The Steppenwulf

For the sake of clarity on this matter: I wonder how many of those listed blown bridges actually occured during a tactical battle John?

My hunch is that persistent damage isn't much of an obstacle for the current game iteration - it's just a case of a tool function that inputs the relevant data from a .bts game save and outputs it as a .btt map file. Perhaps not as straightforward as some might think because there's a lot of data that such a tool must ignore. Still I don't think it's unrealistic - and I certainly want it!! Personally, I don't care how long it takes to develop and release MG, the EF continuation or even SF2. I have so much to get on with BN/C and FI/GL (that I still haven't yet touched). I'd be prepared to wait for MG till christmas if it means it will be vastly superior as a result. In fact I'd quite happily settle for a pack and patch in the meantime. Yes, I'm in the more brigade too but I'm prepared to be as patient as is necessary. Edit:- Sorry I overlooked this: I suspect more people would want this feature than you might think. Do it!!

Shame - but thanks ASL for the info all the same

As Michael Palin would say "You lucky, lucky, lucky B*****D!!" With regard to the various discussions comparing BN/C and FI/GL, I note that noone has mentioned/ or bothers to mention the movie mode. On face value, this appears to me to be a big plus for FI - though I don't yet own it. Can someone confirm that the function is indeed what I assume it is; an in-game screen recorder and editor. If this is the case I might go and purchase FI/GL despite my reduced enthusiasm for this particular theatre. I think such a feature alone is worth the extra play value.

What's wrong with coop multiplayer WeGo? I'd suggest that BF are more likely to implement such a mode than RT at first because code-wise it's a little easier - no need to worry about live multiplayer set up's, connection issues etc.. Moreover, it would provide a good test-bed for in-game multiplayer issues; fog of war, shared off map support etc.. I've been reading elsewhere about speculation of multi -multiplayer RT but in my view 4player WeGo would be a more realistic expectation and would be a fantastic evolutionary move forward.

I had a fav link to this site already but I've never stumbled upon the colour plates at the bottom before. They are a great find in themselves thanks for posting!!

Thanks for replying to my post. I concur with that analysis but that begs the question why is the entire sequence contained in the stock files - normals included. And all community uniform mods have a complete sequence too - has noone picked up on this?? And then, equally, can we be absolutely sure that this is perculiar to the m41 uniform. I do know there is a similar issue with one or two of the german vehicle textures but beyond that I haven't tested with any other textures so I don't know, I'm just posing the question?

This takes us to the kernel of this entire issue: Essentially task-overload for the CM player. This is a relative experience; overload affects individuals at different rates and RT play exacerbates the problem because the RT player cannot possibly perform more or monitor more events than the WeGo player can. This is not an experience that is limited to CM2; the scale of task management the brain can handle in any game is finite. However, it is something that is more apparent in CM2 because of the extension of the game to increasingly larger battlefields and ever larger formations. The splitting of squads only further increases the cognitive demands. The answer however is not necessarily to provide additional information gathering or alerts. The answer is to accept that a company size force is about the maximium that the average player can cope with - certainly in an RT battle. Thus BF should ensure that CM supports multiplayer coop modes in V3.0. This long overdue feature would allow the high cognitive demands of commanding larger formations over larger areas to be naturally dampened by dividing those forces up amongst several players. Personally I don't play RT because this feature isn't currently accomodated, but nevertheless WeGo would benefit from the feature in equal measure for exactly the same reasons. I don't even need to mention the whole new tactical dimension that such a feature would add to the game in any case. If one accepts this premise then my point earlier about the devs using their valuable dev time to enhance the game in other more interesting ways (than the OP suggestion) still stands. :cool:

Womble is drawing attention to the fact that the game engine isn't passing events in such a black and white way which you presuppose it is. The parameters for each flag would have to be established in order to then have a messaging system in the UI. Consequently, every other "event" could be a red herring and ends up looking messy and woolly. You know like stray bullets and inaccurate mortar rounds for example. I'm not saying the idea is without some validity or is impossible (running out of ammo is an event of particular note) but my gut feeling is that, generically speaking, this is not so easy to implement in a satisfactory way that can improve on the game and moreover justify the time spent coding it. With regard to the latter point, do you think there are many other things that could be improved upon that should take priority? I do, issues such as better damage modelling on buildings (as has just been mentioned in another thread) and basic vehicle damage is something I personally would like to see in v 3.00. The other point I would make is how such a feature could be implemented without it being a gamey addition that impacts negatively on the spirit of the current game. Who is resistant to change and how did you suddenly manage to jump to that conclusion about the "community"? This is neither fair in this limited context nor helpful to this particular thread discussion.

