Jock Tamson

So they would need to junk the engine to add more condition based dynamism to waypoint setting. Even though it is already being done to some degree with triggers? Like, I say, strawman.

You are the only person who has said two weeks. Nor do you know anything about coding. Is it really such a leap to understand that the units in CM could have their waypoints set according to conditional logic rather than a time based plan? Because the last time I looked, they were already doing it with triggers.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. CM uses OpenGL, Arma uses DirectX. So what?

strawman

OpenGL - what has the graphics API got to do with anything?

Um, right. That's Arma with the industry leading editor with triggers and scripting of a complexity that blow CM out the water. Arma - has units CM - has units Arma - has groups of units with a command chain CM - has groups of units with a command chain Arma - has waypoints Cm - has waypoints Arma - has fog of war CM - has fog of war Arma- has a map CM - has a map Arma - has a TacAI CM - has a TacAI

That mod provides an opponent that dynamically sets waypoints for hundreds of AI units based on its understanding of the battlefield. Its understanding of the battlefield is simply cyclical sweeps of the battlefield and applying its logic against changing values. Map creators can pre populate a map with values - for example strategic points - but the basic set up is to give the commander objectives. It will then recon them, choose a group of units to achieve them, and set the waypoints accordingly. If later sweeps of the battlefield present a changed situation - for example newly spotted units - it will set new waypoints. If you can't understand how this is the basis for a more dynamic artificial opponent in a game like CM, I give up.

Modded into Arma in weeks http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?129003-HETMAN-Artificial-Commander

Smoke and mirrors is what people want. The current AI plans, even with the new triggers, do not supply enough of either.

I'll answer this once you've bothered to read any of my preceding posts eg the one where I describe creating the artifice of a reactive opponent. Note the word artifice.

What kind of games do your friends normally play? Because this forum is full of people that think no-one except dyed-in-the-wool wargamers will play it.

Nobody is asking for a thinking AI in that sense, just one that can react to the player.

I don't think anyone is asking for anything more than the type of AI opponent that is standard in games like the Total War series. At the end of the day it is just using numbers and rules to create the artifice of a reactive opponent. I'd even settle for one that could modify its pathing in response to casualties. And before we go down the "it can't be done" line, I've got years of scripting in IT behind me, business logic and game logic are not so very different. Line of sight doesn't matter, the AI doesn't take it into account when it plots waypoints now. I don't think anyone is asking for an AI that plots moves with perfect LOS like a human, just one that can seem a bit more reactive to what is happening on the battlefield.

All of that has been done in Arma by one modder - 4 years ago. Check out Hetman AI Commander. Scans the battlefield, sets or amends waypoints, attempts to recon and flank, orders fire missions, transports troops by helicopter That is on a battlefield many, many times the size of a CM battlefield.

So when we went from CMx1 to CMx2 there wasn't an increase in the player base?

Does the AI in Arma know what a building is yet? Don't get me wrong, I have got hundreds of hours in Arma2, but the amount of modding you need to do to get an immersive single player experience is crazy. Eventually, I couldn't be bothered any more. Having said that, I would love the CM editor to have even a tenth of the power / flexibility of Arma's.

You can set custom resolutions: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/93159-no-desktop-display-option/

That one made mo LOL

Yes, this is all true, but there are issues such as the saturation of the textures on the different tree lods causing that nasty draw line which have been present in every CMx2 title and were fixed by modders [you, I think] very quickly http://community.battlefront.com/topic/117497-some-technical-questions-about-trees-rendering/

..and even then, often the elements that are running on the "other" cores are fairly trivial processes by comparison to the main thread. An example is Arma 2/3, where file operations are shifted to the other cores but the impact on the overall performance is fairly trivial.

There is no excuse for the textures not being better IMO, when within days of release the modders have got it looking so much better (and have managed to do so with every CMx2 release).

I am using these with Vin's FOW icons, works well for me. I particularly like the translucency around the edges.

Looking forward to downloading it, your sound mods are my mod of choice for CM.

My opinions are based on owning at least one of the cards under discussion. That, and an understanding of the technologies.

Think you need to double check your sources, according to Nvidia the 680 has better performance. Which you would expect, because it is better hardware. Additionally, at the moment the 960 isn't available with more than 2GB of RAM, so you have less capacity to anti alias, run at higher than 1080p, or downsample to 1080p from a high res (on my 680 I used to downsample from 4k to 1080p with no degredation in performance) than you would on a 4GB 680. If the V8 is quicker than the 4 cylinder, do the hardware specs also not mean much? Don't think so. http://www.nvidia.co.uk/object/graphics_cards_buy_now_uk.html