Jump to content

Kevin2k

Members
  • Posts

    483
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Kevin2k

  1. On 2/27/2024 at 7:32 PM, TheFriendlyFelon said:

    So that might not be accurate for my game. Im looking at it now and I only have up to version 216 but still don't have those extra churches. 🧐

    I just double checked; Loaded up Black Sea v2.16 Battlefront version.  I see "v2.16" shown bottom right in the main menu. There are 9 different churches in the editor panel there.

    It should not be different for anyone else,,

  2. On 2/23/2024 at 1:17 AM, TheFriendlyFelon said:

    No kidding? That's lame. How do I fix it? Did version 2.18 bring anything important to the game or nah? Id rather have more churches than stupid trivial "improvements"

    Only Battlefront can fix it with a future patch...

    Here are the v2.18 patch notes (v2.17 was never released AFAIK). :

     

     

  3. 8 hours ago, TheFriendlyFelon said:

    When I first bought CMBS, I had 8 or 9 different churches I could pick from and place in the editor. Now I only have 4. I know they existed, because the buildings are still in the exploded game files and one of them is used in a map of Hostomel that I made, I just can't see the buttons for them in the editor. Any idea why they suddenly disappeared from my editor options? How do I fix it?

    Can confirm this.

    There are 9 types of churches in the Black Sea v2.16 map editor. Same in any earlier version of the game. And they work as such.

    But in v2.18 there are only 4 church buttons.

  4. 38 minutes ago, benpark said:

    I had suggested different QB categories of orders based on foot/wheeled/tracked categories at some point. However, that's 3 x more however many other AI orders there are! That's a lot to keep track of. I keep track of what the AI plan is via a Photoshop template (I made a post about that somewhere - I call it the P.A.I.N. system), but even with that, it would be a lot of information to juggle.

    Yeah. Good to know I was not the only one with these thoughts.

    I remember thinking: Well, I cannot put the zone in between those buildings, for vehicles will go mad. I cannot put it in front of the buildings, for the units will have no cover at all. So then I put the zone at the back of the buildings, then hopefully some of the infantry will take some acceptable positions, but the vehicles will just be idle in the back, unable to see anything...

    Maybe on the software side it can anticipate a little? Like automatically do this or that, or avoid this or that, when the order-zone has lots of buildings or forest.

     

     

  5. 6 hours ago, benpark said:

    -PAY ATTENTION TO THE TERRAIN when making the AI plans. Don't just make a blob in a location, and hope for the best. Use the available cover, and the height toggle to judge good positions for the task. This takes some extra time, but it pays off in better simulating at least half a brain for the AI side. Look at the AI plans from Downfall to see examples of this, if you have it. A lot of work went into these QB plans in FR and Downfall.

    Thanks for the tips!

    I worked on a few QB map conversions. And I did have a contradiction for these deployment 'orders'. Like selecting the tiles for order no.1 no.2 no.3. etc. :

    For infantry one would want different tiles then for armor. Infantry likes the cover of buildings and forests, but vehicles just get obstructed there. When in game I sometimes see this nondiscrimination of unit types play out in a bad way, mainly when vehicles are trying navigate and deploy in areas with lots of buildings.

    WW2 Vehicles may prefer overwatch positions, but I suppose it depends on whether or not their armor is good enough to risk that. Infantry often does not have the firing range to utilize such an overwatch position.

     

  6. 13 minutes ago, Anthony P. said:

    I can see how it would be complicated to get working in regards to the 3 crew + 3 sapper dismounts arrangement, but that still leaves the issue of the overcrewed AVRE tanks which come with a 6 man crew, leaving no room for the sapper dismounts.

    Yes I noticed that too. Would maybe be better to have a default crew of three?

  7. 1 minute ago, David Jaros said:

    To be honest Kevin i am happy with performance game is running  alright  and i am play everything max setting and even huge maps are playable so no complains my system running CM games well  i7 4790k 16 gb gtx 1060 

    Probably won't notice much negative effects myself, but that is because I play with small forces anyways. Also this game has no frame-rate counter or anything, so no easy way to measure performance.

    Sometimes I make 3D models for some Flight sim, as a hobby. To do it properly I need to add low detail models, next to the full detail ones. I am one of the few modders that still tries to do that, properly.

    Anyways, I wrote that complaint about the low detail models, and will leave it at that. It is a done deal. Like: I won't ask a refund. It won't get fixed. I will still play it.

