c3k Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 Gents, Playing around with the Marines. I had an AAV destroyed, but the crew successfully bailed out (one yellow, two green). Much later in the scenario, I wanted to see if the vehicle crew icons are now color coded the same as infantry teams. (The yellow base crew member's blue dot should now be yellow, not red.) To do this, I had to substitute my bailed crew INTO a new AAV. I co-located a good AAV, with new crew next to the bailed crew. The new crew cannot dismount. Why not? Their only option is to BAIL OUT. Okay, done. Now the AAV is DISMOUNTED. (Devoid of crew.) I had the old, bailed out crew, enter the AAV. Nothing happened. They stayed as passengers for a complete turn. Obviously, the owning crew took the keys. This MUST be some sort of error. Next, I thought I'd swap the owning crew back into their AAV. This was to see if there was "ownership" being tracked or if the error was in re-crewing AAV's, regardless of the crew. So, the passenger crew left. The original owning crew entered. AS they entered, they blew the smoke dischargers!! There was NO enemy fire. Heck, there are NO enemy on the map at all. All I can surmise is that the gunner's pants caught on the discharge mechanism. A few seconds later, the AAV was operational again with the original crew in position. Summation: - The non-original crew of an AAV cannot recrew an AAV. - When the original crew does recrew the AAV it left, it triggers a SMOKE command. Savegames available. Comments? Thanks, Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikkey Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 Confirn, also with Stryker's crew (Marines modul). If Styker is occupied with original crew that Stryker is fully operational (somethime fire smoke shell), if occupied with another crew, they sit as passenger and Stryker is still Dismounted. It's terrible, if I have one destroyed Stryker with health bailed crew and second Stryker without gunner. If I can exchange crews, second Strykers is still dismouted. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted October 6, 2008 Author Share Posted October 6, 2008 Hello? Beta testers? BF.C? Anyone who cares? Two reports now of aberrant crew behavior coupled with SMOKE deployment. Savegames available. Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted October 6, 2008 Author Share Posted October 6, 2008 Okay, I am still looking for anyone connected with BF.C to state they've seen this and either are dismissing it out of hand or think it may be worthwhile to look at. Thanks, Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Keep looking. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkEzra Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 It's been noted and being taken seriously. Thank You. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 No it's not. I deny everything. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Well, everybody BUT Elmar is taking this seriously. But you must excuse him... he's Dutch Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted October 7, 2008 Author Share Posted October 7, 2008 Oh, that hurt. I've been travelling to Amsterdam quite a bit recently so I had, what I thought, was a reasonable range of mental images of Elmar Bijlsma. Then you had say that he's Dutch. Now, all I see is the gold lame, rollerskating character from Austin Powers. It hurts, and now I feel a little dirty... Thanks guys. Regards, Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 "Obviously, the owning crew took the keys. This MUST be some sort of error." I recall a loooong time ago (God knows which game build) I was fighting a scenario that had two recon Strykers. One had a full crew but depleted mg ammo, another had full ammo but the commander had been shot. I tried dismounting both and switching crews so the commander would man the mg with the full ammo load. No deal. It appears the crews were vehicle-specific. You can't do like in Theatre of War - anybody jump into the nearest abandoned tank and keep fighting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Balboa Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Should any crew be allowed to operate any platform? I can understand why crews would be vehicle specific. For example you wouldn't want a Hummer crew to man a Stryker would you? If you gave crews this ability then you would also have to track what types of platforms a crew should be allowed to operate. I think it was just much easier for Charles to allow crews to only operate the vehicle they begin with. The smoke discharge thing does sound like a bug ..... Of course all of this is pure speculation and may in no way be grounded in reality ..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted October 7, 2008 Author Share Posted October 7, 2008 Yeah, I could either way: crews are specific to that particular vehicle, or they can operate any of the same class of vehicle. (What about Hummers and trucks? Let anyone drive?) Of course, it's not like my opinion on this matters, I'm just curious what it is supposed to be. The smoke discharger thing obviously isn't right. Thanks, Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lethaface Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Ken, (Disclaimer: No (personal) offense ment) Having read quite a few of your posts, I must admit that I read your posts with some sort of prejudice. I want to admit it now, since I dont like cropping up feelings and have a bottle of wine to empty while i'm acquiring the the latest episode of a TV show I want to watch. I first want to explain something. It is in some way similar to the 'half-full, half-empty' principle. In any software / scripted program there is behaviour when it is in runtime. There can be desired behaviour or undesired behaviour; either