Big RANT (long)..but serious

[AH64D]

Yip, Bill and i went to school together, nice chap . Bit possesive maybe...but that'sit

[AH64D]

Well, 25 posts, seems my little conference has created some waves

Well i would like this opportunity the say the last thing about this case. Ofcourse i am in NO position to alter the code when CM is finished. I do however have the possibility to alter the graphics (great mods CoolJ ).

Therefore i shall no longer rant on and on about what CM could be. I will just wait and see what happens. If i still don't like what i see i will create my own textures.

Everybody happy this way? Hope so.

Yours Truly,

General Cartman Lee

[Xavier]

AH64D,

"Beware of CM watchdogs..."

I don't agree with you on all the points you mentioned. But I think (but I don't want to be a troublemaker) that some things could be better. I still think the Church is not lookink european at all...

I was also very disappointed when I saw the towns design on screenshots. I always asked me why scenarii designers made such american looking towns with 90°turn streets... I even made a post on this subject on this board and some answered me that I was a very bad guy and that my post was an insult for this community, etc, etc...

But I just realize, after seeing a screenshot

of the map maker of CM that it seems streets in towns can only exist with 90°angle...

I think I'll personally modelize my future towns with a mix of concrete and dirty roads.

So it'll look very european

Dschugaschwili,

About "grognard"...

It was the name of the elite soldiers of Napoléon. Grogner in french means to grumble.

I don't know if grognards are members of a special club. I personnally play wargames for more than 15 yeears without having the necessity of calling myself grognard or Great-sturmpanzer-of-the-black-death or anything else But may be someone can give us some explanation about grognard in wargaming...

[Guest Madmatt]

I don't know what editor you were looking at but you are certainly NOT I repeat NOT limited to 90 degree angles and I have some very European city screenshots that will be going up on CMHQ soon to prove this point...AH64D (cool nick, should I call you Apache Boy?!? ) almost EVERYTHING in the beta has changed since the demo was released. I know its hard to undertsnad that since you are still playing the demo but BTS DOES listen very closely to comments and many (if not all) of your issues have been addressed. Will it be perfect? Of course not, but it is much better than what any of you have seen and screenshots do not do it justice. I am trying to see if I can make some actaul AVI movies of gameplay but have not had much success with the programs at my disposal. Even if I do get this to work I would have to clear it with BTS first so I am not guaranting anything but if you guys could see and hear how much different this game is now, I think you will be very satisfied with the results.

Madmatt

------------------

If it's in Combat Mission, it's on Combat Mission HQ!

combathq.thegamers.net

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>By the way, what's the definition of "grognard"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

An affectionate term used by Napoléon for his Greandiers of the old guard. It means old grumblers. In the context of the board, it refers to long time wargamers... the "old guard" of wargaming

[iggi]

From my 'learn to program' book...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Prototyping is the stage of the developement phase that produces a pseudo-complete application, which for all intents and purposes appears to be fully functional.

Developers use this stage to demo the application to the customer as another check that the final software solution answers the problem posed. When they are given the ok from the customer at that point, the final version code is written into this shell to complete the phase.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We will just have to wait for an avi or the gold demo to see polished aspects.

[Ron]

This post isn't serious, it is juvenile. AH64D and the others whose mania for 'more realistic' visuals to make the game more immersive is puzzling. They seem to be missing the point of the whole project.

BTS has stated clearly several times their intention in making this game - to create a realistic WWII combat simulation. They have gone to great lengths explaining how the mechanics of such a system taxes the hardware, leaving less for the visuals. They have stated the underlying mechanics are much more important than the 'eyecandy'. If you have followed this board for any length of time, you would have had some understanding of this.

BTS is creating this game not simply to make a profit or appeal to the mass of gamers, but because they have a passion to do so. They have a vision, it is their work. They have shown to be open to suggestions from rational people on this board, they are under no obligation to do so. Again it is THEIR work. The bottom line is 99% of us don't have the guts, the ability or desire to do what they're doing. We are the users not the creators, it is an insult to think otherwise.

Saying things like 'MUST change' or 'try to think before you create' is contemptuous of BTS. What about 'thinking before you post'?

