View Full Version : 1.05 is here
Well for the BF version anyhow.I just found it on the BF site. Let's see how it goes. I have the Paradox retail version so I have to wait :angry:, oh well
Issues with the download sites. Seems only gamershell is truly working.
Lot of changes listed. I seems maybe this will be the game it should be if they all work. My only negative comment is if this game was so great and functional, that list of changes really should embarrass BFC.
any 1.05 demo?
They say that it's coming early next week. See:
http://battlefront.com/products/cmsf/downloads.html
After an hour of play, some things are better, somethings are the same, and somethings haven't been addressed.
I did notice that within an hour, LOS issues were already being reported.
My own personal pet peeves are Stryker behavior and how TacAI handles them. Better: Strykers finally seem to return fire when attacked. Still sucks: Strykers love going toe-to-toe with T72s. Will occassionally fire smoke, but will also tend to bang away at a T72 with a .50. But great dynamic lighting! (sarcasm)
I am running a few pathfinding tests later.
I downloaded it but I have serious doubts whether it is worth checking out or whether I should watch TV.
Just for starters, there is no mention of a single pathfinding change in the list of fixes and Steve has just repeatedly said that he thinks pathfinding in 1.04 is "fine". So much for the Beta testers hammering me with how great 1.05 will be.
CPangracs
15 Dec 07, 00:00
Again, pathfinding is THE toughest nut to crack. First, everyone screams about how long a patch is taking, then when one is published, it's not a good enough patch?
Well, it's obvious the BF guys haven't been completely idle for the last 6 months. Can we at least give them some credit? At least they are doing something, which is more than you can say about many game developers...
Combat Mission: Shock Force v1.05 Battlefront Version Game Patch (all inclusive)
WARNING! The following patch is only for the Battlefront.com release versions of the game (v1.01, v1.02, v1.03 or v1.04). If you purchased the game from Paradox Interactive, in a retail store, or if you downloaded the game from Gamersgate.com, DO NOT INSTALL THIS PATCH!!! Instead, download the v1.05 patch specific to the Paradox or Gamersgate version.
This patch is all inclusive and includes all the fixes from the earlier v1.02, v1.03 and v1.04 patches.
If you install this patch and then get an error message when trying to run the game that says, "This application has failed to start because elicen40.dll was not found. Re-installing the application may fix this problem." then you have applied the wrong patch for your game version and will need to download and apply either the v1.05 Paradox Version Game Patch or the v1.05 Gamersgate Version Game Patch.
PREVIOUS SAVE GAME COMPATIBILITY NOTE:
Save games created with earlier versions of the game are NOT compatible with v1.05. Please finish your in-progress games before applying this patch.
CUSTOM HOTKEYS.TXT NOTE
If you had assigned custom hotkeys in the past (available in v1.02, v1.03 and v1.04) then you will want to backup your Data\hotkeys.txt file before installing this patch. Once the patch is installed, simply paste your copy of hotkeys.txt file back into the Data folder and you will still have all of your old hotkey assignments.
MANUAL ADDENDUM
The manuals reference to the eLicense licensing and game activation system (pages 12-15 and 194) is ONLY applicable to the Battlefront.com version of the game. The Gamersgate and Paradox Interactive versions of the game each use their own licensing/activation/protection systems and you should contact those companies directly if you have problems licensing or activating those versions of the game.
TROUBLESHOOTING INFO
Included with this patch is the most up to date troubleshooting guide. It is located in the game folder (filename Troubleshooting Guide.html) as well as in the Battlefront\Combat Mission Shock Force Program Group located under the Start Menu).
HOYKEYS CUSTOMIZATION HELP:
Combat Mission has two distinctly different approaches for using unit Commands via the keyboard; Relative and Direct. The Relative system involves a set of 9 keys centered around three rows of three consecutive keys each. These 9 keys match the 9 Command Buttons in the user interface's Command Panel. Each hotkey controls the commands RELATIVE to the position on the screen. For example, by default the U key activates the Top Row Left-Most key which would be FAST, TARGET, and SPLIT depending on which Command Group is visible (Movement, Combat, and Special respectively). The Direct system, on the other hand, assigns a unique hotkey for DIRECT access to each Command. No attention is paid to the graphical representation on the screen. For example, if so assigned, F would issue the FAST command. T would issue the TARGET command, H would control the HIDE command etc... no matter which Command Group is visible on the screen.
There are pros and cons to each system. The Relative system allows the player to keep one hand stationary on the keyboard and does not require any "hunting and pecking" to find the right hotkey. The downside is that when you wish to use two Commands in a row that are in different Command Groups you have to first switch the proper Command Group (now done using the F5-F8 keys). The Direct system allows you to string Commands together without concern for which Command Group they are in, but does have the drawback of requiring the hand to move and locate a specific key, which may or may not be easily memorized. Which is "better" comes down to personal player preference, therefore both are provided.
Whenever possible, the order buttons under the various Command Panels will display the assigned "direct" key in highlighted green text.
Note, we recommend that you decide which system you prefer and then assign the keys as you wish by editing the hotkeys.txt file. The default key assignments have all 9 Relative keys assigned (UIOJKLM,.) as well as a selection of the most commonly used commands mapped to new Direct keys (Move Fast, Move Normal, Reverse, Target, Target Light, Face, Deploy, Pause, Hide, Dismount, Vehicle Open Up and Pop Smoke) to give you an idea of how the two systems work. We have found that using one or the other systems exclusively seems to have the best results and do not recommend mixing the two systems together. While it's possible to do, it could mean getting the worst of both systems and not really getting the benefits. Therefore, if you wish to use the Direct system we advise that you edit the hotkeys.txt file to unassign the 9 Relative hotkeys. Also, be aware to not double assign any keys to multiple functions.
In order to change the hotkey assignments, please see the hotkeys.txt file located in the game DATA folder.
CHANGING GAME RESOLUTION:
By default, the first time the game is launched, the games internal resolution is set whatever your desktop's resolution is. We have added a two ways to adjust your game resolution. From inside the game, go to the Main Menu, then select the Options panel. From there you can select the game to run at the following resolutions:
Desktop = (the game will run at whatever resolution your desktop is set to)
1024x768
1152x864
1280x960
If you want to run the game in a resolution not listed, you can manually set this by editing the "display size.txt" file located in your game directory. Simply change the two numbers that you see in there with the width and height you wish to run the game.
ex: For 1680x1050 you would delete the two numbers in that file and replace with "1680 1050" (without quotes).
