Buglist thread

[Paper Tiger]

thewood:

I have never seen any vehicle reverse out of danger in CMSF. Am I missing this?

It's definitely not in the game yet. And yes, I think you're missing it.

Seems that there will be some tweaks to vehicle behaviour if not in 1.07 then further down the line. It took a while to get it into CM1 games too.

[stikkypixie]

A thing I noticed in 1.05, is that embarked infantry exit their Bradleys through the upper hatch. I don't think it is supposed to be this way.

[thewood]

Originally posted by Paper Tiger:

thewood:

I have never seen any vehicle reverse out of danger in CMSF. Am I missing this?

It's definitely not in the game yet. And yes, I think you're missing it.

Seems that there will be some tweaks to vehicle behaviour if not in 1.07 then further down the line. It took a while to get it into CM1 games too.

No it was in CM1 right from the start. It needed tweaking because sometimes AFVs did or did not reverse based upon opinions, but I can play a vanilla CMBO today and a halftrack will reverse out of LOS of a serious threat.

While CMSF has advanced a lot of areas, people seem to think CMBO came out in a pretty deplorable state. I only remember one or two major bugs in the first few patches, and they were patched pretty quickly. The rest of the patches were to add features that people thought were needed to make it more realistic or playable.

I still remember the major debate over tanks tracking targets and forgetting them out when they went out of sight. The next patch led more "stickiness" of targets. I think that eventually led to covered arcs. While we have a few of those debates going on here, I still see a lot of the debates being around bugs.

The debates in CMBO were a lot about tweaking a new concept. Not fixing pretty significant bugs six months into release. I think CMBO was granted a pretty big honeymoon for having to take a few shortcuts in abstraction because of this. CMSF was darned close to ubnplayable in 1.00 and 1.01. Because of that, the honeymoon was over pretty quickly.

Maybe the next module will rekindle excitement and by then the game will be in a shape that will draw the community back in.

[Paper Tiger]

thewood:

No it was in CM1 right from the start. It needed tweaking because sometimes AFVs did or did not reverse based upon opinions, but I can play a vanilla CMBO today and a halftrack will reverse out of LOS of a serious threat.

Ach, of course you are right. I only really noticed it in CMBB because I played pretty much all infantry actions with CMBO but loved the armour game in CMBB. That was also when I found this forum too.

I remember stating in an earlier post a couple of months ago that I played CMBO without patches and only patched CMBB much later too while CMSF was not too pretty out of the box so I won't disagree with the second part of your post either.

The vehicle self preservation feature has something to do with the new relative spotting feature but I think you already know all this. If it's possible, BFC will put it back in.

Even with all the bugs mentioned in this list, and some that aren't yet, it's definitely nearly there now. Once that low wall bug is fixed a lot of people will be much happier.

[Darkmath]

I would like Steve's opinion about the vehicle behaviour. (For good anf for once, I've repeated myself 3 times the same question... )

IMHO ,it's a fundamental issue,more than dynamic lighting or low wall bug . ( Just provoking )

*Do you think the vehicle self preservation as it is right now is realistically modelled?

*If not, is the improvement need important programming effort (such as seeking out of LOS position? )

*If not,are you planning to include an auto reversing routine in future patches or module?

In WEGO, the lack of reverse to cover position completely kills immersion. Each time I see a Stryker firing to a T72 with its MG hoping to kill it makes me quit the game.

In RT, it seems that the game let the player to do the evasive action manually.

It is rather a fundamental feature lacking than a gameplay decision.

Because the TACAI already automatically do move to cover routine for infantry unit in RT as in WEGO, and a pop smoke routine already exists for vehicle.

So why not putting an auto-revese TACAI order for AFV?

What's the point letting a Stryker behind its smoke screen, staying here until the screen disappear then facing the same threat as previously?

In fact, this represents a unbalanced , hence useless, micromanagement in RT. Therefore I could no think it is a gameplay decision.

[ January 13, 2008, 02:54 AM: Message edited by: Darkmath ]

[Thomm]

Darkmath,

if I was aka_tom_w, I would guess that vehicle self-preservation will be adressed in future patches, maybe in the close future, even!

Best regards,

Thomm

[SlowMotion]

Small path finding thing I noticed. Two buildings side by side. One has been destroyed to rubble as well as one wall of the other building. I ordered infantry to move from the rubble to this other building through the missing wall (red line).

******

Path finding seemed not to notice that the wall had been destroyed and used another path instead (blue line).

******

This made the soldiers exit the rubble and use door instead. This leaving of cover caused one casualty.

[Thomm]

SlowMotion,

I can reproduce this! Thanks for reporting!

Regards,

Thomm

[redbear]

i would like to add that there is still a problem with some dual core pc. When i run the game with the two core it lock up or see some strange thing in the game performance.

My system

AMD dual +3800

2 GB ram

Nvidia 8500

Win XP pro sp2

I know is a problem that few have.

[missinginreality]

Thought i'd add in a cents worth re Javelins. I've noticed that sometimes they don't just fly off and change course suddenly but will circle around and around corkscrewing down to finally reach the target. Very pretty at night mind.

Oh and man the arms outstretched dudes in the middle of a firefight are the funniest thing. If a little suicidal.