Ron

[iggi]

Ron, I wasn't commenting on the work. I was explaining that the demo is only supposed to be functional.

I'm only repeating what others already said, that it's only a beta demo.

My previous idea on showing dead tank commanders was for gameplay reasons not for appealing graphical images.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Ron's post is pretty much on the money. I feel like a broken record everytime someone comes out and STRONGLY criticizes the visual aspects of CM. Here is my RANT:

1. You are paying a Beta, so keep in that in mind before all else.

2. "Hardware heads" are nearly always wrong about what their systems can do and what everybody else has to play on. Everytime I hear someone tell us what is what in this regard they become imediately discredited in our eyes. We know what CM can and can not do. Nobody, not even other programers, can effectively challenge us and therefore should keep in mind that their opinions (and they are only that) are less important than ours. One program is not the same as another, so a programmer is only marginally more aware of what we can and can not do than someone who just plays games.

3. Voodoo 1 sucks ass, Voodoo 2 sucks ass less, Voodoo 3 is almost OK. What some are asking for isn't possible on anything but a Voodoo 3, and only barely so. And on top of that Windows drivers are so friggin buggy that our transparancy features we have added since the demo will not work on some cards. Doesn't matter that we are making standard DX calls, because Wintel is the most unfreindly environment to work in. Hardly anything cutting edge works right across the board.

4. We only have limited time. We could improve lots of things, and are, but that further delays the game's release. At some point we have to say "good enough" and ship. And no matter HOW much time we delay that date, it STILL won't be perfect. So people that don't give us credit for the 99% that is in there can kiss our asses. We don't need the grief and aggrivation from ill manered, spoiled brat like gamers. In fact, if we could prevent such people from buying CM we would. I'm serious, we really loath such people that much we don't even want to take their money.

5. CM is about the game, not about the look. Even the CM Beta looks better than any wargame ever made in our opinion, but it is the most realistic in fact. Since the latter was our goal, we can sleep at night knowing we did what we set out to do. Still, we toil to make CM better and better looking each and every day. Perfect? Never, but better none the less.

6. We will improve CM over time. We love to get critical feedback. We have made HUNDREDS of changes based on rational, well reasoned, humble, and reasonable suggestions. We can't put in all of them, and in fact some are harmful, but we certainly have been more receptive to critical dialog than any wargame developer I have ever seen. So again, if someone doesn't feel that we are they can kiss our ass and do us a favor and not buy CM.

7. In the end the critics have to take a chill pill and think about CM in the context of wargames and games in general. We have pushed the envelope so far already, why is it that some people think that they can DEMAND that we push it further? I say be thankful that we didn't just take the easy way out and make yet another lameo isometric, hardly realistic, buggy game. So everything beyond that should be seen as gravy and therefore requests for a 6th helping of desert is perhaps a bit unreasonable and unfair to the hosts. Still, we always try to accomodate, but when people demand that we do more we feel like telling them to, what is the phrase I am looking for?... oh yes... kiss our asses

OK, my rant is done and now Rant Mode is off.

Steve

[Guest Ol' Blood & Guts]

WAY TO GO STEVE!!!!

KICK SOME ASS AND TAKE NAMES!!!

[dalem]

Steve, BTS-

Like, wow. That was a thing of beauty.

thanks!

-dale

[Lee]

I see Steve got the chance to vent some of his angst.

I don't blame you for being ticked off, Steve. The tone of

AH64D's post would have gotten me mad too if I were you.

I think one of the most common mistakes that people make

when trying to guess how much further you can push the

graphics limits on a PC is that they base their assumptions

on a typical scenario in that game. Instead of taking into

account the more extreme loads that can be placed on a

system when a scene is being rendered that has is far more

complex than your typical scenario. So far all we have seen

is the beta demo featuring small battles. But what happens

when there are two reinforced battalions facing each other

on a *huge* map? Now the demands on your system go through

the roof. One has to remember that Charles and Steve have to

design CM's graphics loads with the *worst* case scenarios in

mind. The biggest battles fought on the largest maps with

the most explosions and tracers imaginable. It is these

types of battles that they are trying to make sure run on the

minimum system requirements. I bet there are a lot of sytems out

there that will run LD fine but will slow down massively when

a really big battle comes along. So before you become too

confident in what kind of graphics today's average system

can handle, think about these worst case scenario

3D graphic loads situations first.