If you put in "0 0", the game will revert to using your desktop resolution.
MULTIPLAYER INFO:
Combat Mission: Shock Force uses the UDP and TCP port 7023 for all multiplayer games. If you are trying to HOST a TCP-IP game make sure and open port 7023 for both UDP and TCP traffic.
GAME LANGUAGE INFO:
You can change between the available languages from within the Options panel however we have only included scenarios and campaigns for English, German and French. If you select Italian or Polish languages you may (depending on what version of the game you own) have to copy the scenarios and folders files from inside the Game Files\Scenarios and Game Files\Campaigns folders and place them into the appropriately named folders for your selected language.
If you make a change to the language setting, be sure and immediately exit the game and then reload in order for the game to properly prepare the language setting and files.
V1.05 PATCH NOTES
v1.05 EXTRAS
* Two new Mod Tools (RezExplode and RezPack) along with a 'how-to' doc file included in the Mod Tools directory. These files allow modification to various game sound and graphics files located in the data .brz files.
* Two new Scenarios (Following the Euphrates and Guarding the Far Flank). Note: Scenario text has been localized for German and English languages. All other language versions of the game will display these scenarios in English.
* Eight all new Quick Battle Maps plus Seven updated and improved original Quick Battle Maps.
* Added all of the Quick Battle Maps for Spanish language version.
v1.05 NEW FEATURES:
* Flashes of light appear on objects near gunfire, explosions, rocket/missile flame, and burning vehicles at night and in low-light conditions.
* When placing a Target order, the LOS line turns yellow if it's generally clear, but not perfectly so. This means either *some* soldiers in the spotting unit may not have a clear LOS or *some* of the target zone may not be visible.
* If you point the cursor at a weapon in the "soldier display" user interface panel, the name of the weapon is displayed and that soldier is subtly highlighted in the main 3D display.
* A radio "squawk" sound plays when reinforcements arrive, when a "Touch" objective is touched, and when internet/LAN chat messages arrive.
* Artillery and air support targeting lines "highlight" to match the currently selected support unit in the "roster" view, so you can see who is shooting where.
* Added a hotkey to toggle camera shake on/off.
v1.05 IMPROVEMENTS:
* Soldiers do a better job moving to the "near" side of an exterior building corner not "beyond" it.
* Soldiers do a better job recovering important weapons and equipment from fallen comrades.
* Soldiers do a better job regrouping when separated from team members.
* Soldiers will make minor position adjustments to gain clear line of fire when possible.
* Soldiers using Hunt movement react quicker to incoming fire.
* Improved ammo selection logic versus armored targets whose armor has a mix of strong and weak points.
* During the process of placing waypoints, if you choose the Face command the last waypoint will automatically be highlighted so the Face command will apply to that last waypoint, not the current position. You are still able to manually select a waypoint and issue a Face order from there.
* Heavy weapons may now Deploy their weapons on rooftops.
* Marksmen, SAW and MG gunners open fire at longer ranges.
* M4A1 and AK-74 series small arms have effective range increased to 500m (from 400m). M4A1 rifle with scope effective range increased to 750m (from 600m).
* Troops try not to fire more than one guided missile at a time against a single enemy vehicle.
* Crew and passenger survivability increased when vehicles are knocked out, especially for Strykers, Bradleys, and M1 Abrams.
* Effectiveness of slat armor versus RPGs is increased.
* When acquiring (passenger) antitank weapons from a vehicle, infantry units use better logic to give "important" antitank weapons (e.g. Javelin) to the antitank specialist, even if it means he must swap other antitank weapons that are less important (e.g. M136/AT4) with other soldiers.
* Conscript and green troops have less discipline to conserve ammunition.
* It's slightly easier to spot soldiers who are firing their weapons than before.
* Buildings are harder to demolish by explosions.
* Accuracy of M229 Hydra-70 air-to-ground rockets (carried by US helicopters) is improved.
* Squads and Teams with orders to embark-move to a vehicle that has movement orders normally move to the spot where the vehicle has also been ordered to move, in order to meet up at the destination. However, if the vehicle is currently under "pause" orders, the squad/team will move directly to the vehicle's current location.
* Gunners on vehicles with autoloaders (M1128 Stryker MGS and T-72 tank) are less likely to switch over to using the MG immediately after firing the main gun.
* "Unit Lock" camera angles are improved, and track a vehicle's turret more than its hull facing.
* When a targeted unit disappears from line of sight, the targeting order is canceled (there is no longer a target line to the vanished unit's actual location)
* For nearby trees, the Alt-T tree hiding option does not hide the tree entirely; it just hides the leaves.
* When plotting artillery and air strikes, an invalid map click (e.g. out of LOS) is simply ignored rather than bouncing you out of the input sequence.
* You can embark troops on a vehicle by clicking the vehicle's icon (as well as the vehicle itself).
* Control-clicks on buildings move the camera position just like control-clicks on terrain (this feature is switched off inside the editor).
v1.05 BUG FIXES:
* Line of sight to buildings and rooftops works correctly now.
* Corrected a bug that allowed LOS/LOF to pass through the tops of tall walls.
* Corrected a problem that sometimes allowed spotting of vehicles through buildings.
* Corrected a "stuck soldier" animation issue (e.g. a soldier who could not move out of a trench).
* Corrected issues where individual soldiers would incorrectly move away from their teams.
* Improved stability for Internet/LAN games.
* Corrected a problem where some members of a vehicle team would take an unrealistically long time to bail out.
* When firing antitank rockets and missiles, soldiers who are not antitank specialists receive an accuracy or guidance penalty (exception: "secondary" launchers like the M136/AT4 and the RPG-18 can be fired by anyone without penalty).
* Corrected a problem where certain external doors to buildings would never be used.
* Soldiers make proper use of "interior" doors and open spaces between building units instead of moving the long way around.
* "Group box selecting" works better in Elite mode.
* Grenades explode correctly on building roofs.
* Vehicles are not shielded by hiding behind knocked-out armored vehicles.
* Smoke from a burning vehicle does not block mouse clicks to place waypoints.
* Fixed a bug that caused battles in Elite mode, on maps with lots of trees, to run very slowly.
