Oliver_88
-
Posts
196 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Oliver_88
-
-
On 5/22/2018 at 7:23 PM, Bootie said:
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.
-
2 hours ago, DougPhresh said:
I agree that QB selection should mirror editor.
-
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?
Quotecover such things as a specific formation in a specific game not having something it should
Am hoping that could mean airborne and infantry formations getting their vehicles in quick battles just like they do in scenarios.
-
23 hours ago, MANoWAR.U51 said:
But did any of you experience mortar crews that hesitate to use the nearby radios?
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.
QuoteAt 03:52:20 Bravo Company makes radio contact with 1st Battalion. Prior to this Bravo Company was having problems reaching Bn. on the radio. If you look at Bravo Companies C2 links two & three screenshots above you will see Bravo Company had no C2 with Battalion for a short time. Both HQs were stationary so in theory should have been able to communicate. I’m not sure if this is intended behavior but it does happen occasionally. Intended or not I think it adds realism.
-
12 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
Yes and no. Yes I will have some news about the patch, but not this minute. I expect to make a definitive statement along with the other things I'm going to post over the next few days.
Steve
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.
-
2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:
I'm puzzled. In my test scenario, they get NO effect from friendly fire. Not even a tiny blip on the suppression meter. I'm not running any mods...
Trying to think about what it can be.
Maybe you would take a look at my test scenario, do a bit of friendly fire (target light with the tanks) and see if you get the same result?
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.
-
56 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:
Ok, tried some more testing.
Strangely, friendlies DO get suppressed when I load up a scenario such as "A muddy affair" and test there. But in my own scenarios made only for testing, units are completely immune to suppression from their own side. No matter if they are in fields or in buildings.
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
AchillesWhite Scout Cars instead. -
14 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:
It does actually. If your tank doesn't spot the friendly infantry.
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.
-
Quote
Infantry receive NO benefit from hiding in open terrain.
See I cannot find that in the 4.0 manual, nearest I can discover is this segment below on page 57.
QuoteRestrictions - hiding is no good if the enemy is already firing at you, or if you are trying to hide in open ground in full view of the enemy.
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
-
54 minutes ago, rocketman said:
I will take a look if I have all the saves from when the gun/gunner was with the rest of the crew and until seperating. One thought: infantry has a tendency to traverse terrain that offers the least effort if possible. Does the engine calculate this for each unit or for each soldier in the unit? Since the one with the gun has heavy equipment he might be more likely to use "easier" terrain and thereby start to deviate from the rest of the group until the cohesion of the unit breaks.
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.
-
2 hours ago, Bozilas said:
Not sure if you're asking me, I just quoted the manual... As far as I know, hiding in open terrain does not benefit infantry --- they don't even go prone. But tip... a very short slow move with a full pause at the waypoint will make them lie and remain prone, if you MUST stop in open terrain, it's better than nothing.
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
-
-
Quote
Higher HQs may fulfill this role only to a limited extent. If a squad or team is out of contact with its immediate superior (usually a platoon HQ) then its company or battalion HQ may provide voice and close visual contact, but not radio or dis- tant-visual contact. This simulates that a higher HQ can’t babysit a large number of units more than one level lower in the organization, and it means that higher HQs can’t be used in a gamey way to make platoon HQs unnecessary, but they can step in and provide command-and-control in a limited radius in emergency situations.
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.
QuoteC2 - Command & Control
C2, or Command and Control, reflects the effect of having a unit being able to receive orders from and deliver information to its HQ team.
Being within a C2 link does not provide resistance to the persistent impact on Morale caused by Combat Stress.
Being within a close C2 link (Close Visual/Voice) does provide resistance to the impact on Morale caused by Combat Shock - troops within C2 range of their HQ unit are less affected by the temporary impact of suppression upon Morale as they are less stressed by being shot at and the immediate impact of seeing team/squadmates killed & wounded is reduced.
More experienced units pass on information to their buddies and superiors quicker than less experienced units. This includes verbal, visual and radio communications.
The range of visual and audio C2 is fixed for all Soft Factors, Morale and Fatigue states but will vary by terrain. In open ground;: Voice range < 50m (unless the HQ is hiding in which case voice range drops to <25m)
: Close visual range <100mSo 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.
-
3 hours ago, 3j2m7 said:
2) What are the files (...lod.mdr) what are they doing exactly in the game... are they the key of this choice?
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.
-
On 26/04/2018 at 10:42 PM, Warts 'n' all said:
Two, garnering more info either by moving into a hull-down position, or having the crew dismount and find themselves a decent vantage point.
On 29/04/2018 at 12:45 PM, ASL Veteran said:A recon vehicle would more typically be positioned somewhere that a vehicle commander could use his binoculars to scan the terrain for information and in many cases that scanning would probably be done on foot with the vehicle in a concealed spot nearby.
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
Posting Mods
in CM2 Scenario and Mod Tips
Posted
Indeed my emails been responded too. But I am as yet to be added it seems. Though not going to badger anyone about though.