Is Time Running Out on CMSF?

[Peter Panzer]

...get back and keep your heads down, this is gonna be a big one...

We are moving on to full time work on CM Normandy features, data, etc. We will continue to support CM:SF, but it will be more-or-less in maintenance mode from now on. [...]We're at 1+ years from initial release so at some point we have to move on. Version 1.10 seems like a pretty good spot to start that process.

Version 1.11 is in the works now, so no worries there. For the most part it will only be tweaks/fixes and not fundamental changes like v1.10 released. Sure, we'll probably slip some new improvements in here and there, but it's not our focus like it has been for the last 1+ years.

Admittedly, I am in the minority on this board, which is to say I believe CMSF:M has a respectable amount of room for needed improvement.

The game shows flashes of real brilliance, but it never fails to follow up with something to kill the next moment. There are still too many unaddressed details and principal issues, some of which remain from the earliest days of the title, to make v.1.10 a truly engrossing experience. What's more, it appears the title may be moving into the last phase of support.

I understand development cycles are not indefinite, priorities must be assigned, the list of suggestions is lengthy, nothing is perfect and BFC needs to pay their mortgages. I am not asking for new, intensive features like those bandied about the board (i.e. amphibious operations, heliborne insertions. etc.). Rather, I am appealling to BFC to please focus on the existing, rough hewn pieces of the game, such as WEGO playback, vehicle pathing and infantry commands, so they function in a convincing, consistant manner before closing the door on CMSF.

"Small things" make the game. With all due respect to BFC, new models/content do not mean a thing if players can't use them properly because they do not reliably behave in a credible manner. This one is still a rough gem, it would be a damn shame to leave it so coarse.

BFC, please do what is possible to resolve these issues in v.1.11:

WEGO Playback:

• Vehicle pathfinding has taken a surprising step backwards in v1.10, especially when vehicles are around trees. Saved game file available.
  
• Vehicles sometimes stutter and hitch in a vertical motion during slow movement. This is accompanied by corresponding stuttering in the sound effects. This happened four times in a period of 12 minutes during WEGO. Multiple saved game files available.
  
• Vehicles sometimes hitch vertically when moving over uneven terrain or rotating in place. This is similar to the glitch above, however it happens much more frequently and the sound error does not occur
  
• Infantry models sometimes revert to a stark, bolt-upright position ("scarecrow?") at waypoints during WEGO playback. They then resume their appropriate movement animation/posture once the remainder of the squad arrives at the waypoint. The net effect is needlessly jarring and detracts from the otherwise well designed animations.
  
• Infantry models often slide (no run/walk animation) into final positions. This occurs frequently.
  
• Small arms disappear from infantry models when they are mounting vehicles.
  
• Craters, structures and foliage damage does not reset when a turn is played back

Infantry Commands:

• Why can't "Face" and "Target Arc" commands be issued simultaneously in WEGO? If you want to park a vehicle in an alley with the hull oriented to make a quick getaway and the gun pointed elsewhere you are often out of luck.
  
• Why does it first require an entire turn to "unhide" in order to then issue a follow up command in WEGO? Shouldn't it be reasonabe to accomplish both in a single turn?
  
• "Face" commands cannot be executed by units that are hiding

Models:

• The M16A4 hanguard is too short. The barrel and gas tube of the M16A4 are not exposed the way they are depicted in CMSF:M
  
• LAV-25 troop compartment doors remain open when troops mount the vehicle (I believe BFC may already be aware of this)
  
• AFV main guns remain at the elevation of their last target rather than realigning perpendicularly with the hull

TO&E:

• The MEU TO&E lists a "SBCT" Howitzer battery (...now that's combined arms)
  
• USMC Escort Platoon "Equipment" rating is backwards (Mk19=Poor, M2=Excellent)
  
• User entered names ("Rename" function) for HQ units do not appear "in-game"

Bless your trodden soul if you actually read all of that.

[purpheart23]

I love the new module, but admittedly the vehicle pathfinding is giving me heartburn. 1.08 pathfinding for vehicles was imho much better. Most of the issues you've brought up for wego play also exist in rt. Seems to be the game and not the game mode. Good post and I hope BFC don't move along until this gem is polished to a high sheen. Cheers.