* Corrected a problem in Elite mode where one could spot friendly soldiers but not the vehicle they are riding in, causing the look of "levitating troops".
* Vehicles with badly shot-up engines and/or running gear (but not quite immobilized) can still move (at a very slow pace) up hill or in rough terrain.
* Corrected a slight aiming problem versus buildings as area fire targets.
* Victory points are awarded for an "Occupy" objective only if the objective is totally cleared of enemy troops and friendly troops remain inside the objective at the end of the game.
* Corrected some problems with awarding points for Destroy, Preserve, and Touch Terrain Objectives.
* Fixed a crash problem that affected artillery in internet/LAN games.
* In turn-based mode replay, the 3D icon for vehicles does not prematurely show an infantry symbol if the vehicle is destroyed in that turn.
* Fixed a bug where in turn-based playback, sometimes a vehicle passenger's position would "lag" slightly behind the moving vehicle.
* Fixed various problems with 3D objects not reverting to their original states when replaying a turn-based turn's resolution.
* Soldiers animate correctly when prone and turning to the left; when exiting down a vehicle ramp; and at the start of the play-by-email replay phase.
* Corrected a problem where some squads suddenly lost Command & Control for no good reason.
* Weapons acquired from a vehicle are correctly loaded (e.g. M136AT4 launcher stored on Bradley).
* Fire and smoke from a burning vehicle appear in the correct location.
* In two-player games, player #2's initial camera view is placed correctly according to the scenario design.
* Fixed a problem with the choice of "mixed branch" in Quick Battles.
* Javelin flight path improved for short-range shots.
* Corrected an issue with the muzzle flash on the M1114-M240 vehicle.
* T-72M1V tank commander buttons up to use the remote-controlled 14.5mm MG.
* Haze graphics smoothly fade as the camera view moves up to higher elevations, allowing for better player control at long distances. It also corrects an issue where high camera elevations could not see map terrain at all under haze conditions.
* Fixed an issue that was causing the in-game FSAA option not to activate FSAA if the video card's control panel was set to "application controlled".
* Intro video plays on certain video cards where it was previously not visible.
PREVIOUS PATCH NOTES
--v1.04 Patch Features--
* CM:SF is more multi-processor/multi-core friendly. Workarounds like "setting affinity" to single-processor should not be needed any longer, although your system may be different.
* Improved frame rate, especially on large maps.
* Improved vehicle pathfinding.
* Various "stuck units" problems fixed.
* Corrected a problem with shots coming through ridgelines.
* Soldiers are much quicker to take up fighting stances and/or open fire when reaching a movement destination.
* When ordered to stop moving, soldiers halt immediately rather than look for best positions. This helps them avoid unnecessary casualties.
* Vehicles correctly respond to non-Movement Commands assigned to Waypoints.
* Area fire versus buildings properly spreads fire versus all locations on the indicated level.
* Soldiers are more likely to move through breaches blasted in building walls rather than close by doorways.
* The TacAI is generally more likely to open fire, especially with heavy grenade launchers. Previously the TacAI tried too hard to conserve ammunition.
* Troops do a better job facing in the direction implied by the end of a movement path.
* Troops cannot disembark through walls.
* "Target Light" works properly for infantry.
* Corrected a problem where a vehicle would button up due to incoming small arms fire, but then become overly reluctant to fire its own weapons.
* Corrected a problem where troops would not exit a vehicle because some other troops onboard were considered blocking exits even though they were not.
* When units are pinned (i.e. they can shoot but will not respond to movement orders) it is shown in the suppression meter display.
* Corrected some problems where teams within a squad were not properly coordinated for movement.
* Smoke grenades don't damage vehicles.
* Grenades are used properly (fixed a bug that made the range used too short).
* Antitank weapons like Javelins are less likely to be used during area fire (except versus buildings).
* Improved ground textures.
* Distant terrain looks smoother and less "blocky".
* Trenches and roads show up better at longer distances.
* Map elevations are displayed more accurately when viewed from long distances.
* Brush terrain is drawn out to greater distance.
* Computer player won't hold armored vehicles back so far in the rear.
* Antitank specialist is more likely to be the man who picks up an antitank weapon (say, when unloading a Javelin from a Stryker).
* Moving vehicles have reduced spotting capability.
* Blown-out building walls don't cause lots of ricochets as if the wall was still there.
* Fixed a bug that caused problems with splitting squads multiple times in turn-based games.
* Fixed a bug that sometimes caused a crash during game-save.
* Corrected a problem where multi-unit selecting a shaken/panicked unit would cause the multi-unit select to be canceled.
* Stryker smoke is now the correct color (white).
* "Game Paused" message is smaller and less obtrusive.
-- v1.03 Patch Features --
* LOS/LOF issues improved around areas like walls, buildings, and earthen berms.
* Fixed a bug that caused orders given in the setup phase to be ignored in Play-By-Email games.
* Vehicle pathfinding improved. It is important to note, however, that the slower speed commands will yield better results in more restricted terrain.
* Infantry no longer tends to wander into buildings except when specifically ordered to.
* Improved terrain graphics (the degree of improvement depends on your Texture Quality option, but note that the higher quality options run more slowly).
* Better unit placement in Quick Battles.
* A new "Show All Move Paths" key added to the Hotkeys Menu.
* Fixes to the "stuck soldier" problem.
* Fixes to the "stuck unit" problem.
* By default, infantry moving "Slow" (i.e. crawling) do not stand up and run to their destinations after halting for any reason.
* "Adjust Artillery Mission" function is fixed, along with other minor artillery bugs.
* Gunners are less likely to use high-explosive rather than armor-piercing ammo against armored targets.
* Improved anti-tank missile accuracy, especially with the Javelin ATGM.
* Clicking on enemy soldiers that were not previous spotted are no longer shown.
* Very slight downward adjustment to M1 Abrams tank front armor strength.
* Javelin missile armor penetration increased modestly.
* Speed of the autoloaders on the T-72 and the Stryker MGS are reduced.
* Soldiers do a better job staying prone when under fire in the open.
* TacAI is more likely to fire on prone infantry.
* Computer player is less likely to use slow/crawling movement with its troops.
* Syrian troops (except forward observers) cannot call in artillery.
* Blast movement now works properly.
* Fixed a bug where a soldier sometimes uses a Blue Force specialty icon in the UI when it should be Red, or vice-versa.
