No FG42?

[Oddball_E8]

No, because it isn't a single problem. It's the way sound files are loaded into memory and recalled. It's about the size of those sounds and the impact on RAM. It's about all the other demands CM is placing on the various components of the average computer. It's about modders paying little attention to these problems and creating mods that literally break the game, for which we get blamed first.

If this was a simple problem to address we'd already have unique sounds for every weapon. And would have from the start. Overall it is just "fluff" for the game and it's not worth bringing the whole thing crawling to a halt for something that very few people would even appreciate. Obviously, based on your posts, you're not one of those people Speaking as a fellow gun nut, who has been fortunate to use or witness firing just about every WW2 US, German, and Soviet gun I can sympathize. But my personal interests have to be kept in perspective.

Steve

Oh you know you love us pesky modders

On a serious note tho, could you check with whoever is in the know (if it isn't your department), what file size and length is kinda "optimal" for the game?

As far as the chance of a FG42 coming up, I just checked and it has a 10% chance of popping up in every single combat squad (Rifle, Pioneer, and Aufklärung). I'll bump it up a little bit, but not much because 10% is already significant given the supply side issues facing these particular FJ units.

Steve

Have you checked that it isn't a "under the hood" problem? 10% sounds like it should have showed up more than it did in peoples (and my later) tests...

[Ts4EVER]

10% sound like more than enough imo.

[Oddball_E8]

10% sound like more than enough imo.

I'm just saying that the number of times they show up in the game doesn't seem like 10%

[Michael Emrys]

I'm just saying that the number of times they show up in the game doesn't seem like 10%

Well maybe you've just had a streak of unlucky die rolls. Happens, you know.

Michael

[akd]

I'm just saying that the number of times they show up in the game doesn't seem like 10%

10% chance on 27 men per battalion.

[Oddball_E8]

Well maybe you've just had a streak of unlucky die rolls. Happens, you know.

Michael

I wasn't talking about just my experiences. Nor was I stating it as fact, just telling him that maby he should check to make sure it isnt an under the hood problem before hiking up the chance.

[ZPB II]

I dunno Steve, I wouldn't exactly call it fluff. To give an example: if I hear a rifle shot or SMG burst right now, I have to look all over the map or rewind the game to try to find out whether or not the sound was from friend or foe. I wouldn't exactly call that a great game feature. To me it's a bit disappointing, given the attention to detail in the rest of the game is and has been given.

But yeah, you're right: my opinion is colored by the fact that I either own or have fired almost every nation's WW2 service rifle and/or carbine.

Install a good sound mod and your problem goes away. Because the sounds use different files, it is possible to change them.

[Battlefront.com]

I dunno Steve, I wouldn't exactly call it fluff. To give an example: if I hear a rifle shot or SMG burst right now, I have to look all over the map or rewind the game to try to find out whether or not the sound was from friend or foe. I wouldn't exactly call that a great game feature. To me it's a bit disappointing, given the attention to detail in the rest of the game is and has been given.

There's always limitations with any product. Our problem is our limitations are dictated in large part to other people's products.

But yeah, you're right: my opinion is colored by the fact that I either own or have fired almost every nation's WW2 service rifle and/or carbine.

Although I don't doubt a few more unique sounds would be a good thing, I doubt more than a tiny percentage of our customers play with their ears to the extent you do. Which is a good thing for us because it means this isn't a critical component of the game itself. For you personally, perhaps, but that's not the same thing. Tanks driving on their tracks instead of their turrets is a critical feature, for example

Oh you know you love us pesky modders

I definitely do! The work they do is awesome. But it's like Capitalism... someone has to be there to set up at least some basic rules or all Hell breaks loose.

On a serious note tho, could you check with whoever is in the know (if it isn't your department), what file size and length is kinda "optimal" for the game?

There is no single answer to this question. Each sound is a different size depending on its length, and its length is determined by its ingame use.

10% chance on 27 men per battalion.

