SgtHatred

Combat Mission isn't special, old software breaking in APIs that offer backwards compatibility because they cut corners is a tale as old as Microsoft.
 
This is absolutely not the case and any first year software engineer could explain why. Hell, just look at all the games that broke when Windows Vista released. Microsoft had been telling developers since 95 how to save user data, and when Vista finally started enforcing basic security in the Program Files folder, **** broke. Just because the games used to work does NOT mean they were "properly coded" as you say. 
 
Yes, AMD has been pretty famous for **** drivers, but they really seem to have put the effort into turning it around.
 
I don't think you'll find that many people have a big issue with how Combat Mission looks. I mean, some chuds online will certainly ****can it for not looking like CoD, but I think you'll find a lot more people interested in getting the tiny view distance for textures fixed, or the seeming 25fps cap even on extremely high-end hardware, or the input lag.
 
I don't think anyone here is expecting AAA production values, but I think seeing some progress on some of the problems Combat Mission has isn't the same as comparing you guys to EA. When it takes 9 months (and counting) to fix an issue like the T-90 not having front armour, or a year and a half to fix infantry units retreating forward into the fire they are supposed to retreat from, or the game lagging and stuttering just as much now as it did in 2011... that's a problem, and you have to expect that people will be frustrated by it.
 
But hey, if you are happy with how you are performing, then who cares what us suckers think, right?

I've been playing the game for a while, I can see applications like the Nvidia overlay not detecting the game running or print screen dumping a copy of the menu rather than the game in progress and I know why that happens in other titles. It's a fair assumption that it is the same here.
70% of all software is badly coded, and that number probably jumps higher with games. When I ran into the problem running Combat Mission games with the realtek audio controller on my old Asus board running? It's evidence enough.
 Can you please state plainly that you believe that the T-90 bug is just a "small issue" and is not game breaking? It's possibly the most common tank of the most common faction in CMBS, and it can get knocked out by small arms fire frontally. It doesn't matter what I think is a game breaking problem, it matters what YOU think is a game breaking problem, since you are the one that can actually do something about it. I think your threshold on what bugs are worth fixing is something people here should know.
 
I'll believe it when I see results.

So all the complaints about CM2 with the latest AMD drivers are nonsense?  I don't have an AMD card, so I just assume that the problems aren't made up. Also, that's some weak logic. A drunk driver can make it home 100 times, that doesn't make what he is doing safe.
 
My argument, which you seem to have missed, is that a game breaking for people because new drivers have been released is almost always the fault of the game, and Combat Mission is absolutely no exception here. it has nothing to do with adding new features, and everything to do with the game working as well this year as it did in previous years. If it was done properly in the first place, that wouldn't be a problem.
 
Wanting a game that looks like Combat Mission to run at a higher framerate than Star Citizen isn't expecting AAA production values. Expecting the game to keep working as long as the OS and GPU developers support OpenGL is the bare minimum.
 
Many of these problems have existed for years though, and we never hear anything about them, other than once a year in January. The fact that the T-90 in CMBS has been broken for so long is absurd. It is not reasonable. Forget asking about more complex issues like the weird texture LOD problems or infantry spawning with duplicate or missing weapons in multiplayer.
Game breaking issues should take priority over new content. Do you not think so? These issues have persisted for years. I'd even take a "no, we won't fix these issues, they aren't worth doing" over the status quo. I remember getting responses from ChrisND on issues, but since he left its just radio silence on these things.
 
Sure, during the once or twice a year we can get a response at all, you are willing to do this. You also looked at what you posted last year and said "We did pretty well with our 2022 calendar". It sure doesn't seem like you care most of the time.

Combat Mission isn't special, old software breaking in APIs that offer backwards compatibility because they cut corners is a tale as old as Microsoft.
 
This is absolutely not the case and any first year software engineer could explain why. Hell, just look at all the games that broke when Windows Vista released. Microsoft had been telling developers since 95 how to save user data, and when Vista finally started enforcing basic security in the Program Files folder, **** broke. Just because the games used to work does NOT mean they were "properly coded" as you say. 
 
Yes, AMD has been pretty famous for **** drivers, but they really seem to have put the effort into turning it around.
 
I don't think you'll find that many people have a big issue with how Combat Mission looks. I mean, some chuds online will certainly ****can it for not looking like CoD, but I think you'll find a lot more people interested in getting the tiny view distance for textures fixed, or the seeming 25fps cap even on extremely high-end hardware, or the input lag.
 
I don't think anyone here is expecting AAA production values, but I think seeing some progress on some of the problems Combat Mission has isn't the same as comparing you guys to EA. When it takes 9 months (and counting) to fix an issue like the T-90 not having front armour, or a year and a half to fix infantry units retreating forward into the fire they are supposed to retreat from, or the game lagging and stuttering just as much now as it did in 2011... that's a problem, and you have to expect that people will be frustrated by it.
 