* Improved seated poses for certain crewmen of M1 MBT, pickup trucks, taxis.
* MMGs rarely, if ever, fire single-round bursts.
* Clicking on an enemy's C2 display no longer switches to its HQ unit.
* Fixed "choppy" sound from vehicles when turning.
-- v1.02 Patch Features --
* For recent ATI video cards a new option for "ATI left-click compatibility" has been added in the game Options Panel. Setting this option to ON (default setting is OFF) solves a crash problem unrelated to Combat Mission. If you have an ATI video card, yet never experienced mouse click problems with earlier versions, it is recommended that you do not use this feature because clicks are not registered as precisely. We are in contact with ATI and hope they fix the problems with a new driver release sometime soon.
* New game "Priority Setting" option setting has been added in the game Option Panel. This option instructs Windows to assign "normal" application priority or "high" application priority to the game when it is run. The "normal" setting can fix lagging mouse and/or keyboard input issues for some systems. The "high" setting is recommended if you have not experienced any input lag problems. The "high" priority option allows Combat Mission to use more system resources and may result in better performance.
* Alt-Tab now resets the screen to the original desktop display resolution (and back again) if different than the screen resolution setting in Combat Mission's Options Panel.
* Better vehicle defensive TacAI.
* Corrected a longstanding problem with sporadic inaccuracy of ATGMs. It was the result of the dust kicked up from the missile's own launch backblast. Sometimes it obscured the gunner's vision and (unfairly) stopping him from guiding the missile properly.
* Corrected bugs in smoothness of ATGM flight path.
* Infantry ATGMs reload more slowly.
* Shaped-charge explosives (such as ATGMs) have a reduced radius of effect for shrapnel/fragments.
* Infantry will often seek better nearby cover on their own if they come under heavy fire.
* TacAI is more likely to open fire on enemy armored vehicles.
* Commands may be issued when paused in Elite mode.
* Fixed a bug that sometimes caused smoke to not block LOS when it should have.
* Fixed a bug that caused parts of weapons to be positioned in strange ways during the reload animation.
* Support units (e.g. artillery) in the process of receiving a cease fire command cannot be given further orders until the cease fire occurs (this also fixes a crash bug).
* F5-F8 keys are now Command Category Keys and will jump directly to the Command Panel.
- F5 Brings up the Movement Command Group
- F6 Brings up the Combat Command Group
- F7 Brings up the Special Command Group
- F8 Brings up the Admin Command Group
* New customizable hotkeys with more "direct keys" added. These keys issue a specific command no matter what command group is shown in the onscreen command panel. See further below for more information about editing hotkeys.
* Blank entries are now allowed in the hotkeys.txt file. In the past this would cause a crash when loading a battle.
* After using a "high level" menu button (e.g. Save) in the command panel, the display flips back to command buttons.
* Replaced English language Tutorial Campaign with a native French language one for the French version of the game.
No I can't give em any damn credit. They put out a piece of trash that they knew was a piece of trash and then ignored or flamed any and all who dared point that out to them.
Path finding in cm1 certainly was "cracked" so it was not too tough a nut was it?
Go on the BFC web site and read Steve's tortured explanation of why only buildings give any kind of cover in cm2. "It's difficult to explain but easy to understand" he says. What on earth does that mean?
1:1 scale does not work in the game because the processing power or the ai is inadequate to place each and every soldier in the best cover. I would rather have 3 men representing a squad than a fully represented squad that can't find cover, can't react to the enemy other than continue to advance, can't find their way in a door and can't target simple line of sight.
LOS is definitely better, but within two plays I had issues with LOS in urban areas, especially walls and sharp peaks. Less frequent but still there. My main issues are still TacAI and being completely unresponsive to serious threats. Seems that wasn't touched. Guess we'll have to wait til 1.0X.
While 1.04 and 1.05 made some progress to get CMSF where it should be, the amount of progress on major issues seems to take fairly small steps. They fix a lot of little things, add things that really aren't being clamoured for, but only make marginal progress on the big issues, like TacAI, LOS, pathfinding, etc.
I think its great BFC has put this amount of work into a patch, but they really seem to be kind of stumbling around with the improvements and priorities. Take an honest look at the amount of actual fixes in the patch. Those should have been in 1.00, or at least 1.01. It may not be something to be incredibly proud of.
As far as pathfinding being hard to do...I have said from the beginning that CMSF was overly ambitious for a small company. RT 1:1 tactical has been tried before and had the exact same issues that CMSF has. BFC was arrogant enough to think they have the answer. Instead of trying to move one step at a time to where they want to be, they tried to do it all and it has started to collapse on them. I was really hoping 1.05, with its months of silent development would be big enough take CMSF where it should go. Instead it is one more small step on a, more than likely, long painful journey.
CPangracs
15 Dec 07, 09:44
As far as pathfinding being hard to do...I have said from the beginning that CMSF was overly ambitious for a small company. RT 1:1 tactical has been tried before and had the exact same issues that CMSF has. BFC was arrogant enough to think they have the answer. Instead of trying to move one step at a time to where they want to be, they tried to do it all and it has started to collapse on them. I was really hoping 1.05, with its months of silent development would be big enough take CMSF where it should go. Instead it is one more small step on a, more than likely, long painful journey.
But think of the payoff down the road if they could get something that would be "acceptable"! I'm working with a small company who thinks they can do it, and if they do, they won't remain "small" much longer!
I understand what you are saying, but my full time job is working with small technology companies and advising them on strategy and the one thing I see is that if they didn't make it big time with CM1, CMSF isn't going to get them there. At least with CM1 they has a pretty defined market; wargamers. CMSF is trying to be a couple of things all at once. What that leads to is not pleasing the people that want a true sim or the wargamers. It catches a small segment that crosses between. I still hope they pull it out, but right now they seem to have pretty much alienated a large segment of their core market. If I were an invester, I would have told them to either completely abandon the wargamer and go full tilt to a Full Spectrum Warrior- type game or opposite and develop a hard core wargame that appeals to their current base. They have tried to straddle the line. They will have to swing CM2 one way or the other.
I did notice Strykers are no longer as apt to do the CC spin of death.
Pathfinding might be difficult or not.
The POINT is that they invoke their stupid pathfinding all the time in situations where it isn't required. They throw out the user-supplied path even if there are not obstacles or collisions.
