Holman Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 We all know about BTS' excellent history of support and response to questions/problems like this one. I'm guessing that they're too busy at the moment to jump in. (Maybe they're finalizing patch 1.02??) As I've mentioned in my posts above, I suspect that all of this is more an engine limitation than a bug, and therefore is "working as designed." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larsen Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Martyr,I know what you think about the arty problem. I followed this thread pretty closely since I am convinced that this is a very serious bug in the way CMAK handles artillery. Now, does that (what you think) has anything to do with what BTS thinks? No it does not. You don't work for BTS and what you think is just that - your speculations. CMAK is a software that to the best of my knowledge is still a supported product unlike CMBO and CMBB. Usually with any software program that was payed for customers can get some support. Some companies are better than others but usually any company will have some sort of support. They can call some number or ask a question via e-mail. Customers usually would get some kind of answer. That maybe not be the answer they expect but they will get some answer. BTS to my knowledge does not have either a number that one can call or an e-mail address where one can send a question about their product. This forum is the only place that I know of where one can post a question about CM games. Before, BTS was very good at answering those questions. I feel that their envolment in the game discussions detiorated dramatically for the past half a year. I can't remember when I last saw a post by Charles or Steve here for example. I don't expect them to come here and tell us that they are going to fix this arty problem tomorrow or any thing like that. All I want is to hear if they think this is a bug and if they think this is a bug if they are going to fix it. That's all I ask for. I don't want to hear any specualtion as what other people think BTS is thinking. I want to see a responce from BTS themselves. Is that too much to ask? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Treeburst, Here's some data on smoke rounds. I used 3 each of Sherman M4A1, Priests, Hummels, Wespes. No wind, dry conditions, 1944, March (?). Each unit fired its one and only smoke round in turn one. All units "Regular" experience. They all started with a "Smoke" target at the beginning of the turn. The range was 282 meters in all cases. Unit/ Fired Smoke/ Smoke Started/ Smoke Ended Sherman 1/ 0:05/ 0:36/ 4:28 Sherman 2/ 0:04/ 0:34/ 4:09 Sherman 3/ 0:05/ 0:36/ 5:19 Priest 1/ 0:05/ 0:38/ 5:41 Priest 2/ 0:04/ 0:38/ 7:21 Priest 3/ 0:04/ 0:39/ 6:05 Wespe 1/ 0:05/ 0:35/ 6:18 Wespe 2/ 0:05/ 0:42/ 7:05 Wespe 3/ 0:05/ 0:37/ 6:42 Hummel 1/ 0:05/ 0:42/ 7:55 Hummel 2/ 0:04/ 0:35/ 6:45 Hummel 3/ 0:05/ 0:37/ 8:00 There is a wide disparity in end times for each of the smoke rounds. The begin times are somewhat tighter. Hope this helps. Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 I think Moon said it best already: Originally posted by redwolf: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Personally I don't doubt they read all the stuff but I am also sure they will overlook (not reject) something, because things are way too chaotic and they don't give any hints what is considered/rejected and what is not. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Right, well, I am not reading this. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You attempt to start an organized thread was the way to go and they did not accept it which is sad. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What do you mean with us not accepting it? Redwolf, I have told you before that you should be careful about making assumptions about what we do or don't. You have no idea what we do, don't, or plan to do. The fact that this thread didn't get a sticky or a comment from us does not mean that we don't accept it. Or don't read it. Or don't care. We're ecstatic that people take the trouble to report all the various issues which are simply unavoidable in a project which has grown so much in complexity as did the CM series, and when you look back at our product support since CMBO, you should acklowledge that we care about delivering a good product more than your average developer. Your constant whining about "they don't read, they don't care, they don't accept" is not only unfounded, it's downright insulting. We have a tight schedule going forward, and we will work according to that schedule, not to how you think we should work. We plan to issue another patch after collecting a bunch of outstanding critical issues, see what is high priority and what isn't, and move on. Not all issues will be addressed, and our priority list might be different from yours - tough. We would still be "fixing" CMBO and there would have been no CMBB and CMAK (and BFC for that matter) if it was up to some people on this forum to decide. Anyway, I think this thread here has run its course, and I am going to lock it. Just so you know, it will be filed away for when we get to the next CMAK patch and read 500 times by all BFC members. Although the constant whining has actually probably reduced its usefulness. Martin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Oh yeah, these nice partial quotes of my postings, copy'n'pasted over from one forum to another (General forum to CMAK in that particular case) and then locked up in the source forum so that I cannot even complete the quote and add links to threads my opinion is based on. Just so you know, it will be filed away for when we get to the next CMAK patch and read 500 times by all BFC members. I think my link collection on the Allied artillery pricing supports very well that I am sceptical that BFC is processing these threads in the manner Moon describes here. http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=001192 http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=001244 http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=001265 The last one has the clash of claims versus scepticism, the first two are more background info. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmatt Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Larsen, Maybe if you would click that big SUPPORT link at the top of the page you might see a link to a direct email address for support, aptly named support@battlefront.com. However, we do indeed read the forums but we can not always respond personally to every thread and question. That doesn't mean we aren't listening, it just means we are busy. As to bug reports with regards to the CM games, due to the fact that Charles is the sole programmer we can not and do not post updates on what issues he may be working on or plan to address until he see's fit to do so. Charles is a programmer first and foremost though and that means that he rarely takes the time out to post such updates, to you guys or even to us internally. Is that the optimum procedure, certainly not, but thats how it is. I can't stress enough that we are working on a number of things directly related to the Combat Mission franchise and that includes CMAK. Redwolf, I grow real tired of your continual pokes at us and our support of the game. You can be as skeptical all you want but it changes nothing. The simple truth is that Charles has rarely ever posted to the forums and Steve, due to a numner of issues no longer has the time to do so like he once did. All we can say is that we are listening