I recall reading something on this point in a thread previously somewhere. To be honest, I cannot be sure what the response/outcome on it actually was. However, in theory the Normandy v111.brz file will work fine but installing the 1.11 patch over 2.00 will probably write over the v 2.00 .exe so one would then have to re-run the v2.00 installer again and rewrite over the v1.11 .exe. It might be that the installer has been set up so as not to overwrite a later .exe version so v1.11 installer will install the .brz but not the .exe because it has detected that the current .exe is v2.00. However I doubt this. You can check this by noting the v2.00 .exe file size first, then install 1.11 and see if the .exe file has reduced in size. The v1.11 will be smaller, so if it does reduce in size you can then reinstall v2.00. One could of course just copy the v2.00 .exe before running the 1.11 patch then put the v2.00 file back in after. Note though, that in any case, there will certainly be no reason to do a completely fresh install. Perhaps someone else can confirm all this just to be sure (a second opinon is always superior to the one). Hope it was a clear enough explanation anyway.

Further to the answer above; the animations for these models are all in the 1.11 patch installation. If 2.0 should be installed without 1.11 the game reads no animation information and we get the generic pose only.

Erwin - observe the diff on the sleeve lacing (esp where it laces over), the foresight and what I presume is the foresight screw. The difference in bump effect really is stark - one looks dull, flat and far less interesting when compared so directly side by side.

Rambler - a hallmark example of what can be achieved with good normal mapping By the way, are you in the process of redoing your weapons with version 2? Is your previous work available in the repository? I'm guilty of having overlooked weapon modifications for my own install. Either that or I have just missed all such contributions as I have worked my way through the repository material.

There were no normal maps in version 1. BF left these out deliberately. The likely reason would be to test for inital optimisation and performance across the range of systems before adding them at a later point (version 2). Normal maps are not a hard and fast requirement for textualisation of a 3d model. It's just that they will make a 3d model look much better - particularly with light and shading features which will draw out the qualities of the map. If a normal map is not created by the modder the game will continue to read the stock map - just like any other modded/stock file. This is fine for certain changes (which I gave as examples in my previous post) and will make zero difference to the unsuspecting eye in game. If however, one were to change the suggestion of a fold in clothing which was not mapped on the normal then a good eye or the modder might be able to notice such a subtle oddity. This can go up in extremes, so for example, let's say, adding chainmail to a medieval knight but using a normal map created for a model wearing leather would be much more distinct. Therefore, this degree of significant change would certainly require a custom normal map. To do, or not to do depends on the changes made and the exactitude of the modder. Since making a new normal map isn't such a grand investment of time anyhow, it does no harm to go custom - except when merely modding the texture tones, which really would be a pointless exercise.

That's because the modified texture or diff file isn't fundamentally different from the stock version - an example would be if the modder merely intends ro desaturate the image or add decals dirt etc.. Adding belts or medals or anything that you might consider an object will prob need a new normal map depending on the effect and the level of expectation. However, not producing a fresh normal map will not prevent the texture from working. More fundamental changes to the look of the objects will likely require changes to the model itself. Then the model would need to be UV unwrapped and the texture reskinned; a fairly substantial undertaking. The .mdr files are the 3d model files. There is no script that can import the models presently into 3d modellling software. That noone has bothered to attempt producing one is reflective of the fact that there is little point - except perhaps to build new flavour objects - because of the accuracy of BF's own models. Normal maps can be produced in Photoshop (depending on the version?). I suggest you do a search online for how to do this but it is very straightforward. Otherwise there are some standalone nomal map free tools available, of which the best is perhaps "crazybump" - google it to find.

Difficult to understand what this post is getting at but perhaps this might be worth considering: smod_american_m41_uniform 1.bmp From my experience, this file doesn't appear to be read by the game. All the other numbered variants are fine as is the unnumbered one. If I'm correct, any effort to see a change on this particular file will fail - perhaps leaving the modder confused on the cause. Perhaps mjkerner (or anyone else) would like to confirm that this is indeed the case - I could be mistaken - though I would then have to revisit why I was unable to get the texture on this file ref to work also.

Last time I looked I don't think this uniform texture was being read. smod_american_m41_uniform 1.bmp All the other numbers 2,3 etc do as does the unnumbered texture. Perhaps someone else can confirm this before BF waste time testing it for themselves.

^^ this ^^

For CW or just BN?

I thought about this before now also. However I suppose since black smoke actually fades rather than just stops, this might perhaps explain the reason. Providing a more realistic look requires an amended animation sequence to the current loop. I expect it will get addressed soon enough but it may also form part of the broader area of damage modelling such as burned out hulls, broken tracks, displaced side skirts etc...All part of the same box of tricks so my guess is they will all get worked on together at some point.

Some of these pics (not all) look like they have been put through an photo editor with a filter to give them that ww2 colour from b&w look. It works very well though, there's no disputing a somewhat authentic look about them. John Kettler:- I'm interested in how can you tell it's a Pz III Ausf J? It's my favourite tank of ww2 the Pz III, but I couldn't be sure to tell the difference from an Ausf G to an M? In fact I'm not 100% confident I could tell the difference between the 50mm L/42 and the L/60 gun less anything else. I think the L and M had thicker front armour but even that's hard to note without getting very close up and personal.

I've already looked at this also having thought about the possibilities of running a MP operational game - such a concept hinges entirely on being able to process input and output information in an open format such as XML. This would then allow a campaign manager to build a map from tiles on the fly (as you are thinking) but more importantly dovetail the position/progress of units in CM on an external OP map and visa versa. It doesn't take a CM wargamer to realise where the potential for this would be going.... I did actually manage to grapple with and change some of the encrypted bytes in the files which the game sucessfully read, but I melted my brain in the process of trying to crack the algorithm. Unfortunately the first 160 bytes are the only consistent ones in the files and they represent only the scenario/campaign overview data. As Mad Mike says the rest of the information is encypted and it is the same across all the file types. I suggest the reason is simply for compression for ease of transfer, to prevent cheating which could potentially ruin MP play, or possibly even because the BF devs are quite aware (from CMx1 days) that file access is the route to developing an OP campaign and they covered their base on this with the CM2 version.

Perhaps it's a matter of perspective. Having come to CM from other games with some pretty good graphics, slick UI's, award winning audio and having a decent machine that is capable of processing it all, its only natural that I'm interested in CM's community improvements of the stock game. Thus, I can see why, when new players coming to the game from that angle, might well under-appreciate the full beauty of CM particularly when underwhelmed by the graphics of the Demo and most of the youtube videos out there. Indeed, I've had one gaming associate and friend reject CM on this basis and I understand how he came to that rash judgement even if I think it's mistaken. So how many more potential players do the same without realising that community mods can enhance the game to meet such a higher level of expectation?!? I even suspect that many players will come to CM without being aware that it is moddable - perhaps even what a mod is. Personally, I think it's a major selling point of the game, and like the scenario editor, I wouldn't even be playing now if it weren't for these capabilities. Clearly some players don't share that perspective but I'll bet my bottom dollar that they are predominantly players who've been playing CM since CM1 days or hex based 2D games etc.. So yes, to mod or not to mod is a matter of taste for sure, but I hate to think that gamers, maybe coming mainly from playing mainstream games -like myself, might not be exposed to a modded graphical rep of the game that can win or keep their attention enough to see what the underlying game engine does. At which point you're either sold, or you never will be.

I heard of one adult player of a well known WW2 shooter who claimed to wear items of his personal Nazi memorabillia collection whilst playing. Furthermore, he steadfastly refused ever to play as the Soviets although apparently, he reluctantly tried playing as an American in another game once. I guess he just didn't find it as immersive.

What I would add to all the great points made above is don't be put off by the apparent lack of polish in the demo and the stock game. The sheer number of community mods and scenarios out there really lift the game onto a higher plane. There's so much that can be enhanced, discovered and created in the game that the demo provides a mere snap shot of the basic game. I now run more collective mod material than the size of the original game, taking me over a year to assemble. And that's not including the maps and scenarios of which I've probably played around a half of what is actually available.