[dima]

Peter, can you email me savegames (and any additional info) about vehicle pathfinding problem?

My email is dimastep at gmail dot com.

Thx!

[Peter Panzer]

Purpleheart23

I love the new module...

Indeed. I suppose I am one of the "old timers" that didn't bolt when BFC released their plans for a modern setting or flare out during its suboptimal release state. The concern is there are some core elements that still need work and it looks as if it is really going to come down to the wire as to whether or not they are tuned up before BFC moves on.

Most of the issues you've brought up for wego play also exist in rt.

That's interesting. I play WEGO hotseat exclusively. That's right, I enjoy playing with myself and I am not afraid to say it.

...I hope BFC don't move along until this gem is polished to a high sheen

Roger that. Thanks for weighing in.

Dima:

I knew I could count on you to step up! I have a slow internet connection, however I will get them into your hands as soon as possible.

As usual, my thanks.

[LongLeftFlank]

Good post, PPz, but I doubt you're going to see much more out of CMSF than the British TOE.

I too regret that BFC wasn't able to pull off their original vision for the CMX2 engine, where any evolutions to the core game engine would be backwards compatible to previously developed settings and countermixes. However, I can see why this would be a hell of a challenge for a small developer to pull off in practice.

[dima]

Good post, PPz, but I doubt you're going to see much more out of CMSF than the British TOE.

I too regret that BFC wasn't able to pull off their original vision for the CMX2 engine, where any evolutions to the core game engine would be backwards compatible to previously developed settings and countermixes. However, I can see why this would be a hell of a challenge for a small developer to pull off in practice.

I hope you are just trolling, but even that isn't necessary. It is way more helpful to properly report a problem, with savegame. Ask other forum members how many issues. that they reported just to myself has been fixed in 1.10.

[dima]

Purpleheart23

Dima:

I knew I could count on you to step up! I have a slow internet connection, however I will get them into your hands as soon as possible.

As usual, my thanks.

Not a problem, Peter.

And as part of the report if you could provide the "savegame" (taken before you click Go), not just replay, this would be even better!

It helps reproduce the problem while it is happening, not watching replay of what already happened.

[Other Means]

I hope you are just trolling, but even that isn't necessary. It is way more helpful to properly report a problem, with savegame. Ask other forum members how many issues. that they reported just to myself has been fixed in 1.10.

I don't think he was trolling dima. I think Steve did say they would try and keep all changes backward compatible but has now seen how much extra work that would be and has moved away from it.

I could be wrong about all of it of course but nevertheless I can understand LongLeftFlank's statement.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Battlefront.com]

Peter Panzer,

Admittedly, I am in the minority on this board, which is to say I believe CMSF:M has a respectable amount of room for needed improvement.

For a game like this, one that simulates an impossibly complex and multi-dimensional real world environment, this is a fair statement. It is also a statement that will always be valid since there is just no way to "finish" something that is impossible to complete. Well, "complete" in the sense that everything people expect of it is in and working 100% to expectations.

Many of the old timers have forgotten there was some grousing that we left CMBO unfinished, that we owed it to people to put the changes we made in CMBB into CMBO. There were also those who were unhappy about CMAK not offering many new features (actually, hardly any) and continuing on with various rough edges not smoothed out in the past. As valid as the criticism may be, it's simply not realistic to expect so much from a $45 product. Especially when people have got perhaps 100 times the amount of gameplay out of it that they've got from other games.

My point here is that for the last year we've been working hard to bring CM:SF up to a level that satisfies a reasonable expectation of where the game should be, in our view. Could it be better? Yes. Will the next game we make be better? Yes. Will the game we release in 10 years fulfill all the stuff people expect of CM:SF today? Absolutely not. It's an impossible task.

That being said, Peter has definitely distinguished himself from those who have taken their expectations too far out of the reality in which we live...

I am not asking for new, intensive features like those bandied about the board (i.e. amphibious operations, heliborne insertions. etc.). Rather, I am appealling to BFC to please focus on the existing, rough hewn pieces of the game, such as WEGO playback, vehicle pathing and infantry commands, so they function in a convincing, consistant manner before closing the door on CMSF.

That's our goal too, at least to a reasonable degree. And in order to prove that, I'll go through your list point by point:

Vehicle pathfinding has taken a surprising step backwards in v1.10, especially when vehicles are around trees. Saved game file available.

