agusto

I have no problem with reality, that is 25 to 35 FPS with a large scenario and a tank battalion on it.
Never said anything different.
 
What I really don't like is people like you who write things like "battlefront believes", or made up things like "system requirements suggest". You can't speak for Other people or BFC company, unless you have an ego so large that lets you conmfortably rest on a throne while writing on BFC forums.

It's impossible to have a constructive discussion so long as terms like "fanboy" are tossed around.

Honestly i dont think that you are capable of anything that even closely resembles a contsructive and rational or even just mature conversation.

Honestly i dont think that you are capable of anything that even closely resembles a contsructive and rational or even just mature conversation.

Honestly i dont think that you are capable of anything that even closely resembles a contsructive and rational or even just mature conversation.

Honestly i dont think that you are capable of anything that even closely resembles a contsructive and rational or even just mature conversation.

Honestly i dont think that you are capable of anything that even closely resembles a contsructive and rational or even just mature conversation.

Oh I am sure it is baked in.  And as you say only Charles knows but I strongly suspect that changing the code to allow each team to spread its members over two AS would be considerable less work, and have less wide ranging effects, than changing the AS size to 4X4 or 2X2.  Note I am not trying to say it's easy I just think it would be a more likely path forward.  Assuming BFC decides it really is necessary.  Like you have said I am also not sold on this as a pressing need.
 
Now mind you moving to smaller AS size is attractive to me to help solve other issues with LOS and LOF especially in urban environments.  One day some tweaks in this area would be nice.  Perhaps an alternative would be to follow the lead of finite element analysis where the mesh size is made finer where needed around areas with more detail (in our case forest edge and urban streets) and more coarse where it is not (such as fields and other open spaces).  But really we are just spit balling cause none of use really know what might work or how much effort it would really be. 

Map sizes have increased. We can now have 16 square km maps. That is significant.

Does Germany still use conscription? 
 
So here is your list of Combat Mission Fails and why the game is broken for you

Okay, so these are primarily a graphics complaints. We'll just give that to GTOS - advantage GTOS
 

As you may or may not be aware, from both a fog of war and a player control aspect there is a code limitation that makes what you are asking for difficult if not impossible to do in CM. Does GTOS have full FOW fighting positions that are deployable by the player in it?
 
I am going to assume that you mean something that the player can deploy or influence during set up. Once again though there are code limitations that make this difficult if not impossible to do in the game. If you mean something that could be placed by a scenario designer on the map in the editor then I'm sure it could be done. If the player can't control where the reinforced buildings are located that makes it harder for the player to integrate such buildings into their defenses. So GTOS has reinforced buildings that are deployable by the player too then?

That's already in the game. It isn't 3D so it just falls on the screen but it is there. If GTOS has 3D falling snow I'll give that one to GTOS.

There are two categories of buildings in the game - modular and independent. The modular buildings will probably always be the same, but perhaps with different facades. More independent buildings would be nice, but there are staff limitations and creating stuff in 3D takes a lot of time. Most buildings in most places tend to have similar characteristics so why reinvent the wheel every game?

So GTOS has all of that does it? Pretty amazing game
 

Yes, this would be nice to have. No doubt about it.
 

Well as an "infantryman" (assuming anyone can put any credence to anything that you say) I expect you would know that the equipment is what the equipment is. If the game is set in 1944 the game will have equipment from 1944. That seems self evident to me.

You should keep that for yourself. What makes you think you are entitled to such kind of generalization???
I enjoy multiplayer a lot, but also the campaigns and single missions. CMSF nato campaign is an act of beauty (and I personally enjoyed the british one too), not to mention CMBS campaigns.
Just because you don't like them doesn't mean it's a useless thing or something people don't like.
 
The good part is that BFC will keep making them in future titles, so I belive most of the user base likes them.

The best feature regarding maps is the editor overlay that was introduce with the CMx2 v2.0 upgrade, IMO. Do you have any idea how awful it was to build highly accurate maps from satelite images in CMSF? I had to print out the satelite images i wanted to use, draw a coordinate grid on them and then transfer the terrain square per square into the Scenario Editor. But now, with the editor overlay, makeing maps from satelite images is so fast, it' s really cool.

