Muzzleflash1990

By setting setting unit purchase or map selection to automatic/random, the game consistently almost always crashes. Here is an image showing the settings that seems to crash it most often. By only modifying less than these 4 changes, say 2, the games crashes less often when pressing OK, but still the most common outcome. I just upgraded to CMSF2 and are not using any of the expansions.

If you do downgrade pick one before December 2017. What worked for me was simply turning off shaders, its ALT-R .

Finally got to see it! Neither refresh, force refresh, change DNS resolver worked. Not until I flushed the cache - ipconfig /flushdns did it come through properly.

When I connect to (http://)battlefront.com, my browser gets redirected to https://www.battlefront.com (interesting choice to add the 'www' since the general trend to be to move away from that redundant prefix). The problem is that the SSL/TLS certificate is wrong, it looks none is provided, and I have to make an security exception in my browser to keep connecting. Anyway, I know you are still working on it, but still I just wanted to be sure you knew, since no one else has brought it up.

I am curious, did the 'beta forum' reach a conclusion on the spotting?

Well, we won't know until the store comes back on. But in my experience they never really run sales. Certainly, not like what you might see on Humble Bundle, GOG, or the (in)famous seasonal Steam sales. They might give a small discount, but it is usually say 10%, maybe 20%, for a product that have been out long. For bundles they often have a discount where you save maybe 10-25$ if you buy a base game with a module, or two.

Thanks. Appreciate it.

The important thing is that the issue have been escalated, so maybe it will be resolved eventually - not more we can do as players. Perhaps interesting note. @Fizou not sure you first issue is the same with it failing mid-processing is the same issue. Your second though is. rocketman might not be having the problem due to, his particular card 970. Mostly other variants with the number 7 is affected, like 780s and 1070s for example. Or he is using a rather recent driver so maybe I should try that one - maybe Nvidia fixed it. Either way, not sure if you saw the earlier posts. But there are two workarounds @Fizou. Either revert to Dec 20 (2017) driver, or disable shaders using CTRL-R. Currently I am doing the latter - while an annoyance, the game is still playable without them, and we did survive without them until Red Thunder.

Found some weirdness in a QB which might be bugs, not sure. The Case of the Superb British Communication I will describe using the following image. About 30s in the turn the machine guns, colored purple, spots a larger movement of infantry at the corner of the map circled in yellow. At the end of the turn, my scout vehicle, marked blue, has pretty good knowledge about them. Note that is has no direct line of sight to those unit. My best guess is that it got the information from Bn. HQ, marked red. However I cannot figure out how they know. The only apparent path is from the purple machine gun, to their leader, the Support HQ, marked bright red. Except that HQ does not receive the information this turn. The only other unit that, besides those mentioned and bright red, that get knowledge, is the teal coloured one, except it is at the end of the turn and is in even worse ability to pass that on. The issues I raise here are: - How does the information get to the scout car, or even the Bn. HQ? - Is it mean to go that fast - Up and then down in 30s? I mean it is the envy of Black Sea. Maybe communication like spotting is random and I just got extremely lucky? Beam me slightly sideways Scotty Another incident was a few minutes later. My scout car takes a pounding, loses its gunner and reverse. Suddenly it gets teleported about 20m to its left. The Memory Banks Here are the save games, but of them are during action phase and using the latest CMFI with GL. British Communication Expediency Save Game Lateral Interruption Save Game I would like clarification, if there are bugs or not. And if there are, maybe someone in the outer circle, can get the issue logged with the inner circle.

Excellent. That is really all I wanted -- to know that someone at least tried to 'get the ball rolling', on the issue. I can deal with the reality of it never being fixed, but would be harder to swallow if no one tried the slightest. I'll do my part with the sheep blood and the pentagram on the floor

Don't really see the point in asking what other games use OpenGL for this matter. If none does, is that telling us something about the choice of using OpenGL? If many does and they have no problem, does that mean BF is at fault? But since you asked, true most games on Windows (PC) uses DirectX, even games that are also available on Linux and Mac. Here's a couple I have installed that uses OpenGL without crashing: Brigador, Prison Architect, and Kerbal Space Program you can choose it optionally. Because a new driver means Combat Mission crash now, and it doesn't do it with an older driver not mean it is the driver that is bad. It suggests it, but it is not an certain conclusion. Accepting the conclusion that the new driver did break it, it would suggest the old OpenGL 2.x is now longer offering the best compatibility anymore. In fact, you have go almost 10 years back find a gaming GPU that does not support 3.x+. And you can certainly find "surveys" done by game developers 5-10 years ago that suggest that "immediate" rendering as used by 2.x has significantly worse performance on, back then, newer cards. Anyway, having to revert back to an older driver is just not a suitable workaround. Other games might require newer drivers. Some game, think it was Battlefield 1, would not even let me start unless I had the newest driver - though I do think that is a boneheaded decision. Windows is even forcing coming games to be Windows 10 only - hope it won't mess with OpenGL same way soon. So it is likely that that current generation of Combat Mission will probably not get a major graphics engine rework (at least not in the near future), and graphics drivers will probably not gain better "backwards-compatibility" - something needs to done. What seems to be common for the problem is that it involves: - Nvidia's OpenGL driver - Use of combat mission's shaders - Some time to have passed - Seems to be triggered often by mouse input I have been Googling to see whether others are suffered OpenGL problems that could be fixed by going back to the December 2017 driver, but not found anything so far. I still believe there is a chance Battlefront could be at fault. OpenGL only handles graphics, but mouse events in Windows are sent as events to be processed by a separate thread. I don't have the code to investigate this. So I cannot go tell Nvidia they screwed up, because I can't say for sure they did - and if someone can, they would probably need to give code related details. And if they are to care at all, in would probably be better coming from a developer. So assuming Battlefront is not to blame, they are the only one that can tell Nvidia how they screwed up.

