M1 Carbine Model

[LukeFF]

On both models of the M1 Carbine, there is a bayonet lug modeled. This wasn't something that was done until sometime in 1945. CMBN also has this issue, BTW. If you look around, in fact, most wartime photos of the M1 Carbine show the model without the bayonet lug.

[Sergei]

That's not a bayonet lug, it's for fixing it to a tripod.

[LukeFF]

That's not a bayonet lug, it's for fixing it to a tripod.

Sure, sure.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

That's not a bayonet lug, it's for fixing it to a tripod.

Bren Gun anyone?

Regards

KR

[Michael Emrys]

Bren Gun anyone?

No, actually it's for the inbuilt camera. I bet you thought we didn't have those until cell phones came along.

Michael

[gunnergoz]

Shhhhh!!! Chill, dude! They might have to recall the game now!

[LukeFF]

Why do I even bother...

[Michael Emrys]

Why do I even bother...

You're obsessive/compulsive and can't resist.

Michael

[LukeFF]

You're obsessive/compulsive and can't resist.

Michael

No, I just like to have the weapon models look correct for the appropriate time period. That said, yes, I do collect WWII-era firearms, so details like this stick out to me.

Unfortunately, the M1 Carbine isn't the only model in CMFI & CMBN with modeling/texture issues. For instance, the Springfield 1903, M1 Garand, Lee-Enfield, and the K98 all have errors in their default textures and/or their 3D models. Some of this stuff can be "fixed" by mods, others can't.

[Amedeo]

Luke, your remarks are absolutely right. Don't listen to those who say that they are not relevant. You are asking for correctness at the level of detail that was chosen by the game designers so I presume they'll eventually amend these minor inaccuracies.

BTW, I'd also be glad if the Garands will start ejecting empty clips (and not fully loaded ones) but, maybe, this is why I always loose my firefights when playing as the US Army!

[gunnergoz]

I frankly find it amazing that the vehicle interiors are so well detailed. And on one level I can sympathize with the groggy comments about weapon details. On another level, I am amused that it would matter so much as to arouse the comments to begin with. No accounting for tastes - or priorities. I'm more upset about the Italian voices used in the module, which do not sound like native speakers of Italian at all to me...and I am one myself. But I can live with these minor "flaws" as long as the game plays well...which so far, it does.

[Rocky Balboa]

I'm more upset about the Italian voices used in the module, which do not sound like native speakers of Italian at all to me...and I am one myself.

Sounds like a great opportunity for a Mod

[Amedeo]

I frankly find it amazing that the vehicle interiors are so well detailed. And on one level I can sympathize with the groggy comments about weapon details. On another level, I am amused that it would matter so much as to arouse the comments to begin with.

If BFC decided to model uniforms and equipement to the extreme level of detail it did, that means that that level of detail is important to them.

For example, I paint napoleonic 25mm miniatures for wargaming. Now, if I decide to paint also buttons on the minis, I'd better use the correct colour for them. If I mistakenly paint a miniature with yellow buttons instead of white, I cannot answer to someone that is pointing to me the error, that buttons are not important. If I really consedered them unimportant I'd have dispensed with them althogether.

So, I think that if a user spots an inaccuracy, the best course of action is to point it to the developers because they are interested in that kind of minutiae. Of course, the priority

BFC will assign to the amending of these minor quirks won't be that high because there are more urgent things to do. But this doesn't imply that, in the long run, they will not, eventually, set them straight.

No accounting for tastes - or priorities. I'm more upset about the Italian voices used in the module, which do not sound like native speakers of Italian at all to me...and I am one myself. But I can live with these minor "flaws" as long as the game plays well...which so far, it does.

For what concernes Italian voices, well, my basic complaint is that they seems to have been recorded by someone closed into a cellar! To me, the speaker seems a native speaker.

BTW, I still did not get the occasion to hear the majority of the Italian audio files. I hope that this time the historical accuracy of what is said will be improved compared to what they did in CMBB and CMAK (I hope I won't hear again shouts like "Sì signore!" or "Granata!" that have nothing to do with the correct military jargon).

[ridethe415]

For what concernes Italian voices, well, my basic complaint is that they seems to have been recorded by someone closed into a cellar! To me, the speaker seems a native speaker.

And since there are no radios, you never get to hear the "Fire Mission Request" in Italian...took me a minute to realize why...

[LukeFF]

Luke, your remarks are absolutely right. Don't listen to those who say that they are not relevant. You are asking for correctness at the level of detail that was chosen by the game designers so I presume they'll eventually amend these minor inaccuracies.

Yeah, I just wonder if they ever will be corrected. Some of these issues I've pointed out more than once to more than one developer at BF, yet the problem remains. Still, I do have hope that they will receive an official fix.

[Battlefront.com]

We definitely appreciate the model problems being pointed out. Can't fix what we don't know it needs a fix! Although we definitely try very hard to get the details right, we can't lose sight of the fact that a bayonet lugnut being wrong has absolutely zero impact on the game. It doesn't have much impact on immersion either for 99.9% of our customers. Partly because most don't know the problem exists, second because they really don't care that it exists, and third because when they play they are preoccupied with playing the game instead of zooming in on any one minuscule detail.

I say this not because we don't care about the little details, but because we care about the big details more. These little goofs here and there add up to a significant development distraction from vastly more important things. If we never get to the little things ever, the game as a whole moves forward because we are taking care of the bigger details. That is the overriding priority for us and it should be for everybody else.

