Wiggum15

The important part is that you DONT support the paid engine Updates.
If they want me to pay for them then make a core version (which could also be the demo) and separate the data content from it so people dont have to pay for every game if they want the new engine.
Imagine v4.0 arrives and you have CMRT, CMBN and CMFI...you would have to pay 30$ to update them all...or just spend 10$ for the update of the core version and play CMRT, CMBN and CMFI with engine v4.0.

Bees are now simulated in bee suitable enviorments.

Hi !
 
we all know that CMx2 + AMD GPU + most drivers gives you long loading times, bad performance or graphic glitches...
And we all know that updating or downgrading the GPU driver is one of the few things that an help...
But updating or downgrading your GPU drivers is a pain in the a** and can cause problems with other games.
 
But there is a way of using a newer or older AMD OpenGL driver without changing your whole GPU driver !
 
How does it work ?
Download a older or newer (or Beta) AMD Catalyst Driver Open the the "driver_you_just_downloaded.exe" with a program like 7zip Inside that directory, traverse into ->Packages\Drivers\Display\W86A_INF (depends on the driver)\B151068 (depends on the driver) and look for the file: atioglxx.dl_ and copy (unpack) it to your CMBS folder (the folder where the game .exe is located !) Open a command window (On the start menu, type "cmd.exe" in the search box, you should see "cmd.exe" appear at the top search results. Right click on this and run as administrator) You should now be in a DOS prompt/DOS box command shell. Type CD C:\Program Files (x86)\Battlefront\Combat Mission Black Sea (or whatever, its the directory where you installed CMBS) and hit enter Now type EXPAND ATIOGLXX.DL_ ATIOGLXX.DLL
* It should say the file has inflated or expanded like 127% or similar factor. You now should see a atioglxx.dl_ and a atioglxx.dll You can delete the atioglxx.dl_ now CMBS will now use the AMD OpenGL driver from the driver you took the atioglxx.dl_ from, it only affects CMBS and by deleting the atioglxx.dll you can undo it in a second !
This works with all CMx2 games !

I this behaviour according to the forum rules?
Are you a moderator?

LukeFF,
I don't believe that you can improve CM's success with your permanent attacks on customers. The building entering bug, the water fording bug, the QB setup bug and many more. If you would invest more energy in your job as beta tester and less into playing Ghostbusters, maybe you could prevent customers from facing nasty surprises?

I think the accuracy is fine, but suppression is undermodelled and morale overmodelled. Dudes are too willing to stand and bang with each other for extended periods of time.

I'd recommend to read this thread:
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/111876-hull-down-spotting-disadvantage/

Ignorance, denial, excusions, then admitting observations of a few strange things over the years - until finally several bugs in spotting mechanism were admitted. And the fanbois have hailed - once again - a bugged functionality...

Am I the only one noticing the same in this discussion?

I have mentioned a few parameters that could give the shown results some plausibility. We have learned the camouflage effects are not present. But if they are not present, then the results that are shown are not plausible.

And when I hear the explanation that the model was way too complex to come to quick conclusions, then as an engineer I must laugh. Why? Because the engineer knows: not the complexitiy of a model has any significance if it is good, but there is ONLY one thing, that determines if a model is good: who knows the answer?
If it works as expected. That's the ONLY measurement for the quality of a model. Not it's complexity.

And this understanding of scientific engineering brings up PLAUSABILITY.

So the question is not if a customer understands the complexities of a model. What counts is, when the computer is switched on, that it works as expected. No matter if I could explain it away with hardware settings or driver problems. That's what fans want to hear, but the average customers wants that it works. The excuses are not of interest.

If camouflage effects in this case can be excluded, and switched off trees and smoke, then I miss the ability to accept, that the model in this case has a big plausability problem.

And btw, if the maker of a model does not understand, why his model behaves in a certain manner, then I always am reminded what my professor in theoretical electrical engineering teached us:
What is the best model?
A: the most simple one that works.

So maybe, if their models are too complex for them, they should reduce it to a level of complexity they are able to understand and control?

Is suspect BFC has coded the engine into a "corner" from where there is no way out without changing significant amounts of code.
Everyone who knows something about coding knows what im talking about, the engine as it is now is most like a huge pile code which they already tinkered here and there.
Every programmer knows when he gets this feeling..."**** i have no clue why this is not working"..."**** i will have to start fresh".

I suspect thats the case for the CMx2 engine, its a old rag rug.
As fry30 said, they most likely would at least need a hire a small team to come in and analyze the game and its code for blemishes and omissions.
But again, like he said..don't expect anything from BF. CMx2 is their "cash cow" (no offense !) until they can start fresh with CMx3.

I'm not sure who battlefield is paying here anymore... but I'm not necessarily surprised that one of them hasn't addressed this. I've never ran into this, because I don't like games where I can't see the enemy. Unfortunately this is because I don't think things such as haze, overcast skies, or darkness are handled very well by Combat Mission's engine. It is what it is... maybe they could slap a few more icons on the hud, but that's for another day.
 