As far as I know, no one knows for sure where the problem is. The problem seems to be triggered by mouse moving and having shaders enabled and "for some time to have passed" since starting a mission. Since shaders have been common usage for at least a decade, if it was a widespread problem with other games too, Nvidia would already have made a fix. Anectodally, I play plenty (10+ just at the moment) games using shaders and some form of mouse picking without problems. Regardless of fault, I really doubt Nvidia is going to be the one to fix it. Current workarounds are to disable shaders (CTRL-R I believe), or to revert back to the December 2017 drivers. Neither, options, especially the latter are really going to work in the long run. Say someone buys a new graphics card, that is not supported by the old driver? If I had to guess, I would guess that Battlefront have a misuse of some API in their code, or perhaps in the "mouse picking" which, earlier did not cause such error, now, probably due to some absurd optimization opportunity in the driver, is more serious.

Yeah, it seems this is fixed now. Now get back to releasing CMSF2

Thanks for the effort. I'll be more attentive for the next couple days, and report back whether it is gone / almost-never-happening-anymore.

Wideness has little to with it. A wider monitor just means you see more in the horizontal dimension basically. If I crop Hardradi's screenshots to be 2560x1440 - only removing the sides for it to be the same as my resolution - it has the exact size like my game, which also fits roughly with the monitor if we consider 34in at 21:9 and 24in at 16:9 the monitors are very close in height with Hardrazi's monitor probably being around 1in taller (and thus the pixels tiny bit larger). The problem is 4K monitors which have 2160 pixels in the vertical, a significant increase from 1440, or 1080.

Please get this fixed. Just now I had 3 full 504 errors before my fourth try get through. That's more than 200 seconds ! I could have reported my taxes in this time. And I have AARs to follow!

I use 2560x1440 and it would be rather unpleasant if I went higher. A friend has 4K and I would not want to play like that for more than 5 minutes. @Erwin Battlefront has stated several times that the GUI being of fixed (pixel) size is due to how the engine works, and it is unlikely it will be changed until the next generation of CM.

@Bob Willett The upgrades basically transform your legit (existing) purchase of the base game / modules from CMSF1 to CMSF2, they do not grant ownership of the base game / module at all. For that you need to buy the game module fresh. So you would need to buy the NATO module, if you want to play that, which is going to be re-released as CMSF2 only - that is, it will already be CMSF2 - no need to upgrade that. Since you have exactly 2 game modules you need to upgrade, and also the base game, your cost, if you buy individually will be: $10 + $10 + $15 = $35 . And if you buy the entire upgrade pack it is also $35 - so you situation is exactly at the breakeven point (I would just get the big upgrade in that case then). This is what Steve commented on - whether to buy individual upgrades, or the Big Upgrade which essentially just contain all 3 module upgrades and the base game upgrade , and his comment was from what made more sense from an economical stand point. If you have 1 game module, (or none), it would not be wise to buy the Big Upgrade.

Don't know if it might be part of the cause, but just around the time it started, the forum was doing a "search index optimization". Here is an image of what happens when it fails to get the response withing a minute:

Yeah, for the forum. @sburke got the button right. In fact it is my primary mechanism by which I browse the forum - my bookmark even goes to that destination immediately. Then I open everything interesting in a new browser tab, and 'mark site read' and close the original tab.

Is anyone else having problems with "Unread Content" taking a long time to load or not at all? Recently (not sure, several days to a week now), I has either taken a long time +30s (just now it took 52s) for me to load it. I can see my browser is just waiting. Other times (like when it takes longer than 60s) I get a 504 Gateway timeout message displayed from Amazon Cloudfront. Given I have no connectivity issues otherwise, and when it takes too long (timeouts) it is a 5XX error, leads me to believe it is Battlefront own server that is having issues? Perhaps because of the coming Storefront changes. Is anyone else experiencing the same delays?

As for whether APS equipment can intercept munition not aimed at the vehicle it is mounted on, the answer is a definitive yes.

My simplistic interpretation is that consolidating all games into one codebase simplifies development. But each development change now affect all games, so instead of maintaing N codebases where each change has to tested in one game, instead we have 1 codebase where each (some) change needs to be tested in N games. I don't know if this is actually the case, but I could see it sorta make sense since there is only one main developer to work on the code base, but a larger collection of (underappreciated) beta testers available to test the changes.

Does the activation limit exists for legitimate customers? I mean obviously it exists, but in practice is there any record of a legitimate customer being denied additional activations? I always had the assumption it was purely a means to combat obvious piracy, and you simply ask for a more reactivations - (almost) no questions asked? Otherwise, it is not impossible to imagine the following events happening to someone thus using up all activation quickly: - Activate game - HDD/SSD failure - complete system reinstall - activate again - New computer bought - activate again - Faulty component replaced - activate again.

Nice, research, that hopefully will be useful for Battlefront to solve this.