[iggi]

The tone of AH64's demands were way too strong and they deserved the strong reply.

[Fionn]

Well, this is going to be a LONG reply since you made a lot of points and some interesting things came up when people replied to you. It’s nice to see a very provocative post on the forum since it gives something to spark a good discussion.

Before you read on I’d just like to say that if I disagree then I’m only disagreeing with points and this isn’t anything personal.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Things that MUST be changed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, this is the wrong way to begin since what you REALLY mean to say is “Things that MIGHT be changed if it is technically feasible to change them”. And you can forget about most of what you’ve heard from others about technical feasibility. If these people who have talked with you aren’t intimately au fait with the source code then their opinions aren’t worth hearing to be honest. That’s not a slam-down of anyone at Atomic or SSI it’s just the truth.

So, as someone who has 6 to 7 months experience with CM and has seen it when it was in its alpha stage ( which I think less than a half-dozen people ever saw ) , when it progressed to beta and now as it nears gold I’m going to address your points.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 1. Animations… I'm talking about the speed of the animations… when i tell them to, they get up real slow (all men look like they are moving under water) giving the advancing enemy more time to gain ground… Not only this animation is dumb. What about the "drop to the ground"-animation. Christ, my men seem to fall down slower then a leave from a tree. Down is down. If i was shot at i would be down in less then .5 secs. Not 3 or 4 secs. STUPID i tell ya. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I actually had to laugh reading this because what you are saying is totally logical and yet your conclusions are flawed. I’ll guarantee you that if these animations had any skewing effect on the gameplay they would have been caught long before.

Let’s begin from the beginning since I think a lot of people aren’t seeing the wood for the trees here.

1. What purpose do animations serve in Combat Mission?

Answer: They serve primarily to convey information. Secondarily they look nice and help increase immersion. Lastly it’d be stupid to have 3D tanks and terrain but static “toy soldiers”.

2. Do the animations convey information?

Answer: Yes they do. It SHOULD however be noted that to convey subtle information which could be missed at certain combinations of scaling/distance it is often necessary to EXAGGERATE or SLOW the animated speed of certain actions.

This isn’t anything at all unique to CM but is something I see in most games. Explosions are brighter and larger than is realistic in most games simply because they must be to have their power conveyed through our screen.

3. In CM is it realistic for soldiers to be “knocked back” when one of their squad gets hit?

Answer: No. Sinking to the ground, the detachment of limbs etc etc should all be modelled too if we’re being realistic.

4. So, does CM claim its graphics are a realistic representation of a combat environment?

Answer: No. CM includes its graphics ONLY because they serve to quickly and visually convey information AND they also function to increase immersion.

That CM goes into detail to try to get the shades of uniforms and shapes of tanks right is laudable but is SECONDARY to the role of these graphics as information conveyers.

5. Ok, so not all graphics are intended to be 100% realistic. Why not?

Answer: Simple. If graphics WERE to be 100% realistic this would, in certain circumstances actually DECREASE the amount of information which could be gleaned from them BELOW that level which BTS’ design document deemed appropriate.

6. But what about the dumb schmucks who take 5 seconds to drop to the ground?

Answer: Well, if you are watching from 20 metres away it sure does look slow I agree BUT if you are looking from 200 metres away the very slowness of the drop is what guarantees that you’ll see it. IF you speeded up that drop so as to ensure it occurred in 1 second instead of 3 or 4 you would end up not noticing it often.

This is an occasion where I can clearly see the requirement for information conveyance over-riding the reality that it takes only 1 second to drop prone. Furthermore it MUST be stated that while the graphical representation is slowed the soldiers in-game DO drop prone in a second.. It is only the graphical representation which takes longer.

