MrNoobie Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 awesome! cant get that kind of support from EA... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B00M$LANG Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Being a wargame designer myself, I can assure everyone here that the BFC crew is doing a great job responding to everyone's complaints AND bugs, but I should caution everyone...do NOT expect anything more than the most glaring problems to be fixed, and don't expect the "wishlist" to get completely fleshed-out. I've read so many negative comments about the beta test team, raging about "How could they NOT find this bug" or "How come they didn't have this crash". All I can say is this: Microsoft doesn't have this kind of problem because they make the OS. Now ask yourself why MS doesn't make their Office programs compatible with Linux...or any other operating system until WAY down the road? Now, you have a game that should be able to run on every single system configuration possible without a hitch? Seems just a tad unrealistic, yes? Anyway, don't expect a major change in pathfinding, because that is the toughest and most expensive nut to crack...just ask the Department of Defense. I'm fully expecting some performance and system crash issues and basic behavioral things (ass to the enemy and such) to be fixed, but don't expect a perfect patch. Heck, how many games out there are patched 10-12 times in their first year? If there are things fixed or added/changed beyond what I mentioned, we should all feel VERY lucky indeed! All I'm saying is, temper your excitement, continue to submit things you find as you play, and try and enjoy the game...I know I have! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monty burns Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Thanks for all the hard work guys. While nobody likes bugs, they are inevitable. At least Battlefront is willing to tackle them instead of just ignoring them like we have all experienced with other companies. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cid250 Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Don't forget to design a true WEGO with side benefits on TAC-AI due to a better exclusive CPU usage, and drop the mandatory realtime (fake) WEGO. Take the time that your team needs... but don't forget about this CORE feature, that is much better, and much more important for any serious wargamer. If you ignore it... many customers will be lost for the future releases. It's a milestone, nothing less!. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eisen Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 That's the spirit Battlefront! Class will always show through. Instead of arguing with people over the problems with this game. They're hard at work trying to fix the bugs. This game has great potential and already has some great features. It can only get better. Best of luck guys! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runyan99 Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 I think some people have given that blue bar mystical, magical properties that it never posessed. What evidence does anyone have that the TacAI problems are caused by insufficient CPU cycles? You've made that up yourself. It has become a belief system, like Chemtrails, which has no basis. Tell me, if there were no TacAI imperfections, would you still clamor for the return of the Blue Bar simply because it is all you know, it has been taken away, and you fear and resist change? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Springelkamp Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 I saw something that might indicate constraints on CPU. When running a large scenario, where my side is waiting for the enemy to show up, I see terrain disappear and the clock moving in larger chunks like 4 seconds, while there is nothing to be seen. So, just in order to prove that nothing can be seen, the CPU is crunching at 100%, dropping details in the map. At these moments there cannot be much capacity left for the AI, unless the AI calculation has a high priority, but even then it is limited to leave enough time to do the basic graphics calculations. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runyan99 Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Seems like a simple Frames Per Second issue to me, but I'm not sure. By the way, if this CPU cyles for the TacAI was an issue, then we would expect to see players with low end systems seeing the worst TacAI behavior, and those with cutting edge systems seeing better TacAI behavior. This can be tested. Set up a large test scenario on two different systems, where you can run the same WEGO turn on both, and see if there is any noticible difference in AI behavior. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 I have noticed that sometimes time doesn't pass in real time. I have seen instances that last up to 10 sec. take almost 20 sec. to run. I have a very low end machine though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 I obviously haven't seen the code, but it does seem as though the TacAI ticks infrequently (notice the hesitation before your troops respond to stimuli), although I suspect that this might be just my perception and that the TacAI problems are due to some issue other than available CPU time. Regarding the apparent slowdown Erik mentioned, I would imagine that the spotting routines are pretty damned intense as well, so when they're running full bore (prior to contact / proximity) I can imagine that they'd eat a generous share of CPU time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runyan99 Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Originally posted by thewood: I have noticed that sometimes time doesn't pass in real time. I have seen instances that last up to 10 sec. take almost 20 sec. to run. I have a very low end machine though. That would obviously indicate that the program, when overrun with calculations, slows down instead of 'cheating' the TacAI out of needed CPU cycles. The bad TacAI bahavior isn't a function of processing power, and a Blue Bar isn't going to make WEGO any better. All this talk about CMSF not being 'true WEGO' is silly. The TacAI just needs to be refined. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Yeah, that's kina what I thought too. Although running in RT is a pain in the ass when the clock update is skipping cycles. In WEGO, I would think its not as much an issue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.R. Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Please please make sure to patch the demo too. I won't consider buying this game until I can have some fun in the demo version. