Stagler
-
Posts
1,164 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by Stagler
-
-
I think that this should be patched in as a fix at some point, you can do this with US forces.
-
Sadly, ArmA 3 still doesn't have the terrain absorbing any heat, which means that humans and vehicles glow like flares in the dark even on a sunny day in the desert
In ARMA 2, background temperature was only modelled by month, not by actual in-game "simulated" temperature. In Nov-Jan, thermals did not work as well due to overwhelming cold backgrounds and it was hard to distinguish terrain features, if at all able to spot them.
I'm not sure about ARMA 3 because I honestly don't think I have played a mission set in that time period, but I shall endeavour to investigate and report back.
All vehicles are cold on placement, but get warm when moving or firing by default in that engine. Same with weapons and small arms.
-
Did you try the BMP-2M?
-
I'm thinking, can anyone actually think of any overarching features that the game is lacking that would improve all existing games in one, to be rolled out in 4.0. It would have to be some kind of UI change or an additional engine change. We now have amphibious vehicles, so that wont be new to 4.0. The player lobby is one thing I am hoping for, but the only other one I can think of is non-LOS sensors on vehicles.
-
I don't care about graphics.
I don't care about FPS.
I don't care about visual air support.
I do care about correctly modelled equipment capabilities... *cough M2" engine" armour, blind-Russians*
But 4.0, please please please please, let us have a lobby we can go to to find MP games.
-
As I said lacroix ill be on when I get back to my proper rig come August.
-
Yeah...it's looking like something may be a bit too robust.
HOWEVER... some real data to verify against the game behavior would be nice.
The hits on the engine slats would seem to be something that should at least cause engine failure. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying it "seems" like it should. A large blast should propagate through the baffles. I don't know if the cover is just simple louvers or if there are more complex geometries behind the slats. (E.g., multiple slats... /\/\/\... in layers.) I don't know what type of HE the Brad was designed/tested to be proof against.
A video of mortar damage against a tank: http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=120mm+mortar+vs+a+tank&qpvt=120mm+mortar+vs+a+tank&FORM=VDRE#view=detail&mid=3891FCA6C0BEB5F876353891FCA6C0BEB5F87635
Unfortunately, that's from Iwo Jima and the tank is an M4. There is NO information about the type of mortar. It could've been friendly fire or from the Japanese.
Simple HE is ineffective against tanks. (This does NOT mean that fragments are ineffective. I'm talking about bare HE laid on a tank.) Special anti-tank rounds have been developed for 120mm mortars. They contain seekers and HEAT warheads. Seekers, because you want to hit the top of the vehicle, not miss. But the warhead is changed because the standard warhead is not effective enough to assure a kill.
Therefore, standard 120mm mortar rounds, even if they hit, are lacking in their kill ability.
It wasn't even a mortar that dropped the round in that screenshot that I took, it was a 2S1 122mm howitzer. I wasted about 8 minutes of fires time in that occasion, "foolishly" thinking a single laser guided top attack round with a very good chance to hit with one tube firing (from a crack crew and crack spotter team) would be sufficient to disable the M2. I had to then reorder the mission with all 3 tubes firing, then during the call the said M2 drove away to another hiding place. Which then proceeded to destroy a T-90AM piloted by the Russian blind-tank-driving championship crew. My point is basically that when survivability is over modelled, it has knock on effects for everything.
-
Although the wording may have been somehow unfair, I do agree that BS, being the most up to date and most advanced CM game, needs much more SP content. The original campaigns are actually nice (TF 3-69 is excellent), but they're too short for most tastes. I mean, you're like "Hell yeah, this is great... oh wait, this was the last mission? :| ".
In addition, people making new campaigns and scenarios can't be asked to do it faster or something. We should already be thankful that they do what they do, because they receive no payment and are doing us all a favour. But if the scenarios/campaigns are BFC-sponsored, they will be made faster, they will be allocated more playtesters, and they'll become polished and ready for release much faster.
However, I'm not willing to pay 25-35$ just for a campaign. I mean, probably 10-15$ for a campaign pack is OK, but that sum is too much IMO. It will definitely be offset by the fact that most will buy a campaign pack whose every campaign has over 10 missions, because it would be quite refreshing for their game.
Yeah, but dat VDV doe.
-
Ayway, what seems in discussion here is more like something regarding weakspots. Just like a tank might have a weakspot modeled (like in WW2 titles) or a partial armor not covered by ERA (T-72B3 front turret), we wonder if the Bradley top hull armor is modeled as a single thick slab of armor or if there are some parts with less to no armor. In particular I'm referring to the engine ventilation shaft and the driver's hatch. The first one seems especially fragile, maybe the covering mesh is capable of detonating the 120mm mortar/howitzer round, but given the speed of impact I would imagine a massive damage to the vehicle.