7. Isn’t that unrealistic?

Answer: Only insofar as the graphical representation of “dropping prone” takes an unrealistically long time. In game terms the action IS completed in the right timeframe though. One MUST remember that there is a separation between graphics and the underlying combat model and that sometimes for information conveyance or CPU reasons it is NOT possible to graphically represent EXACTLY what the underlying model is determining is happening.

Fionn’s Stance: Well, before you mentioned it I really had never thought about the animations since I always felt that the time taken to drop prone etc ensured that I didn’t miss one of my squads falling prone because I blinked or looked elsewhere for a second. I STILL think that many of your points are accounted for by the fact that we’re not talking about one man but several and since the animations don’t show individual men the “group animation” is slowed in certain circumstances to represent the fact that it takes a group of 12 men significantly longer to perform an action than it takes a single man to perform it..

The old example of refusing a flank is good to use here.

For a single soldier to refuse his left flank he simply turns 90 degrees left. Time taken, 1 to 2 seconds. For a CORPS to refuse its left flank can take 1 to 2 days.

Your other examples are, I feel more than explained by the primacy of the need to convey information above the need to create 100% accurate graphical representations.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Fire. BTS says creating good looking fire/smoke is too heavy for cpu's nowadays. Not true. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That’s not actually quite what they said and if you are going to be putting words in people’s mouths you should make sure you are putting something close to what they said in their mouths

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Ever heard of d3d? You should...since CM runs with it. Anyway, d3d can produce "transparent smoke/fire" which require LESS horsepower then 4 ugly gifs. Just look at a game like Asherons Call or Quake 3. They have beautiful fire (sometimes over 40 on screen once). And does anyone experience slowdown? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, Quake 3. Please tell me the MAXIMUM viewable range in an outdoor environment? Tell me how many metres I can see from any one point in the game. Then, come back to CM and pick a map and look for 2 to 3 km. In MOST 3D shooters the MAXIMUM one could possibly see is 100 metres. Often it is 20 to 30 metres. They employ lots of tricks to make you feel you can see farther but this is simply not so. Before you come casting stones you should read up a LOT about how viewable distance relates to polygon usage. Before posting inane comparisons you should ensure you more fully understand what you are comparing AND you should ensure your examples really are comparable. In this case they are not.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> When is showed it to a friend he told me it looked real good, but when he saw the fire he started laughing, saying Duke Nukem 3d has better fire. Of course i checked, and my god, he was right too. Although Duke uses gifs too, they look MUCH better. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I’m quite sure that BTS would love to create Nukem equivalent graphics for smoke if they had the spare horsepower. Welcome to the real world.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I understand it's easy for BTS to just ignore posts about ugly graphics. Using their "3d-world" as an excuse, saying it requires to much power. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I’d love to tell you how far you have your head up your 1st point of contact but that’d be rude. Suffice it to say you are:

a) being unwarrantedly denigrous.

Quite incorrect.

When BTS points out a real issue it isn’t an excuse. It is simply being level and honest with you. If you can’t handle a company honestly telling you there’s a bottleneck then perhaps you’d prefer it if they lied to you? I can point you to a number of companies which will tell you lovely stories about why they didn’t do certain things which will leave you happy. The stories will be tissues of lies but you’ll love hearing them. That’d be better wouldn’t it?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I checked with many 3d-artists (not small ones either...but from really big companies) and they all told me that the d3d-smoke/fire is less burden to carry for cpu's if they are running it on a normal pc with a voodoo2 or better.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, so so long as no-one with a Mac or a low-level computer can play the game everything’ll be alright eh? Listen, a LOT of wargamers don’t have ANY 3D cards whatsoever. I know of a lot of people who have gotten their FIRST EVER 3D card just to play CM. I know of many more who are upgrading so they can get better performance. What you are talking about here is EXACTLY the kind of choice BTS were faced with.

They COULD go with beautiful smoke if they cut off 50 to 66% of their possible market maybe. They decided, instead, to make smoke graphics which would not isolate largge portions of their market. You might disagree with that decision but it’s not a though BTS is lying to you about it. They have ALWAYS openly said that they could make better smoke if they were willing to abandon large portions of their market.