Still, hopefully we will get to them sooner rather than later. At least nobody is seeing the G43s and MP44s that slipped into early builds and were removed. Or that at one point 100% of US Team Leaders were sporting the M1A1 (Airborne) version. This is the stuff we spend more time fretting about. As well we should

Steve

[ChrisND]

Still, hopefully we will get to them sooner rather than later. At least nobody is seeing the G43s and MP44s that slipped into early builds and were removed. Or that at one point 100% of US Team Leaders were sporting the M1A1 (Airborne) version. This is the stuff we spend more time fretting about. As well we should

I wonder if anyone still has a screenshot from the CMBN Alpha days when Sherman turrets flipped on the wrong axis when they rotated?

[MikeyD]

On both models of the M1 Carbine, there is a bayonet lug modeled.

Tsk tsk. You call yourself a grog? Noticed that and didn't notice the late war adjustable rear iron sight?

You'd be suprised the details that get picked up on. But there's only so many hours in a day, or in the case of CMFI only so many hours before the August 1 release date arrives! The beauty of being a hobbyist is you can putter-putter-putter to your heart's content (God knows I'm familiar with that). Spend months on just one vehicle. That's a luxury BFC can ill afford if they want to... you know... make any money.

[Mord]

Well, the one good thing about a screw up/oversight on a bayonet lug is that the community can fix this easily. I have no problem with these kind of mistakes. Just a simple user mod and all better.

I am hoping we will get a fix for a bigger mistake, one that Modders can't rectify like the missing driver in the psw233...

Mord.

[Fernando]

My God! It is a late war M1 Carbine rather than a mid 43 one!!!! Game cannot be played!!! An urgent patch is needed

BTW it is not just the bayonet lug but there are also some small "wrong" details for a July 43 carbine:

1. Late war sight adopted late 43

2. Late war safety catch adopted early 45. Previously it was a button. It was replaced becaused it could be mistaken for the very near magazine catch so you might lost it at the most critical moment.

3. Upper hanguard with four rivets rather than a pair, adopted in Nov. 43 but produced from June 44 onwards by Winchester and Inland

Furthermore: I don't see the oiler, so how is the sling hold in the butt?

I know because I've got two carbines in my collection and I had to replace the sight and bayonet lug on one of them to make it look 100% wartime. However notice that a carbine with all the above "wrong" details, but the right number can still be a 100% wartime one. Late war (early 45 onwards), but wartime.

While working on uniforms I noticed myself the bayonet lug on the carbine was too late for Sicily (or even Normandy, it was adopted late 44). However model and texture had to be modified for a barely noticeable little detail and it was really late so I didn't reported it. Anyway I like the texture very much as it is ;-)

[LukeFF]

We definitely appreciate the model problems being pointed out. Can't fix what we don't know it needs a fix! Although we definitely try very hard to get the details right, we can't lose sight of the fact that a bayonet lugnut being wrong has absolutely zero impact on the game. It doesn't have much impact on immersion either for 99.9% of our customers. Partly because most don't know the problem exists, second because they really don't care that it exists, and third because when they play they are preoccupied with playing the game instead of zooming in on any one minuscule detail.

I say this not because we don't care about the little details, but because we care about the big details more. These little goofs here and there add up to a significant development distraction from vastly more important things. If we never get to the little things ever, the game as a whole moves forward because we are taking care of the bigger details. That is the overriding priority for us and it should be for everybody else.

Still, hopefully we will get to them sooner rather than later. At least nobody is seeing the G43s and MP44s that slipped into early builds and were removed. Or that at one point 100% of US Team Leaders were sporting the M1A1 (Airborne) version. This is the stuff we spend more time fretting about. As well we should

Cheers, Steve. Now, all I ask is that you don't go and put a post-war stock on the Mosin and a plum-colored bolt on the SVT-40 when you start modeling Eastern Front weapons.

Then there's the whole issue of whether the correct Soviet wartime stock finish was oil or shellac. I've probably read a thousand opinions on the matter, and I'm still not convinced either way.

[Battlefront.com]

Cheers, Steve. Now, all I ask is that you don't go and put a post-war stock on the Mosin and a plum-colored bolt on the SVT-40 when you start modeling Eastern Front weapons.

Noted

Then there's the whole issue of whether the correct Soviet wartime stock finish was oil or shellac. I've probably read a thousand opinions on the matter, and I'm still not convinced either way.

Here's a standard answer to any question about what any Soviet wartime production might have been. Doesn't matter how many options one is talking about, the answer is almost always "yes". For example:

Question = "OK, which is correct? DId they have an oil finish or a shellac finish?"

Answer = "Yes"

Steve

Steve

[akd]

Then there's the whole issue of whether the correct Soviet wartime stock finish was oil or shellac. I've probably read a thousand opinions on the matter, and I'm still not convinced either way.

Everyone knows there is only one correct finish for a Mosin-Nagant: PINE TAR!

[Michael Emrys]

Every knows there is only one correct finish for a Mosin-Nagant: PINE TAR!

What? You're gonna try to hit a baseball with it?

Michael

[LukeFF]

Here's a standard answer to any question about what any Soviet wartime production might have been. Doesn't matter how many options one is talking about, the answer is almost always "yes". For example:

Question = "OK, which is correct? DId they have an oil finish or a shellac finish?"

Answer = "Yes"

Interestingly, one guy on a rifle collecting forum has a copy of the order the Russians placed with New England Westinghouse and Remington for M91s during WWI. Part of the specifications included the stocks having an oil finish. Now, of course that was WWI, but that leads me to believe the later M91/30 and its carbine derivatives were also oil-finished.