And that is what CMx1 did better, it tended to only throw out the user-supplied path if it didn't work.
Don Maddox
15 Dec 07, 11:52
Just for starters, there is no mention of a single pathfinding change in the list of fixes and Steve has just repeatedly said that he thinks pathfinding in 1.04 is "fine".
Are you sure about that? Battlefront does seem to be making changes to movement and pathfinding. I'm guessing you meant there should have been more fixes/changes.
* Corrected a problem where certain external doors to buildings would never be used.
* Soldiers do a better job moving to the "near" side of an exterior building corner not "beyond" it.
* Soldiers do a better job regrouping when separated from team members.
* Squads and Teams with orders to embark-move to a vehicle that has movement orders normally move to the spot where the vehicle has also been ordered to move, in order to meet up at the destination. However, if the vehicle is currently under "pause" orders, the squad/team will move directly to the vehicle's current location.
* Corrected issues where individual soldiers would incorrectly move away from their teams.
I just had an open, flat test of Stryker reactions. I had a T-72 move closer to them. I gave it a straight line to with 100m of the Strykers. The 72 actually turned right for over 20m, then curved back to the left about 40m, getting about 40m closer to the Strykers. It then went from a straight line about 20m to left and 40m in front of its start point. From there it went straight to its destination. I have idea in the world why it would do that.
I am an old automation engineer and it looks to me like long movments almost follow the decaying sin wave like a PID loop...over corrections and everything.
I am thinking Redwolf meant general pathfinding. The instances you cited were for some very specific actions that you could interpret as pathfinding. Take a look at my example. I think that is what he is talking about.
What I meant is "path diversion", CMSF's tendency to redraw the course you plotted with nonsense, even if there are no obstacles and no collisions.
That behavior didn't change at all in 1.05.
Savegames etc. here:
http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=002717;p=10#00 0246
I see that there are improvements when it comes to soldiers in squad positioning themselves. That's good, but the vehicle movement is still 100% unrealistic nonsense.
BTW, Don are you currently fiddling? Quick reply and quick edit seem broken but the advanced versions works.
Don Maddox
15 Dec 07, 12:23
Well, I think Redwolf had a good point in the other thread about Battlefront lacking the resources to tackle some of this stuff. My guess is that part of the reason CMx1 worked so well was that Battlefront sidestepped some of the most thorny programming issues (like real-time pathfinding) by using player supplied waypoints. That's just one example, but I'm sure others could be provided. You couldn't get away with that approach in 99.9% of other games because it foists a level of micromanagement on the player that simply isn't fun or efficient. But in a WW2 wargame with few units and a WEGO approach, it works pretty well.
Battlefront has now taken the series into the realm of real-time battles, which brings up a whole new set of difficult-to-solve challenges. Programming a turn-based or WEGO game was a style that Battlefront was well suited to, being a small team with very limited resources. Moving into the realm of real-time combat calculations presents a new set of challenges, and tends to highlight the difficulty of programming a competent AI and efficient multiplayer support.
A lot of the effects of primitive AI can be sidestepped, or at least masked, in turn-based or WEGO environment. But in real-time the AI plays a huge role in everything -- even the actions of friendly forces are heavily affected by the AI. My guess is that part of the lingering issues with pathfinding have as much to do with AI as they do with the basic pathfinding code. And there seems to be some quirky behavior with LOS, which will most certainly have some effect on how the AI behaves and probably pathfinding as well.
So I think Redwolf's point about Battlefront's limited programming resources is a valid one. They are a very very tiny development team, and they are trying to take the series into the deep side of the pool (from a programming standpoint). It could be that some of their ideas and designs are pretty good, but they simply lack the specialized programming talent required to tackle a project like this. After all, most mainstream real-time games have a budget of $20M and a team of 50+ developers. Even allowing for far more primitive graphics and audio, the CMSF team has only a tiny fraction of the resources other real-time games enjoy. Given enough time they may eventually get CMSF to a point where both grogs and more casual gamers enjoy it, but that’s a tall order and will almost certainly take a while.
Of course, I could be way off base.
I think a WEGO game actually requires a different, and maybe more powerful AI. In RT people tend babysit units. In WEGO, you give a command and the AI is not only expected to carry it out, but interpret its situation and whether to keep using those commands or do its own thing. CM did that pretty well. That's why it worked. M3 Stuarts would be given a move command, half way through it sees a Panther, it then reverses itself to cover and hides. Show me a RT game that does anything like that. I think primitive AI actually gets exposed more when it has to "think" for itself for a whole minute. I would give a long path in CM1 and the AI would automatically plot the path details around obstacles. CMSF does something else entirely.
Don Maddox
15 Dec 07, 12:35
BTW, Don are you currently fiddling? Quick reply and quick edit seem broken but the advanced versions works.
No, no fiddling. And I'm seeing the same quirky behavior (which annoys me to no end). The forums seem to do this from time to time, and then it just goes away.
I think it may be time to move the forums onto a dedicated server with nothing else on it at all. I've been putting that off for as long as possible, but we may have reached that point.
Actually I managed to get ahold of CM:SFs source code and fix the vehicle pathfinding problem.
Current code: if (i_dont_like_users_path()) {
rewrite_path();
}New code:if (user_supplied_a_path() && users_path_doesnt_lead_through_obstacles()) {
leaveitthehellalone();
}
Don Maddox
15 Dec 07, 12:40
I think a WEGO game actually requires a different, and maybe more powerful AI. In RT people tend babysit units. In WEGO, you give a command and the AI is not only expected to carry it out, but interpret its situation and whether to keep using those commands or do its own thing. CM did that pretty well.
I'm a little skeptical about that. I think if you would have deactivated the player-supplied waypoints entirely and just let the CMx1 AI move about in a fashion similar to CMSF, its flaws would become glaringly obvious in short order.
But I understand your point.
Don Maddox
15 Dec 07, 12:43
Actually I managed to get ahold of CM:SFs source code and fix the vehicle pathfinding problem.
Current code: if (i_dont_like_users_path()) {
rewrite_path();
}New code:if (user_supplied_a_path() && users_path_doesnt_lead_through_obstacles()) {
leaveitthehellalone();
}
It's too bad CM:SF doesn't allow players to use user-created AI and pathing like the Supreme Commander series. That game has a built-in "mod" control panel which allows players to alter or enhance the game's behavior to a significant degree. Gas Powered Games even has a system in place which allows players to upload their user-created content and share it with the whole community. If CM:SF had something like this, I expect there would already be a bunch of user-created mods to choose from.