They decided NOT to abandon wargamers who don’t have supercomputers etc and I applaud them for that. I don’t have a “Voodoo2 or better” and I can play CM.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> keep in account that 99% nowadays have voodoo2/3/4 tnt/tnt2 and so on. In other words people owning a voodoo1 are people not willing to spent cash on a thing enhacing their gaming-experieece or simply not having the money. Probably meaning they don't buy this game either. Should the rest get screwed because of this? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I will just have to tell you straight out that you are terribly wrong in what you are saying here. Apart from the Mac/PC issue which I believe has already been detailed I would point out that to say that 99% of the gaming public have cards of the quality of Voodoo2s and TNT 1s or better is quite wrong. Furthermore it is even more wrong when applied to wargamers. Wargamers traditionally have

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I hate the shooting/set up-part of the mg's. Sitting behind a mg42 ? I know BTS did this because a soldier laying down is supposed to be one surpressed or wounded, but COME ON, is this the only solution BTS can come up with? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, the solution BTS adopted gives the iformation necessary. It also ensures that one can differentiate between soldiers lying prone and those firing MGs. That it was necessary to place the MG42 gunner in an unrealistic position (although it should be noted I’ve seen a few Mgers sitting behind their MGs firing.. German WW1 and some pictures from the Russian front in WW2 IIRC) in order to convey information is regrettable BUT if BTS did it your way you or someone else would probably be on here complaining that you can’t tell if the gunners are firing or pinned.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 1 word: UGLY. I know one can not expect very detailed houses because, once again, the horesepower of todays pc's. Yet i think the textures could be much MUCH better. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And they ARE much better now. The demo is like 4 months old now… Furthermore, if you don’t like them you can always wait for mods or make your own.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The game looks like a wargame but DOES NOT sound like one, meaning t doesn't play like one, meaning.....why bother?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the sounds have ALSO undergone massive changes.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Yet i think it had to be said. Why? Because this COULD be the best playable AND looking game of all time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you’re quite wrong here. CM simply can’t possibly look as good as Quake 3 in the way that you want simply because what CM does is VERY different to Quake 3. If Quake 3 showed outdoor areas 5 km x 3km then IT would look like CM and if CM took place inside rooms 40 metres wide then IT could look like Quake3.

So long as CM is showing massive amounts of terrain and its target audience doesn’t have Voodoo 6s and Pentium 2500s then it can’t look like Quake 3.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> One of the reasons i posted is because MANY people asked about the graphics...not just me. BTS gave some replies...horspower...which appear not to make sense at all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, you not accepting BTS’ replies and/or not understanding them is NOT the same as BTS’ replies not making any sense at all. It’s ALL to do with polygons…

SIMPLE example here. If your computer can push 3000,000 polygons per second and you are showing a corridor 30 metres long then you have 100,000 polygons per metre of that corridor. That corridor would look MAGNIFICENT with every dent in the wall modelled.

If you have a corridor 3 kilometres long then you would only have 1000 polygons per metre of that corridor and the detail would be 100 times less.

Now, that simple example shows you how viewable area effects a game. Since CM’s viewable area is so large it has FAR fewer polygons to play with per unit area than Quake 3 and thus your comparisons are quite inane and show little understanding of the real issues here.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Also graphics ARE important. Why do you think many sites have POTD? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Simple answer. ONE site has POTDs simply because it’s a VERY quick way for Matt to give you content. Articles take a LONG time to write and proofread and edit. Taking and posting 1 picture per day is a 5 minute job. THAT is why .

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Sure BTS knows how to program, they have done a great job so far. BUT i just noticed their answers about the fire/smoke and how much cpu-power this would take. Since i have some experience with programming using d3d, i called some friends and other programmers (of very respectable videogame-companies) and asked if was thinking the right thing. They all said i was. So it's not MY only opinion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed BUT you weren’t thinking like someone producing a game for the wargame market. Read my response above for various reasons why decisions were made as they were. For a 1st person shooter their decisions wouldn’t make sense but for a wargame they are EMINENTLY sensible. My suggestion is that you don’t fully understand the quirks of the wargame market. BTS does.

