Guest Big Time Software Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 Vanir, I don't know how I did it, but somehow I managed to make the Jumbo modification to the data, test it, and then have it vanish. There are gremlins in my computer. Anyway, so the Jumbo isn't actually changed in v1.1. Perhaps we'll make a v1.11 in the future. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasoncawley@ameritech.net Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 "there is absolutely no difference between FFE anywhere on the map and FFE on a TRP" As a former artilleryman, I have to disagree somewhat. A pre-registered TRP, before an engagement, is often chalked on the gun. The battery and the FO both know exactly where it is, and not just as "the direction the battery is now firing". With other FFEs, the battery does not know that/whether the shooting is hitting the desired location. When the FO wants to hit a TRP, he just gives the registration point, and the battery puts the guns on the chalked directions and fires. When he instead calls to drop 150 and continuing firing for effect, the battery commander quickly figures what that is in mils based on where he is (or remembers what that is), calls a new deflection or quadrant, and the guns adjust to it, and then fire. The first process, in practice, goes smoothly "in parallel" for all guns of the battery at once. The second doesn't, always. Unless they play the back and forth game of battery head calling the new coordinates, each gun responding with ready when on it, one of the gunners or AGs will screw it up and adjust the wrong way. The reason for the misunderstanding may be which end of the guns you are thinking from. To the FO or front commander calling for fire, there is no difference in how much he knows about where the shells are landing. But he is not the person making the adjustment, he is only telling the battery what that adjustment is. It is not his knowledge of the situation that matters. Yes, the battery commander knows pretty much the same. But that does not mean every E-3 on a hydraulic handle or elevation wheel knows. But he can see a chalk line with a big "A" next to it as plain as his sergeant's nose... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 Just a little bump so my buddy can see this thread easier right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GriffinCheng+ Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 BTS, okay this is some real meat. Will the manual updated with 1.1 to reflect the update changes on online play? If so, I think I am going to your order page asap. As I forget to "shoeshine", thanks a billion BTS for brining this one! Again, is it the last patch for CMBO? BUMP!!! Griffin. ------------------ "When you find your PBEM opportents too hard to beat, there is always the AI." "Can't get enough Tank?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 jasoncawley said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As a former artilleryman, I have to disagree somewhat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I was in the arty, too <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A pre-registered TRP, before an engagement, is often chalked on the gun. The battery and the FO both know exactly where it is, and not just as "the direction the battery is now firing". With other FFEs, the battery does not know that/whether the shooting is hitting the desired location.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Gunners know they're hitting the DMPI, or are at least close enough, when they're told to start shooting FFE. Otherwise they'd still be doing spotting rounds. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>When the FO wants to hit a TRP, he just gives the registration point, and the battery puts the guns on the chalked directions and fires. When he instead calls to drop 150 and continuing firing for effect, the battery commander quickly figures what that is in mils based on where he is (or remembers what that is), calls a new deflection or quadrant, and the guns adjust to it, and then fire. The first process, in practice, goes smoothly "in parallel" for all guns of the battery at once. The second doesn't, always. Unless they play the back and forth game of battery head calling the new coordinates, each gun responding with ready when on it, one of the gunners or AGs will screw it up and adjust the wrong way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I disagree. When FFE starts on a non-TRP target, the battery honcho has just spent the previous few minutes doing all the dope change calculations for the spotting rounds. He knows where he's shooting, has all the data at his fingertips, and is all ready to provide quick shifts of that FFE if needed. If he can't do that, he's not doing his bloody job. Same goes for gunners who can't turn their wheels the right way. OTOH, with a TRP he set up hours before (and Lord knows what combat emergencies have driven it out of his mind since then), or maybe didn't even create himself, he has to look the data up. The gunners buy him some time by laying on their chalk marks, but the honcho isn't as well placed at first to do quick calculations if the TRP FFE needs moving. So to me, there seems no justification for having any time difference for adjusting FFE from a TRP or from a non-TRP. The benefit of the TRP is that the gunners can start shooting it as soon as they turn their wheels. That doesn't affect the time the honcho needs to figure a shift from that point, though, unless beforehand he sat down and pre-figured all the likely shifts from that TRP and had them all ready to go on a cheat sheet. This can happen in peacetime, where there is almost always a bunch of downtime available during shoot-exes due to checkfires for one reason or another and FFE shifts are uncommon. But it's a different story in wartime, where guns are either shooting or moving 24/7. Regardless of all this, don't forget the small size of even the largest practical CM battlefields. From the battery positions, none of them are more than 200-300 mils wide, so there's not a huge difference between calculations for any point on them. Especially because CM doesn't take ground elevation differences into account. So it's not like the battery is switching between targets several miles apart. