Jump to content

sttp

Members
  • Posts

    270
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by sttp

  1. 1 hour ago, Erwin said:

    have faithfully been buying products for the last 8+ years with the expectation that we would eventually be able to play the whole war as with CM1.

    I've seen them say a number of times that early war products just would not be profitable enough to justify the investment of time and labor, so I'm not sure how anyone who's been around the forums could say they have an "expectation" that early war modules would eventually be added. I feel like BFC has been pretty clear about it and some of you are just setting yourselves up for heartbreak.

    Oh well. Time to move on to CMx3 anyway, in my opinion. CMx2, as good as it is, is really starting to show its age.

  2. Just now, BFCElvis said:

    No, you only have to install this on top of what you have installed now.

    Thank you. That is a relief, as I don't have tons of free minutes these days. I know you've been working your butt off lately, so hope you wouldn't take what I said as criticism of you personally. I'm really enjoying both Fire & Rubble and Cold War when I can... which is late at night, at the expense of my sleep. Totally worth it though!

  3. So it sounds like I've got to back everything up, download a 3 gigabyte file, do a complete fresh install of Red Thunder, then reset my key binds and all options again... just for a little hotfix patch?

    I'm not even at the "grumpy old man" stage of life yet, but my gosh Steam integration really can't come soon enough.

  4. 1 hour ago, chuckdyke said:

    Camera Position 1 plus one notch up with the mouse wheel puts you in the fighting compartment 2 Notches in the Commander Open Position.

    I do this as well, but you do have to be very careful with it. Many graphical aspects of the game (the thickness of wooded areas, for example) are abstracted by the graphics engine, so what you see from that soldier's point of view may not reflect what he actually has line of sight to. 

  5. 52 minutes ago, mjkerner said:

    But why do you want such precision, unless for competitive-tournament type play (when your opponent would have the exact same advantage). Different strokes for different folks, I guess. When I’m out walking in the countryside/woods/whatever, I don’t know if I have LOS to that house over there from that little hump of an elevation with some trees on it 75 yards to my left. From here it looks like it does, but I won’t know until I get over there. Same for my pixeltruppen. I can recon with my eyes, the targeting tool, and with my P-truppen, but I don’t expect to know with precision ahead of time if when I get to a spot I actually have LOS or LOF.

    Because in real life you're not ordering a squad to go to an action square. In real life you could order them to "go to the top of this hill, to whatever position will just barely give you direct line of sight to that building on the corner that 2nd platoon is taking fire from." That is why we need a good LOS tool. We in the game have to micro-manage, since we're the brains and eyes of every single team leader, squad leader, platoon commander, company commander, vehicle commander, etc., etc....

  6. 1 hour ago, markshot said:

    Maybe it would be more intuitive it if it radiated from the point it was being measured.

    Yes it definitely would be more intuitive for new players that way. I've seen it explained why it couldn't be done that way with CMx2 originally -- maybe someone has that link handy and could post it? But it's pretty obvious to most people that a point-to-point line of sight tool should have one end of the line emanating from the place on the map you're checking LOS FROM and the other end of the line terminating at the point you're checking LOS TO. It's hard to believe anyone would argue differently.

  7. First impression is that the title "Fire and Rubble" is very fitting, and that the maps are extremely well made. It's amazing how they've captured an entirely different atmosphere from any of the other modules... yet again. Kudos to the company, the designers, and to the testers.

    Also, whoever it was that used to always beg for the schwimmwagen may be very pleased with some of the content in this module!

  8. Just now, Freyberg said:

    Oh, indeed - I'm not arguing that no one has claimed that CM contains 'game-breaking bugs', just that it puzzles me that they do.

    One of my points is that the difficulty of CM is one of the things that has kept me interested in it.

    Before the 'troops leaving foxholes when shelled bug' came, some years ago there was the 'MGs don't kill enough people bug'. I consider both of these to be settings. I've never been shelled - so would I stay and get killed or try and run away and get killed? I can only imagine that cowering in a little hole in the ground while high explosive erupts around me would be disconcerting, but I really don't know, which is why, even though a few people made a big fuss about it, I considered it a setting rather than a bug.

    Likewise with the earlier 'MG bug' - how deadly is a tripod MG? War is so chaotic, and WWII battles in RL consisted of so much hiding and sniping (which wouldn't make a fun game), that it must be very hard to know what the most realistic setting is. I like that MGs now are more lethal - that fits with my perception of them, but is it scientifically true? I have no idea.

     

    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.

  9. 40 minutes ago, Freyberg said:

    I haven't really wanted to participate in this discussion, but I have found it interesting to follow.

    I'm curious, though, about the idea of a 'game-breaking' bug, because I have never experienced that with any of the titles, except maybe the Bridge Bug... <snip>

     

    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 for awhile.

    That said, I am glad to hear that F&R is almost here, and I will almost certainly be buying it within the first week.

     

  10. 8 minutes ago, Kraft said:

    I personally would accept a newly released game with that specific bug if I knew that it would surely be patched soon. But waiting a year for a.patch is not soon in my opinion.

    And with bugs like the tank turret that keeps going back and forth between targets, never firing, I have a harder time finding acceptance because that has been a major annoyance since years across the games. 

    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.

  11. 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.

  12. 2 hours ago, Anson Pelmet said:

    Don't want to seem like a grammar Nazi (or like the other sort of Nazi you come across occasionally on this site) but a mistake I often see on these pages is in the use of its and it's, even from very competent writers. A useful trick I learned is that it's is always short for it is or it has. So if you apply that rule to "it's becoming clear that..." you can see it works perfectly. But if you apply that rule to "there are problems with it's performance..." you can immediately see it doesn't work, and you should instead be using its.

    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. 

     

     

     

  13. 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. 

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 1 hour ago, akd said:

    Yeah, I think full video becomes available when the stream ends.

    Here: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/707289746

    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?

  17. 2 hours ago, aleader said:

    Hopefully it results in more cash for BF which can go into modernizing the game engine.

    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.

  18. 4 hours ago, DerKommissar said:

    Congrats on a BFC youtube channel, looking forward to more bones

    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!

×
×
  • Create New...