LOL. Be careful what you ask for. I might just be motivated enough to get my Maxim photos out and find the one with the Russians sitting behind the MG. It’s an outlier though .. I’d be intrigued to hear how BTS could EASILY have solved the problem without compromising the amount of information easily conveyed to the player.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> This doesn't mean CM is PERFECT or not without it's faults or downfalls. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course. As I think I’ve shown your points regardin graphics are possible but just not feasible given the market. Saying that CM doesn’t have the graphics of a Quake 3 but that it would be possible for it to have these graphics is just being realistic too. It’s not being blind. It is simply being realistic.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Try to be more open for suggestions. (perfect example would be CC-serie. Yes it might not be historically accurate, yes some weapons might not work in rl as they do in CC. But was it a great game? Yes sure is. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

CC might be a great RTS BUT in the opinions of many here it isn’t a great and realistic wargame. Since many people here want a great and realistic wargame they do NOT like CC. They’re not saying CC is crap but merely saying it isn’t what they want. I personally think of CC3 as being akin to Command and Conquer. It really is far too unrealistic to be taken seriously as an accurate wargame and since that’s what I want it is difficult for me to enjoy.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> FYI d3d is the most/best supported 3d-accelaration available if the Mac doesn't support this complain to the people creating those. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL… No, YOU should complain to those people AH64D because the fact that the Mac doesn’t support them is ensuring that CM doesn’t rely exclusively on d3d. Are you saying BTS is WRONG to cater to wargamers on the Mac?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Why should pc-owners get less beautiful games because some people might own a mac?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL. No comment.

[This message has been edited by Fionn (edited 02-08-2000).]

[Guest hunt52]

Well AH64D you have pushed one of my two rant buttons:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

FYI d3d is the most/best supported 3d-accelaration availible (crectdraw is no real accel.) if the Mac doesn't support this complain to the people creating those.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I searched the Microsoft website for Direct 3D. I got a bunch of pages explaining how to correct various games crashing/slowing in "d3d". In lieu of further evidence, I am assuming that d3d is an API set much like Open GL which programmers use to create apps using 3d objects and the like. Obviously Open Gl (supported by Apple, Silicon Graphics, HP, Intel, Compaq, and IBM) and Direct 3D (supported by Microsoft) are not the same API set, otherwise they would be one standard. THe APIs of Open GL are subject to a public review board whilst the APIs of Direct 3D are controlled (privately) by Microsoft. If Apple wanted to support Direct 3D they would have to preform many voodoo magic techniques by which they might make the mysteries of the Direct 3D source code clear. This is of course difficult: It is not because of Apple that they do not support d3d, it is because Microsoft has created *yet another* closed proprietary "standard" to negate a previous well established standard. *sigh*

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Why is it that mac-users always complain about their computer not playing certain games?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My guess would be that the shorsited companies who wrote them wrote the for Windows only. I don't complain about this, I just sign petitions for games to come to the mac, and when they do, I buy them. *shrug*

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Why should pc-owners get less beautiful games because some people might own a mac?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not some hypothetical situation like you make it out to be. There are many people who *do* own macs. I believe that includes Steve and Charles. IIRC, some third of the preorders are for the Macintosh version. Does anyone have an exact quote? Anyway - to cut out the mac would do great harm to BTS financially. On top of that, since the game is being developed on the Mac and ported simultaneously to the PC (again, IIRC) you would probably have no game at all without the mac.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Just sell the mac..buy a pc...enjoy 3d...make this world a better place

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I sincerely hope you are joking. Like Fionn, I should probably just let this pass as rank idiocy, but I'm not that strong yet:

1. To suggest that one third of the customers of BTS should sell their computers and buy different ones entailing at least a year of lost productivity and all the headaches a transition from the Mac OS to Window entails just because you would like to see a marginal improvement in a non-game-critical graphical element is arrogant in the extreme.

