sttp

I've played CMx2 titles with 3 or 4 different video cards installed, and shadows have been "shimmery" like that with each one. Shadows look pretty much the same on all the Combat Mission 2 AAR videos I've seen as well, so I'm pretty sure the issue is with the game engine itself, not your video card or any graphics setting. I guess most people have just gotten used to the fuzzy and distracting shadows? I have not, personally, and always play with shadows off. It's a shame, really, and is just one more reason the CM Engine 3 can't arrive soon enough, IMO.

Exactly. I see well-educated writers making the it's/its mistake very frequently. (The other day I even saw an its'... as in a plural possessive.) I think of the issue in terms of grammatical symmetry, like this: He's eating his dinner. She's eating her dinner. They're eating their dinner. It's eating its dinner. Possessive pronouns never have apostrophes. Ever. Instead, apostrophes with pronouns always represent a contraction.

Good lord.... Should have predicted someone would take offense. Either the bug can be fixed at its core but hasn't yet been, or it can't be fixed at its core. There is, logically speaking, no 3rd option. So thanks for basically confirming what I said. I guess we can infer from your message, then, that BFC's position is that the bug is just too complex to be fixed at its core. Okay then. So people can continue submitting (or re-submitting) individual instances of the bridge bug, and maybe they'll be fixed some day. Seems pretty straightforward.

I hear ya, Rocketman. We know they can solve the bug for specific scenarios and maps though, right? Because, IIRC, they have done just that. So that's the good news. What has not been forthcoming, however, is a general solution to the problem... one that precludes the bug's manifestation in the first place. Why does it matter, then, if they can find the general solution? Because third party scenarios would be much less likely to get any special treatment (or perhaps any treatment at all?) under the "fix the bridge bugs one at a time" approach.

I'd say the odds are pretty high that the game's lead programmer already knows exactly what causes this bridge bug everyone here is talking about. It's been an issue for the entirety of the 6 years or so I've been playing these games. My guess is that it is just too difficult to fix the issue at its core, or that it's simply (to BFC) not worth the time and resources it would take to finally fix it.

Neat video. Thanks! I will say, though, that if they can't get shadows to look better than that shimmery, blobby mess we see in this presentation -- which is exactly how they look on my PCs, regardless of video card brand -- they should just turn them off altogether. They're trying to attract customers, right?

This is my single biggest wish. It really is time for the next iteration of the CM engine, in my opinion, but the extra Steam sales and the new, wider audience could buy BFC the time to make CMx3 more robust and reliable than it might have otherwise been. I will trade wait time for engine quality any day.

This is great news. I think Steam is a good idea for many reasons, and hope Battlefront finds lots of success there. The influx of new players will be most welcomed.

They had a YouTube channel called Battlefrontcom for a long time, and then I seem to remember another one under a different name after that. And now there's yet another, I guess? I wonder why they keep changing channels? Cool gun, that Pak44. What a beast!

Animation text mod in your z folder?

The CMx2 engine is thirteen years old, and it shows. So I say let's drop the demands for new theaters and new features and instead urge and allow them to focus on an entirely new game engine, CMx3.

I, personally, would be very careful about assuming the bug will be fixed anytime soon. It took the company almost 2 years to fix the HE bug from 3.0, and all that fix did was introduce this new (now too old) hedgerow bug. Or maybe both bugs are different manifestations of some singular root cause. Who knows. The point is, over the last 4-5 years BFC has been in no apparent hurry to fix what are often times game-breaking bugs. The HE bug... the hedgerow bug... the bridge bug... the team-members-staying-behind bug... the halftrack-gunner / tank commander 'issue' (which I don't think can pr

Yeah, I have now played this scenario a few times from each side, and the force balance seems pretty lopsided in favor of the Germans. They have so many automatic weapons, plus much more deadly armor. Not to mention the fact that they can get into position more quickly. So, though technically a meeting engagement, it's really more like the Germans are defending. The extra number of pieces of armor you get as the French just isn't enough to counter it, in my opinion. Maybe if the French had some smoke they could rush up their far right and try to cause some mayhem that way, but as it stands now

Yes, good news indeed. I may just revert to an earlier version of CMBN until everything is working as intended with version 4 and the bocage. All this talk of it makes me miss it even more. I've always enjoyed CMFI the most, but CMBN was a not--too-distant 2nd place.

You know what Ultradave, I must admit that you are right on this. I did find the post by Steve that I was remembering, but I missed his post on the same topic later on in the thread where he clarified BFC's position a little bit. Here's what I was originally referring to: Steve said "The bocage issue you've brought up is certainly more than irritating to those who experience it, but it is fairly isolated when one considers the whole range of possible Combat Mission games and maps. We have to balance our limited resources. I'll see what I can do, however don't hold your breath for anythin