Another example of potential weakspot: how thick is the large hatch on top of the troops compartment? maybe it's well armored I just don't know (same for the driver's hatch). The only part I am pretty confident is the engine ventilation deck, as reported by Stagler, which really is a weakspot, because at least I know how internal combustion engines work and what kind of stuff is down there.
Bingo.
-
Sometimes the current infantry behaviour results in your ATGW or MGs being deployed in spots where they have almost no arcs of fire, even though if you deployed them exactly where you wanted directly ontop of the cursor they would have them.
-
Lets remember Bradley is clad in some very thick VERY expensive ceramic composite armor. So terribly expensive that they opted for something cheaper when designing Stryker. I vaguely recall armor steel equivalent for the bow was above 120mm (Tiger tank thickness). I discovered awhile ago that Krasnopol didn't have a HEAT cone at the end, it was just good old-fashioned HE. Bradley and Abrams - One game Krasnopol does nothing, the next game its toast.
Over the engine intake? Really? Must be that VERY invisible ceramic composite armour.
Methinks the Bradley hit boxes need to be adjusted or altered.
-
This is what? The fourth time a thread about change has cropped up in 6 months? Maybe they are popping up for a reason.
-
Hi .. I went to click the download and then stopped and asked "what is this network thing and how does it related to the BFC in game multiplayer?" I search and see it allows people (n=30?) to "network" and play "games". I wonder why this is the first I heard of it. It sounds interesting. I am not the paranoid type - did banking via a modem - but need more info before I d/l and check it out.
Kevin
You have never heard of a VPN before?
-
Well they can only be as right as their sources are at providing the correct information
-
Dear god I need to proofread more. I meant to say
Again, it'll be interesting to see what actually comes down the pipeline. But the lack of information, and some historic official and unofficial optimistic estimates gives me reason to adopt a much more conservative stance on capabilities.
Indeed, stuff shown but sadly not demonstrated at Army 2015 looked interesting.
-
Good idea, ill be on when I get back to my home pc in August.
-
So you are demanding that BFC get entirely out of the wargame business, go for the big bucks producing razzle-dazzle for fourteen year olds?
When did anyone say this? And whats wrong with fourteen year olds? They can play Combat Mission too cant they? I first played Close Combat when I was 12 on my windows 95 desktop. Or would it upset everyone too much that kids are playing their game.
-
It's impossible to have a constructive discussion so long as terms like "fanboy" are tossed around.
He is right though, ha.
-
On very large maps I get markedly less FPS than normal. The repurposed RT master map I released as a QB map for example, that really stretches the limits of how well the engine can run. When I was editing that it would take me a lot of time to scroll across the map.
Is the CPU non-use a feature of the software engine that combat mission uses?
-
Would probably stop some daft infantry behaviour if this was implemented.
-
What has this forum turned into?!? Some kind of static, entrenched warfare between the Old Breed and The New Generation. People ask questions (some legitimate, some not) and then the flame war starts. It perfectly illustrates the point that time is a flat circle and that this will go on forever and ever.
Haha, It has.
I think that when they finally disappear, combat mission will also die out as a franchise as well.
To pave a way for better things? For another company to take up the torch? Some say some already have? Who knows? All I know is that I don't want it to die out, but it seems incapable of evolving as the world evolves around it.
-
Of course CMSF runs better than CMBS, there are simpler models (in terms of damage calculation), no shaders and generally less detailed maps.
But if you bought CMSF in the first day it was released you should remember how terrible was the optimization (allah's fist?).
Now I can run CMSF/RT very smoothly (much better computer than 7 years ago), and even crank up texture sizes like I did.
Did you double the pixels of the bitmaps?
-
True, but the system is unchanged since CMSF. Two PC generations later might allow for 6x6m or 4x4 m without too much speed sacrifice?
You'd think so wouldn't you...
-
After everything in development at the moment is done and all projects on the boil are finished, they should pause for 6 months, then start working on updating the engine. My first port of call would be to get out amongst the community that pay the wages of its staff and see what they want. The coding of a proper AI, and the integration of multiplayer features that are not from the days of PC Format and floppy disks stuck to the front of magazines should be a first. The graphics are passable at the moment. Their problem is they cant seem to utilise todays hardware to its fullest extent, having high fidelity models and textures because they seem to be able to only use a fraction of a pc's computing power. This should be addressed.
I would consider crowdfunding a game, or going to steam for development help - then buying a new engine off the shelf and taking it from there.
How can I change different variants in QB deck for redfor?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
You cant change between BTR-4 and BTR-70 in individual sections with the Ukrops either.