Yup. Which means there's a chance that about 2-3 guys in a whole Battalion will get either a FG42 or a MP44 (it also has a 10% chance). Otherwise it's an 80% chance of a MP40. However, I've bumped the FG42 up to 15% and decreased the MP40 to 75%.

Steve

[GhostRider3/3]

I tried september 44 france and september 44 holland and got nothing...

Still, one would think at least one in six batallions would have it?

I'll try august 30 france and see what I get.

What I normally do is just pick a date closer to 1945 and month. usually most things are available.. but since only around 2000 were made.. it was pretty rare.

Quote from JonS

"There is one other setting, an easy one to overlook, which alters the force at the time it is purchased. This is the Quality setting in the middle of the left hand panel, and which has a default of ‘Typical’. The system's vernacular has things rated ‘Excellent’ to ‘Poor’ in five steps. But in many cases the terms are better thought of as Typical through Rare, with perhaps the "best option being the one at the bottom of the picking order.

This setting alters the mix and quality of the weapons the battalion is equipped with. In the case of the SS grenadier battalion making up KG Harder, Excellent means:

* All rifle squads have a rifle grenadier

* Rifle squads have a higher proportion of G43 semi auto rifles and MP44 assault rifles.

* All MGs are MG42s

Poor means:

* None of the rifle squads have a rifle grenadier

* Rifle squads have a lower proportion of G43 semi auto rifles and MP44 assault rifles."

I think this would help mayb

[Oddball_E8]

What I normally do is just pick a date closer to 1945 and month. usually most things are available.. but since only around 2000 were made.. it was pretty rare.

Quote from JonS

"There is one other setting, an easy one to overlook, which alters the force at the time it is purchased. This is the Quality setting in the middle of the left hand panel, and which has a default of ‘Typical’. The system's vernacular has things rated ‘Excellent’ to ‘Poor’ in five steps. But in many cases the terms are better thought of as Typical through Rare, with perhaps the "best option being the one at the bottom of the picking order.

This setting alters the mix and quality of the weapons the battalion is equipped with. In the case of the SS grenadier battalion making up KG Harder, Excellent means:

* All rifle squads have a rifle grenadier

* Rifle squads have a higher proportion of G43 semi auto rifles and MP44 assault rifles.

* All MGs are MG42s

Poor means:

* None of the rifle squads have a rifle grenadier

* Rifle squads have a lower proportion of G43 semi auto rifles and MP44 assault rifles."

I think this would help mayb

I guess you missed the post where I explained that I picked kriegsmarine by mistake?

[Michael Emrys]

Quote from JonS

"There is one other setting, an easy one to overlook, which alters the force at the time it is purchased. This is the Quality setting in the middle of the left hand panel, and which has a default of ‘Typical’."

This is something I have yet to explore. I have nearly always gone with Typical. I think I will try playing around with this just to see what happens. I doubt that the TO&E of American units will change very much, but maybe I will pick up an extra BAR here or there.

Michael

[LukeFF]

There's always limitations with any product. Our problem is our limitations are dictated in large part to other people's products.

Should I interpret that as meaning people with outdated computer systems? Because if you say yes, then I see a disconnect there, as quite honestly the game (unmodded) doesn't run all that hot on top-line computer systems either (which I consider mine to be). I'm happy if I get 25 FPS on a moderately-sized map.

[AstroCat]

The game for sure does not run well on higher end systems, no matter what settings you use. I've documented this in depth in the tech forum. There is something definitely "wrong" with the engine, some kind of serious bottleneck that has nothing to do with how much CPU, mem or GPU you have, it doesn't make a difference. I get very low fps no matter what settings and my CPU, mem and GPU are barely even being used.

[MikeyD]

No, you should interpret that remark as meaning the game does EXPONENTIALLY more than other games even dream of attempting. Two companies of infantrywith accompanying armor facing-off and each individual bullet trajectory is being tracked in realtime and displayed in 3-D. That's on a moderately sized map, a bigger maps you might have two battalions facing-off.