However, it disturbs me that a major aspect of its [the game/ the company's] engine is not working correctly, albeit under such "unique" circumstances. 
 
If anything, BF could address it. Its truly absurd that that unit is not being located. Relying on this advanced spotting system leads to some really cool battle circumstances, but it also leads to some serious headaches. If anything, units within a 15 meter proximity, lets say 2-3 AS, should be automatically spotted. The only way this might be an exception, and we know the engine can handle this amazing phenomenon, is if A t-34 is sitting on the side of the road on a moonless night with very low visibility and is mistakenly believed to be a wreck or something of the like by CONSCRIPT soldiers, or otherwise compromised pxeltruppen. 
 
But don't expect anything from BF... they're still promoting/tweaking neat things like individual system damage when every AT gun/Tank in the game fires at the vehicle's center of mass. 
 
Some days I really wish Steve would go out into the desert on peyote and then come back and reappraise certain parts of this ****ing masterpiece. Some days I wish he'd have the humility to hire a small team to come in and analyze the game and its code for blemishes and omissions.
 
Its the small things that keep you pinned down, immersed in the game play.

Was reading about something else, when I came across this Patton quote. I'm sure we've already long since understood what Patton thought needed to be done and why, so let's stipulate that. What I'd like to see discussed is his argument that if he kept going (wanted to take Prague), he could beat the Red Army in six weeks. I'm hardly a Red Army expert, but I will say several of the Russian accounts I've read talk about how utterly supply depleted the Red Army was, especially after taking Berlin. The Russians had shot their bolt and had no means of rapidly resupplying their forces, if the russian sources are to be believed. Some go so far as to state they were semistarved and deeply grateful to find a big vat of German margarine to supplement their meager rations. In light of that, I invite you to discuss the quote below, particularly since there's been an outcry dating back to CMx1 CMBO asking for the means to let us pit the Red Army vs the US, possibly with some German units under US control. 
 
“The American Army as it now exists could beat the Russians with the greatest of ease, because, while the Russians have good infantry, they are lacking in artillery, air, tanks, and in the knowledge of the use of the combined arms, whereas we excel in all three of these.”
Regards,
John Kettler
 
 

The General Discussion forum is down below.

Kieme CMBS additional flavor objects  2 (military vehicles)
 
This mod adds 2 new flavor objects to the game, in form of two military vehicles (a BMP-1 and a T-54b, stripped of most external accessories), textured as long-time abandoned hardware. The models and textures were ported from combat mission shock force game with some adjustments and heavy weathering.
These flavor objects are not present in any game map created since now, but they will be available for map makers from now on if they decide to use them.
You will find these in game's editor, under "vehicle" in the flavor objects 3 Group.
 
Note: these flavor objects do not provide cover, don't block shots or vehicles movement and are sometimes glitchy with their shadows.
 
Download: https://app.box.com/s/puyx6ropwm502j9zpjmm5v1r0y31vltc
 
Preview:

I got another add on in the works, shuould provide some interesting addition for an abandoned military base, or just one of the several vehicle parks in eastern europe, here's a preview:
 

Hi !
 
The TacAI is still unable to use some kind of Area target as far as i know.
That would be a really important feature, and it should be possible to script the TacAI in a way so it uses area fire on suspected enemy positions from time to time.
 
What do you think ?

Wiggum, I took the time to go to the BFC store and yep, it looks like if you purchase the download only CMFI + GL bundle for $75 that you do indeed have to spend another $10 for the Upgrade to be completely up to date.
 
I did some further checking, and it doesn't look like there have been any further patches released since the 3.0 upgrade.
 
So, $85 total to have a completely current version of CMFI + GL.
 
Whether or not it's worth it is completely up to you. It's totally worth it for me, and I spent full price for the base game, GL, and the patch, as separate purchases.
 
If it makes you feel better, I agree with you that BFC ought to go ahead and include the 3.0 Upgrade with the purchase of the CMFI + GL bundle. But then, I don't make my living running a computer wargaming company.

The important part is that you DONT support the paid engine Updates.
If they want me to pay for them then make a core version (which could also be the demo) and separate the data content from it so people dont have to pay for every game if they want the new engine.
Imagine v4.0 arrives and you have CMRT, CMBN and CMFI...you would have to pay 30$ to update them all...or just spend 10$ for the update of the core version and play CMRT, CMBN and CMFI with engine v4.0.

The important part is that you DONT support the paid engine Updates.
If they want me to pay for them then make a core version (which could also be the demo) and separate the data content from it so people dont have to pay for every game if they want the new engine.
Imagine v4.0 arrives and you have CMRT, CMBN and CMFI...you would have to pay 30$ to update them all...or just spend 10$ for the update of the core version and play CMRT, CMBN and CMFI with engine v4.0.

