MajorProblem Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 Just noticed this bug with incorrect weapon and unit descriptions on many vehicles and units. Notice the At-28 for description of a bren. Have circled in yellow the in-corrections on one the squads. Anyone else having this problem? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MajorProblem Posted October 13, 2013 Author Share Posted October 13, 2013 Just noticed that thumbnail is not large enough to see trouble areas. Not sure how to make larger? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 Just noticed that thumbnail is not large enough to see trouble areas. Not sure how to make larger? The attachment function of this board is useless. If you can, post your screenshots in another hosting site and use the image link function here. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MajorProblem Posted October 13, 2013 Author Share Posted October 13, 2013 Found out its something to do with my mods added. I removed the Z file and all was ok. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Belenko Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 Found out its something to do with my mods added. I removed the Z file and all was ok. Yup, I had some CMSF Apache AH-64 named infantry squads in CMBN a while back. Its just a mod problem. Easy fix. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
verulam Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 just remove "Vins animated chat mod" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MajorProblem Posted October 14, 2013 Author Share Posted October 14, 2013 Yes the cause is "Vins animated chat mod". Just removed and all well. Many thanks 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexUK Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Just started playing 'Out on a Limb' MG battle. Couple of possible bugs: SPOILERS!!! There is an AA gun on the same side of the bridge as the platoon, with a bunker by its side - I positioned a team in line with the bunker so that the AA gun couldn't see them, but the AA gun could see and shoot straight through the bunker. Also, when viewing us troops from a medium distance, the models show without their helmets. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Just started playing 'Out on a Limb' MG battle. Couple of possible bugs: SPOILERS!!! There is an AA gun on the same side of the bridge as the platoon, with a bunker by its side - I positioned a team in line with the bunker so that the AA gun couldn't see them, but the AA gun could see and shoot straight through the bunker. Also, when viewing us troops from a medium distance, the models show without their helmets. The helmet issue is known, will check out the bunker, thx! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexUK Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 The helmet issue is known, will check out the bunker, thx! Great, thanks Also, not sure if a bug or not, but noticed in same battle that squads very close the platoon leader seem out of command (e.g. 25m away). They are in heavy woods but I would have thought voice command would be working. Might be due to the fact the Platoon leader is hiding? I really enjoyed your two AARs - particularly Hamel Vallee - any chance of another one in the future? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 There is an AA gun on the same side of the bridge as the platoon, with a bunker by its side - I positioned a team in line with the bunker so that the AA gun couldn't see them, but the AA gun could see and shoot straight through the bunker. Not only that, but I watched it shoot through two rows of what I took to be dense forest. Now I know that the issue of the golden LOS through trees has come up before, but this strikes me as downright miraculous. With trees full on, I can't see how an LOS would have a chance to penetrate the first row, let alone two. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 I suspect that bunkers are classified as vehicles by the game engine, which if correct would explain the non-blocking of LOS. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Great, thanks Also, not sure if a bug or not, but noticed in same battle that squads very close the platoon leader seem out of command (e.g. 25m away). They are in heavy woods but I would have thought voice command would be working. Might be due to the fact the Platoon leader is hiding? I really enjoyed your two AARs - particularly Hamel Vallee - any chance of another one in the future? hehe maybe, Broadsword and I are just starting on a MG Campaign using Where Eagles Dare for the OP layer. It will look nothing like the historical version- seems like we are headed for a great urban fight in Eindhoven pitting the 59th ID versus whatever the Allies can through against them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GJR144 Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 I suspect that bunkers are classified as vehicles by the game engine, which if correct would explain the non-blocking of LOS. Tanks as a child class of bunkers (or vice versa) seems very far fetched to me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Try plotting a point target indirect fire order onto a bunker. As for LOS, bunkers seem to function as vehicles. Bunkers were also treated as vehicles in the CMx1 games so this is not surprising to me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GJR144 Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 CMx1 probably was not strictly object oriented programmed and therefore things at the engine were so extremely complicated to change. CMx2 is much asier to improve, because it obviously is strictly OOP. How LOS or LOF are treated, must not necessarily mean that the bunker class is inherited from vehicles or that both have the same superclass. Maybe the LOS-method is treating these objects simply as spots to save CPU cycles? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 I suspect Vanir is closer to the truth and it is a simple answer that would explain the behavior. Possibly because they wanted to add mount and dismount capability? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Maybe the LOS-method is treating these objects simply as spots to save CPU cycles? But why only do that for bunkers? That is not how LOS through other buildings works. In terms of game functionality bunkers have more in common with vehicles than with other buildings in terms of having weapons mounted on them and being able to acquire ammo from them. Bunkers in the game are really more like immobile vehicles. I think it also may be the real reason AT rockets cannot be fired from bunkers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Apparently the MG Ammo bearer icon- a trooper next to bar- has been replaced by the regular MG icon: picture share The mortar bearer icon remains unchanged. WAD? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GJR144 Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 An explanation could be, that bunkers like vehicles or infantry can shoot projectiles, while buildings can not. To trace every projectile at every single moment, these objects maybe need to be called extremely often in comparison to buildings and maybe this forbids with a single threaded software, to make a full LOS calculation? Handling the whole 3D-model instead of handling a single spot: we could easily be talking about increasing computations 10fold or 100fold for each object that is able to shoot. Or to say it differently: maybe a single vehicle or a single bunker, in case of full 3D-calcs in stead of being treated as spot, could have a calculation demand equal to maybe 10 - 100 buildings. CPU demand is the only real reason I see, why this restriction is there. Given the quality of BFCs software, I don't think that this is simply an unintended consequence of inadequate classdesign. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 An explanation could be, that bunkers like vehicles or infantry can shoot projectiles, while buildings can not. To trace every projectile at every single moment, these objects maybe need to be called extremely often in comparison to buildings and maybe this forbids with a single threaded software, to make a full LOS calculation? Handling the whole 3D-model instead of handling a single spot: we could easily be talking about increasing computations 10fold or 100fold for each object that is able to shoot. Or to say it differently: maybe a single vehicle or a single bunker, in case of full 3D-calcs in stead of being treated as spot, could have a calculation demand equal to maybe 10 - 100 buildings. My understanding is that vehicles in CMx2 are fully 3D objects rather than the point spots they were in CMx1, so I don't see any reason why bunkers would need to be different. Infantry are 3D as well, and since bunkers can be entered by infantry it seems hard to believe that the bunkers could be anything other than 3D objects. As I showed in my first picture above, when you target a bunker with a point target indirect fire order the tooltip calls it a vehicle. I'm not saying anything is inadequate. I'm just pointing out that bunkers behave like immobile vehicles and that these behaviors are probably not bugs. I suppose as long as the player understands this it doesn't matter how they want to rationalize it to themselves. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GJR144 Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 My understanding is that vehicles in CMx2 are fully 3D objects rather than the point spots they were in CMx1, so I don't see any reason why bunkers would need to be different. Infantry are 3D as well, and since bunkers can be entered by infantry it seems hard to believe that the bunkers could be anything other than 3D objects. Your understanding is correct IMO. But being a 3D model, doesn't mean, that every answer this model gives must be a full representation of it's 3D model. For example if I ask you, where you are now, you could tell me the coordinates of the mass centre of your body, or you could give me a full 3D-CAD-model with all coordinates. You obviously would tell me only the coordinates of a point, although you are a 3D object. This means, that bunker objects or vehicles, although they are fully modelled in 3D, could have methods implemented, to allow an efficient calculation without the need to make demanding calculations with their 3D-model. Imagine the bunker-object as being fully defined with all coordinates and all kinds of variables and behaviour. But besides this detailed model, the model also can answer in any way, it is programmed to answer. For example two methods: TellMeYourPosition and TellMeYourPositionQuickly The first method could mean that a 3D-model is returned, with coordinates of all corners, while the second method could be defined as returning only the coordinates of the centre of the action spot, where it is located. We don't know, if the LOS procedure asks the model for a simple and fast answer, or if the model can't give a detailed answer because it is only a vector with an associated graphics model and therefore is returning only a simple answer. Steve has mentioned, that the models are indeed fully 3D. Therefore I'd say, that what we see with the LOS-tool is the result of a quick and simple answer. Not because it was not possible to give a precise answer, but because of technical restrictions which I think are CPU related. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kensal Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 I have been testing some of Marco's new silhouettes and I noticed while doing this that the 37mm and 50mm Paks are carrying 150mm heat ammunition. A couple of screenies (unmodded) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZPB II Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Atleast for the 37mm it is not a bug, it is a 150mm spigot HEAT round (the warhead is outside of the barrel) I have taken out a lot of tanks with those rounds. Not sure about the 50mm PAK having spigot rounds, that is news to me and I'm unsure if they existed. Need to do some googling. (apparently they've been in since vanilla CMBN since the manual picture shows 150mm HEAT rounds for it) EDIT: (Quick googling resulted in no hits about a stielgranate for the Pak38 and I don't see anything resembling it in ammo charts. Paging resident grognards) EDIT: Nevermind the 4am brain malfunction, I completely forgot about the Stielgranate 42 in addition to the 41. Working as intended. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kensal Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Atleast for the 37mm it is not a bug, it is a 150mm spigot HEAT round (the warhead is outside of the barrel) I have taken out a lot of tanks with those rounds. Not sure about the 50mm PAK having spigot rounds, that is news to me and I'm unsure if they existed. Need to do some googling. (apparently they've been in since vanilla CMBN since the manual picture shows 150mm HEAT rounds for it) EDIT: (Quick googling resulted in no hits about a stielgranate for the Pak38 and I don't see anything resembling it in ammo charts. Paging resident grognards) Oh good I do hope it's not a bug and we can fire these things!! I never they existed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.