But hey, if you are happy with how you are performing, then who cares what us suckers think, right?

Uhhhh, ok. This looks a lot like last year's update with the year iterated by one.
 
 

This mirrors my thoughts almost exactly. Problems in the game last for years without being addressed, both gameplay and technical, and nothing ever seems to move forward. Even the new content seems lesser these days (CMRT, CMBS, and CMCW seem to have the same list of quickbattle maps, more or less.). Hell, I posted about the T-90 issue in CMBS 9 months ago, and finally heard a month ago that it was fixed and we would see it "very soon". Well, very soon has been a month so far, and now it seems like maybe there are months left to go. Not that it matters, without some sign of life from Battlefront, I doubt I can convince any of my friends to turn up for another CM2x game. This copy paste of last year's status update has not helped. Seeing features for the Professional version that have been wanted for years veto'd from ever seeing the light of day on the commercial version is especially demoralizing. 
 
Battlefront seems to be a company with the output capacity of a single guy in his garage, but the agility of a company with 50000 employees. It's frustrating.
I will disagree here. There is nothing wrong with OpenGL for an older game. I wouldn't recommend it for new projects, but it is still strongly supported in Windows environments, and some top quality games run great with it. You just had to have implemented it correctly, or if not, kept up with maintenance when your spaghetti code breaks down with new driver updates. As for Apple support, nothing can really be done about that. Apple has always been willing to pull the rug out from under customers and developers with little notice.

The tool to make maps is painful to use. At the very least the format for combat mission maps should be open sourced so that someone could build a better tool. I saw the recent thread about a terrain mapper tool, but the way it has to work is pretty hilarious.
Expecting adoration for profoundly negative news is unrealistic. Besides, since no progress is made, new bones have no point.

The tool to make maps is painful to use. At the very least the format for combat mission maps should be open sourced so that someone could build a better tool. I saw the recent thread about a terrain mapper tool, but the way it has to work is pretty hilarious.
Expecting adoration for profoundly negative news is unrealistic. Besides, since no progress is made, new bones have no point.

The tool to make maps is painful to use. At the very least the format for combat mission maps should be open sourced so that someone could build a better tool. I saw the recent thread about a terrain mapper tool, but the way it has to work is pretty hilarious.
Expecting adoration for profoundly negative news is unrealistic. Besides, since no progress is made, new bones have no point.

Uhhhh, ok. This looks a lot like last year's update with the year iterated by one.
 
 

This mirrors my thoughts almost exactly. Problems in the game last for years without being addressed, both gameplay and technical, and nothing ever seems to move forward. Even the new content seems lesser these days (CMRT, CMBS, and CMCW seem to have the same list of quickbattle maps, more or less.). Hell, I posted about the T-90 issue in CMBS 9 months ago, and finally heard a month ago that it was fixed and we would see it "very soon". Well, very soon has been a month so far, and now it seems like maybe there are months left to go. Not that it matters, without some sign of life from Battlefront, I doubt I can convince any of my friends to turn up for another CM2x game. This copy paste of last year's status update has not helped. Seeing features for the Professional version that have been wanted for years veto'd from ever seeing the light of day on the commercial version is especially demoralizing. 
 
Battlefront seems to be a company with the output capacity of a single guy in his garage, but the agility of a company with 50000 employees. It's frustrating.
I will disagree here. There is nothing wrong with OpenGL for an older game. I wouldn't recommend it for new projects, but it is still strongly supported in Windows environments, and some top quality games run great with it. You just had to have implemented it correctly, or if not, kept up with maintenance when your spaghetti code breaks down with new driver updates. As for Apple support, nothing can really be done about that. Apple has always been willing to pull the rug out from under customers and developers with little notice.

Uhhhh, ok. This looks a lot like last year's update with the year iterated by one.
 
 

This mirrors my thoughts almost exactly. Problems in the game last for years without being addressed, both gameplay and technical, and nothing ever seems to move forward. Even the new content seems lesser these days (CMRT, CMBS, and CMCW seem to have the same list of quickbattle maps, more or less.). Hell, I posted about the T-90 issue in CMBS 9 months ago, and finally heard a month ago that it was fixed and we would see it "very soon". Well, very soon has been a month so far, and now it seems like maybe there are months left to go. Not that it matters, without some sign of life from Battlefront, I doubt I can convince any of my friends to turn up for another CM2x game. This copy paste of last year's status update has not helped. Seeing features for the Professional version that have been wanted for years veto'd from ever seeing the light of day on the commercial version is especially demoralizing. 
 
