Kevin2k

Thanks for explaining. I understand it better now. Maybe the game should handle missing models more gracefully? I rather have an error message at load, instead of a time-wasting battle that turnes out unwinnable/unlosable, since there is an invincible object.

My CMFI+GL E4/v2.02 install shows an invisible tank. A Churchill IV NA75. .. Well it is hard to show something invisible, but it does. Inside the game archives there is only this 75mm Churchill model: "churchill-iii-75mm.mdr". Is this a known issue, or am I missing some brz datafile? Edit: It is not just invisible, but pretty much invincible too, since rounds pass through it.

You seem to be doing it right. Is it maybe that not all 3D models/objects can work with an Alpha channel?.... Edit: I get the same thing. .BMP with lots of red color is visible in game, but as soon as I add an Alpha channel the headset is not shown at all.

Used pixelformer many times for Battlefront .BMP images with alpha. Does this screenshot help: Edit: instead of 'save', you have to click 'export' to get a new .BMP.

At least in Photoshop 6.0, I could not work with .BMP files with alpha channel. In fact I never seen .BMP files with alpha channel anywhere but in the Battlefront games. (Other games use .TGA or .DDS or something for that.) There is this free program that does support .BMP with alpha channel. http://www.qualibyte.com/pixelformer/

Sounds very familiar, like when I am modding some other simulations; I generally try limit my hobby-projects to variations of skins and models that are already available, but it takes a lot of time anyways. Of course it is a lot faster then starting from scratch, but still. Congrats on the Defense contract.

It is already in motion since decades ago. Though seemingly not to the effect that it reversed the tide. That wrapped it up, I will withdraw from this topic now, it wasn't too bad. :)

Don't bother. You and I are not on a level that have any say about the structure. In fact you are not allowed to know the structure. So what kind of starting point is that. It is rubbish.

How about as little action and speed as possible. As in dail economic activities way down, let everyone stay home play on their tablet, or be to poor to do anything. Nature would love that? How about increasing economic activity and burning up everything quickly, then go out with a bang? I once had contact with a guy who ended up with that as the best solution for nature to recover. I am sure certain think-tanks already have loads of such scenarios worked out, decades ago. Not for public viewing.

Fair enough. I am aware. Like 15(!!!) years ago I even calculated the amount water on the south pole and what it would do to the water levels on the ocean. Because someone said it would not be that much. I am not writing what I write because I find it a convenient and easy way to feel better about things. Which is a very common thing. But I have many reasons to believe that there is deliberate effort to make people confused and upset. And my two cents are; Don't be any more confused and upset then strictly necessary, beware of your well being. So what is more upsetting, that the world may end sooner then you like, or that there are rulers that deliberately upset you? I don't know.

Then go beyond local. See how the upper levels welcome new ideas, and find they don't want to hear it, but one is free to be very upset. Climate change is one of those concepts that is hard to prove and hard to disprove. ( I haven't even tried , or just a little maybe ). One can spin it at wish. The ones that shout the hardest have been caught lying about simpler things before. Who is a "denier"? it is a spin. I have a rather small carbon footprint anyways. Do you like me now?

Got fooled by the AFB too, but looked that one up. I don't disagree per se on environmental worries, but there are lies, facades and mangled data all around. The ones bringing you the worrysome data don't have enough credibility to make one upset. Don't expect that to ever improve, what remains is a personal choice on what to do with it. Maybe just try to be contructive on a very local level and that will also work best for well-being.

I think that AFB is only a fictional movie base. All the better.

In a way yes. Let it be their problem (the journalists/BBC etc), it is their credibility shrinking.

If it turns out like false alarm in 18 months, will you let the BBC upset you again? ; )

The ones in power asking the ones with no power to change the world, or else, over and over again. Well, one upside is that common people are now more environmentally minded.

Here is a small tool that sheds light on the situation with the mentioned CPU vulnerabilities from last year, and the possible Microcode and/or Windows tweaks. https://www.grc.com/inspectre.htm

Understood. I intend to buy the module bundle.

Question, If one orders a bundle that includes the upcoming expansion, do you get the licence key for the existing part of the bundle immediately? Or do you only get a licence key when the upcoming expansion is ready?

BFC Elvis; do you acknowledge?

Yeah, also consider that one may want to play as Syrians (Player) against USMC (AI). At least, I do sometimes. Whenever I start tweaking my force I always end up using my favorite force composition anyways, which gets a bit old. I added some more info at "Edit:" in my previous post.

In case of the Marines, with a "Mix" Force: Usually Yes. (Edit: "Mix" is an actual setting in the setup screen. I actually had a discussion years ago, with Steve, about what Mix seemed to do at the time of the v3.0 games, and what I think it should be doing. I am happy to say that Since the v4.0 Upgrades "Mix" usually gives a mix of Armor and Infantry, and that is great) It is not "reasonably appropriate", since all these AAVs without their infantry don't stand a chance. I did not see such extremely unpractical force selection with the other factions: US, British, German, Canadian, Dutch , Syrian. Adjusting the Force manually is of course an option, and I recommend that for the USMC in particular. Still 1) Some randomness gives a nice variety 2) I don't want to know beforehand what force the opposing side (AI) will get.

Edit, let me rewrite Your quoted bold line seems to now agree that patch .brz data remains, which is the main point of my posts. But what do you mean "unaccessed"? The extra brz is there and alphabetically gets priority over the other data. In case that leftover brz contains a "strings.txt" file then the game will be unplayable as such**. It will be mandatory to manually remove that brz file. The CMRT and CMBN examples that I illustrated earlier have exactly this "strings.txt" conflict. **though the main menu will still look fine, the quick battle setup screen for example will be unusable since all words (strings) are out of place there.

OK, since CMRT is one of the few editions not in my possession, I can not test the actual result with the dialog strings. But the case still stands. I just did the same test with CMBN, which I do own. first ran "CMBN_v402_Setup.exe" then ran "CMBN_v400_Setup.exe" "E:\CM\CMBN\Data\normandy v401.brz" remains present. Should not be there. Start the game: Dialog strings are all messed up. Manually delete (or rename the extension) "E:\CM\CMBN\Data\normandy v401.brz": Everything OK again.

I tested it before I wrote my message. Had some old install of CMRT in E:\CM\CMRT Started CMRT_v202_Setup.exe (178 MB total size of patch files) and point it to "E:\CM\CMRT" Started CMRT_v200_Setup.exe (156 MB total size of patch files) and point it to "E:\CM\CMRT" "E:\CM\CMRT\Data\red thunder v201.brz" remains. This file is a mismatch. Just did CMRT_v200_Setup.exe again, "red thunder v201.brz" remains. Let me ask differently: Can the Battlefront patches delete files, not just overwrite, but just delete? How would it decide which files are safe for deletion?