How bout some 2.0 reviews???

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks guys.

The major graphical improvement (in the strictest sense) is the soldier models and textures. Lots and lots more varieties and even control over the appearance to some degree. This is a major stepping stone towards a broader set of controls for you uniform and vehicle modding freaks.

The rest of the graphics stuff we did is a "your milage will vary" sort of thing in some ways, "it's good for you even if you don't see it" in other ways. Critically important to Combat Mission as a whole, but not necessarily designed to make your game look better for everybody.

Those of you with higher end systems will not notice much of a difference except when playing huge scenarios or if you had shadow/lighting issues before. What you won't notice is a decrease in visual quality. Which is critically important because...

Those of you with low to mid range systems should have a much smoother, generally better looking experience. At the very least you should see less "popping" or smeared textures where, before, you would have problems.

For everybody there's an improvement in that we can now make models/textures faster than we could before, yet not reduce the visual quality of the end results. If we can do things faster that means we can give you more stuff for you to play with in a shorter span of time. It also increases the chances that we can give you things which would otherwise have been cost prohibitive.

This is why I agree with Mike... even if you don't notice a big visual improvement, you're still getting some big benefits.

Steve

[Darknight (DC)]

Thanks guys.

The major graphical improvement (in the strictest sense) is the soldier models and textures. Lots and lots more varieties and even control over the appearance to some degree. This is a major stepping stone towards a broader set of controls for you uniform and vehicle modding freaks.

Okay, I'm seeing lots of possibilities here that could keep me busy working on CMBN through the entire Eastern Front development cycle. The one thing I'm unsure of, after looking at the file naming conventions, is where do I edit/add data to increase the selection options on the purchase screen. I am seeing how the units seem to be tagged using square brackets (eg. 82nd and 101st Airborne), but say, for example, I was trying to add the 17th Abn Div to the selection list...is the number of selections hard-coded into the program, or can I edit/increase the options here to include additional divisions/units. Having too many in the list would get cumbersome unless it branched into sub-trees, but I could see this being useful to at least select by division for now.

[herr_oberst]

I intend to go pick up that "School of Hard Knocks" battle that was killing my Windows PC what seemed aeons ago. On a Mac now, and itching to see what it is like. Probably have to replay "Over Hill and Dale", but hopefully, I'll remember what I did wrong and come out relatively unscathed.

[Battlefront.com]

Okay, I'm seeing lots of possibilities here that could keep me busy working on CMBN through the entire Eastern Front development cycle. The one thing I'm unsure of, after looking at the file naming conventions, is where do I edit/add data to increase the selection options on the purchase screen. I am seeing how the units seem to be tagged using square brackets (eg. 82nd and 101st Airborne), but say, for example, I was trying to add the 17th Abn Div to the selection list...is the number of selections hard-coded into the program, or can I edit/increase the options here to include additional divisions/units. Having too many in the list would get cumbersome unless it branched into sub-trees, but I could see this being useful to at least select by division for now.

You're asking about the functions that are now possible, but not coded. Right now you can only mod within the choices we've provided. You can't make a 17th ABN DIV mod because there's no way for the game to know it exists. No way to get it into the Appearance popup and have it associated with specific models within the game according to rules governing which uniforms can be used for which models. No way to influence which groups of uniforms appear for a given type of uniform, nor how frequently one appears vs. another. Etc.

These further steps might not seem like a big deal to code, and you're partially correct. The big deal was what we just delivered. It took an ENORMOUS amount of work to add an abstraction layer between the models, textures, and naming system. All the models had to be reworked, for example. I had to recode all the TO&E and setup some rather complex relationships between textures, models, and ingame chance of being used within in a subset of uniforms. We were working the kinks out of this system until just a few days ago. Still missed a few things which we're going to have to patch sooner rather than later.

Long story short... we couldn't do it all in one go. What we could do is get in some great improvements now and pretty much ensure we'll be able to really open the system up to you guys for the next time.

Steve

[Capt. Ayers]

So I'm noticing that airborne uniform mods are not working and scenarios and campaigns with airborne troops are not showing up with airborne uniforms. Am I the only one seeing this?

I love Vein's Airborne mods and playing Campaigns like Devil's Descent and the Outlaws, but is sucks when the right uniforms aren't appearing.

[Macisle]

So I'm noticing that airborne uniform mods are not working and scenarios and campaigns with airborne troops are not showing up with airborne uniforms. Am I the only one seeing this?

I love Vein's Airborne mods and playing Campaigns like Devil's Descent and the Outlaws, but is sucks when the right uniforms aren't appearing.

I've noticed that, too. When I manually choose 101/82 uniforms in the QB dialog, they show up fine. When left to auto-select though, the game seems to choose non-airborne, even when "Airborne Infantry" is selected in the battle parameters screen.

I loaded up my ongoing campaign of The Outlaws and don't see airborne uniforms on the troops.

Uh-oh.

[LukeFF]

Having some uniform options built-in now is really nice.