something goes the way it "should", or it doesn't exactly and thus its a 'bug' (flaw/error/etc). However, this approach is very black and white and doesn't hold up in reality, because "should" and "should-not" are never completely documented. In my working experience, the 'black and white' point of view doesn't work. The important thing is wether something is trivial to the <insert project here>, or not. To keep my post a bit (more) short: it is important wether certain behaviour results in 'unworkable/unplayable/unclear' situations or wether the net result (of specific behaviour) is that it requires 'no change' to fullfill the 'requirements/gaming experience'. It does require a certain vision and experience to seperate one from the other though. If someone went out looking solely for bugs, they would find many (possible) bugs. In any application or program, that I can guarantee. For example, you could consider it a bug that it was possible in MS-DOS to format C:\ , while DOS installed on this very partition. 'I wanted to clean up my hard drive but instead my computer stopped functioning' (Someone could obviously come up with a better example). All above (and more) have lead to the invention of the well known term "It's not a bug, it's a feature!". Having said the above, I want to express my view/prejudice that you are looking for features more then (real) bugs. If one would explain it less diplomatic, one could say that when you play, you create an ambush for the game code itself, in order to trap it uncovering any possible uwanted/undesired/unintended behaviour, rather than playing the game to enjoy all its features, while at the same time observing and taking note of possible flaws which may influence the game experience. While I might sound a little harsh right now, this is not intended. I feel you are really intending to help this game forward, by observing every behaviour to the fullest. If anything doesn't seem right from the logical point of view, you report it as a bug. As a fellow CMSF owner, I appreciate that intention as a initiative to help the game forward. However, to me seems that precious time and resources are spend on rather unimportant 'features', rather then optimizing other features and eliminating serious errors in other features (bugs) that might have serious influence on overall game experience. Now to conclude, I don't think all your bug posts / reports are about minor bugs/features. However the time you attend to minor features has fueled my feeling "Please let this thread not be about the lost M249 ;)". I think your time is much more well spend when contemplating and categorizing the more important and interesting issues you find. Like for example, the issues regarding the Target commands (better said, "FIRE THAT G*DD*MN ATGM NOW!!!!") issue. Ofcourse you have to forgive me because i'm dutch Oh and also forgive my abuse of comma's and lack of dots. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted October 7, 2008 Author Share Posted October 7, 2008 Lethaface, Thanks. You make a lot of good points, and I certainly don't take any offense at either the points or how you present them. In this specific case, I am presenting two items: crews not swapping and the smoke discharger going off when the original crew gets back in its vehicle. As for the first, I really don't care if it's meant to be that way or not. If it is meant to be that way, that's something I never knew. The smoke thing is obviously not supposed to happen. As for others, like the M249, I am not on a crusade to find and/or exploit flaws in CMSF. However, when something goes awry in a scenario, I will post it. I do that so that BF.C can determine whether it's worth their time to address it. If I am told I am wrong, that what I posted is in error, fine. If I am told that I am correct, that it is a true game error, but it won't be fixed due to cost/benefit, that's also fine. I will, obviously debate it if I'm told I didn't see the behavior which occurred (after I doublecheck it!). Why? I think that soon CMSF will be done. I don't know when, but whenever BF.C says, "This is the final patch" I want CMSF to be as close to perfect as it can be. Blind "fanboyism" does no favors to anyone. So, no ambush for the game code. I will continue to explore anomolies and post them! (Unless BF.C has pronounced the issue closed.) Oh, and many, many, times I find that I am losing large chunks of my day to playing and enjoying this game! It is in a very good state right now. Thanks, Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 I loiyk you goyz. You're toiyt. Really toiyt (what you think - too South African?). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkEzra Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 to happen. I think that soon CMSF will be done. I don't know when, but whenever BF.C says, "This is the final patch" I want CMSF to be as close to perfect as it can be. Blind "fanboyism" does no favors to anyone. Ken Agreed. Since I'm a KNOWN "FanBoi" this may come as a surprise to some: Getting it accurate and keeping it fun requires player feedback and an Open minded Company. Fortunately CM:SF has both. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lethaface Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 I think that soon CMSF will be done. I don't know when, but whenever BF.C says, "This is the final patch" I want CMSF to be as close to perfect as it can be. Blind "fanboyism" does no favors to anyone. I could only praise that! (damn the wine is finished ) EDIT: Good to hear your having a good time with CMSF. Guess that (should be ) why we're all here! EDIT2: toiyt Mijn Skootrekenaar begrijpt niet, toiyt. Toen die spuitvliegtuig kwam, was alles deurmekaarspul Even een Peuselhappie pakken... 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.