[togi]

I have checked that game uses % 2 ram at start up, max %15 ram of system while loading up + watching movie a medium scenario that is peek value

And max %15 cpu while loading the big scenario after that cpu drops to 0

why cpu usage so low ? I have 8 core 4.2 ghz , it can be very fast while loading if it can use more ratio of cpu

second , I have 8 gigabyte ram , %15 of this ram is only 1.2 gb of these seems very low.

thirdly, I think these game not used GPU at limits, it can be neglected with regards to the cpu usage , so high end sytems can't be utilized very well

this is my points

any idea?

[ASL Veteran]

IIRC the game only uses one core, so if you have 8 cores then only one of your 8 cores is being used by the game.

[Battlefront.com]

Correct. CM is written for one core and will forever stay that way. The amount of work it takes to support multiple cores is far in excess of whatever benefit we'd get from it. Do not think 8 cores = 8 times faster. It simply doesn't work that way. The GPU is far more important than the CPU.

As for performances issues, we are aware of some changes made to drivers/hardware in newer cards which don't work the way same way as older cards (which CM was written for). More about that soon.

We are also in the unfortunate position of having limited programming resources. The cost of the programmers on a single AAA game probably exceeds everything we've spent on CM since 1997. There's just no way we can deliver that sort of experience within this niche.

Steve

[LukeFF]

As for performances issues, we are aware of some changes made to drivers/hardware in newer cards which don't work the way same way as older cards (which CM was written for). More about that soon.

I hope so, because a GTX680 (which I'm running) should be able to run the game far, far better than it is right now. Not everyone is running the game on 10-year old hardware, Steve. Ultimately, as time goes by, you're going to be drawing in (or rather, trying to draw in) more gamers with newer computer systems, and they're gonna be rightly miffed to find out that their computers cannot run the game all that great.

[AstroCat]

I agree, I don't need the multi-core support (would be nice but I get it) but what I really would like is to see CM using at least some of what I have available.

An i7-2600K @4.2GHz, 8GB and a Titan 6GB should just kill on performance for CM but when I monitor the usage nothing is barely even being used. I could probably run a ton of CM instances and have the same performance. This is also noticeable because my performance remains pretty constant no matter how "crazy" I turn up the driver settings.

I have faith you guys will work it out and one day I'll see a 60fps CM using my hardware.

[Saferight]

Not to compare this game to any other but.... I get pretty decent framerates in Arma 2 w/ ACE mod very high settings, which is a resource hog with all the things going on in large sized battle with tons of AI. Likewise in CMBN i stay clear of large battles cause the fps drop is too much to handle, but generally I'm content with where performance is now.

Having got CMBN an seeing the performance increases over time I now cant really stand to go back an play CMSF anymore. Its mostly graphical issues but I do notice its more sluggish an really spoils the experience. I guess that just goes to show BFC is going to continue perfect the engine overtime.

[Battlefront.com]

Good news is that eventually we will revive Shock Force to use whatever the latest engine is. It's a huge amount of work, but we think it will be worth it.

Steve

[togi]

Good news is that eventually we will revive Shock Force to use whatever the latest engine is. It's a huge amount of work, but we think it will be worth it.

Steve

Hello Steve

so if we have the game, will the game be free patched to the latest engine ?

Regards

[Oddball_E8]

Hello Steve

so if we have the game, will the game be free patched to the latest engine ?

Regards

Most likely it will be for a small fee like 2.0 was.

Not something I would mind since most companies out there just dump the games after a while.

Its not like you could get an updated version of Battlefield 1 from Dice for free (or at all for tha matter) now is it?

So a 10$ fee for upgrading sounds right to me.

[Erwin]

I am excited to read that CMSF may be upgraded. That would definitely be worth some bucks for many of us.

[Chops]

Good news is that eventually we will revive Shock Force to use whatever the latest engine is. It's a huge amount of work, but we think it will be worth it.

Steve

As stated above, I imagine it will be a full-price game due to the work involved. Seems only reasonable to me.