[YankeeDog]

My review:

Worth the $10 for Cover Armor Arc and moveable waypoints. Everything else is icing on the cake.

But for those hoping for visual improvements, Graphics are definitely better in 2.0 on my 2011 iMac. Shadows and lighting in particular are much better. Other improvements are more subtle, but definitely there.

Cheers,

YD

[Agua]

It's been awhile since I've played CMBN, but weren't airborne infantry a force selection option in QBs? Don't see 'em available on v2.0.

[Fernando]

It's been awhile since I've played CMBN, but weren't airborne infantry a force selection option in QBs? Don't see 'em available on v2.0.

I have checked it and it is available.

You should check the month because Airborne infantry is not available in August (both airborne divisions returned to England in mid July)

You must chose "airborne infantry" or "Mix" in the "Combat Force" selection as well. It is not included in a "Infantry only" selection.

[Agua]

I have checked it and it is available.

You should check the month because Airborne infantry is not available in August (both airborne divisions returned to England in mid July)

You must chose "airborne infantry" or "Mix" in the "Combat Force" selection as well. It is not included in a "Infantry only" selection.

That was it: had "Infantry only" selected. Oldtimer's disease.

[Darknight (DC)]

Long story short... we couldn't do it all in one go. What we could do is get in some great improvements now and pretty much ensure we'll be able to really open the system up to you guys for the next time.

Steve

Thanks Steve. I had a feeling this might be the case.

On the plus side, that means that I can defer the point where I completely lose my sanity to some time in the nebulous future.

And I can spend my time now learning how to manipulate normal maps to improve my mod offerings...though this in itself might be enough to do in my psyche.

[A Canadian Cat]

Long story short... we couldn't do it all in one go. What we could do is get in some great improvements now and pretty much ensure we'll be able to really open the system up to you guys for the next time.

So close we can taste it. I for one am really looking forward to what @Darknight Canuck will be able to do with what you give him.

[womble]

Blimey Womble..that Mortar issue really gets to you..every thread I read you mention it

That's because I think it's probably the most significant "Not working as intended" bug that remains to get fixed. Mortars are plenty powerful enough without being able to FFE in direct lay within 15-20s of arriving at their setup point. They obsolete pretty much all other infantry weapon systems except maybe infantry AT. They're particularly obnoxious in Bocage country where they can fire 'past' obstacles that will give good cover against flat-trajectory HE throwers. The bug magnifies any overmodelling there may (or may not) be of mortar HE lethality and accuracy.

And they fixed it for FI, but no one's saying whether it's fixed in BNv2.0 so I keep bringing it up.

[Battlefront.com]

Mortar thing should be fixed for Normandy v1.11 and v2.0 since both were made after the fix in Italy.

As for the uniform options showing up. Unfortunately there's no automated way for the game to know "oh, this is 101st Airborne so I should use the 101st Airborne uniform" because it has no concept of 101st Airborne at all. Just Airborne Infantry as a general category. Which means it has to be manually selected in the Editor and saved into the file for it to work. Scenario/Campaign authors can easily update their files as can any of you for any Scenarios already on your drive. Campaigns are trickier because you need all the source Scenarios.

Having said that, some of the uniform changes are set to work with the "default" settings. Which means they will show up in existing scenarios without any changes because the system is explicitly instructed as to what the defaults are.

Steve

[womble]

Mortar thing should be fixed for Normandy v1.11 and v2.0 since both were made after the fix in Italy.

I tried it, and it doesn't seem to be. Want me to send someone the "firing range" scenario I used to test it and an explanation of what I did?

Edit: tried in v1.11. I really hope it is fixed there. That'd be neat.

[Battlefront.com]

We've got folks "on it", but seems that it's been fixed in Normandy v1.11 and v2.0. Maybe I misspoke about it being fixed in Italy v1.01.

Steve

[womble]

Okay, perhaps you can tell me what I'm doing wrong when I test it.

It's a PzGr Halftrack-based mortar team on a flat field. I set them up and have them fire at a target til they go FFE. They're regulars, so they fire (usually) two shots, correct and then go to fast rate firing. That's how it's supposed to be. Then I mount them up in their track, drive them to where they were shooting at, debus them and have them fire at where they were. 180 bearing change, no extant reference points. They don't have GPS to know where they're shooting. They immediately fire at full rate. No spotting rounds necessary. Every time.

It can't be that it's a flat field so they just dial in a range, as they have to spot those first two rounds in the initial firing position. I'll go back and have them fire at a different target from the second position, just to check I'm not borking something by having them fire where they've been.

Edit: test redone, with the team moving to somewhere they weren't firing at, and shooting at an oblique angle at ground they couldn't see from the initial position: 5 rounds FFE is the first thing they do. Want save games? I can't FRAPS anything that long cos I haven't decided I want to buy yet.

Edit: rather than continue to hijack this thread, I'll start another to document the interesting behaviour I've seen this evening... But not tonight. Mortars are certainly different in 1.11.