Rokko
-
Posts
861 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Rokko
-
-
Thanks for the offer. I've sent you a PM.
-
It's really just 9 files like the one attached. The transparancy seems binary to me, the dark green color stands for 100% transparant. Would your script work for that?
-
I'm trying to change some editor graphics which include transparency. But I'd like to try your scripts. I have already made all the changes I wanted to do, but I can't save them properly.
-
Hi,
can anyone give me a quick answer on how to save modded .bmp files to get them to work with Combat Mission? Im using GIMP and whatever settings I use either the alpha textures are not recognized (and instead shown) or some other oddity occurs.
It seems that there are graphics with 24 Bit-depth which I can save just fine and then there are some with 32 Bit-depth which cause me trouble. Saving them as 32 Bit A8 R8 G8 B8 in GIMP somehow isn't possible and I suspect this is what I should be doing but can't. Any ideas?
-
If anyone knows a good CMBB Bagration scenario I'd love to give it a shot to remake it for CMRT, especially large ones, to try out the new maximum map sizes.
-
I have made a pretty faithfull (almost tile by tile) conversion of a CMAK scenario for CMBN and CMFI. It is pretty easy actually, especially with the map overlay tool. You just have to keep in mind that terrain tiles in CMx1 were 20x20m while they are 8x8m in CMx2, so you have to repleace 1 tile in CMx1 in with 3x3 tiles in CMx2, resulting in a 1.2 times larger map.
-
To me that would be a full TOE editor, I don't see what else anyone would need to edit existing TOEs.
-
But you cannot recreate historical OOBs that fit into the timeframe and location of the game (whichever that may be), but BF chose to omit, because they were too obscure or too rare (like a 4 company SS-Panzer-Pionier Bn '44 in CMBN or a 6-tube mortar platoon in a German PG Bn's weapons company).
Since BF doesn't really care or deems necessary (or at least not a priority) too include such structures I think it would be adequate to give us users the tools to do it on our own.
I don't really believe sales would go down because of this. No one would say "Oh I am not going to buy CM: Crete 41 because I can just make it myself with correct OOBs and play it with Germans and Americans in Normandy with the CMBN basegame."
-
Is there any chance we will one day get a full TOE editor in game? That would be really awesome, but I could imagine BF wouldn't really want that, just as they don't want their games too modable.
-
Any chance on pulling it off with regular German infantry? Fusilliers are not that common (only one batallion per 6 regular Grenadier batallions per division in 1944) and have a substantial higher amount of HMGs and SMGs, so it would not be an all to common encounter.
-
Well we don't know how the game handles binoculars. We know that binoculars give a spotting advantage, but we do not whether this advantage is tied simply to the posession of a pair of binoculars, or to the actual animation of binoculars being used regularly.
So maybe the game treats Soviet TCs in tanks with these frontal hatches as using their binoculars, maybe it doesn't. It depends on the level of abstraction the game has in this area.
-
Well, through Steam Valve is pretty much controlling the PC market right now I'd say (I don't know the actual figures, though, they just seem pretty dominant to me), and they are clearly trying to push Linux with their new Steam-Box and SteamOS. Also Microsoft is shifting their focus away from desktop pc and more towards mobile, so I wouldn't be too suprised if Valve could actually make Linux happen in the long run, as an OS it is pretty much equal in quality to Windows.
-
I guess because there is some indication that Linux and OpenGL might replace Windows and DirectX as the dominant platforms for games in the future.
-
In the latest Red Thunder stream I saw the TCs of the T-70s we saw have a special animation where they do not use their binoculars, despite being equipped with them. Does that translate to an actual spotting disadvantage or is it just a visual gimmick?
-
One question: How many Panzerschrecks did your straggler group have? Your infantry did seem to have little to resist Bill's tanks in this relatively close-terrain map.
-
ChrisND said flamethrower graphics are work in progress.
Personally, my biggest gripe with the game visually are soldier models (German ones at least) and ground texture resoultions.
-
In the case of the low berm on which lines of bocage rest, Germans dug pits into the berms themselves. Low walls are an edge situation that would be unlikely in reality since a hole would have to be knocked in the wall.
Ironically this doesn't work for either low or high bocage
-
Something like this.
