Jump to content

Drifter Man

Members
  • Content Count

    126
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Drifter Man last won the day on January 23

Drifter Man had the most liked content!

About Drifter Man

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Fantastic - yes. I have both CM games installed in Program Files. CMBN keeps these files right there in the game folder, while CMRT covertly created a folder for this stuff in Documents. Thanks everyone! Problem solved.
  2. Thanks - yep I tried that - with different resolutions and refresh rates and now with the ones you suggested - no change. I also tried moving the file to different folders, running the game as administrator, renaming the file ("displaysize.txt", "displaysize", "display size") - I'm out of ideas Note - the first thing was that I simply copied the file from CMBN, where it works just fine... not sure why just CMRT is acting up on me like this...
  3. Easy. If you mean screenshot of the NVidia settings, here it is. They are well tested in CMBN on the same computer and have nothing to do with resolution AFAIK. If you mean an in-game screenshot, well... it will just show the game running in the 3840x2160 resolution I don't want (poor performance) and that I am unable to change other than by changing my Windows desktop resolution:
  4. I have added CMRT in the NVidia control panel - no problems there. With my settings from CMBN, the game works fine once I trick it into launching in the correct resolution. It is just the "display size.txt" that is not working as expected.
  5. I installed Red Thunder - first time install on this computer - straight from the Fire & Rubble preorder link, v2.10, and activated all content (base game 3.0, upgrade to 4.0, and F&R). I carefully transferred my NVidia control panel settings from CMBN to CMRT and copied the "display size.txt" file from CMBN to CMRT: Battlefront/Combat Mission Red Thunder/display size.txt Inside, the file says: 2560 1440 60 which works well for me in CMBN. However, CMRT ignores this file. It defaults to desktop resolution, which is 3840x2160. Changing the resolution in the file
  6. Yes - that was the main point of the test. No, both vehicles were stationary, so this test does not have any implications related to what you guys discussed after this post. I agree with @Lethaface that TRP effect is retained even when the unit using it has moved - I made the same observations. And I agree with @Bulletpoint that it shouldn't be this way (you may be confusing this with CMx1 where it worked just the way you said).
  7. Valid questions, but rather difficult to test with my setup. This is my speculation of how things probably work: The unit's "capacity to remember" is infinite - what enemy icons you see when clicking on the unit is its picture of the battlefield What matters is that your unit is aware of the enemy unit's existence - either first hand or via C2. It does not matter if its location is not current The age/"transparency" of the contact may have an effect on how easily the enemy unit can be spotted. Again, this is my guess. Only the second point is backed up by the tests. 300 m
  8. Thanks @KGBoy, good idea. I intend to keep the download link alive for as long as it is relevant (Engine 5.0, hmm...?)
  9. It could be the case, so I repeated the test with the contact marker 300 m off instead of 60 m. The result was the same as with 60 m. If there is a bubble, it is big.
  10. Yes - they would be both partial hull down to each other. @chuckdyke Yes, both were unbuttoned (crew hatches open). However, in this case the contact was shared with the tank by a HQ unit via radio.
  11. It looks like the location of the marker is only for the player's (in)convenience - as long as your unit has a contact marker of the enemy unit somewhere, it has a spotting advantage. The Attacker had a Hunt command with the end waypoint in a partial hull down position 600 m from the Defender - a symmetrical position for the two tanks, in nearly full view of each other. If the Attacker spots the Defender on the way, he can stop earlier. The difference between a full hull down position with LOS to the Defender and the end waypoint is about 17 meters - two tiles.
  12. Finishing up with @KGBoy's suggestion about hiding. I wouldn't try to hide my tank - it does not seem to be helping at all when using a target arc - tested on Grass and Grass XT. Hiding without a target arc is a bad idea, the tank will hold fire until it gets shot at - which is usually too late. Table 9. Effect of Hiding. Both AFVs are stationary and the crew hatches are open. Attacker Defender Grass, not Hiding [R1] 48% 50% [R1] Grass, not Hiding
  13. I don't think that using Hide alone is a good method - Hide will probably just prevent the unit from firing unless fired upon. Hide + Target Arc might help - then the unit should then open fire at a target that enters the arc. I think I can run two more tests on that.
  14. Done. First, the reference case with no contact marker [R5] was the same as an old one [R2], but I did it again because the test now starts 5 minutes into the scenario. This time was needed to acquire the contact by the spotting unit and relay it to the tank (the Attacker) + to move the Defender tank by 60 meters in the last test with marker in an incorrect position. Since the game appears to have a ca 7-second spotting cycle, I wanted all test cases to be synchronized in time. The new reference case ended up being 38:61 for the Defender, compared to 41:57 in [R2]. I'd say that's within statis
×
×
  • Create New...