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illo Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 thx BTS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisB Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 Madmatt wrote: >As this is an official release you no longer need to email me with your bug reports. Just use the Forum as before for bug sightings, comments and reports (if any). Ok, here goes: 1. Combat mission always switches to 640x480 resolution on my computer. Do not give me the ‘delete your prefs’ cause it does not work. Maybe this is because I have 2 screens on my computer, but it seems CM is unable to detect legal resolutions on my computer (something every other program in existence does correctly) and defaults to 640x480. It can be argued wheter this is a bug or just damn stupid program behaviour but... 2. Combat mission messes up my desktop. A direct followup of the above, and this time there can be no doubt that this is buggy behaviour. This happened in version 1.0, was fixed for 1.01, reappeared for version ?.?? etc and this bug has been leapfrogging the versions, gone one version, back the next. Both this and 1. above are consequences of unneccessary (ok, they could be neccessary, but happens even if they are not) resolution switching. 3. QB force computer force selection is bad again. For instance selecting an armoured force will result in a force at least 50% consisting of pure infantry, not a force consisting of 100% armor with the odd AT team thrown in. This cropped up in one of the 1.1 betas and is now back. 4. Nuisance bug. When clicking on the map the input is not taken from the click position, but from the current mouse position. Or in programming terms getMouse(clickX,clickY) instead of the correct clickX:=lastEvent.where.x clickY:=lastEvent.where.y Or in practical terms select a unit, press ‘M’, click on desired position ‘A’, immediately move mouse towards position ‘B’ (to select another unit or something), order for unit will be processed as not moving towards ‘A’, but somewhere between ‘A’ and ‘B’. Because of the nature of this bug, it probably is more obvious with fast/impatient players and slow computers. 5. Minor nuisance bug. The kill list is updated to reflect the end of turn status. A click on a unit’s kill list before the end of a turn might reveal kills that have not yet been made. [This message has been edited by ChrisB (edited 01-11-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Clark Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 Sooooooo... why didn't you report any of this during the beta? You seem semi-angry about all of it now, but there were weeks and weeks of beta testing which would have seemed the appropriate time to try and get your complaints in. I don't see how the screen resolution and desktop strangeness can be called a "bug", as it is certainly not happening to everyone, or even many. There would be swarms of other complaints about it if it were the case. This is not meant as a flame... I'm just a bit confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Clark: Sooooooo... why didn't you report any of this during the beta? You seem semi-angry about all of it now, but there were weeks and weeks of beta testing which would have seemed the appropriate time to try and get your complaints in. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps he elected not to participate in the beta process. I do not think it was mandatory. Or was it? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I don't see how the screen resolution and desktop strangeness can be called a "bug", as it is certainly not happening to everyone, or even many. There would be swarms of other complaints about it if it were the case. This is not meant as a flame... I'm just a bit confused.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, I would guess that it is a problem with his setup somehow, but that fact that it is not widely reported does not necessarily mean it is not a bug. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Clark Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 Once again, I'm not TRYING to be a jerk... Most of the "annoyances" and "bugs" listed seem to be things that have been around since before v1.1, so at the time of what may be the final patches release, it just seemed an odd time to be finally mentioning them. Also, while not mandatory, it did seem that there is enough reference there to assume that Chris did take part in the beta process. I'm just curious... I should have probably kept my mouth shut... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisB Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 >Most of the "annoyances" and "bugs" listed seem to be things that have been around since before v1.1, so at the time of what may be the final patches release, it just seemed an odd time to be finally mentioning them. I did report 1 and 2 to Madmatt, as well as pointing them out on this board*, as have other people, several times since the release. 3 was mentioned on the board with the release of beta v. 22 IIRC and was fixed in the beta afterwards. Suffice to say that it was a chock that 2 and 3 was reintroduced (finally?) for the "final" release, they were _not_ in the last beta. >Also, while not mandatory, it did seem that there is enough reference there to assume that Chris did take part in the beta process. I tried the betas, yes. As for part of the process, hmmm, nahh. >I'm just curious... I should have probably kept my mouth shut... Probably, but I accept what you say as an apology of sorts. I probably should have kept my mouth shut too, since I probably will be ignored by the powers that be. *In fact I have been bitching about 1 since the release of CM 1.0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juardis Posted January 12, 2001 Share Posted January 12, 2001 bttt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camisade Posted January 12, 2001 Share Posted January 12, 2001 Originally posted by Big Time Software: Combat Mission version 1.1, featuring live Internet play, is officially ready! Thinking that the v1.1 official patch would mimic the behavior of the beta, we upgraded in the middle of a long game, and now I'm getting a version mismatch error (game file created with an older version of the program). Apparently, the official version does not embrace that great characteristic of the beta, which would gracefully handle mid-game upgrades! I understand the occasional need to change data structures, but couldn't you provide an upgrade utility? Virtually, everyone I play with is PBEM and we're all working professionals, so 1 turn per day is about as fast as we go. You'll understand that having to throw a game away because we made the mistake of upgrading and now cannot find the old version to roll back to is a bit frustrating. So, if you cannot provide a utility that upgrades PBEM game files to the new version, can you at least provide a link to older versions of CMBO, please, so we don't have to throw our games away? Thanks, Camisade [This message has been edited by camisade (edited 01-12-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias Posted January 12, 2001 Share Posted January 12, 2001 Armour Hiding: 5 (button up) Shermans parade in the open at a range of 1000 meters in front of a lone JgPz IV/L70 hull down in scattered trees. When the JgPz is not hiding it engages the Shermans as soon as they are spotted, instantly in this case. When the JgPz is "hiding" it holds its fire, and continues to do so even when the Shermans advance towards it. In this case the JgPz continued to hold it's fire despite the fact that it was eventually, at a range of about 250 meters, spotted by the buttoned up Shermans and taken under fire. I can see a number of uses for the vehicular "hide" command if this is the way it is supposed to work, just don't forget to unhide when the enemy closes... M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hilltopper Posted January 12, 2001 Share Posted January 12, 2001 Thank you so much! You guys are the best! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juardis Posted January 12, 2001 Share Posted January 12, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by camisade: Thinking that the v1.1 official patch would mimic the behavior of the beta, we upgraded in the middle of a long game, and now I'm getting a version mismatch error (game file created with an older version of the program). Thanks, Camisade [This message has been edited by camisade (edited 01-12-2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ? I guess I'm confused. I had a 1.1b24 PBEM game going (that was started with 1.1b16). When I installed 1.1 final, I just opened my turn like any other normal email turn. No problems. Perhaps you upgraded from 1.05 without saving it first? ------------------ Jeff Abbott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camisade Posted January 13, 2001 Share Posted January 13, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Juardis: ? I guess I'm confused. I had a 1.1b24 PBEM game going (that was started with 1.1b16). When I installed 1.1 final, I just opened my turn like any other normal email turn. No problems. Perhaps you upgraded from 1.05 without saving it first? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> We did not upgrade our 1.05 game to the 1.1 beta, choosing instead to wait for the production release. And the production release does not seem to handle that. Why would that be the case? If 1.1beta could work with a 1.05 file, and 1.1 official could work with a 1.1beta file, then why can't 1.1 official work with a 1.05 file? That a bridge too far or something? Where can I download v1.05 so I can roll back, if that's what we have to do (which would be unfortunate). Thanks, Camisade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 Is this going to be the final bump on this thread? Cheers Olle ------------------ Strategy is the art of avoiding a fair fight... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiram Sedai Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Olle Petersson: Is this going to be the final bump on this thread? Cheers Olle <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As long as there is breath in my hirsute frame, there will always be a bump for the latest CM patch. So, the answer to your question, Olle is "no". ------------------ Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. - Blaise Pascal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Brian Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 btt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted January 22, 2001 Share Posted January 22, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hiram Sedai: As long as there is breath in my hirsute frame, there will always be a bump for the latest CM patch. So, the answer to your question, Olle is "no".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, it isn't. Back from page 7 this time... Cheers Olle ------------------ Strategy is the art of avoiding a fair fight... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiram Sedai Posted January 22, 2001 Share Posted January 22, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Olle Petersson: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, it isn't. Back from page 7 this time... Cheers Olle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schugger Posted January 22, 2001 Share Posted January 22, 2001 Does anyone of you guys know if there is a thread regarding 1.1 ( non beta ) version bugs? So I can thank BTS here for their work and complain elsewhere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiram Sedai Posted January 22, 2001 Share Posted January 22, 2001 "Mr. Bumpey, what are we going to do?" -Sir Squishington ------------------ Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. - Blaise Pascal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiram Sedai Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 When a problem comes along, you must bump it. ------------------ Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. - Blaise Pascal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts