sttp

Good lord... you're trying to rewrite history here, and are going so far as to blame the customers. That happens a lot around this forum, and it seems like it's always the same handful of people who do that. But here's the bottom line: the HE bug was a bug. Battlefront acknowledged that it was a bug, and they finally fixed it. It's really that simple.

I missed it. Does "very" mean "within days" or something more imminent than that? All else aside, I will be very excited to get my hands on this module!

There are plenty of people who considered the HE bug introduced by version 3 to be game-breaking. There was discussion of it all over the forums here. Here is the first thread I encountered about it when looking back in my comment history -- actually, this particular thread was about the hedgerow bug introduced with V4 -- but I'm positive there are plenty more: I don't know if I myself considered the HE bug to be truly game-breaking... maybe, maybe not... but it was certainly close enough that the company taking that long to fix it really did have me scratching my head there

Exactly. And not all that long ago a major (some would say game-breaking) bug took over a year to be patched. Maybe that works for the developer and testers, but it didn't really work that well for me as the customer. Other bugs which have existed for years (like the bridge bug, and team-members-refusing-to-move) still pop up much too frequently.

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.