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.
But I also hope there will be multi-core support in the future. (this will also lead to more stuff to be implemented)
 
 
Finally, comparing CM games to blockbusters with hundreds of millions Worth Investments is Always a wrong way to deal with the subject, those titles are streamlined to be usable even by different platforms.

Also, when comparing a high fidelity sim to mainstream games with regards to optimization...Mainstream games can take optimization shortcuts CMx2 can not. There is a reason why nobody does relative spotting. If you can name one game that uses relative spotting and has fluent loading times and optimization, I'd be interested.
 
I'm guessing Arma3 wouldn't run very smooth if it used relative spotting.

Wiggum15 - are you at all capable of rationale and mature debate? From your previous posts it does appear as if you are going out your way to appear both irrational and immature. TBH your attitude and the way you interact with other posters comes across as hostile and combative. You wonder why other posters then react in the way you do? 

Here are some graphics using the Sudden Strike 3 engine to illustrate 1:1 action squares. Below is our current system of 8mx8m action squares. If the sqaud were to line up as they do at times they would fill the first row of 8 little squares. 4 for A team, and 4 for B team. True they can set up any way within the 8mx8m square, but they are still limited to the confines of the 8mx8m square.

 
Below is what I have in mind in 1:1 action squares. Instead of seeing one big square highlighted the player would see smaller ones in line for example shown here. Each man of the 8 man squad would occupy one square. Shown they are spaced 2m apart. Just as the 8mx8m squares shift position with different facing so also you can rotate the line, "V", wedge. The sqaud/team stays together as a unit with its highlighted color, but they can assume any number of formations/placments. Like there is variation in placement in the 8mx8m square so too it is in the 2mx2m square. In this way the troops can huddle close as they do now if warranted depending on cover, or they can be spaced grid squares, or no squares as if they were lining up in the current 8m square. All of it is controlled using the grid as a guide. We can imagine either the AI controlling the formation it thinks best for situation or terrain, and an override where the player can control formation and interval. The interval would work similar to the PAUSE command being incremental. This INTERVAL command could have other uses as in how I imagined a FOLLOW command working to set spacing. Anyway just imagining things.

When should BFC start to develop a CMx3 engine?
 
Whenever they feel it is the right time for them to develop a new engine.
 
Personally I can live with the 'old' engine for years. Same way I was able to live with the CMx1 engine for years. 
 
Nothing else available comes within a asses roar of CMx2 at the moment or even CMx1 for that matter.

If you're talking about writing an entirely new game engine from the ground-up be careful what you wish for. The real money is in doing iphone games based on anime erotica for the Japanese market. They'll never get rich doing wargames for you and me.

Yes, more computing time could be a possible disadvantage of smaller action squares however, even within the current action square there is this micro computing going on for each squad member with in the action square. "Sudden Strike" used the 1:1 action square, but CM certainly is a more complex game so only one who programs CM could say if current PC's could handle it in a timely manner..

Upvoting your own posts is lame.

The question is, at what speed are they moving and how far can they move forward while in the "cage" called CMx2 engine...

Oh god please no, he already derailed and completely monopolized the other thread. This one has been answered, no reason to keep this open either.


I am Sam
Sam I am

That Sam I am, that Sam I am, I do not like that Sam I am

Don't make me do it Chris.

Can we please have this thread closed?

They caught him from his Match.com profile.  "Looking for Woman with interest in WW 2 military items.  You bring the Type XXI Boat, I'll bring the torpedoes"

Modding CMFI to Bulge is like painting a racing strip on a panel van and calling it a Ferrari. Sure, they both have four rubber tires and travel at the posted speed limit, but beyond the grossest generalizations the two products diverge radically. Steve spends months meticulously researching the TO&E for the relevant units, the scenario designers are creating 3-D maps of actual Bulge battle locations with amazing fidelity. The campaigns read like a college thesis on modern European history. The equipment list is far more than the mere approximation that you can scrounge off an early '44 Italian title.
 
And on other the other topic. Did someone just post that creaky old CMx1 is the superior wargame? Hey, I'm as big on 'nostalgia' as the next guy. I suppose Pong would be the ultimate in gameplay in that case.