IICptMillerII

Perhaps it would be a good idea to have more than one person taking on this arduous task. Maybe allowing mod makers to become authors to upload their own content again would help your work load? Or perhaps just a handful of mates who are more in the know of these very complicated systems. Maybe they could even help finish the mod transfer from CMMODS 3 to CMMODS 4 that was started over 2 years ago now? Just an idea. After all, this was a service that you volunteered to take on for BFC, and is the centralized place for people to share their mods, which is a very big part of the CM community. A most esteemed and pleasant evening to you my right honorable gentleman.

Oh trust me, I would love to see graphical and optimization improvements for CM. It's just that for the most part it is completely out of the hands of the module/title developers.

Excellent, thanks!

@Dr.Fusselpulli @Redwolf do either of you have a save file? That will really help speed up the process of reporting this issue and tracking it down/fixing it.

Good point, duly noted! Just the LOD bugs mentioned that are specific to CW, as well as other bugs specific to CW, like the QB TOE and others noted in the bug thread. The render distance is an engine limitation as far as I understand, so that has more to do with the engine than any specific title. For engine issues, all we can do is make requests/suggestions. Sometimes it works out, like getting DPICM in, and sometimes we get told no or not possible.

You’re wrong. And being antagonistic does not help anyone or anything, especially yourself. The LOD issues are being addressed in the first patch. In fact, I believe as of right now most of them are fixed. The reason the game shipped with them is because, for techno wizardry reasons I will never understand, when the final release candidate was built, something caused some LODs to get a little wonky. We figured that it was not worth delaying the release of a game for a minor graphical issue that has no effect on gameplay, and only occurs on certain models and in lower graphics settings. I think we made the right call. The response to Cold War has been overwhelmingly positive. And I think BFC hitting a release target has been very positive as well. Further, most feedback on bugs has been very polite and professional, and I think we have done a good job of responding and addressing these issues. A patch is being worked on as we speak that will fix these issues, and some other issues that were the result of very constructive feedback.

You don’t have to do a video for every mod. If anything, that should come later. People know what they are looking for and getting. They want downloads, not videos. There isn’t a Cold War category up yet, even though the game was announced months ago and released nearly a week ago. There are already a lot of mods here on the BFC forums for it, and that is likely to increase. If it’s so difficult to keep up with the mods and game releases it might be time to re-evaluate the current system.

It’s because the maps in CMCW are, on average, larger than most other CM titles. So you will notice the effect more in CW, but it is the same in every CM game.

The M2 M3 Bradley do as well. So, my answer here is the same as it is for Black Sea. Regardless how good the optics of a given vehicle is, there is still merit to having the TC unbutton occasionally for situational awareness. There are other reasons, like C2 information sharing with nearby infantry and other friendly assets nearby. Its also important to remember that in reality US tankers still operate unbuttoned a lot, until in direct contact or receiving fire. There are a ton of things that are much easier done unbuttoned, like driving and staying in formation with other tanks, etc.

This is exactly spot on. So is this. Dom has it right on both counts. Yikes.

My idea for an Operation Unthinkable would be to make a standalone module that is just the Allied and Russian TO&E from CMFB and CMRT, grab some QB maps from the same, and throw it all together. I would do a standalone module because to me it makes more sense to do it that way than to tack an Op Unthinkable onto either of the base games. It could have something like 4-6 standalone scenarios and maybe a campaign or a mini campaign or two. Basically, anything that could be thrown together quickly. No development overhead for BFC, so it would not cost them much or delay any other projects, and those interested could take it or leave it. As much as I would like an Op Unthinkable for the mashup, I think it would be mostly a gimmick. For the most part, I think it would be played a little and then moved on from. 1000% agree.

The standalone scenario "Hunter or Prey" features the M1 up against the T-80.

The BFIST wasn’t around till the 90s. And the FIST-V (modified M901) didn’t show up until the late 80s.

Ok, thanks! The save was included with the bug report. I'll make a note that it appears to only happen in Hunter or Prey. Thanks!

Which scenario?

Great shots!

Thanks for the clarification!

Completely agree. Sounds right to me. Soviet tank turrets are very well armored, especially during this time period. They are much harder to punch through than the hulls.

Yup, gunships were the primary CAS suppliers for the Soviets. But they were also relatively rare.

Ahh ok. I was watching a friend play a few nights ago (he was streaming) and he also downloaded the texture pack. I think that texture pack actually changes movie mode to use a different shader effect (as opposed to the stock desaturation of regular movie mode). But I am not sure. @37mm is this the case? Not a complaint or anything, just curious.

Thanks for posting the saves! I appreciate it. I'll take a look at this and see what I come up with. My initial hunch is that this may be "laboratory bias." What I mean is that, when you place a tank at a perfect range, and it is perfectly flat, you remove some of the combat conditions that come into play. For example, armor sloping. Firing straight on with no ballistic arc or change in elevation, the round is always hitting the sloped armor at an unfavorable angle. Whereas if the tank is elevated or lowered a bit due to terrain, the round will strike the armor in a way that helps to negate the effect of the slope. Plunging fire, for example. I was playtesting a demo scenario last night (the demo is being worked on) that features some Soviet T-64Bs on the attack. Opposing them were M60A3s firing M774. I lost 6 T-64Bs and T-64As to frontal penetrations at a range of around 2000m, most of the penetrating rounds being through the front hull armor. This is consistent with what I have experienced throughout the development process for Cold War as well. T-64B and T-80B are hard tanks to kill, but not nearly as hard to kill as a Sherman vs Panther in the WW2 titles. I know your testing is specific to the T-64A, but everything I just stated holds true for that tank as well. I'm not saying you are wrong, and I appreciate the detail and explanation to your posts, just that I have not experienced the same thing myself. Again though, I will look into it because I think you are making sound points/arguments. That, and anecdotal evidence is not evidence, even from me

Uh... The Brits don't use the dragon...

Yup. I think a lot of people are going to find the Dragon to be better than they assumed based on anecdotal evidence. It has its flaws for sure, but it is not the complete disaster that its reputation would have you believe.

Correct. I agree with @domfluff when it comes to aircraft. I think that a few tweaks would go a long way to how they are in game. Longer loiter times (when not being shot at) and larger area missions I think would be a good start. Plus, allowing aircraft to come in and drop all their bombs in one pass would make them both more effective, more survivable, and more realistic, especially in Cold War. There are certainly other fixes/tweaks that could be implemented but those are a few things that come immediately to mind that I think would have a positive effect.

Nice shots @benpark! Are you using a reshade here, or are these stock? They look great!