Uncultured Swine

I highly doubt that...
Panicking is just the word the game uses for a mental state that gives survival the top priority and no longer cares about orders.

- Getting out of the building ?
Ok !

- Running towards the enemy where no cover at all is available ?
WTF !

- Choosing a spot with zero cover and direct LOS to a enemy T72 ?
WTF !

- Getting killed by a 120mm HE round from the T72 ?
Priceless !

That is not panicking, thats being on some bad drugs...

Firstly, as a gamer and simulation fan, I want to say that I do love this game. Absolutely. It and everything it does is incredible, and I appreciate how much goes into it by the dedicated souls who work on it. It's the only title like it, and for that I am grateful. However, as a CG artist and someone with knowledge of the pipeline, it both bothers me and arouses questions and concerns as to the inner workings of the development process here. Hell, I would volunteer as an artist if I could/knew how. It's my admiration for this game that brings criticism, and I hope that doesn't get confused. 
 
@IanL: Thanks for the welcome. Coming off as arrogant or antagonistic was not my intent, and I apologize. However, I hope you understand my concern. I don't want to come off as a passive complainer. If I see something that could be improved, I want to take action and help in any way I can. 

The fact of the matter is that videocards and processors today are not manufactured with the intent of running, by now, 15 year old API packages like DirectX 7 (e. Or old OpenGL versions). When will we see modern development for modern hardware? Or are we always destined to run decade-old looking games (on decade old architecture) with sub-30fps gameplay? I understand a lot goes on under the hood, but we live in an age where games like Crysis can now be run by most decent gaming PCs and GM chess matches can be simulated at the click of a button. The fact that I can't maintain a smooth framerate in Combat Mission leaves me in awe. 
 
I read Steve's assertion that rewriting the game for multiple cores is not viable. That's because you're dealing with an old engine running on old APIs - decade and a half old architecture - created six years before the first multi-core processor was even developed. I understand not retroactively updating old games; don't fix what's not (sort of) broken. But why on God's earth wouldn't you, with a new game, start from scratch with newer, better, more dynamic game development tools? With the technology we have today, doing just that would be easier than ever. 
 
Again, I don't mean to be inflammatory. I just discovered the game and I find it to be an incredible piece of simulation software. I just am genuinely oblivious as to how a development process works in a way that results in this kind of performance. I only speak as someone with knowledge of the pipeline and experience in game modelling, and that's why it bothers me. Thanks for reading.
 
Edit: DXtory falsely reported to me that the game ran under DirectX 7. It actually runs under OpenGL. I apologize for that mistake.

DXtory, my chosen recording software, (erroneously, apparently) detected Combat Mission as operating under DirectX 7, so I don't know what the disconnect is. 
 
That having been said, there's even less of an excuse for such poor performance, though I doubt the technical merit of whatever OpenGL engine they are using doesn't much surpass the ability of DX7 to begin with.
 
As for your other inquiries, I could argue the semantics of the meaning of "smooth" all day long, but I would generally agree with your definition. I don't experience your definition of smooth unless, as previously stated, I tweak with my framerate settings. I don't have a problem with doing that, but it's something that shouldn't have to be done. The game just runs poorly, period. The exact poorness was only illustrated to me after I attempted to record the game, which prompted an FPS counter. 
 
Your snideness is not helping you much nor is it appreciated. I apologize for my incorrect assertion and perhaps the blunt nature of my OP, but there's no need to be callous.

The fact of the matter is that videocards and processors today are not manufactured with the intent of running, by now, 15 year old API packages like DirectX 7 (e. Or old OpenGL versions). When will we see modern development for modern hardware? Or are we always destined to run decade-old looking games (on decade old architecture) with sub-30fps gameplay? I understand a lot goes on under the hood, but we live in an age where games like Crysis can now be run by most decent gaming PCs and GM chess matches can be simulated at the click of a button. The fact that I can't maintain a smooth framerate in Combat Mission leaves me in awe. 
 
I read Steve's assertion that rewriting the game for multiple cores is not viable. That's because you're dealing with an old engine running on old APIs - decade and a half old architecture - created six years before the first multi-core processor was even developed. I understand not retroactively updating old games; don't fix what's not (sort of) broken. But why on God's earth wouldn't you, with a new game, start from scratch with newer, better, more dynamic game development tools? With the technology we have today, doing just that would be easier than ever. 
 
Again, I don't mean to be inflammatory. I just discovered the game and I find it to be an incredible piece of simulation software. I just am genuinely oblivious as to how a development process works in a way that results in this kind of performance. I only speak as someone with knowledge of the pipeline and experience in game modelling, and that's why it bothers me. Thanks for reading.
 
Edit: DXtory falsely reported to me that the game ran under DirectX 7. It actually runs under OpenGL. I apologize for that mistake.

The base development environment is OpenGL. A decision made at the inception of CMSF, I believe, which has now outlived its usefulness. BFC have mentioned that they intend at some future point to drop that and move to another 3D environment. If they'd chosen DirectX back in 2007, AIUI, it would have been impractical to produce a Mac client, which wasn't an option Steve would entertain, being a Mac user himself. They have mentioned what 3D engine they will be moving to, I gather, but can't remember which it is. They have not given any indication whatsoever of a timescale for the move. Until that unknown future day dawns, though, we are, I'm afraid, shackled to oldtech. There's a bunch of other architectural decisions beyond the graphics engine that need revising at the CMx3 point too, IMO.

I just want to thank you for doing these incredible AARs. I, as well as many others, I'm sure, have learned a lot from them. You alone have probably sold many copies of this series! Keep up the awesome work.

I just want to thank you for doing these incredible AARs. I, as well as many others, I'm sure, have learned a lot from them. You alone have probably sold many copies of this series! Keep up the awesome work.

I just want to thank you for doing these incredible AARs. I, as well as many others, I'm sure, have learned a lot from them. You alone have probably sold many copies of this series! Keep up the awesome work.