Mad Russian
15 Dec 07, 15:08
But think of the payoff down the road if they could get something that would be "acceptable"! I'm working with a small company who thinks they can do it, and if they do, they won't remain "small" much longer!
Are you saying you work for BFC?
Good Hunting.
MR
Mad Russian
15 Dec 07, 15:20
Actually I managed to get ahold of CM:SFs source code and fix the vehicle pathfinding problem.
Current code: if (i_dont_like_users_path()) {
rewrite_path();
}New code:if (user_supplied_a_path() && users_path_doesnt_lead_through_obstacles()) {
leaveitthehellalone();
}
Nice code work. Does it work with attitudes too?
Good Hunting.
MR
I'm a little skeptical about that. I think if you would have deactivated the player-supplied waypoints entirely and just let the CMx1 AI move about in a fashion similar to CMSF, its flaws would become glaringly obvious in short order.
But I understand your point.
Actually I disagree on CM1 pathfinding. As long as vehicles didn't bunch up, it was livable. I can plot from one end of the map to another and the AI will plot out a usable path. Maybe not perfectly the way I would have done it, but it gets done. When it deviates, you can actually look at it and say, I can understand why it avoided the woods, building, etc. Still in a RT game most people would jump in and make adjustments to a path all the time. CM1 had to depend on the AI, no choice. If it was that bad, people would have stopped playing years ago.
Once again, name a single RT game where the AI would react to a threat like I described. I would hazard a guess that CM1 did it right (or at least not wrong) 90% of the time. That is a pretty robust TacAI.
I think a WEGO game actually requires a different, and maybe more powerful AI. In RT people tend babysit units. In WEGO, you give a command and the AI is not only expected to carry it out, but interpret its situation and whether to keep using those commands or do its own thing. CM did that pretty well. That's why it worked. M3 Stuarts would be given a move command, half way through it sees a Panther, it then reverses itself to cover and hides.
On the whole I agree with you, but I wouldn't give the AI too much credit here. What it would do upon seeing the Panther was a pretty tightly defined canned reaction, namely "pop smoke if possible and slam into reverse". What it would not do is analyze whether popping smoke and slamming into reverse was actually the best way to save its skin. If the shortest route to being out of LOS was to go forward, it would go backward anyway. If going backward wouldn't get it into cover, it would go backward anyway. So really, this behavior was a well-programmed reflex reaction, not any real tactical thinking.
John
That is why I couched everything by saying most of the time. Read my posts and you'll see I say its not perfect. But in WEGO, having it do something is better than keep on its path. It is still the TacAI I trust most to actually do something without me intervening. To me CMSF is a big step backwards in that regard. Do you really think any AI responses are more than programmed reactions based on threat table look ups. Its just finding a programmer who knows what he's doing. In this instance Charles got a lot right.
Double Deuce
16 Dec 07, 10:35
Well, I've patched to 1.05 but haven't played it yet. Hopefully, I'll have some free time to give a run through.
Are you saying you work for BFC?
Good Hunting.
MR
The same thought occurred to me.
junk2drive
16 Dec 07, 12:16
The same thought occurred to me.
He works with Pat Proctor of ATF series. IIRC he did the Raging Tiger, second Korean War edition.
Has anyone fired up SF with 1.05 yet? Is it WEGO ready?
I have the Paradox version and the patch release date has not been estimated on the Paradox website.
MKSheppard
16 Dec 07, 15:18
Played 1.05; and well; BFC still hasn't fixed the default interface; it is in multiple ways WORSE than the CMx1 series.
1.) No Right Clicking over units to get what you can do with them; Oh god, why did you have to get rid of that, and then refuse to put it back in?
2.) Whatever happened to left clicking and then "lassoing" units to give multiple units an order to march to a point?
Etc.
CPangracs
16 Dec 07, 18:07
He works with Pat Proctor of ATF series. IIRC he did the Raging Tiger, second Korean War edition.
Yes, I made RT and The Star and the Crescent using Pat's engine,...and Pat's engine has its own pathfinding successes and failures, as Redwolf can attest to. The company I'm talking about I'm involved with through my 9-5 job, it's called C4I Consultants, and they make MILSIM. I have been working with them since they were a very small company, almost 4 years now, to make a military sim that can be handled easily by desktop PC's and can allow a user to handle large numbers of entities easily.
I don't think that ATF's engine has anywhere close to comparable pathfinding problems. Doesn't run to me due to refusing to run in my color bit depth, but that's really a little different.
I still don't think CMSF is WEGO ready. Steve has started to let slip that they did make more than a few concessins to put WEGO into a RT engine.
It is much more playable in RT, but still requires a lot of babysitting of units. especially in ambush, MOUT, and pathfinding.
I have also noticed that Steve is letting personal attacks happen on the forum in response to negative posts. Seems like the beta testers are working overtime to make sure any issues are overwhelmed. Vehicle pathfinding is completely screwy and the sycophants are really trying to shout down obvious evidence of it.
I am setting it aside for a while again. Maybe wait for 1.06 or 1.07. We've waited six months, what's a couple more.
Looks like Steve is back to personal insults towards me now.
Remind me why I even bothered to post savegame and screenshots of the vehicle pathfinding problems? And re-running it in 1.05 to find no change? CMBB was worth taking that s...t, but is CM:SF?
Its obvious you're an idiot like me. You have seen my latest attempt to prove what I am saying on the BFC forums. I said I'd never post scenarios or save games for troubleshooting because I feel that is doing someone elses work and I already have a job. But Steve seemed rational and sincere enought I did it. Let's see where that gets us.
It is my last shot at hearing someone actually say that there is a problem with the AI. Its getting to be like work now. As I said, I have a job that sucks up most of my time and when CM becomes a job instead of a release, I'll take Steve's advice become a non-customer. Between ToW and CMSF, BFC has fooled me twice.
Interesting we are both in Boston.
If you live here, Steve even in lockdown mode looks perfectly normal, right? :)
The problem is that if you actually succeed in providing proof (and in CMBB times I went as far as playing PBEM against myself to repoduce a problem because that's the only way you can get the same action phase repeatedly), then Steve ruthlessly attacks your integrity to make your opinion not count in front of the audience and to distract from the data at hand.