to the issues put forth. However, for those of you that feel the need for constant updates from us on what is going on behind the scenes, well you are going to be disapointed as that is simply not possible at this time. With CMBO and CMBB things were much simplier as they were basically our only supported games at the time. Our product line and responsibilities and tasks have grown a great deal since then and will do so even more in the future and one byproduct of that is that there is simply not as much time to participate in the forums like we once did. The fact that we are still called upon to "babysit" several forum members time and time again doesn't make this any better. Anyway, back on topic. If you have what you feel is a bug and the files to support your claim, you need to do the same thing that we have said since CMBO was released. Document it in email, attach the files and passwords for both players (as applicable) and send it to the support address. That ensures that I see it and once I confirm the problem for myself ingame I pass it ahead to Charles for review. That system is the same as it always has been and most people seem to understand that and use it. If you didn't realize thats how things should be done, well now you do. Thanks for your time. Madmatt 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larsen Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Madmatt, thank you very much for your responce. This is close to what I was looking for. I will e-mail the files to support address either tonight or tomorrow evening. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted April 4, 2004 Author Share Posted April 4, 2004 c3k, Great work! I've always wondered about smoke duration; but never got around to testing it. I won't need the info for this arty thing because I'm done testing now; but it's interesting and useful information nonetheless. I would have guessed somewhat shorter smoke durations. Treeburst155 out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanok Posted April 5, 2004 Share Posted April 5, 2004 Originally posted by rune: Redwolf, I have told you before that you should be careful about making assumptions about what we do or don't. You have no idea what we do, don't, or plan to do. The fact that this thread didn't get a sticky or a comment from us does not mean that we don't accept it. Or don't read it. Or don't care. Doesn't this prove the point Redwolf and others have raised? We love our CM games. We want them to be the best they can be. We care about BFC and its current and future products. We also need to know that BFC cares about us. We're all reasonable people. I think we're all satisfied with a quick post from BFC that tells us, "Hey, we hear you and we're going to do something about it." Even if we aren't given a time, at least we know we've been heard. That's what's important to us. Just let us know you know we're here. It's frustrating when we *don't* know what BFC is doing, not doing, or thinking. Madmatt posted. Now we know that BFC heard us and cares. We're satisfied! That's all it took. That's all we needed. [ April 04, 2004, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: Sanok ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 5, 2004 Share Posted April 5, 2004 Originally posted by Sanok: Madmatt posted. Now we know that BFC heard us and cares. We're satisfied! That's all it took. That's all we needed. Speak for yourself! I still want a Ferrari and a bevy of gorgeous blonds. :mad: :mad: :mad: Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted April 5, 2004 Share Posted April 5, 2004 Oh. Didn't you receive yours ye ... errm ... never mind. Move along - nothing to see here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markl Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 It is a shame to see that some people have to wait to see a post from Mad Matt to establish that BFC care about their game and it's users. Unless one is very new to the forum their support must be obvious. As for the blonds, maybe Juju can put one in a boat for us. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 Actually, I think that most people don't need to see a post to establish that BFC cares. We know they care and they know we care. That's why we are all here. What I (for one) appreciate about a post from BFC is getting just some inkling of how to view the problem that we have unearthed. Is it something we simply have to learn to like because BFC think that its the right way for things to be, or because they simply can't change it? Or is it something worth exploring the ins and outs of and discussing solutions for knowing that BFC are sympathetic towards changing it in some way at some point... GaJ. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trommelfeuer Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 Off Topic: (but it's an artillery problem, so...) Has anyone ever noticed this: Scenario "The Melfa Bridgehead": Warning! Maybe some spoilers below! . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lots of knocked out Shermans and other AFVs were littered over the landscape. I aimed with my ?mm rocket FO for a Sherman III which was behind a small wall, but I had clear LOS to it. Now I waited for the barrage to fall...but in the meantime another Sherman III drives into my target Sherman and pushes it some meters away. Guess what happened. My FO lost LOS to his target and the barrage came down miles from the target area outside the map... This does make no sense to me. The FO sends coordinates back to the battery, and the battery fires at the coordinates. If the target is "pushed away" from it's place, the coordinates don't change. Just like it is with smoke... Regards, Sven [ April 06, 2004, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: Trommelfeuer ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 Sven, did the FO have LOS to the spot of land where the Sherman had been? Since it was behind a wall, it was probably hull-down, but also the spot of land might have been out of his LOS. I'm not really sure about how CM handles it when you target a tank in hulldown position, i.e. when targetting the land beneath it gives you out-of-LOS. I'd like to know. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trommelfeuer Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 Sergei, the FO didn't have LOS to the spot of land where the wrecked Sherman stood, only clear LOS to the turret and maybe a bit of the upper hull. When the wrecked Sherman was pushed away by the other Sherman, the target line still ended on the same spot behind the wall (or was it a hedgerow ? doesn't matter...) but the FO didn't have LOS to it any more and so the barrage came down elsewhere.... Of course this is a very rare situation, I just wanted to share this experience with all of you. Unfortunately I haven't saved the file, but I'm sure it will happen again in a similar situation. Regards, Sven [ April 06, 2004, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: Trommelfeuer ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dschugaschwili Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 The target tank being pushed away did not have any impact here. If your spotter targets a tank, but can't see the ground under it, the fire mission counts as blind. Always. Dschugaschwili 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted April 13, 2004 Author Share Posted April 13, 2004 I never target specific units with arty for just this reason. Targetting nearby ground is close enough. Treeburst155 out. 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.