CMSF British manual

[TheVulture]

I guess I understand what you mean.

Regarding the visible muzzle flashes, I agree that it's not wrong that they are removed from the players eye if the firing unit ain't visible to the player, but my critic was about Steve's statement 'No, there was never a spotting bonus assigned to the special effects.', what implies that muzzle fire doesn't rises the chance for a unit to be spotted, no matter if the effect is displayed or not. But this might be a missunderstanding from me.

It is pretty definitely the case that firing units are more easily spotted than non-firing ones (as everyone knows in game MOUT situations, you don't spot enemy units in buildings at all until they decide to shoot at you unless you are in the same room). So firing generates extra chance of being spotted, but there is no extra benefit for spotting the muzzle flash graphics.

Anyway, I still think that dust of unspotted units should be visible independly from the unit itself, what would mean that unit and dust have each their own 'spotting value'. Yes, dust can be switched of (I think), but unit icons can be switched off, too. But if this is done, the player looses nearly all overview about the units on the battlefield, friendly or not, spotted or not. What's the sense of it, except a for taking a nice screenshot?

It would be nice if individual dust clouds were indepedantly spottable, but a) it might be very hard to retro-fit that to existing code (depending on how everything is implemented) and it is potentially an awful lot more LoS calculations. You can't make the dust plume a single object, since it can be very large and only parts of it may be spottable. So you have to break it down in to 'sub clouds' - and each unit can conceivably have quite a lot of clouds associated with it (but at least that is a linear rather than a quadratic problem, since you don't have to worry about calculating LoS between different clouds). But is also breaks the existing enhanced LoS system. Currently LoS is pre-calculated for each action spot and height setting (of the 5, 7 or whatever it is standard heights). But clouds aren't constrained to those heights, and it is precisely the clouds at heights above any vehicle or unit (aside form aircraft) that are interesting. Which means either a great deal of time-intensive on the fly LoS calculation, or potentially massive pre-calculated tables and dust clouds only at certain 'standard' heights (cue the complaints about how LoS calculations for dust clouds don't exactly match up with the geometry visible to the players).

[Battlefront.com]

Which is exactly why it isn't practical to do We can do it, technically that is, but we'd probably have to shut off most of the rest of the game engine for this to work on an average computer. In that case we'd have to rename the game to "Smoke Mission"

Plus, there is the problem of how to show partially spotted smoke/dust/exhaust. I mean, if you just see the top edge over the crest of a hill, why should you see a nice, clean, completely accurate dust plume going down to the exact spot where the vehicle (which you can't see) is? But showing just the top part of the spotted smoke/dust/exhaust is graphically impossible to do.

The REAL solution is to have the camera positions tied to the "eyes" of a unit. Besides the tons of gameplay problems that come with it, even this is not really doable since some units have up to 13 or more pairs of eyes. So when you select that unit, whose eyes do you get stuck with? So on and so forth!

Steve

[Scipio]

I see. (meaning *grumble grumble*, we'll have to talk about it again in 5 years or so )

[Scipio]

By the way, there are no changes on the QB part mentioned, indeed I can't remember if there was something planned for this patch. May I ask if there are any plans to let the QB auto purchase work a bit better in future patches? And no, I'm defenetly NOT asking for cherry picking in CMSF .

[dan/california]

Steve's finger is poised above the mouse pondering when to put us out of our misery and post the patch list. Or the release of the manual is the cruelest tease ever.....

[sfhand]

^^^ or even better... release the module today so we can read our own copy of the list.

[Sgt Joch]

On the lack of dust, muzzle flashes, etc. of unspotted units, this is my favorite change in 1.20 to the core engine. This was the one big "gamey" hole still left in CMSF PBEM. In game, despite the worries of some, it works very naturally and seamlessly.

[cool breeze]

Since suggesting things is sooo much easier than implementing them I have a suggestion. I like the idea of having some vague ideas about unspotted vehicles via the dust. at least to know that enemy tanks are in the area. but I dont want to know when and where when I shouldnt know this.

Can you make the vehicle dust clouds appear to everyone once several minutes have passed? enough time for the dust cloud to raise to a level where someone can probably see it but after it has moved and dispersed enough to not get any unrealistic details? This sounds like a near perfect middle solution to me. I am very pleased though that we know longer know where and when everything making dust is. and no muzzle flashes for he unspotted sounds like on of the best improvements ever!!! Thanks this patch sounds AMAZING!!!

[SlowMotion]

A bit more to what Cool Breeze is writing. I think the best solution (but no idea how difficult to implement or how much CPU it would use) would be sort of between what 1.20 will have and what the old situation was. Surely my units shouldn't see a vehicle's dust cloud if it cannot be seen. Or a muzzle flash if my units have no line of sight to it.

But aren't those things exactly the things that often cause a unit becoming spotted? The same thing with sounds from guns, explosions or engines. I think such things happening in some part of the map that my units can observe should make that part of the map be observed more.

In CMx1 we had sound contacts. I think it was a very good solution for this. You got some vague idea for example that a vehicle was moving in some area, but not exact location or unit type. I think it would be very good to get something like this to the new game engine also.

[Battlefront.com]

We intend to overhaul the "?" spotting system, though I'm not sure how much of it will get into Normandy right away and how much will come after. We can theoretically tie dust, at least, to specific spots which the spotting system has decided are questionable spottings. Or in CM:SF terms, where you see a "?" we can put dust. That's because the system has a definite place to base the origin of the dust animation.

The problem comes in when the questionable spotting unit is not being updated because you don't have new information. In that case the "?" is static, which would then make dust coming from it look really odd and confusing.

We'll keep in mind combining special effects in with questionable spotted units, which is what you guys are suggesting even if you don't know it

Steve

[Scipio]

Dust clouds disappear (or move). Wouldn't this work for '?'-dust, too?

[radioman999]

Looking at the composition and equipments for the British infantry, I got an impression that it is more about maximizing efficiency rather than using overwhelming man/firepower as in the Marines squads. Should this be the general approach for the British infantry?

[Combatintman]

The British rifle still has a lot of firepower - but clearly its not in the same ballpark as the USMC equivalent - so yes you will have to think about how you employ them - but if you keep to the basic principle of fire and manoeuvre you'll be half way there.

[Flanker15]

Will unspotted burning vehicles still have their smoke fully visible?

Does driving across dusty ground increase the spotted chance for the vehicle?

[radioman999]

The British rifle still has a lot of firepower -

Yes, speaking of the British rifles, L85 LSW sounds interesting. It's not quite a SAW but not a regular AR hmm.. also I was surprised that the barrel on L85 is longer than that of m16

[MikeyD]

I understand the L85 (SA80) was judged to be a total piece of crap during the Kuwait war. Made M16's introduction in Vietnam look like a walk in the park in comparison. The gun would literally fall apart in soldiers' hands. And the longer-barrelled L86 LSW was even more hated by the troops! Tests revealed some FIFTY faults with the weapon. Since then its gone through some serious reworking, I believe at the hands of H&K in Germany (200,000 rifles remanufactured since 2000).

[Cpl Steiner]

I understand the L85 (SA80) was judged to be a total piece of crap during the Kuwait war. Made M16's introduction in Vietnam look like a walk in the park in comparison. The gun would literally fall apart in soldiers' hands. And the longer-barrelled L86 LSW was even more hated by the troops! Tests revealed some FIFTY faults with the weapon. Since then its gone through some serious reworking, I believe at the hands of H&K in Germany (200,000 rifles remanufactured since 2000).

As MikeyD says, the SA80 was loathed when it first came out but I think all the fixes since have proved effective as I've not heard any complaints about it in the press and media for ages. There's also a clip on You Tube of Andy McNab ("Bravo Two Zero" SAS trooper) test firing the weapon and he was quite positive about it. Not sure if that proves much through.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Combatintman]

I meant to say Rifle Section!

[Elmar Bijlsma]

As MikeyD says, the SA80 was loathed when it first came out but I think all the fixes since have proved effective as I've not heard any complaints about it in the press and media for ages. There's also a clip on You Tube of Andy McNab ("Bravo Two Zero" SAS trooper) test firing the weapon and he was quite positive about it. Not sure if that proves much through.

Then again, the loathing need not directly correspond with the actual suckage.

For a soldier to stop bitching about the gear he is carrying would require him to be naked and empty handed.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Then again, the loathing need not directly correspond with the actual suckage.

For a soldier to stop bitching about the gear he is carrying would require him to be naked and empty handed.

This was far beyond ordinary bitching. The weapon was absolutely terrible in its release state. I'm sure that they still bitch about things, but a lot less than they used to. In fact, I'm reading 3 Para about the titular unit in Helmland Province in 2006, and they said that they all found the SA80 to be a reliable and effective weapon.

[Yair Iny]

Bit off topic but historically has there been a new bit of kit that was universally praised and welcomed by the troops?

Well, I doubt any of the riflemen themselves complained about switching from the M16 to the M4, reduced range notwithstanding. At least in the IDF, there were no complaints that I know of in the infantry (goes without saying that armour and arty didn't complain either). As far as I know (I'm a bit distant these days), the Tavor has been received quite well so far. I'm sure there are other examples.

Cheers

[Thomm]

Get out more Moon!

Adam, you are clearly trolling again!

Please be more careful with your language!

Best regards,

Thomm

[Thomm]

Did I miss something?

(Since Adam brought this up again, anyway)

Yes, you are missing that you want to sell a new module with new engine features along with new content. The patch is, obviously, 'just' a spin-off of this development.

Best regards,

Thomm