (so they can't run or rout away), cram as much stuff on it as you possibly can and fire away It's a very sadistic process

Well, in CMSF the leafs on trees were crop circles too, when viewed from the top. At least the foliage seemed to rotate with the point of view AFAIR. In CMBN however the trees and foliage are "modelled" along "two (or more) axis", which supposedly would mean they have more volume (from a distance) to them and do not shift with the view point. Is this correct? I hope you can understand my explanation anyway, it's a bit difficult to use clear terms.. So while the trees in CMSF are more complex from a close distance, the trees in CMBN seem to have more volume when viewed from a distance; look almost as good up close and my guess is that the render is probably a lot more efficient too (=higher framerates)?

IIRC, Steve mentioned that they had a new way of drawing foliage so they may have finally fixed it. I sure hope they did anyway, because trees are such a prominent feature of the European setting. Furthermore, CMx1 handled trees very elegantly and I really want that feature back, you could zoom out all the way and with max draw/horizon distance you could see woods and trees way up ahead.

Not a whole lot info there, sadly. Therefore, bump.

How is CAS handled in the Normandy game? Is it still completely random or do we have access to slightly more dedicated air control this time around? Is the Fw-190F-8 modelled with a different radio set (FuG-16ZS; Fw-190A-8 carries the FuG-16ZY) in order to improve communication between ground units and fighter bombers? Is this reflected in-game somehow? EDIT: I just noticed the Sd.Kfz. 251/3 in the TO&E listing, is this the Funkpanzerwagen variant carrying dedicated radios for air support coordination then? Regards, Gryph

So the answer is no on all accounts?

Also: 1. what about 20mm and 37mm FlaK guns? are these in? 2. and will these "discourage"/shoot down enemy aircraft? 3. will there be a Wirbelwind/Möbelwagen? iirc these were used in Normandy

Thanks Moon, that's awesome

Well, about the screenshots. There are some screenshots that you can't enlarge but look utterly interesting. Are these posted somewhere? Like the one with the Pz IV and commander headphones for example.

Finally indeed. I have waited long for this moment The game looks beautiful, Steve. I can't wait to start playing it! One question though, how will the map preview work? Will it be like a 3d preview or a top down view of the map? I didn't really understand this from the feature list

Well, maybe, but for CMSF they had these cool render graphics of vehicles and small arms, why not put up a website with that, a feature list etc and then let the screenies trickle in this entire year we've had like what, 10 screenshots in total and very little additional info? Besides, the 2nd generation bocage hasn't scared me off yet

These screenies are great (although they don't show anything shocking imho), but you guys sort of mentioned a website being almost ready for a couple of months now So, when are we going to get some real bones? like a name for example?

Well, I don't know why anyone would go through the trouble of making up these figures, but the point is that a lot of them probably are, a few certainly so and in addition, some figures are just nonsensical to compare. I mean, comparing aircraft gun calibers? this isn't WW2 anymore. Not only that it severely overstates the projected air power of the NKs as well as the capability of their individual fighters. Comparing service ceilings? again, this is not WW2. By the time any modern fighter reaches its service ceiling it will have burnt up a good portion of its fuel and in a theatre this small it won't have time to anywhere near reach it. Not to mention it can't avoid missiles at those altitudes anyway. Comparing Soviet-era MiGs and Sus to the latest F-16s and F-15s is indeed like comparing apples and oranges, especially when you take fighter pilot training into account. Furthermore, the guy still mentions the use of USN F-14s, I don't know what year this article is from, but these have been phased for some years now. Also in terms of fighter pilot training, obviously the guy that wrote this doesn't know a thing, a modern fighter pilot is trained as much in BVR combat as he is in dogfighting. On top of that, conmparing flight training hours between NK and NATO fighter pilots it's hard to believe that the NK pilots will excell in anything. Honestly, I don't think the article is worth it, and the author - whoever that may be - has a hard on for fantasy figures. Of course I'm not sure about the other sections in the report, but judging from the ones I am knowledgeable about, I don't think there's a whole lot quality left in the rest.

