A Canadian Cat

Yeah paniced troops tend to go pretty far. Those that are only shaken recover much quicker and so don't get as far. The way things work now never bothered me. I use my broken troops for holding objectives in the rear, fire support from a short distance behind the troops in good condition. Tank crews and the like I just give orders to move to a sheltered are in the rear after they recover. At least when I am playing with a couple of friends where we have a house rule that tank crews must withdraw instead of being used as infantry.

Whose post are you confused about? I think I can explain @BarbaricCo and my post. @sburke's post on the other hand, I have no idea

All your free time are belong to us.

Actually this multi core thing is a bit of a red herring. The fundamental issue is this: is it OK for a crew to fail to spot an enemy. The answer is yes of course it is! In fact it is a game feature and a simulation of real life that crews miss stuff. If I suddenly, the game were able to double the amount of processing power that is devoted to managing spotting that that fundamental fact had better not change. Soldiers on the battle field miss things and focus on one thing and not an other. Yes, yes I know you will fire back but 30m right in front of them are you crazy. Well perhaps. I will admit that in close the game might have issues because you could argue that being 30m in front of a crew should perhaps be easier to spot. Perhaps easier but still not guaranteed. The difference is I still do not think your crew should get "insta spotting" (tm), ever. Especially if they are busy doing other things - like shooting at a mortar team. For example what if the commander decides to check to his left after the gunner starts engaging the mortar team. It could easily be many tens of seconds before he even looks forward again. Then you get what you saw in the turn above. So bottom line, more CPU power devoted to spotting will not change some people's unrealistic expectations they they should some how have "perfect pixel troops" (tm). All it would do is handle a few edge cases better. We all get stuff killed by enemies our troops do not see - daily even. I have a game right now where a Panther took, I forget four or five, hits from an AT gun that it did not spot for a really really long time. Perfectly reasonable - it was 800m away in a tree line with another tree line in between. I did not time it but I think it was over a minute possibly three before the Panther had a spot for it. Some infantry near by saw it first but even they did not see it right away. And this is a good thing (tm). It is part of the game. It is what makes the game so good. So, suck it up butter cup

The issue with AMD is their graphics card drivers not their CPUs. I do not think that changing your CPU to Intel would help.

Oh my that sounds serious. You should seak medical attention.

LOL then I hope to keep you a sinner then :)

Yes, I am just speculating. We do not get to see under the hood, we just get to speculate. I really could have just been a case of the Panther lost the "die" role a couple of times. It is not like the Panther never saw the enemy Sherman it just took 20-30s.

Interesting. Are we sure about tank crews never getting sound contacts? What about AT gun fire? I know that tank commanders not not hear other moving tanks easily - their own engines drown out much of the enemy tank's sound but I have seen tanks with ? contacts for AT guns firing at them. I figured that was mostly due to sound. But it could be flash and movement too I suppose. Of course the do get ? contacts from information passing though. No, just idling. Crews did not turn off engines because many tanks of that era required crews to dismount to start the engine and even those that did not the start sequence as not as smooth as we are used to with our modern cars. So, crews would *not* turn of engines in close proximity to the enemy.

Bottom line @5th SS Div Wiking I am sorry you are having a frustrating time but I assure you of a few things a) if you do find a bug and do the work to show it BFC will fix it and b ) the chances are you have not found a bug and c) you will be happier if you adjust your thinking from "why can't my pixel troops behave perfectly at all times" to "that clever enemy out foxed me again" and "damn **** happens on the battlefield" and finally d ) on balance things are handled well and as you get better at tactics you will come out on top more times then not.

Like @womble said, we really do not want the fog of war to be lifted. So much of the time expectation is the key. Stop expecting that an particular crew or solider is going to know or see what you already know is there. The game does not work that way because real life does not work that way. The code is trying to simulate soldiers with incomplete information and human characteristics and equipment in various conditions. This is not a first person shooter where the game presents you with the picture of the entire world and you get to search for the enemy. This game is simulating if or if not each crew and soldier detects the enemy. I am sure we all have been in a situation where we notice something interesting and the friends standing right next to us do not notice it and even have trouble noticing even after you tell them where to look. Happens to me all the time. Perhaps you are one of the people that is consonantly trying to get their friends to clue into the world around them. Indeed. And frankly close in ranges like this is where the simulation starts getting stressed. We often have people with issues when units get this close and changes were made a while back to help (what someone said about spotting happening at intervals and those intervals getting shorter for units in close proximity to each other). That definitely made things better but it is still at the edge from what I can see. Having said that there are a few things here worth considering... I am not convinced. There are two things to keep in mind. First chance: there is chance involved in all these encounters and something that happens only rarely can still happen and if you recalculated the turn multiple times something else might happen all the other times you try it. Stuff happens, get over it, we all have to. Second look at the conditions here. The Panther does have optics damage - sorry but that does make spotting harder. also there is a burning tank to the right and a tree partly in the way. It could very well be that the commander has an obscured view, the loader has smoke in the way an the driver is trying to keep the tank facing the right way according to the best the gunner can figure the incoming fire is coming from. Suddenly it is not a huge surprise that the crew took 20-30s to figure out what was what. I try not to think of it that way (I try to think of it more like I describe above - the people) but at some level some computer generated chance is happening.

