Thewood1

Yeah, the OpenGL thing can be a killer for a lot of stuff that DirectX users take for granted.

Thanks...I did a little googling on Shadowplay and got a bunch of tips. Thanks again.

Holy crap...what is your problem. I just mentioned a conversation that took place a few years ago. Are you always that aggressive in real world conversations too. You act like I am somehow defending some philisophical point. I just mentioned that a discussion happened a few years ago....see I can use bold too.

Well it does have something to dowith low-end systems if it adds any stress to the CPU or GPU.

Has anyone gotten Shadowplay to work with CM. I got it working with several of my games, but can't get it to work with any CM game.

There was some testing done in CMSF or CMBN with wind at 0 and then heavy wind. It showed some significant performance drop with heavy wind through the swaying. In fact, it has been asked for the swaying to be an option for low-end systems.

I buy 1-2 laptops a year and have consistently found that CM2 is much more CPU intensive than GPU. I am sure there is some switch over point as you tinker with both, but that is my anecdotal experience over 8-10 laptops of increasing power.

I have had AMD CPUs and GPUs since I can remember. My most recent laptop was a Lenovo with an a10 quad and 85XX radeon. It ran CM2 OK and did flight sims relatively well for a $500 laptop. I just got my bonus and decided to splurge on a new laptop. I really agonized over going to Intel CPUs, but I knew the Intel GPU sucked. I decided to drop $900 on a new mid-range MSI laptop. It has an I7-4710Q 8 core and an nVidia 850 GPU. It is awesome. My lesson from my last 10 years...bail on AMD if you can. Intel and nVidia are the shizzel. CMBS runs at Best/Best with full AA and all the bells and whistles. btw, its not just OpenGL support, I am finding my very first nVidia card a godsend in most of my games.

Yeah, making first impressions seems to be important around here.

The Naval game Comand suffers the same issues. Every weapon vendor video is trotted before the community as proof of X capability and Y deployment prospects. How many weapon systems were deployed by brochure only to never make it to the troops. Can anyone say Black Eagle?

sure

Again, way to be a welcoming beacon of friendliness.

Those are some pretty solid sources

What a welcoming thread.

It also seems weird where the hit spots are all exactly in the middle of the side. Is a .50 cal really that accurate? Why is there so little shot spread? I have been running a bunch of tests and it seems the more modern a Russian tank, the more likely to be penetrated by smaller rounds. I have found the BMP3M more survivable than a T-90 from the side...by a little bit only.

I have the save file for an 1100m test. 90 deg straight on fire to the side of the T-90AM from M3 with 25mm using APFSDS. Very first round causes catastrophic penetration that destroys the T-90AM. Again, a layman's opinion says something is wrong here. FIle is too large to attach at 1Mb. If someone wants it, PM me.

Here is my second test...multiple side penetrations...first one killed the engine and the 12th one killed the driver. While no expert, I would think the T-90AM would have some resistance against 25mm, even with advanced rounds. I attached a jpg because I couldn't figure out how to embed it. My layman's opinion is something doesn't seem right. Even in CMSF, lowly T-55s take multiple 25mm hits from 500m and can survive a while. It also seems little weird that the rounds spray quite a bit, but never have hit the turret.

My test of an M3 firing 25mm APFSDS penetrates the left upper hull multiple times consistently at 500m. No real damage seems to be done, but there are no other penetrations. The odd thing is no hit decals show up anywhere on the T-90. Do 25/30mm shells not leave marks. I have seen .50 machine guns leave them.

It should take 10 minutes to test it yourselves. While not disagreeing with the OP, it makes it better to go in and test it versus just piling on with a big "Yeah" or +1. I am off to take a look...

btw, if you don't like the reactions to losses, motivation plays a big role so you can go into the editor and modify it. In CMSF, it took a lot to break US forces and uncons because they tended to have high motivations.

I would have to double check, but in Steel Beasts Pro, the procedure that you are trained on is to always lase before shooting from an M1A1/A2. Couple caveats; the procedures might be outdated based on development cycles...and it is only a simulator; be it one used by quite a few militaries to train tankers. I know there are a couple real tankers on the boards and maybe they'll step in and clarify instead of everyone assuming.

Even more bizarre...It now says almost 800Mb... https://battlefront.sharefile.com/download.aspx?id=s3444d2ae2c6464da

No, I checked both zip and unzipped.

I really don't thinks its a big deal either way, but that rationalization is quite stretch, considering this effect is all the WW2 titles also. Not many cameras broadcasting real-time then.

While its 4-5 years old, these discussions in the CMSF were a pretty good starting point for understanding modern armor and ammunition arms race. Damian90 always had some good information. Most of his pictures are missing, but I copied a bunch of them at the time. If anyone wants a specific pic, PM me and I'll see if I have it. There is a lot of discussion and formal charts comparing Russian and US ammunition against T-90s, T72s, and M1s. http://community.battlefront.com/topic/89357-modern-armor-internal-arrays-what-defeated-them-or-might/