2. To suggest that one third of the BTS customers should change the computing platform they use because Microsoft is too incompetent/evil to use open established standards reflects a very dangerous and poor view of the computing and software industry. It seems that you accept and embrace the notion Microsoft has somehow dreamed up that it, rather than consumers, should be the arbiter of what is good for consumers in computers. *shudder* I should not be penalized for the wrongs of Microsoft. I applaud BTS and all the other companies who are doing simultaneous development for the Mac and PC and Linux et al. The sooner Microsoft can no longer dictate: All the world shall be D3D and everyone cheers the better.

Respect other's platforms and choices.

Sorry for the rant. No one bring up the Yankees.

- Bill

[TZEENCH]

OK......

What lame country are you from AH64d?

WTF you must be kidding me with this stuff you posted..

A) D3d you must be joking only cheap agp cards only support d3d only, from a sales and gaming view point voodoo/3dfx is 10 times better, smooth textures, easyer coding, indstury support, do you see people like "LUCASARTS"esc making d3d only games. and last but not least faster gameplay.Ive seen in one room 300+ computer systems in lan partys and D3d isnt the "cool thing"

Did you learn most of your history from, pokemon cards!

i hope before the next time you start to open your mouth make shure that foot is all the way out. its not all like the john wayne movies you see on tv.... Try moving a 50cal and trying to go prone with it, Let alone just seeing past it. You get the clue right.....

My $.02

[Colin]

I have a Mac. I play CM. I have a Voodoo 2. I play CM. If I want to play games I'm not going to buy a PC. I'm going to play CM! I too have been waiting 6 or 7 months. I'm 14. If they don't make CM for Macs that means less people buy CM. Which means CM won't get all those great graphics we all want . Why don't you think before you create! Maybe then everybody who comes to this board wouldn't have a bad opinion of you.

Thanks for your time. Madmatt I don't know if your using a Mac but theres a great utility called GlideHack that lets you make movies simply by hitting F11 to start and F12 to stop. Check out http://mac3dfx.com/ .

------------------

Visit my webpage!

http://cm4mac.tripod.com

[Lurker]

I happen to believe that BTS needs to improve the game. They shouldn't be satisfied until they ship out a product with real WWII era weapons, troops, smoke, fire and a large section of Europe in which to play.

Combat Mission: The ultimate World War 2 Simulation.

The only problem would be with the number of casualties among the gamers. There aren't that many of us out there...

And we want all this for the listed $45.

-Lurker

[Mark IV]

Platform war! Platform war!

(After this is done, how 'bout a "which is better, .45 or 9mm" thread?)

[Guest JonS]

+1 for you Lurker ...

[This message has been edited by JonS (edited 02-08-2000).]

[Colin]

Oh yes something else I forget to mention.

I fart in your general direction.

The last thing I want is a platform war.

------------------

Visit my webpage!

http://cm4mac.tripod.com

[JeffRaider]

Steve said:

"So people that don't give us credit for the 99% that is in there can kiss our asses."

LOL!!! WTG STEVE!!!!!

------------------

--

Jeff Fraser

VIVA LOS ZAPATISTAS

[Goanna]

I have nothing significant to add that hasn't been comprehensively covered by Steve/Matt/Fionn, so I will simply add my support to their posts.

All I can add is that the Mac currently has about 7% market share in the US. Therefore, if 33% of the preorders of CM, BTS would be making a huge mistake by following your advice AH64D. It also shows what a lot of folks in the computer industry know, Mac users piut their money where their mouth is. BTS feel free to pre-charge my credit card for CM2, 3 and 4 right now.

I knew this was going to be the best game I ever encountered when I first posted maybe 4 months ago about a problem I thought I had identified and provided my system specs. I got a message back from Steve personally saying that they had IDed the problem already and by the way he used to use the same old crappy Mac clone I do.

If anyone at BTS ever wants a place to stay in Oz, I have a spare room. I wouldn't piss on Bill Gates if he was on fire.

------------------

desert rat wannabe

[Fionn]

Lurker,

Good on you.

AH64D .

CM is MADE on Macs. Without Macs you wouldn't be playing anything. How's that for poetic justice .

Viva los ass.

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I wouldn't piss on Bill Gates if he was on fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would... but I'd make sure the fire didn't go out