Since the non-Boston wimps who have a problem with any of this seem to disappear quickly that leaves you in an uncomfortable position, because the audience left are those who didn't look at your proof in the first place.
The funny thing is Steve and I have a couple of weird connections. He lives near my Dad, and only a couple of towns over from where I grew up. I also knew his wife in a professional capacity.
I actually like my exchanges with Steve. I just know when to cut it off. Something about CMSF has just got my goat.
The funny thing is Steve and I have a couple of weird connections. He lives near my Dad, and only a couple of towns over from where I grew up. I also knew his wife in a professional capacity.
I actually like my exchanges with Steve. I just know when to cut it off. Something about CMSF has just got my goat.
Youve hit the nail right on the head here. There is something about SF that just turns me off. Its not the RT, or the modern setting though.
The controls for an RT game, really really suck. I hate the non-intuitive menus where CM-1 just required a few mouse clicks. CM-1 would actually be much easier to play in RT than SF, which I find amazing........
The scale too is probably too large for RT, if I spend 10 minutes setting up an attack on my left flank, I often come back to some other action point and wonder how I lost a platoon or vehicle, what I mean is even at coy size, its too big for RT. RT and simulation just dont gell for me. RT is great on resource games and even with them you often get taken to an action point when something happens.
It just doesnt feel right and every time I fire it up I always close it again within about a half hour. WEGO doesnt seem to work very well and I like to play against humans. In sum, SF just does not work for me.
On to V1.05, it does play a lot better but the pathfinding and LOS issues still take the simulation out of the game. Not being able to fire over a 3 foot wall is frustrating and even though the inf behave a bit better they still tend to die very easily as the poorly trained Syrians are exceptional shots.
I agree that 1-1 isnt actually represented here, visually yes but I still think the PC treats them as one entity for number crunching purposes.
I was looking for evolution, a natural progression to a true 1-1 environment. But instead of evolution they have decided that theyd rather create some Frankenstein like hybrid thats neither CM or RTS. True RTS guys wont like this game one bit and true wargamers like to play in something akin to WEGO where proper orders can be framed, however it seems like it was designed for 1 player only.
Don Maddox
18 Dec 07, 19:22
. . . it's neither CM or RTS. True RTS guys wont like this game one bit and true wargamers like to play in something akin to WEGO where proper orders can be framed, however it seems like it was designed for 1 player only.
If your assessment is correct, the Battlefront team will have to work extra hard to convince gamers their next product is solid.
There are all kinds of games that run in real time that don't behave like a "traditional" RTS game. Homeworld 2 comes to mind. But I think you are correct in stating mainstream RTS players may find little to like in CM:SF, so I'm not sure where that leaves the game if the grogs aren't happy with it.
I will make one other observation. Most developers turn out a mediocre product at some point or another. It happens. The good developers learn from it and just get back on the horse. That doesn't always mean they do what fans of their previous titles think they should, because they have to follow the path they think is right for the future. But even if you are unhappy with CM:SF, I wouldn't count Battlefront out because of this one product.
Anyone else still waiting for the Paradox patch? I tried getting on their site today and it wouldn't even load.
Most developers turn out a mediocre product at some point or another.
Fair enough.
The good developers learn from it and just get back on the horse.
It's just too bad they told their once "loyal fans" to screw it and deemed their favorite game a piece of junk that will never see the light of day again.
But even if you are unhappy with CM:SF, I wouldn't count Battlefront out because of this one product.
No, but good luck getting players to open their wallets to anything that even sounds like RT. BFC had best hope that some upstart company doesn't beat them to the punch with a "good" product and see all their customers jump ship enmass.
No, but good luck getting players to open their wallets to anything that even sounds like RT. BFC had best hope that some upstart company doesn't beat them to the punch with a "good" product and see all their customers jump ship enmass.
BFC will have to put out an almost perfect Demo to get us back on CMx2 WWII. Even then it will trickle slowly for quite a while. Steve will be having a coronary over that too, just you watch. In the end, if they do it right, the bad times will fade into memory as a reinvigorated CM community battles happily into the night.
Are there any solid rumors of other companies seeing the dissatisfied WEGO WWII crowd and beginning research?
Anyone else still waiting for the Paradox patch? I tried getting on their site today and it wouldn't even load.
I am as well. It should not be long now. Keep checking here:
http://www.battlefront.com/products/cmsf/downloads.html
One rumor over at BF forums is they'll release it within 24 hours. Hope that's right! At least by Friday before they go home for Christmas.
One rumor over at BF forums is they'll release it within 24 hours. Hope that's right! At least by Friday before they go home for Christmas.
Thanks Jag & Bertram, I haven't touched the game in a couple of months and I'm curious to try out the revisions with this new patch thingy. Who knows maybe I'll even play through a whole battle this time around :confused:
Paradox patch came online at 7 pm CST. Here goes nothinnn......
CPangracs
20 Dec 07, 09:11
I don't think that ATF's engine has anywhere close to comparable pathfinding problems. Doesn't run to me due to refusing to run in my color bit depth, but that's really a little different.
Ummm, what color depth are you referring to?
Ummm, what color depth are you referring to?
Memory is fuzzy, but I think ATF required 24 bits and I can only do 16 or 32. No idea whether that was my old ATF copy or a newer demo.
ETA: if I just click OK it runs anyway. Damn, now you tell me :)
Has anyone noticed the change in tone on the BFC forums after 1.05. Instead of the more esoteric debates about major flaws, it has shifted to the details. I am amazed at how the missing details are coming out of the woodwork now. Seems like every post over there now is about something not working or needing input from BFC about how its supposed to work. I also noticed the beta testers are being a lot nicer to people with game issues. Maybe someone at BFC realized they could see the drain from where they were.
I think what is happening is 1.05 has brought a lot of customers who had bought and then given up back in to give it a try. Now with all these people playing, all the little things that were left out are starting to come up. In other words, 1.05 has made CMSF playable, but now the rushed nature of the game is really starting to show. What really bothers me is BFC is basically ignoring a lot of the discussion.