Everyone,
 
The purpose of this thread is to provide a central location into which I can put information and the like which I deem significant and worth knowing about, as well as my own observations and opinions, subject to the usual BFC rules, as well as certain request and strictures coming from BFC. In this way, there should be no further thread proliferation and "real post" ranking issues. Other members are, of course, welcome to participate in what I post, but I ask that you be respectful. Argue against the ideas I present; don't attack me. As some may have noted, I have formal requests in to the Mods to kill two separate threads. If they choose to do so, that should further alleviate matters on the CMBS Forum as a whole.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler
 
 

This is one of the scenarios contained in the recently released demo.
http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/uncategorized/cmbs-rolling-thunder/
About the scenario
This scenario recreates a US company team attack against a Russian Forward Security Element or FSE. A Russian FSE is a usually a reinforced company sent forward of the regimental axis when the threat is weak but more commonly sent ahead of a first echelon battalion or battalion operating away from the main body. Motorized rifle companies are often used in this role, even in tank units.
Both sides have a fairly ‘typical’ OOB (organisation, units and vehicles) plus supporting arms (air assets, anti-aircraft assets and artillery) for the missions they have been tasked with. As such this scenario serves as a useful introduction to commanding a modern combined arms unit at the company level.
This scenario was originally designed to be played first and foremost from the perspective of the US side against the Russian AI. It is playable head to head (H2H) but has not been playtested for balance in this regard. It is playable as Russian vs US AI, although in the attack the AI can't dismount and remount infantry, so that can hamper it a wee bit. Still the US AI plans should give you a tactical workout.
There are three distinct Russian AI plans and two distinct US AI plans – thus allowing some level of re-playability.
How difficult is the scenario?
As stated this scenario is really designed to be played as US attacking Russian AI (or possible H2H). The designers intent is that a ‘good’ player i.e. a player used to the Combat Mission game engine and practiced in using modern core combined arms tactics would find this fun but not over the top challenging. A new player i.e. unpractised in either modern or Combat Mission should be able to play this (TOP TIP – make liberal use of the ‘save game’ option – so you can rewind if things go horribly wrong) – and most likely at least pull a draw. So bottom line is experienced players will most likely find it fun but straightforward, less experienced might find it challenging initially but soon becoming easier. Once the US side make it over the reverse slope position they have a very good chance of winning as the fire-power of a US mech company team is pretty immense!

Seconds later this BMP got knocked out...

 
...by this guy

Kieme CMBS Tunguska
 
Special thanks to BTR for providing the ideal green base textures.
 
Comes in green and 3-tone camo versions, please make sure you choose only one to use.
 
 
Green version download: https://app.box.com/s/y40xg7xlincl3jjsh0qi2w2ma7u7cums
 
Green version preview:

 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3-tone camo download: https://app.box.com/s/19z7fuib25jo1muct7yzx5fgznl8fx1d
 
3-tone camo preview:

Next vehicle coming is the russian tunguska:
 

Hi everybody,
 
a first attempt at map making. 
 
Kieme's Highway
 
A few statements to describe this map: 
-Main theme of this map is a highway running east-west with an interesction in the middle going South and two overpass bridges.
-map size is 2000x2000 meters roughly.
-it is practically flat, the main elevation is 19, while depressions go down to 18 (17 in the corners) and up to 21/22/23 in wooded areas, highway is at 20.
-the buildings are mainly of 1 level or 2 levels. Few exceptions for some buildings at 3 or even 4, but these have no Windows and/or unusable rooftops, so there is no key building dominating the map.
-large open areas, with few complexes sorrounded by walls (such as an industrial area, a residential area, some farms).
-wooded areas are small, vehicle passable, slightly elevated and with not too thick trees.
-there are many ditches between fields.
-it has few flavor objects.
-there are no landmarks names.
-this map is made up and does not represent a real world location.
 
Notes: this map works best with my previous Modular Buildings mod and Modular Buildings Add-on. Moreover, it makes use of the Optional Highway mod (tagged version).
HD terrain mod is best suited but not mandatory.
 
Map only download: https://app.box.com/s/5xz78s9xrvgbvslcc1cwdhq4p8vi1jv6
 
Intall: put the .btt file in your game files folder (under documents).
 
Feel free to use this map for your needs, crop, cut, expand, change whatever you need for your scenarios.
 
Previews:





 
I decided to start with a concept for PvP (player versus player) coming in form of a basic pack where you can find 3 versions (same map, size, etc.), but with different objectives layout. These are intended only for player versus player and contain no AI plans.
A preview and download of such "quick battle pack" is coming within this thread shortly.

It already would be enough if BFC would show some kind of activity here on the forums, especially in bug report threads...

It already would be enough if BFC would show some kind of activity here on the forums, especially in bug report threads...