We are definitely looking at this hard to see what's going on. There does appear to be some situation that the pathing doesn't like, but we've got to narrow it down before we can fix it.

Vehicles sometimes stutter and hitch in a vertical motion during slow movement. This is accompanied by corresponding stuttering in the sound effects. This happened four times in a period of 12 minutes during WEGO. Multiple saved game files available.

This is probably already fixed. We're testing a fix for it now.

Vehicles sometimes hitch vertically when moving over uneven terrain or rotating in place. This is similar to the glitch above, however it happens much more frequently and the sound error does not occur

What we affectionally call the "U-Boat Commander Bug" should be fixed for the next release.

Infantry models sometimes revert to a stark, bolt-upright position ("scarecrow?") at waypoints during WEGO playback. They then resume their appropriate movement animation/posture once the remainder of the squad arrives at the waypoint. The net effect is needlessly jarring and detracts from the otherwise well designed animations.

Infantry models often slide (no run/walk animation) into final positions. This occurs frequently.

Hmmm... I haven't heard about this one for months. This is an indication that the CPU is getting hogged down by something. But we'll definitely check to see if there's something we can reproduce. It's a tough one, though, since it is usually somehow related to someone's hardware and the way the game is interacting with it. I'm not blaming the hardware per se, since it could be that there's something we can do to work around the problem without hobbling the game for everybody else.

Small arms disappear from infantry models when they are mounting vehicles.

Do you mean the 3D models, or the 2D icons in the user interface? I presume you mean the 3D models. I've not heard about this one yet so will check into it.

Craters, structures and foliage damage does not reset when a turn is played back

Unfortunately, this is a really tough one to fix. Since it is purely graphical it hasn't been on the top of the priority list since it's fairly involved. Things like pathing, stuttering, and U-Boat Commanders are, and should be, ahead of things like this.

Why can't "Face" and "Target Arc" commands be issued simultaneously in WEGO? If you want to park a vehicle in an alley with the hull oriented to make a quick getaway and the gun pointed elsewhere you are often out of luck.

The system is set up to only allow one Command per Waypoint at a time. Can this be changed in the future? Yes, and it very well might be. However, I don't see this happening for v1.11.

Why does it first require an entire turn to "unhide" in order to then issue a follow up command in WEGO? Shouldn't it be reasonabe to accomplish both in a single turn?

I'm not sure. Honestly, this sounds like a bug that, for whatever reason, I've not seen before.

"Face" commands cannot be executed by units that are hiding

Same as above. I can't think of a mechanics reason why this should be the case, but I might be forgetting about something.

The M16A4 hanguard is too short. The barrel and gas tube of the M16A4 are not exposed the way they are depicted in CMSF:M

I'll have KwazyDog take a look into it. First I've heard of it.

LAV-25 troop compartment doors remain open when troops mount the vehicle (I believe BFC may already be aware of this)

Already aware, already fixed

AFV main guns remain at the elevation of their last target rather than realigning perpendicularly with the hull

This is a bit of a tough one. It's difficult to tell if a vehicle is actually done targeting something unless that something goes BOOM. The last thing someone wants to see is the gun realigning because the target went out of LOS, then when it is back into LOS the gun has to reorientate itself. This isn't something I see us addressing any time soon.

The MEU TO&E lists a "SBCT" Howitzer battery (...now that's combined arms)

Heh... that's a typo that even I can fix! The artillery is identical so there is no difference, just a label that I need to tweak.

USMC Escort Platoon "Equipment" rating is backwards (Mk19=Poor, M2=Excellent)

Unfortunately, the labels have little relation to the concepts they represent. Neither one is inherently "poor" nor "excellent", therefore I can easily argue that they are more accurate the way they are. This is something we are not going to change because the real fix is to have "cherry picking" UI, which is a major undertaking. That's definitely going to be done for Normandy. So until then, this functional but not really intuitive UI is going to stay as is. The important thing is that players know how to get one or the other, and the manual explains that.

User entered names ("Rename" function) for HQ units do not appear "in-game"

Wow... this one goes back a couple of years! There is a reason for this, but for the life of me I can't recall what it is. It was a good reason though What we should do is block the user from renaming HQs as that will make things consistent.

