dan/california Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Just to discuss the actual game for a minute, when might 1.21 make an appearance? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted October 7, 2009 Author Share Posted October 7, 2009 And what is definitely included. I assume the roof/ multi floor issue is fixed but what else might make it in? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 I know this is a minor thing, but could the 'jostle' factor of vehicle suspensions be dialed down a bit? I mean, when you bring the camera close in on a Bradley and see the vehicle move slightly when the 25mm fires, it's just one of the many little and not-so-little things that make CMSF such a great game. But when MBTs are rocking back and forth on their tracks as they accelerate/deccelerate and Humvees are doing wheelies as they begin a Fast move order from a dead stop, it's kinda breaks the immersion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paper Tiger Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 But when MBTs are rocking back and forth on their tracks as they accelerate/deccelerate and Humvees are doing wheelies as they begin a Fast move order from a dead stop, it's kinda breaks the immersion. I kind of wondered about this myself. I just assumed that since none of the military guys on the Beta team (and there's one tanker) are complaining about it that it's not unreasonable. It seems a wee bit overmodelled to me too. PS I've just posted about this on the Beta board so we'll see what happens. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted October 9, 2009 Author Share Posted October 9, 2009 Blast it, I was hoping for 1.21 today! My ability to delude myself is breathtaking. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeFF Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 I kind of wondered about this myself. I just assumed that since none of the military guys on the Beta team (and there's one tanker) are complaining about it that it's not unreasonable. It seems a wee bit overmodelled to me too. Never in my six years in the Army did I see a Hummer even come close to popping wheelies like they do in CMSF. The animation is clearly over-modeled. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lomir Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 But the armoured vehicles rocking back and forth on their track when going from very fast speed to a dead stop, definitely not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 We've dumbed down the weight based jerkiness of the wheeled vehicles several times now, but I think it's still too overdone. As for v1.21's release... we're trying to wrap it up now. No time estimate though. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piecekeeper Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 What does that mean...this month...this year? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 What does that mean...this month...this year? Rough translation "when its ready" As for the AFV's rocking I at least figured there were bigger fish to fry. If that's all we have to complain about then I'd say its was a 99.9% solution and I at least have several other things on my "fix this" list before I get down to suspension modelling. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 If that's all we have to complain about then I'd say its was a 99.9% solution and I at least have several other things on my "fix this" list before I get down to suspension modelling. Please, name said things on your fix-this list. This might as well be a "things we'd like to see with v1.21" thread. As for me, the fact that I 'only' complain about the vehicle suspension modeling should indicate in what high regard I hold CMSF. For instance, in one of the scenarios late in the British campaign, a T-72 fired an AP round (I forget whether it was APFSDS or what have you) and an LMTV, and the shell passed through the front third of the passenger compartment -- no casualties, only slight damage to the wheels and radio. Sure, the passenger compartment suddenly had rather a draft, but those three particular pixeltruppen weren't complaining. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Please, name said things on your fix-this list. This might as well be a "things we'd like to see with v1.21" thread. Well they wont make it there (unless you want its release delayed until say June next year) and I suspect that wont make you too popular for those who already think its overdue. For instance, in one of the scenarios late in the British campaign, a T-72 fired an AP round (I forget whether it was APFSDS or what have you) and an LMTV, and the shell passed through the front third of the passenger compartment -- no casualties, only slight damage to the wheels and radio. Sure, the passenger compartment suddenly had rather a draft, but those three particular pixeltruppen weren't complaining. Well there's a basis for that (part of the reason why you use different weapons / ammunition natures for different targets). If the target is lightly armoured, then a APFSDS round will certainly penetrate one side and quite probably pentrate the other and keep going for a few more kilometres and cause little damage unless you happen to get in its way. That's what HEAT / HESH and even coax / 0.50" cal is for. (and you might surmise that is one of the things on my list). But as for the other things, just because they are on "my" list, doesn't mean they make it onto "the" list. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 That's why I wrote "things we would like [conditional tense] to see in v1.21". I'm just curious what others would like to see adjusted/fixed, that's all. (Aside from what Peter Panzer and Paper Tiger have already noted, that is.) And I wasn't implying I saw inaccuracy in the T-72-versus-LMTV incident I described. I was using that as an example of how thoroughly accurate I think CMSF's simulation is! In pretty much every other game I've ever played, if a soft-skinned vehicle is hit by a shell from a tank's cannon, it's destroyed. But in CMSF, an AP shell passing through the 'empty' part of a truck causes -- realistically -- no real damage. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 Well a not so comprehensive subset includes: - The OS X version. - TCP/IP WEGO. - AFV replenishment. - AFV recovery. - Breaching / SOSRA. - Specialist AFV's (mine plough, roller, AVLB, and respective national versions of AVRE, etc.). - Stabilisation animation (barrel moving up and down as the vehicle moves). - Covered arc animation (even standing still a gunner scans his arc so the turret should travers left and right - identifying targets). - Multiple Covered Arcs if vehicle supports it (say Gunner via his GPS and Commander via CITV). - Bail out animation (no more high jumps off the roof of the vehicle). - Secondary explosions and ammunition cooking off (and possible injuries to infantry that use the wreck for protection). - Ability to knock down / climb over low stone walls (with possible corresponding exposure of hull armour). - MBSGD's not being used to cover friendly Infantry advances (shouldn't be allowed to advance though what's often WP smoke without some negative impact). - Bradley TOW not always driving around "deployed" (it normally is in a "travel" location). - Animation for the TOW launcher moving from "travel" to "fire" position. - Reload animation for Bradley TOW. - Limitations on Bradley TOW firing due to angle, etc. - Correct main amament ammunition selection (coax for soft targets, HE for soft targets / APC / MICV, APFSDS for MBT). - Vehicles that can generate smoke from their exhaust being able to. - Bigger maps, so you can actually manoeuvre. - Better undergrowth modelling. - Modelling of effects of firing (no more infantry sitting in front of an M1 and no one getting hurt if the M1 fires over their heads). I think that's enough for a start. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted October 11, 2009 Author Share Posted October 11, 2009 The secondary explosions are already in, you don't dare get within a 100 meters of a burning BMP3. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 The secondary explosions are already in, you don't dare get within a 100 meters of a burning BMP3. Ah well one I can strike from the list, but there's still a few to go. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wengart Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 I may have found a possible bug regarding Syrian Squads. Currently some Syrian squads will show an incorrect number of men in the squad panel. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlowMotion Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 I know that the QB system will be redone for the Normandy series. But would it be possible to get one simple change to current system that IMO would give players a useful simple fix to the biggest problem (IMO) of current QBs? I think this problem is that one player gets much better units than the other, even though the QB options deciding what kind of units should be created were exactly the same for both players. So the winner is often decided in this unit selection phase. My idea would be adding a new option to QB screen: mirrored units. If this option was enabled, computer would pick the units according to other unit options for Player1. And just give Player2 exactly the same units. Then it wouldn't matter if the computer chose good or bad units to player1, because the other player would get exactly the same stuff. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hcrof Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 How about this for a suggestion? Right now BRDM-AT vehicles are completely useless. They spot very slowly, are easy to see and are always destroyed before they do damage. In addition, even when they outrange their tank targets, they will 'bug out' before letting a shot off. Seeing as we can't camoflage our vehicles, would it be possible to dismount the crew and use them with remote control stations? The BRDM sits behind a ridge and the operator can hide up to 80m away while guiding the missile. Two problems solved at once and BRDM-AT becomes useful for a change! The code could probably also be used with western ATGM vehicles but I am not sure whether they have the same system. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 The code could probably also be used with western ATGM vehicles but I am not sure whether they have the same system. Not for any in the game. The UK "Swingfire" weapon system as deployed on the UK "Striker" CVR(T) variant used this system too but isn't in the UK Module as the "Swingfire" and "Milan" are replaced by "Javelin" in the Module's time frame. Certainly the M2 / M3 Bradley, Stryker TOW or LAV-AT don't have that sort of remote system. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hcrof Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 True that, but according to fas.org, the LAV-AT comes with a "TOW II ground-mount kit". Isn't that much the same thing? Or have I got it completely wrong? And what about the Stryker ATGM? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 True that, but according to fas.org, the LAV-AT comes with a "TOW II ground-mount kit". Isn't that much the same thing? Or have I got it completely wrong? No AFAIK that's for firing the missile from a ground mount. A bit like most vehicle mounted MG's come with a tripod so if you need to you can pull the gun out of the vehicle and fire from the ground mount. Its not a "remote" per se. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hcrof Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification. Still, the point still stands for the BRDM-AT 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 Agreed, But I think a more general "improvement" would be to allow for the construction of "AFV scrapes" as part of the setup phase. So your AFV's (of whatever sort) could start in a specific location "dug in" but have the ability to reverse out when the time comes to displace. In a perfect world I'd love to have "primary", "alternate" and "secondary" positions so that if you started on the defensive you could move from location to location and gain a defensive benefit (without the cost of being fully dug in and immobilised). After all Infantry have trenches and other defensive works. I'll add that to my wish list above but not sure how far I'll get. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted October 26, 2009 Author Share Posted October 26, 2009 I'm starting to think that 1.21 is going to appear with the NATO module; which is fine if thats really soon. 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.