Hey, @BLSTK asked what sins *you* have committed not what you think constitutes a sin on someone else's part.

Yes, it blocks LOS. Yes it has a significant effect. No, it is not a perfect wall. An actual smoke screen is much more in penetrable but even it can have gaps.

Oh that is neat. I doubt I would want to play with that but it does show off some interesting contours.

LOL you are play the wrong humans. Artillery is nasty. I often get seriously nailed by a good artillery barrage. I like to think that I can give as good ass I get too.

ÀMD has not spent as much effort on Open GL as NVidia. That's why I made sure to have an NVidia card the last time I upgraded my PC. There could be some settings that could help and I used to have a book mark for someone's suggestions. When I am back on my PC I will check if I still have it. Unless some beats me to it.

LOL if he is happy with CMH then that is a good thing.

Wow, this is going to be cool. I do plan to do some firm of an AAR. I have a lot going on in rl and with CMFB so it could be less than usual. @Kuderian and I should discuss how we might want to do that. We'll do that offline later.

Whose turn is it has a configurable refresh rate and a command to refresh whenever you request it. By default I have it set to check every 5min.

It is unlikely to be a machine specific bug but I suppose possible. The models ammo pouches do not directly correspond to the ammo they carry so there is little chance your sniper is being short changed on bullets. Can you describe how you selected the sniper team? Such as, is it from a particular scenario or a QB where you selected a separate sniper team or got the sniper as part of a larger force?

The short answer is yes it is using one core for the heavy lifting, and yes there are a nearly insane amount of calculations being done. This recent thread was very infomative about why we are where we are, how much the issue are real and how much preceived and a few side links to strategies to help get smoother performace: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/121564-is-fb-more-optimized-than-the-others/ Once you adjust your graphics card settings, your game graphics levels and stay away from map and force sizes that are to big for your machine you should be able to get better smoothness. What I don't know and has not been discussed is how running with TCP/IP effects performance. I suppose it would not be a surprise that the same machine can run a large scenario in a PBEM just fine but run into trouble when played via TCP/IP. I don't think anyone has the experience to say how much difference there is.

H2H play for campaigns is the top of my feature wish list too. I remind Steve as appropriate . The TCP/IP allows WEGO but it is WEGO with no play back. I know, kinda sucky but better than not having it. Honestly it does not get a lot of play time that I can see. Recently a bunch of fixes went into the TCP/IP feature that made it playable for those that were. If you get the game and run into trouble I am sure they will work to fix it just be aware that fixes take some time to actually reach the product you are working on. The demo for Black Sea is based on the most recent code. If TCP/IP is the most important thing for you I would recommend trying it in that demo (I am assuming here that it is available in the demo) and see if you are happy with it. The released versions of the games are more up to date than the demos, by a long shot in some cases.

On the topic of cease fire I fall somewhere in the middle. Once I am spent in a game, either on attack or defense, I will flip the cease fire flag and tell my oppent so. I will say that there is not much left for me to do so when you feel the same feel free to do the same. In the meantime I will continue to play as hard as I can and return turn files as I did before. In the defence I might know I am beat but surrending gives too much away I don't want to give it all up - make them earn it, I say. On the attack I will feel I cannot make any more significant progress but feel free to counter attak if you like - I'll make you regret it if I can.

Wait! 7Mb for a gif file? Could there be something wrong with the image? Too big more frames than needed? I am not sure how happy people will be with a 7Mb image dl happening when they read the forum.

If you like I can upload it my server - I can not look at it. If you want me to do that send me a drop box link to the file and I might even be able to do it at lunch. @Bil Hardenberger might have an idea as well since he does that often. The other possibility I'll PM you about...