Battlefront seems to be a company with the output capacity of a single guy in his garage, but the agility of a company with 50000 employees. It's frustrating.
I will disagree here. There is nothing wrong with OpenGL for an older game. I wouldn't recommend it for new projects, but it is still strongly supported in Windows environments, and some top quality games run great with it. You just had to have implemented it correctly, or if not, kept up with maintenance when your spaghetti code breaks down with new driver updates. As for Apple support, nothing can really be done about that. Apple has always been willing to pull the rug out from under customers and developers with little notice.

This mirrors my thoughts almost exactly. Problems in the game last for years without being addressed, both gameplay and technical, and nothing ever seems to move forward. Even the new content seems lesser these days (CMRT, CMBS, and CMCW seem to have the same list of quickbattle maps, more or less.). Hell, I posted about the T-90 issue in CMBS 9 months ago, and finally heard a month ago that it was fixed and we would see it "very soon". Well, very soon has been a month so far, and now it seems like maybe there are months left to go. Not that it matters, without some sign of life from Battlefront, I doubt I can convince any of my friends to turn up for another CM2x game. This copy paste of last year's status update has not helped. Seeing features for the Professional version that have been wanted for years veto'd from ever seeing the light of day on the commercial version is especially demoralizing. 
 
Battlefront seems to be a company with the output capacity of a single guy in his garage, but the agility of a company with 50000 employees. It's frustrating.
I will disagree here. There is nothing wrong with OpenGL for an older game. I wouldn't recommend it for new projects, but it is still strongly supported in Windows environments, and some top quality games run great with it. You just had to have implemented it correctly, or if not, kept up with maintenance when your spaghetti code breaks down with new driver updates. As for Apple support, nothing can really be done about that. Apple has always been willing to pull the rug out from under customers and developers with little notice.

AMD's rewritten OpenGL drivers have been considered wildly successful, which isn't really something you expect out of AMD, but they did it. The older drivers may have been more lenient with software that went out of spec, but that's why you are supposed to stick to the spec in the first place, otherwise you will be going back again and again to keep your software functional when updates break things that weren't in the spec.
 
TLDR; AMD isn't responsible for Combat Mission's problems on modern AMD drivers.

Uhhhh, ok. This looks a lot like last year's update with the year iterated by one.
 
 

This mirrors my thoughts almost exactly. Problems in the game last for years without being addressed, both gameplay and technical, and nothing ever seems to move forward. Even the new content seems lesser these days (CMRT, CMBS, and CMCW seem to have the same list of quickbattle maps, more or less.). Hell, I posted about the T-90 issue in CMBS 9 months ago, and finally heard a month ago that it was fixed and we would see it "very soon". Well, very soon has been a month so far, and now it seems like maybe there are months left to go. Not that it matters, without some sign of life from Battlefront, I doubt I can convince any of my friends to turn up for another CM2x game. This copy paste of last year's status update has not helped. Seeing features for the Professional version that have been wanted for years veto'd from ever seeing the light of day on the commercial version is especially demoralizing. 
 
Battlefront seems to be a company with the output capacity of a single guy in his garage, but the agility of a company with 50000 employees. It's frustrating.
I will disagree here. There is nothing wrong with OpenGL for an older game. I wouldn't recommend it for new projects, but it is still strongly supported in Windows environments, and some top quality games run great with it. You just had to have implemented it correctly, or if not, kept up with maintenance when your spaghetti code breaks down with new driver updates. As for Apple support, nothing can really be done about that. Apple has always been willing to pull the rug out from under customers and developers with little notice.

Uhhhh, ok. This looks a lot like last year's update with the year iterated by one.
 
 

Uhhhh, ok. This looks a lot like last year's update with the year iterated by one.
 
 

Uhhhh, ok. This looks a lot like last year's update with the year iterated by one.
 
 

Not yet. I don't think they have very much to say though, and given how comical the last 2 updates are in hindsight, I understand why they are hesitant.
 
Hell, we are almost a month from "very soon" on a patch, if that gives you an idea on how fast things move around here.

Not yet. I don't think they have very much to say though, and given how comical the last 2 updates are in hindsight, I understand why they are hesitant.
 
Hell, we are almost a month from "very soon" on a patch, if that gives you an idea on how fast things move around here.

Not yet. I don't think they have very much to say though, and given how comical the last 2 updates are in hindsight, I understand why they are hesitant.
 
Hell, we are almost a month from "very soon" on a patch, if that gives you an idea on how fast things move around here.

Hahahaha, the idea that this place is any different from any other gaming forum is pretty funny. mil professionals indeed.

Hahahaha, the idea that this place is any different from any other gaming forum is pretty funny. mil professionals indeed.