Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


SgtHatred last won the day on September 22 2018

SgtHatred had the most liked content!

About SgtHatred

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1,356 profile views
  1. Well, the Steam release was originally set to April 15th before being set to "Coming Soon". Could have been a place holder, could have been Slitherine spilling the beans. I wouldn't hold your breath for this weekend though.
  2. You may want to find a better distribution service if it takes more than a few minutes for your uploaded files to be generally available. It's 2021 not 2004.
  3. Well, the pop is very loud. Someone is likely to notice it more than once as it travels to its target, meanwhile the shooter isn't really afforded much cover due to how the Dragon was designed to be set up. Cover isn't really an option with it. Depending on how much twisting you want to do, the AT-5 is a squad level weapon for mechanized formations, along with the 4 and 3. BMPs were supposed to be integrated with the infantry squad they carry right? Depends on if your target is alone or not. In the context of a Rumble in Germany, your target likely has friends.
  4. My understanding, backed up by FAS, is that it wasn't terribly accurate or reliable, and slow as hell for a missile. Combine that with the fact that firing a Dragon is an invitation to be blasted to bits (watch the video) and I think I'd rather have fewer, more effective ATGMs like the Soviet company level ones. Seriously, this slow missile is just screaming for attention as it meanders towards its target. I may have exaggerated slightly, but look at that silly thing fly.
  5. The Dragon is comically terrible and I look forward to seeing it in large numbers, hopefully with its signature loudness.
  6. ARMA 3. What it was originally designed to be. Task Force Admiral : Coming out soon. Detailed pacific naval battles with lots of graphics. Sea Power Naval Combat in the Missile Age : beautiful graphics, simulates what the name says. DCS : Guaranteed far more CPU intensive than CM's combat sim while being far more graphically impressive. These are just a few off the top of my head. I don't know about ARMA, but the others have tiny dev teams (<10). None of them are as old as CMx2, but in comparison CMx2 really shows its age. CM is from a time when it was common for sma
  7. Total nonsense. You have no idea what you are talking about.
  8. This has nothing to do with anything I've said. This is bad. The more decoupled the visual representation of the simulation is from the actual simulation the worse it is. The game has a lot of good points, that isn't in dispute.
  9. You missed the point of my example. Put your camera where the driver is? Bushes. Put your camera where the commander is? Bushes. Yet, the tank sees and engages the enemy, because the visible terrain we see and the terrain of the simulation does not match. If a 25foot wall is between object A and object B, I expect that A and B cannot see each other. If they can it's because the game is not being properly rendered. It's not a huge issue, but it would be better if it never happened. Acknowledging that the game could improve is not an attack against it. Pointing out issues or asking f
  10. No, I mean when one unit can see another unit through bush and trees, but if you move your camera to that position trees and bushes 100% cover the LOS, but the game simulation has decided that no, there is a gap units can see through. Would be nice if the graphics more reflected the simulated reality. Remember that "graphics" means more than just pretty models and fancy textures. Don't demand unwavering praise from people, and don't trust people who offer it.
  11. It has nothing to do with technology. There are plenty of games out there with an advanced look that also have a great deal of complexity under the hood. The difference is resources. Neither BFC or the Graviteam guys had the large resources required to make a combat simulator with AA or AAA type graphics. That requires manpower. It's also important to note that graphics goes beyond just making the game look pretty in screenshots. Better rendering would also make the game feel better to play. 15-25fps depending on the map, especially larger maps with lots of buildings? It can be a drag. Al
  12. Wow, this is radically false. Combat Mission is absolutely not the best that can be done with OpenGL. Hell, Doom 2016 runs on OpenGL, and I think any rational person would say that Doom 2016 is superior to Combat Mission graphics-wise. OpenGL's death has been expected for a decade now, so I hope BFC wasn't too blindsided by that. Still, as long as you aren't foolish enough to chain yourself into Apple's ecosystem you will be able to use your OpenGL software for years and years to come.
  13. ehh... The art quality is fine for the kind of game it is, but there are definite rough spots, like vibrating models, severe clipping issues or just a really lackluster framerate. I've probably put 300+ hours into multiplayer Combat Mission games during coronavirus, so I say this as a big fan. Some pretty good looking "sim" type games have come out in the last few years, and Microprose is about to dump a couple more fine looking examples on us this year.
  • Create New...