Has anyone noticed the change in tone on the BFC forums after 1.05. Instead of the more esoteric debates about major flaws, it has shifted to the details. I am amazed at how the missing details are coming out of the woodwork now. Seems like every post over there now is about something not working or needing input from BFC about how its supposed to work. I also noticed the beta testers are being a lot nicer to people with game issues. Maybe someone at BFC realized they could see the drain from where they were.
I think what is happening is 1.05 has brought a lot of customers who had bought and then given up back in to give it a try. Now with all these people playing, all the little things that were left out are starting to come up. In other words, 1.05 has made CMSF playable, but now the rushed nature of the game is really starting to show. What really bothers me is BFC is basically ignoring a lot of the discussion.
I had noticed the same things, but thought it too early to determine whether it's a new direction or something fleeting.
In my estimation CMSF was released 6 months to a year prior to when "it is ready" by CM x 1 standards. If that is close to true, this all should not be much of a surprise. We know that the game was not playable when released. It stands to reason that the rest of the game--the guts beyond the technical issues and bugs--wasn't/isn't done either.
What irks me (at the moment at least) is that Steve is painting Battlefront as so magnanimous about importing improvements to be featured into the next set of games (apparently WW II) using the CM x 2 engine. The truth is that, if they follow through, CMSF will eventually be the game that it should have been upon release or very shortly thereafter.
Steve isn't even promising that CMSF will ever be right EVEN if CM2WWII has all the bugs out. There were 3 possibilities, final patches will be free to CMSF, final patches will cost for CMSF and finally final patches will not be backwards compatible for CMSF.
All said with a smile. Y'all come back now, y'hear?
I'm not buying the "we can easily port all WW2 fixes to the modern warfare versions", much less the "yes, Syria 2008 and Russia 1944 run precisely the same engine, same code, just different databases".
Charles is a kickass programmer no doubt but that's just not realistic.
Steve isn't even promising that CMSF will ever be right EVEN if CM2WWII has all the bugs out. There were 3 possibilities, final patches will be free to CMSF, final patches will cost for CMSF and finally final patches will not be backwards compatible for CMSF.
All said with a smile. Y'all come back now, y'hear?:lier:=Stevearino
ROFL LAMO:clown:
1.05 is making the break in game play even more severe. In RT. the game is playable, although with issues that still make it frustrating at times. You can play small scenarios and babysit units to force some of the behavior needed. In WEGO, the babysitting option is very limited and pathfinding glitches, LOS issues, TacAI issues become very close to game breakers.
If you look at the BFC boards, most of the people still defending CMSF are people that play it RT. I get this feeling that WEGO is going to go away as any kind of focus.
How is pausing handled specifically in RT head to head play? I don't own the game, so...
I've played hundreds of RTS games ranging from AOE/AOK, C&C, AOM, WH 40k, Close combat I-V, etc...
In all those games, you can't pause and give orders to your troops then unpause while playing head to head. That is not RT, RT is, well, real-time.
In all those games, all RTS games I imagine, you are stuck giving orders to the hot spots and hoping your SOP orders aren't getting your troops killed elsewhere. Most of those games, it is only possible to impliment the simplest tactics. Very often, it is click and drag this group over to kill that other group. Change over to your other army group bound to keys 1-9 and send it off to kill a different enemy group. Do that as fast as you can while watching your workers, monitoring your upgrades, planning your next moves and fending off attacks.
How is SF different from that if it is true RT and at the scale it is?
How does Battlefront think to allow a player - either one of us shlubs, or a captain looking to use SF for a training tool the next drill weekend - to use proper tactics and planning in a RT game at the scale of SF?
I don't see how this can be done?
When I was in an armored unit in the army guard, we used a real time tank sim that looked an aweful lot like Steel Beasts. That is a crew level sim. Supposedly, Tac-Ops is used here and there in the military, but that is not real-time, and very abstract. I also heard Decisive Action was used in the Mil, but that is operational/strategic/logistics stuff if I am not mistaken.
Where does SF fit in all this? Close Combat was slow paced, but it had just enough units to be fun and not overwhelming. How does RT-pausable SF play? It would seem very clunky.
I just don't get it. Why did this happen? Where is what WE wanted? LOL :cry:
The feeling I get from Steve is that "we" don't get it, so we don't count. We play H2H, pbem or tcp. We like wego, not real time. BFC has no time for us.
The feeling I get from Steve is that "we" don't get it, so we don't count. We play H2H, pbem or tcp. We like wego, not real time. BFC has no time for us.
But, doesn't it seem that if you have to pause continually to baby-sit your troops as things get out of hand in RT, then it is not any different really from a micro Wego type of game? Wouldn't Steve's arguement that RT offers better simulation go out the window if in fact you are pausing during every crucial moment to provide exact orders? Can you do that in real life? Seems no more abstracted than a Wego system. In fact it seems more contrived if you can use your "borgness" to effect a battle in smaller increments than 60 seconds.
The only thing I can think of that is a positive to this model is the Total War series, which I love. That game offers a ton of tactical options/decisions, but you can pause and give orders to your larger armies when things are getting crazy. However, that is single player, don't suppose that works against a human opponent. Maybe SF is somewhat like TW in nature with pausability and such.
Nemesis Lead
22 Dec 07, 19:49
I think you have to think about Real Time like Real Life.
In real life, the most a leader usually has responsibility for is 3 or 4 units. For example a tank platoon leader has his tank and 3 others and an infantry platoon leader has 3 or 4 squads. A company commander has 3 platoons, a battalion commanders has 3 or 4 companies, etc..
Why only 3? Partially because this gives you a shooter, a mover and a reserve but also because........in Real Time, people have a hard time keeping track of more than this.
My take on real time games is.....for them to have any realism......they would have to give you 3 or 4 manuever elements total. Otherwise--you can't keep track of what is going on.
A real time game where you try to command a company sized group (14 or 15 elements) can sure be a lot of fun, but it is not realistic.
But, doesn't it seem that if you have to pause continually to baby-sit your troops as things get out of hand in RT,
Right, exactly.
The problem with the BFC variant of real time is this:
While on one hand they coerce you into RT, on the other hand they don't
even allow you to have a vehicle follow a road without getting into a
180 degree spin unless you manually plot 20 waypoints at different
speeds around each corner.
For every bug or semi-bug there is a very click-intensive solution,
and they reject bug reports based on that. Except in their mode of
play you can't actually do any of that.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.