     

     

  8. Thanks for the Pershing fix.

    I wonder what is up with the vehicle distance models in the CMFB Downfall module. Before >95% of the vehicles came supplied with lower detail distance .mdr models: one full-detail, one medium-detail, one low-detail for far away. Now it is the other way around, with the new Allied and German vehicle models; Mostly just a single full-detail model is supplied (Pershing, Comet, 90mm AA, Archer, Ram kangaroo, New sherman variants, German armored cars with PAK-40, etc.). AFAIK This won't help frame-rate performance when a lot of such vehicles are visible on screen. 

    Otherwise the module looks good to me.  

  9. 30 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

    I'm still now sure what a Sherman hybrid is. I'm guessing by the name and from the context of the discussion so far that it's a combination of features on one chassis that were originally on two or more chassis types. But would anyone care to elaborate on what those features are?

    It is a combination of a cast front hull (Similar to the M4A1 front hull), mated with a welded rear hull (Similar to the  M4 rear hull). Newly manufactured as such. Then called hybrid or composite hull.

    It is explained here:

    http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/manufacturer/m4composite/m4_composite.html

    Quote

    The original Sherman design included both cast and welded upper hulls. In the rush to increase production, it was noted that cast hulls could be manufactured cheaper and faster than welded hulls, with "a large saving of welding rod and labor." However, in October 1942, it was concluded that while conversion to all cast hulls would be advantageous, it was not feasible under the current industrial conditions. That is, the number of US foundries capable of pouring such large castings was limited. In that same month, the Ordnance Department in conjunction with the Chrysler Corporation, began design work on a cast front end that offered a partial solution to the higher cost of the all welded upper hull, since the front is where a good deal of the welding man-hours were spent. Also, the front casting as shown above, was a fraction of the size of a complete cast hull, so could be produced by smaller capacity foundries.

     

  10. 7 hours ago, Bagpipe said:

    Regarding larger scenarios/maps - Designing and selling a game that allows users to create something the game cannot handle is in itself a flawed game. That's my opinion on that matter anyway. Scenario designers are not to blame for using the tools provided to them fully.

     

    Be careful what you wish for. The result may be annoying limitations imposed on the editor. I have seen that happen before with another game.

    As for the performance topic in general. I would need in-game debugging information: frame-rate, mode of frame-rate compensation, scene polygon count, logic cycles count. But unfortunately there is no such thing, so it is often just anecdotal.

     

     

     

  11. 3 hours ago, BFCElvis said:

    I'll have to double check. We have bug tracking software. When preparing a new readme file I look through that and gather up everything marked as "Resolved" to put on my list. That was one of those.

    There was a similar thing with Red Thunder patch 2.13. Where the changelog talks about a fixed Panther D model. But there is no Panther D model in that patch. Only "pz-iiig-late.mdr". When I run Red Thunder 2.13 I can see a black (textureless) spare track on some Panther D's.

     

    Quote

    * FIXED: Panther Ausf D model had the hatch open in the opposite direction, and some of the spare tracks are textureless.

     

  12. For what it is worth, I just did a version check for Specialist Team DShK HMG, in the scenario editor.

    CMRT v1.00 does not have the DShK team listed.

    CMRT v1.01 / 1.03 / 2.00 / 2.01 / 2.02 / 2.10 all have this DShK team available for purchase

    CMRT v2.11 + current 2.12 do not have the DShK team listed.

     

    And as side note: CMRT v2.11 + current 2.12 do not have the DP LMG team listed, which was available in all previous versions.

     

  13. On 6/16/2023 at 10:55 PM, BFCElvis said:

    Here are the changes in the patch:

    * FIXED: 3D modeling has fixed turret issues with Pz IIIG
    * FIXED: MP-507 no longer fires full auto, now it’s only be able to fire semi-auto
    * FIXED: Panther Ausf D model had the hatch open in the opposite direction, and some of the spare tracks are textureless.

    Inside the brz archive is only one model file, for the Pz IIIG that is. Good to have that one fixed.

    Surprisingly there is no Panther model file in there. Is it possible to fix such things without supplying a new model file? I haven't cross-checked it between v2.12 and v2.13 yet...

  14. Seems my Linux distribution already has the Wine 8.7.something update available. Installed it and tried some things.

    The fatal startup error "Could not initialize OpenGL graphics.." no longer occurs.

    The current CM games display and run fine for me, using Linux AMD GPU driver. Great!

    Edit: Since the recent Wine update I can now also run ArmA 2 properly, that game had mouse input issues before. Stalker CoC now runs at reasonable speed, it was very slow with older wine versions (or was it because I upgraded the Graphics card slightly and switched it to AMD GPU driver?). Good stuff.

×
×
  • Create New...