Bless your trodden soul if you actually read all of that.

So what do I get for doing that and responding too?

Steve

[dima]

Ups, sorry LongLeftFlank I must've not red your post properly (can't Edit replies) to come to that conclusion .

Anyway, my point is that people shouldn't be all doom-and-gloom about CMSF. Sure, devs will have to move on with new engine, but until that happened let's constructively comment on the show-stopper issues and just enjoy what we've got.

[Battlefront.com]

Adam,

Isn't it easy for the code to be updated in CMSF after Normandy? They use the same code base right?

The short answer is "no, it isn't easy". As soon as we start implementing certain changes the data structures themselves will be changed here and there. Other things will also need to be altered, like the TO&E format, to work with the new features. It's unavoidable and, in fact, is why some things are not being done now. There is a thread somewhere recently where I went into this in a fair amount of detail.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

LLF,

Good post, PPz, but I doubt you're going to see much more out of CMSF than the British TOE.

While it is true we aren't going to release another huge patch, like v1.10, for CM:SF again, it isn't true that we're not going to work on it any more. It's also not true that we're only doing one more Module for CM:SF. The first is Marines (obviously), second is British, third is NATO. British Module is coming along VERY nicely and NATO is already in the early stages of development.

Oh, Adam, I forgot...

We feel that instead of spending considerable time retrofitting CM Normandy improvements into CM:SF, and charging people for it (there is no way we can do all that work for a free patch!), everybody is better off if we update the entire CM:SF experience. That includes a new temperate setting and an expanded Red Force.

Steve

[zmoney]

LLF,

While it is true we aren't going to release another huge patch, like v1.10, for CM:SF again, it isn't true that we're not going to work on it any more. It's also not true that we're only doing one more Module for CM:SF. The first is Marines (obviously), second is British, third is NATO. British Module is coming along VERY nicely and NATO is already in the early stages of development.

Oh, Adam, I forgot...

We feel that instead of spending considerable time retrofitting CM Normandy improvements into CM:SF, and charging people for it (there is no way we can do all that work for a free patch!), everybody is better off if we update the entire CM:SF experience. That includes a new temperate setting and an expanded Red Force.

Steve

Wow if I understood what you wrote, an expanded red force with nato troops in a temperate climate, that means pretty much a whole new game.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[MeatEtr]

While it is true we aren't going to release another huge patch, like v1.10, for CM:SF again, it isn't true that we're not going to work on it any more. It's also not true that we're only doing one more Module for CM:SF. The first is Marines (obviously), second is British, third is NATO. British Module is coming along VERY nicely and NATO is already in the early stages of development.

Steve

Is there any ballpark figure release date for the next game/module? Is Normandy next or will it be NATO?

[c3k]

Grrrrrr!

The only thing that bothers me is that about half of what Peter Panzer posted (say THAT fast 3 times!) has been listed by others in the last week or so.

I can only imagine how busy BF.C is. However, there is still no organized user feedback system which can highlight possible problems.

1.10 is a BIG improvement over 1.08. I am, however, eagerly awaiting v1.11.

Thanks,

Ken

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Is there any ballpark figure release date for the next game/module? Is Normandy next or will it be NATO?

The next module is Brits, so it'll either be Normandy or Brits. My personal guess is that the Brits will come first, but I have absolutely no authority to say that.

[purpheart23]

So if I'm reading this right, we'll only get huge updates as the modules come out, or huge updates are out the window completely?

[Cpl Steiner]

I would like to add to the list of fixes needed for v1.11:

v1.10 has introduced a new (or old) LOS bug. On many occasions, targeting an enemy unit's icon does not work but targeting the physical unit polygons themselves does. In v1.08, you could just target the icon, and if there was LOS to any part of the unit the targeting line would indicate a valid target. This ties in with the problem many have reported in which the UI says a unit is spotted but the targeting line won't allow the unit to be targeted. I think people may be trying to target the icon alone and not realising that targeting a particular polygon that is in LOS would work.

This might not be the whole story, i.e. there may be other flavours of LOS bug in v1.10, but I thought I'd throw it into the discussion before CM:SF becomes "legacy" software.