The part where he wrote that the NK T-62s have 155mm main guns and 700mm armor was equally good I really wonder whether this is some official document or just some sort of teenage sympathizer's wet dream. At times it's just too absurd to be real. Having said that, in the case of a full conventional war, isn't it so that Seoul would pretty much disappear instantly and in response most of NKs military leadership? I don't think we'd be looking at a prolonged conventional campaign in any case. Maybe fanatical units from NK would wage a guerrila war but I don't see masses of NK tanks driving into South Korea. Thus, this raises the questionability for a Korean themed CMSF II.

Needless to say, that link is absolutely filled with nonsensical data. I just had to laugh when I reached both the tanks & air combat part. While interesting, it vastly - and I mean by several orders of magnitude - overstates the military and military-organisational capabilities of the NK army. I'd be really surprised it was anywhere near reality.

An update on CM:How I was shocked to see that I had no Abrams, and was forced to love the Sherman instead, would be nice. We haven't seen any screenshots since like what, March?

Combat Mission: Dude, where's my Abrams?

Well, in all honesty and my pc problems aside, it _is_ sluggish, especially the camera. And i know for a fact that this isn't limited just to my pc. Also the LODs are unelegant as I mentioned before, there's a huge difference between low grade textures in the distance and high res textures close by, and there is no transition between these at all. I just hope that Normandy is a lot more efficient and elegant. I appreciate the help, Martin. However, I am very well aware of what hardware I buy, I have been building my own systems since the dawn of time and I know what to look for; also having said that, I never buy the "latest gadgets". I am also very well aware that the human eye can't register past 32 or fps. I don't need 120fps, but a constant 40 would be nice. Besides, the extra buffer in fps is always handy when you do have a scene that requires a lot of processing power from the GPU so the fps doesn't drop below 30. That is the reason why people want as much fps as they can have, not for shows or otherwise.

Right now i'm using the 10.8s, but the performance is horrible, i just can get above 20 fps with EVERYTHING turned low including the resolution to 1024x786. The only thing that i have set high is the model quality. As soon as i bump down the model quality the fps rises to 50-60 or so. However, this game has way less demanding models than any other current generation 3d title, what gives? Is this a driver thing? Before, i had better fps results with an older card (the GF7900GTO)

Yeah, it's very nice and dandy that it works for you, however, i only get 20 fps with everything turned to lowest running at 1024x786 on a system with HD5770. Tbh, that is just plain stupid. There is so much discrepancy with performance between various computers that one does not know where to look for the problem.

The issue is that even when nothing is actually crunched the fps are still low. Making a map (without units) such as the one in the 3rd mission of the CMA campaign drops the fps to 10 on a high end system at best settings for both 3d model and textures. This is with just 2x AA and 4x AF. My machine can handle the vast open spaces of ARMA II even better than it can CMSF/A; and CM, in all honesty, is not a beauty queen. Don't get me wrong, I _love_ the CM series and have been playing them since the very first days of CMBO, but the new engine just seems so inefficient at what it does graphically, and I don't understand why. I thought a high end system would cure my woes, but alas, it's still the same. Also I dislike the current LOD system a lot with things popping in and out of existence like mad when you scroll around, and of course the extremely low res textures that pop into existence right next to a high res texture; it's just very unelegant. In my humble opinion, the terrain in CMx1 "felt" a lot smoother and far less artificial in the old days, even despite the high amount of abstractions. EDIT: Adding to the above, I feel that the terrain in TOW looks far better for example, and plays smoother in my opinion.

Of course, but still, there is games that render a whole lot more and they do it a whole lot more smoothly, FSAA & AA or not. We're not living in the early 00's anymore, gfx rendering cards are a lot more powerful than say, when CMSF was released, and the problems with CMSF have persisted through time.

Is there a way to make the terrain on which the map is hovering just black? the repetitive dirt is annoying and besides i have a feeling that it affects fps.. also the engine is so friggin choppy. People say that the game utilises a lot of CPU power, but even with one unit and some buildings and bushes it's just slow.. I hope Normandy looks different or at the very least is a lot more efficient.