Yes thats obviously true for walls alone. But I'm talking about guys in a HOLE IN THE GROUND next to wall being able to look beyond that. What reallife behaviour is that supposed to represent? The people getting out of their foxholes to look what's behind the wall? Would kinda defeat the purpose and be quite counter-intuitive.
It is, however, impossible to have post-loading changes of the 3D terrain mesh at all. At least with the current approach.I am aware of that and have mentioned it. But explain to me what HE does to the ground right now? It goes boom and leaves a crater in the terrain mesh where troops can hide in, which affects their LOS and everyones LOS on them and their action spot.
And I don't understand why it should be impossible for a player to have entrenchment entities that affect the 3d mesh depending on where they are placed (sort of like a user-placed crater that has to be spotted), maybe not in the current game engine obviously, but in general. I have at least seen things like that in other games.
Either way, the whole suggestion of improving foxholes and trenches was only a small part of my question, and I kinda already knew the answer. What I really would like to know is how these abstractions are supposed to work considering all the oddities I have mentioned.
-
That really doesn't make sense. What real-life behaviour should be simulated by such an abstraction?
-
That is true for the current engine I suppose, but I doubt it is impossible to have certain post-loading changes of the 3d Terrain mesh be subject to fog of war. I was wondering if maybe changes done to the terrain mesh that happened after the map loaded might cause problems with LOS calculations, but then again, thats just what craters do right now, only that craters can be seen "through" the fog of war.
So I don't see why future iterations of the engine (not talking 3.0 or 4.0, but rather CMx3) could not have FOW affected terrain.
-
Watching the twitch.tv clip on the upcoming CMRT made me wonder about an issue that has bugged me ever since CMBN has been released.
Are there any plans to make trenches and foxholes more pleasing to look at anytime in the future?
And a second issue, could someone elaborate on how the entrechments we have right now are supposed to work? As I understand it, the 4 huge molehills per 8x8m we have now in which individual soldiers can sit in or lay down are supposed to represent 4 simple holes in the ground, with the occupants being inside them with only their heads or a small part of their upper body peeking out and that all calculations are based upon that, right?
But from my observation that does not appear to be the case, at least not consistently. For instance, why can troops in a foxhole that is placed right behind a waist high wall look, spot and fire BEYOND that wall? With only your head looking out, how is one supposed to see what's behind a waist high wall? Same issue with 1m high earthen bank (created with the elevation tool). Or how can troops in foxhole placed on a reverse slope look in front of that slope? Also, spotting of foxholes often seems very odd, I really cannot imagine how anyone could spot a hole in the gras (maybe 1m in diameter) from anywhere further than a few steps away.
I can live with the way these entrechments look for the time being, but I really don't understand how they work in the game most of the time. The only positive effect I definately have noted is that when troops hide or cower in foxholes and trenches they are better protected from artillery fire, but that's about it. I can't really tell if they help much in a firefight for instance.
-
This wikipedia article is full of sh*t.
-
Are the flame textures and sound effects final or still subject to change?
-
I really have only a very basic understanding of how these early night vision devices worked and were deployed, but they were called Generation 0 for a reason, and the Allies didn't have anything in that direction as far as I know, except for some rifle mounted solutions used in the very late war in the Pacific.
I don't really see how these vehicle based devices could be implemented in Combat Mission in a user-friendly way considering they had to be used together with special searchlight halftracks
How did the Soviets get their IS-2's so tough?
in Combat Mission Red Thunder
Posted
Hi people,
I am playing around a little with these fellas and am utterly amazed by their stats. They carry around a huge gun, which can kill even the toughest German cats frontally from any sensible range, is extremely well armoured and yet weighs more than 20 tons less than a KT and is only a little bit heavier than a Panther. Both Panther and KT did not have an easy time knocking IS-2's out at 1200m frontally, in fact the side turret seemed pretty much impenetrable, even at 700m (at least for the 75mm/L70), while only frontally the turret and the weapon mount could be penetrated. How did the Soviets do this? How did they develop such a heavily armed, armored and yet so light armored fighting vehicle?
I do see its downsides are pretty appearent, with low speed and ammo loadout and slow firing rate, but they are still pretty damned impressive.