[Battlefront.com]

C3K,

It isn't possible for me to respond to each thing that people have noted, though I do comment on quite a lot of them. However, even when I don't respond I am making notes and so are the testers. The reasons some of the things Peter Panzer asked about are already fixed is because someone else made us aware of them Therefore, the system works.

Cpl Steiner,

Hmmm... nobody's mentioned that one before as far as I know. At least not that specific. Out of curiosity, do you have an ATI card? There should be no difference between clicking on the 3D icon and the unit's polygons.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Our plan is to release a Module every 3-4 months. This should hold true for the British Module as well, but this is the first Module that we've not done "in-house" so there are some variables. Personally, I think things are going VERY well.

There are many threads on this Forum, some dating back several years, that explain the development philosophy we now have. Here is a very quick overview:

Title Release This is a major release, such as CM:SF and the initial CM:Normandy (name is still a placeholder) game. These are full priced products ($45 most likely) that offers enough game content to warrant that price. Specifics are based vary, but generally speaking shifts in geographical setting, timeframe, major shifts in units, fairly big new features, etc. combine to create a new Title.

Module Something that builds directly off of a Title product. Usually in the form of new units only, but not necessarily limited to that. For example, a game feature may be added because a new vehicle requires some sort of behavior not present in the game up until that point. However, such game features are specific to the needs of that Module.

Family this refers to a Title and its Modules.

Updates, be they bug fixes or improvements, to the game itself are always made to the Title product. This way you will never, ever have a situation where two people are playing different games because of what Modules they do, or do not, own. The fixes/improvements may be more applicable to one Module or another, but that's incidental and not really relevant.

Bug fixes and tweaks to things specific to a Module are released as their own stand-alone patches. For example, if we find that a bit of data is wrong for a Marines only vehicle, then we will release a Marines patch specifically to address that problem. This is necessary because the Modules are separate EXEs with their own data and supporting resources. Again, such fixes/tweaks are specific to Module content and therefore don't affect gameplay in any general sense like patches to the Title do.

Our plan is to make Module releases every 3-4 months, Title releases every 12 or so. Patches are released on an "as needed" basis with no hard cutoff in mind. At some point we'll say "this particular product is no longer supported" just like we eventually did with CMx1 games. However, since the basic code is going to be in use for such a long time it is possible that if someone pulls the rug out from under us that we will be able to offer a fix even if the game is several years old. In other words, if OpenGL 5 in the future breaks something we use now, we'll have to fix the code we're currently working with to use OpenGL 5 correctly. Those changes will hopefully be viable for us to offer previous customers, even if technically speaking their products are not supported. This was simply not possible with CMx1 since the code was not in use by the time various technology changes caused problems.

Steve

[Cpl Steiner]

Hmmm... nobody's mentioned that one before as far as I know. At least not that specific. Out of curiosity, do you have an ATI card? There should be no difference between clicking on the 3D icon and the unit's polygons.

No, my card is an nVidia 8800GT.

I think lots of people have had situations in which the UI says an enemy has been spotted but the spotting unit can't target the enemy. I just noticed by chance in one scenario that if I targeted the unit itself rather than the icon, I could fire on the unit. The unit was just behind a ridge line, so it was barely in LOS. Unfortunately I don't have a save but if I see the same thing again I'll try to make one and send it to you.

Just to clarify, normally I can target either the unit icon or the unit itself. I just noticed in this one situation that the icon wasn't allowing me to target the unit but targeting the unit itself worked. I have had several situation in which supposedly spotted units don't allow targeting via the icon though, so the same thing could have been happening then.

[MeatEtr]

Our plan is to release a Module every 3-4 months. This should hold true for the British Module as well, but this is the first Module that we've not done "in-house" so there are some variables. Personally, I think things are going VERY well.

Steve

Whoa, wait a minute, so a different company or development team is working on the British module? I've never heard this before, this is news to me. Although I was a bit curious with all the modules I thought was being developed in-house. It seemed like an awful lot for such a small team.

I think this is certainly a good thing.

[Pvt. Ryan]

Whoa, wait a minute, so a different company or development team is working on the British module? I've never heard this before, this is news to me. Although I was a bit curious with all the modules I thought was being developed in-house. It seemed like an awful lot for such a small team.

I think this is certainly a good thing.

Yes, just don't chew on the CD because it will contain either lead or melamine.