Oliver_88

Indeed my emails been responded too. But I am as yet to be added it seems. Though not going to badger anyone about though.

Done the same, hope that's okay.

Indeed. If would like I can try chuck mine up onto the mod site once I return to my computer. Should mention that I’ve done them based from battlefronts textures mind you.

I've edited the uniforms and vehicles for everything British in my CMBN and CMFI to remove such items. The uniforms now have no shoulder titles, no formation badges, arm of service strips, cap badges. The vehicles now have no formation signs, arm of service signs, tactical signs. So that now its just the names assigned on the force selection screen and visible on the unit information panel that identify whom the units are representing. I realise its maybe an touch boring and makes the units less detailed, and I would indeed rather have them remain visible. But was preferable to me than leaving them on and seeing the soldiers/vehicles appearance conflict with the formations and namings etc. I also added bridge rating signs to some vehicles that lacked them. I've not bothered with any other nations (may do the other commonwealths at some point though) as I neither know enough about nor play enough as the other nations for the conflicts to bother me.

yup, mentioned and linked in this very topic also, look at the last four posts on page 2, also fixed rather than being fixed apparently and just need the new patch to see the results

Thanks for update! Can't wait to see those Bren guns giving them bursts! Am hoping for the mortar acquire bug, icon updating bug, finding unseen units exploit. Though maybe some of those came too late to have been included? Am hoping that could mean airborne and infantry formations getting their vehicles in quick battles just like they do in scenarios.

I do not remember experiencing mortar crews hesitating to use nearby vehicle radios, might have though. However I know that I've seen other units hesitating to use their own radios. So maybe that could be the same "radio malfunctioning or problems getting radio contact" that you see experience with them. It's mentioned in MOS:96B2P's thread.

awesome cant wait, most looking forward to news about patch than new content

As far as I know its just mortar teams that can use the vehicles radio while dismounted, other type units needing to be in the vehicle? E2A: Unfortunately. At work so unable to check manual for quotes that might support/disprove that.

I do not have FB, would say sure send away otherwise, I was testing mine in BN. Also the units experience or morale might be worth querying? I did not pay too much attention to those variables when I was testing to be honest.

Seemed alright in my quick test scenarios? Seem to indeed have an much better resistance to friendly than enemy fire. But not immune?

So no its not possible to cause friendly casualties with small arms bullets when unspotted. Though did not realise (or just plain forgot) that 50's were not classed as such and sat amongst the 2 pounders and etc. Just been sat watching three Churchill tanks using their Besa's at an unseen British section with no effect (but suppression) for the past half an hour to test this ha. Back to go try again with some Achilles White Scout Cars instead.

Wah? I've noticed what seemed to be my soldiers maybe becoming suppressed from an tanks coaxial. But is what you say true also? How have you figured that out? Should that be the case it's an good argument for using iron mode then.

See I cannot find that in the 4.0 manual, nearest I can discover is this segment below on page 57. And I do not believe that's quite saying the same thing.

Hmmm a quick search on the old drivers page on the nvidia website and 385.54 does not show up as having been an version for the GTX 1060 on Windows 10? And an quick search on google for that driver version comes up with http://www.nvidia.com/download/driverResults.aspx/124730/en-us!

I've an GeForce GTX 1060 6GB and the game runs on mine. I am on an different operating system, processor and motherboard to you however. They are old drivers. I am on 397.64 updated just last week. 385.54 was quite some time ago I think. Good shout to try update those first. http://www.nvidia.co.uk/Download/index.aspx?lang=en-uk

Was wondering that too, infantry do seem to be done for each soldier though as am sure I've seen soldiers take different routes to their section mates. I was wondering how the waypoint was put there. Was it created or moved into position and whether that terrains passable? Was wondering whether maybe the terrains impassable to guns and the waypoint was dragged onto there circumventing that limitation, and so the crew could walk through to the position but the guns trying to take some strange route to try get there.

I believe Erwin was asking Vanir. Though with reference to my bold I am sure I see mine go prone at least when ordered to hide in open terrain.

take that as an nope no better solution has been found than getting another editor

Is downloading and using another graphical editor to do the converting remain the only way to get gimp images with transparency to work in combat mission? Interested to have some icons based on this in my CMBN and CMFI but as with here and other posts I just end up an black square.

Not sure whether that quote from the manual answers your questions. But when for example an section is not in contact with its platoon headquarters (for whatever reason) but can get in contact with the company headquarters (through close C2 only) then they bypass the platoon headquarters in the chain of command and come under the company headquarters. Therefore also gaining the same benefits to morale when under suppression one imagines, also passing details about contacts. So having the senior headquarters near should benefit the moral for the junior headquarters, but should not affect those subordinate to the junior headquarters unless they do not have contact with that junior headquarters. If that makes sense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_detail Files that have an .mdr extension are models. The ones that have lod written into the filename are versions of the same model but in decreasing detail. They are used instead when games do not need to show the object in maximum detail, such as when the viewpoint is far away from the object, and so they use these lower detail versions to save performance. For example when opening them up in Blender; smod_british_helmet-para.mdr, the helmet model using 199 vertices, 520 edges, 320 faces smod_british_helmet-para-lod-1.mdr, the helmet model using 156 vertices, 396 edges, 240 faces smod_british_helmet-para-lod-2.mdr, the helmet model using 73 vertices, 172 edges, 100 faces smod_british_helmet-para-lod-3.mdr, the helmet model using 61 vertices, 140 edges, 80 faces smod_british_helmet-para-lod-4.mdr, the helmet model using 37 vertices, 76 edges, 40 faces smod_british_helmet-para-lod-5.mdr, the helmet model using 16 vertices, 30 edges, 16 faces You can see that with each model for this helmet the detail (number of vertices, edges, faces the models made up from) decreases. Having the most detail smod_british_helmet-para.mdr would be the one being used when your viewing the unit close up. And smod_british_helmet-para-lod-5.mdr having the least detail would be used when the viewpoints very far from the unit.

I just picked up CMFI and found it interesting that unlike CMBN the Stuart Recce's available in the various formations have their crews divided into two units, the driver and gunner as one unit, and an three man scout detachment as the other. Just like how the carrier platoons are setup. Do not leave the vehicle empty and unprotected then and the dismounted crew are given better than just five revolvers to defend themselves with should they bump into someone. And you then have the option of bringing the vehicle to the crew instead.

or had an stroke just as he was about to write something more coherent