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JOGR Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: ... We're sorry you've had to experience the downside of a fresh release of a massively complex engine... Good info, but I can't help to wonder. What's so massively complex about this engine? "This" is a massively complex engine: http://www.vbs2.com/site/images/gz3.jpg http://www.vbs2.com/site/images/insurgent_1.jpg http://www.vbs2.com/site/images/ukimv.jpg Got to admit VBS2 and ArmA is pretty impressive considering how well it actually works with it's massive environments, thousands of A.I. troops engaged in combat with group A.I leaders that fully utilize squad tactics. All that with FPS precision and not some 8x8m degradation of the simulation resolution 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 But to be fair, the AI in those tactical shooters are robots. For all the issues in SF's AI, there is almost none in vbs2. Also, penetration of armored vehicles is very abstracted in those. Its all about the graphics in those. That's 90% of the game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandur Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 lol if CM:SF would cost 1500$ per unit we would have that too i can nearly guaratee 500 man dev Battalion , all top state of the art blablabla... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackmuzzle Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 @thewood: I disagree with you. I'm a VBS1 licensee and, while they don't model thrown tracks or immobilized tanks (unless the mission designer sets it so), their simulation of armor and armor-penetrating rounds is more than sufficient. In contrast, one could say that the artillery in CMSF is very abstracted, whereas both Flashpoint and VBS1 offer a very detailed artillery simulation, right down to illumination rounds, adjustment, heck even the necessity to move your own mobile arty in case the enemy arty radar causes them to send something back at you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Originally posted by jogr: considering how well it actually works with it's massive environments, thousands of A.I. troops engaged in combat with group A.I leaders that fully utilize squad tactics. All that with FPS precision and not some 8x8m degradation of the simulation resolution VBS2 is OFP on steroids and a bigger price tag. Tanks with hitpoints and graphics that look good in marketing screenshots but will not run on systems bought two years ago. I guess you need to go see the Bohemia Interactive ArmA forums just to see how pleased their customers are with their bugless software. I have stopped playing the game because of the M136 sight bug that still wasn't fixed in 1.8 - half a year after the game's release. But I'm glad that they've started working on an add-on... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Originally posted by Blackmuzzle: In contrast, one could say that the artillery in CMSF is very abstracted, whereas both Flashpoint and VBS1 offer a very detailed artillery simulation, right down to illumination rounds, adjustment, heck even the necessity to move your own mobile arty in case the enemy arty radar causes them to send something back at you. Out of curiousity, how essential do you personally feel this ability is to a game like CM:SF set at the level of a combined infantry/armor company battle group commander? Do you think the artillery details - counter battery certainly - are best left abstracted? Fire adjustment and varied munitions (smoke too) are things, as you point out, that would be very appropriate for CM:SF on the other hand. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molotov_billy Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Originally posted by B00M$LANG: Now, you have a game that should be able to run on every single system configuration possible without a hitch? Seems just a tad unrealistic, yes?Yes. Though I've spent a lot of time on the tech support forums, and the numbers of people having at least some type of technical issue is probably closer to 50%. I myself have access to three machines, all top of the line, and only one of them runs above 10 frames per second, and that's because we figured out that old video drivers work better than new ones in my case. All we can really do is compare SF to other games that are on the market, and in terms of first releases, SF is pretty poor - even compared to other low budget wargames (though that's no excuse for a buggy product, like some would have you believe.) Looking forward to those patches. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackmuzzle Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Out of curiousity, how essential do you personally feel this ability is to a game like CM:SF set at the level of a combined infantry/armor company battle group commander? Do you think the artillery details - counter battery certainly - are best left abstracted? Fire adjustment and varied munitions (smoke too) are things that would be appropriate for CM:SF. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Originally posted by Blackmuzzle: Hmm, to be honest, I don't know. CMSF models a relatively small area of the battlefield, the arty would be stationed dozens of miles away. But aside from the size limit aspect, it's always a question of whether you want this or that particular aspect in your simulation or not. Yes, but additionally I was also thinking of how many of those details would really be under the control of an infantry BG commander, which is basically the role the player takes. I realize he has FOs attached/under command, but would they be doing CB work or is that done "back at the battery"? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Id just like to add for you who doesnt know, molotov is one of the developer behind DoD, and thus knows something of what hes talking about. Speaking of which, whats is next for u guys Molotov? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Originally posted by Blackmuzzle: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Out of curiousity, how essential do you personally feel this ability is to a game like CM:SF set at the level of a combined infantry/armor company battle group commander? Do you think the artillery details - counter battery certainly - are best left abstracted? Fire adjustment and varied munitions (smoke too) are things that would be appropriate for CM:SF. </font>Smoke and Illumination missions: Yes that would be awesome, even though the impact of darkness on today's US troops is debatable, what with everyone wearing Gen.3 NVGs... Illumination (aka "illum") is still very widely used. In fact I've done many more fire missions that were illum than HE. Even today, bright light on a target makes it easier to see than NVGs... excepting thermals which would be unaffected anyways. Another cool ammo round is that the M224 mortars have an IR Illum round... so it illuminates, but only for people with NV. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgk Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 there is a lot to improve but I see great future for this game and WWII games based on this engine !! 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.