Jace11

Thanks, actually I just checked in the exe's and there is a string "display size.txt"

Is the typo in the file name we are told to use deliberate? Should it be display size.txt or dispaly size.txt?

Modular buildings 5 and 6 windows have wrong alphas, all longwindows for all modular buildings are missing alphas. Bradley can have multicam cargo in its cargo rack as a randomised option.

Yeah, bit of a whopper this, I tried your mission and added a bit of Red AI, to set a smokescreen and advance a few minutes later so I could view from the US side. Seems like Dragons have thermals, if you split them off as an antitank team you can see this as the rest of the team does not, this is mentioned in the 1.01 patch notes. The M113A2 vehicle gunners seem to have thermals too, but I haven't checked all vehicle mounts. The fact that basic infantry without dragons can't see through smoke (when they do have NVGs) leads me to believe its a "mount" issue as opposed to NVGs acting as a thermal sight. So far I have only seen the M113A1 and M113A2 exhibit this behavior and only when opened up with the 50 cal manned. Hope this is fixed promptly but I expect we will have to wait till they finish the integration of the PBEM and steam release. Also, there is a new bug with dragon. Now AT soldiers carrying a dragon can engage targets with their M16 through smoke. As if the dragon gives blanket thermal vision even when on their back. https://ibb.co/Cb4FDh4

The rear hatches on the BMP-2K seem messed up also, shadows from a mesh that shouldn't be there perhaps. Looks wrong anyway.

T-80B1 does not have the GLATGM guidance module on turret, but does have the shadow for it. There is a similar shadow on the T-64B1 turret.

@Freyberg This is good info, I will check out the thread in detail. Thanks. Not found a way to fix the game AI choosing 4 flammpanzer formations at 50 points each without ANY units in, by any chance? In CMFB, I saw this today as a suggested formation. Why does it do that?

Ok, "some" instead of "most". I fixed it my end, by swapping in another alpha from pz ivg or ivh interior.

Pz IVJ (early) lacks interior texture in game. The texture is actually present in the archives... just the format is slightly wrong... pz-ivj-interior.bmp is a bitmap, but the alpha channel does not appear as a 1 bit alpha, the game requires this for most object textures that have transparencies (0 or 255, black or white, no inbetween values).

These new edits allow people free access to battle pack missions and campaigns that they have not bought or activated, is that ok with you guys? Everyone here sounds very liberal today, but how would BFC respond when they realise that you can do that now, what about the scenario authors that made that content, did you ask them before you revealed this? Whether you realise it or not, that while this may allow the swapping of maps and scenarios from expansion modules to other titles it is at the same time a guide on how to pirate battle pack modules. You’re not breaking the activation of the battle pack in the game engine, but all the bits at the other end, the maps, scenarios and campaigns because that is the only check performed. I’m pretty sure BFC would not be OK with that, and understandably so. If you can edit say any Black Sea battle pack QB map, scenario or campaign to work in any title, then it now also works in Black Sea…. without the Battlepack module activation. It’s probably a bit more complicated for the Normandy Battlepack due to the CW and MG modules, but for Black Sea it is perfectly straightforward.

deleted - should have sent this as a PM

Yes, it all looks safe and couldn't possibly harm BFC, however there are two specific cases where it does. It clearly hasn't occurred to anyone, I am merely sounding a strong note of caution and I'd advise him to remove these posts regarding the module check until he's ok'd it with them. It's possible BFC won't care.... I hope so. Maybe the implications won't occur to them either... but better to be safe...

Consider: So its maps, scenarios... Also campaigns....?

I think you should probably check with BFC before posting this new info. It may (does) circumvent a form of their copy protection. (Anyone who read this post before I edited it should understand what I mean)

When it eventually comes to Slitherine Games it will be normal price. And Steam for that matter. Their prices on previous titles are similar, while ordering from BF.com seems to add an extra $5 (for nandos maybe). Matrix/Slitherine Black Sea : £46.99 (~$64.99) Steam: £46.49 BFC: $69.90 ~£50.59

Isn’t that glitched vehicle, or a very close approx, available in SHock Force 2? Can’t you just transfer the model for the bmp1p 4a over to CW for the time being?

I compiled a list of current (patch 2.03) TOE issues a while ago for CMFB. Linked below, reposting here as they were never acknowledged. https://community.battlefront.com/topic/137274-cm-final-blitzkrieg-v203-patch-has-been-released/?do=findComment&comment=1842239

Many Thanks again, I had a mod already set up for Final Blitz using sidecaps, that would be activated by the gebirgsjager tag. Just needed to swap in the feldcap model and textures.

Thanks

Oh, yes please, Feldcap model, texture and normal map would be great... could you upload them somewhere please? Those of us who haven't bought F&R yet could be waiting a while for the 2.10 patch.

Is it related to this, which I reported 2 years ago? It’s still present in Final Blitzkreig today despite several patches since.

I might watch the slitherine reveal if I get time later.

revealingly non-committal

If you can stick it out until the Steam version of Red Thunder is released (unknown time frame 6-12 months), you get it for free I think when you register your key on Steam / Matrix. This happened with Black Sea recently. Anyone who had Black Sea Engine 3 could register their key and download it in Steam and play version 4. The paid patch thing is probably too clumsy a system for Steam, with all the additional modules too. Steam just wants up-to-date core games and DLC's.

QB battle maps have a common problem. AI plans (they are not really AI - they are just waypoints, triggers and times btw) assign routes to Groups. The problem is QB map designers separate the groups to take individual objectives. Imagine a map with three objectives:- 1 Minor near Allies setup, 1 Minor near Axis setup and 1 Major VP in the center. The engine assigns forces to each group in the "AI Plan". Group 1 moves to Minor VP, Group 2 moves to Major VP. If you are playing a small map with small force sizes (like only 1 formation), often the engine assigns the entire force to Group 1 and nothing to Group 2 or 3. They won't even contest the other objectives and you may not encounter them at all if you occupy the center. I've seen quite a few QB maps like this. The engine has no way of making appropriate strength assignments that make sense, and also a lot of QB maps are hastily made, with only rudimentary AI plans and really little thought as to how they play out I'm afraid. Some will argue the entire QB feature is "Not how this game is meant to be played!" etc.. and due to the development team's size and the way they farm out so much of map design to the community, it is unlikely to ever change. I haven't encountered a QB map without any AI plan for a side. They usually have something. The only exception would be defense, where I guess you can leave units in setup positions with little or no AI plan and still provide some opposition. PS. I've probably been overly critical of map designers. Setting separate groups to take and hold separate objectives makes sense, if you want to occupy and contest those objectives for the whole game to earn VP's. The designers have little choice.