thewood Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 The looking for cover thing is not true as fas as I'm concerned. Follow an infantry unit at ground level and tell me what its logic is. In completely flat open terrain, they seem to follow an almost random path. I have made maps and tested it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vesikko72 Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 One would quite expect BF guys to comment this "evidence material"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 I always thought CM1 did a good job of reinterpreting my waypoints to keep out of terrain trouble. Some isolated quirks, but nothing as screwy with all waypoints as this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 Originally posted by flamingknives: Just an observation, but didn't "BFC* fix or do somefink!" Stem out of horrific CMX1 bugbears? Nope. It was that idiot reenactor who was incensed that his HMG42 teams couldn't Run. Turned out to be some weird father-son dimwit duo. -dale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nijis Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 Given that it's a Bradley having trouble with the waypoints, maybe the driver is chasing stray dogs... [ August 24, 2007, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: nijis ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 Originally posted by thewood: I always thought CM1 did a good job of reinterpreting my waypoints to keep out of terrain trouble. Some isolated quirks, but nothing as screwy with all waypoints as this. Exactly so from what I recall. Besides if I hear one more time how CMX1 was fubar in the early days I'm going to puke. Even if specific feature functionality was changed or improved over time in the Cmx1 product life-cycle the notion that the nextgen product should start all over from scratch is silly. This stuff should absolutely been brought up to speed before foisting it on the paying customers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 I love the word "foisting". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 Indeed, and I thought it the best most polite form for; "To pass off as genuine, valuable, or worthy" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 Hi, Why do people go on, and on, and on…. with negative posts and threads. We all know that CMSF was sent out the door too early. Steve does not hide the fact. I have read nothing new for the last ten days… no fault that was not known just a few days after release. CMSF is awash with bugs and unpolished TacAI, pathfinding, movement code too if you wish, and much more. But all this was known two weeks ago… and by BFC before release. Some, in fact quite a few… seem to take a delight in negative threads and posts that does them no credit. I have no doubt that in a few months CMX2 will have been polished into a wargames engine far superior to CMX1, that I was as great a fan of as any . If some do not like the underlying CMX2 engine… fine… but go away and spend your time more profitably on some other hobby. Life is too short . All the best, Kip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 I think this thread serves a good purpose. There have been a few people saying they see no problems or issues like Redwolf showed here. I think its good to shine a light on them so people understand them and prove they do exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 Yep, plus with the negative gripes, it's only natural to be put out when your expectations are not met. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntarr Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 It seems that you should have used MOVE not FAST as your speed. Take for example the concept of you getting in your car and taking that same route with your "peddle to the metal", no brake, only you steering and your passengers hanging on to the Jezzus bar. Now I would suggest you run that experiment with the move command and see the results. Move seems to handle maneuvers pretty well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 I thought he said the vehicle was slow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntarr Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 Look at the color, that is amber color of FAST not purple of SLOW or blue of MOVE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 Originally posted by thewood: I think this thread serves a good purpose. There have been a few people saying they see no problems or issues like Redwolf showed here. I think its good to shine a light on them so people understand them and prove they do exist. I agree. Redwolf went to considerable effort to show *specifically* how a certain problem is currently manifesting in the game. By my read, he did so in the hopes of helping BFC nail down exactly what the pathfinding/movement problems are, so that they can me more readily fixed. Some of the follow-on comments have been, perhaps, less than helpful. But the OP seems to have his heart in the right place. I, for one, hope more people do what Redwolf did, and take the time to nail down the bugs and problems they are seeing the game, *specficially* and *in detail*, rather than just whining, "this is broken", or "CMx1 was better," er whatever. For those that do feel CMx1 is overly buggy, and you've wasted your hard-earned dollars on your pre-order, I feel for you. Really I do. [insert sarcasm here]. But ultimately, you have a choice; you can go back and play CMx1 or some other game, or stick around and try to offer constructive comments on CMx2 can be improved, within the framework of the direction BFC has already made it VERY clear they are taking the game. You can whine about going back to non-1:1 representation, or WEGO only, or whatever, all you want. Steve has made it very clear these things aint' gonna happen. Better pathfinding, OTOH, is a specific and implementable improvment I'm sure BFC would love to get in the game, if they can. So please do, report those bugs! But don't just whine -- give BFC specific and detailed info on what you see happening in the game, so they can fix it. I expect a perfect game once I get a new rig an fire this baby up for the first time, a few months down the road! Cheers, YD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 Thank you for permission Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 Originally posted by Dirtweasle: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by thewood: I always thought CM1 did a good job of reinterpreting my waypoints to keep out of terrain trouble. Some isolated quirks, but nothing as screwy with all waypoints as this. Exactly so from what I recall. Besides if I hear one more time how CMX1 was fubar in the early days I'm going to puke. Even if specific feature functionality was changed or improved over time in the Cmx1 product life-cycle the notion that the nextgen product should start all over from scratch is silly.</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stikkypixie Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 Actually I tried the same thing with the strykers in the first training mission. 90° turns, and they did not do as bad as described. With fast and move orders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 Thank you for permission I would hope that my comments are taken in the sprit of an active forum member encouraging constructive dialogue and discourse, but if you really want to look to me for permission as to what you should and should not do, I have to problem with that. Voluntary subservience works for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeatEtr Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 Originally posted by Huntarr: It seems that you should have used MOVE not FAST as your speed. Take for example the concept of you getting in your car and taking that same route with your "peddle to the metal", no brake, only you steering and your passengers hanging on to the Jezzus bar. Now I would suggest you run that experiment with the move command and see the results. Move seems to handle maneuvers pretty well. Which is exactly what I was thinking. There is supposedly a big difference in the Fast move and the slower more controlled Move, Hunt, and Slow commands. Just like in the old cms, you don't order AFVs to make sharp turns with the Fast command since the TacAI kicks in and your vehicle goes AWOL. I still use the Move command to make the actual turn part and then use the Fast command for the straight ways. I'd like to see this little experiment again using the Move command, should be a big difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntarr Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 I didn’t see this as a bug so much as the bad use of move commands. The FAST was trying to stay on the fastest terrain that was on it path, in my observation. Look back at my analogue of “pedal to the metal”. He would have been better served using MOVE or SLOW for maneuvers. There is a reason the TURN RATE of the Stryker is modeled the way it is. She turns like a battleship. [ August 24, 2007, 12:30 PM: Message edited by: Huntarr ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted August 24, 2007 Author Share Posted August 24, 2007 You people look for every excuse to justify whatever behavior happens to be in the game. Yes, it's "fast" orders. No, the result is nowhere close to what a real fast-moving AFV would do. Which part of turning straight back to your own lines do you find realistic? Within the limitations of the game engine, namely no curved movement orders, it is necessary to find a smoother model to handle this. Of course the resulting movement with this turns in the path won't actually be fast. But what we see here is the worst model imaginable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntarr Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 Redwolf please don't take offense. I am simply trying to give you another train of thought. With it's speed being max and it's turn being the worst. She is not going to maneuver like a F1 racer. I have said repeatedly that the TacAI and pathing and LOS are the biggest killers of this version right now, but we also have to make sure we aren't gaming our own results looking for bugs. I have been guilty of it already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 Out of interest, and given the absence of a "follow this road" command, what would a real fast-moving AFV have done? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 So if we want to order a Stryker or brad to go FAST down a road and then turn down another and then go FAST again we should drop a SLOW or some other command before the actual turn point? Does that work Redwolf? I know it should would correctly to begin with, but does that work as a make-shift work around? ~~~~~~~~~~ flamingknives, thanks. I skipped the first part after the barf bag warning and read the second part. I'll go along with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts