Jump to content

Ssnake

Members
  • Content Count

    21,289
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ssnake

  1. In any case, I believe that the original questions have been answered in depth from several different aspects. You two, B_V and C_C, let it go. This thread is now locked because of you.
  2. Except, that they don't.
  3. PBAPT M/84 specifically is, at the moment, a somewhat problematic round that is best substituted by some other round - any other round.
  4. I suppose we only adjust the WLS to the terrain contours when placing the units, but not an attached load until the first frame or two after mission start.
  5. No. We're investigating why those command line parameters were disabled. May very well be that it was my decision, but I no longer remember why. I probably had good reasons. It may have been because it would not create a fullscreen window on the primary display but span it across all monitors, and I was hoping to have a true "borderless window mode" by the time that we'd release 4.1)
  6. Ideally however, the degree of obstruction and its duration would be "realistic" in either mode, and sliders would only control "how pretty" the obscuration was. Unfortunately we haven't yet found a solution for that.
  7. If anyone's interested in WW2 stuff, Christer Bergstrom's "The Ardennes 1944-45" is probably the most comprehensive title about the Battle of the Bulge.
  8. I at least didn't read it that way, and before everybody needs to breathe through paper bags again: We're working on it, and will find a solution. We intended to fix this before the release when the decision to remove it due to performance reasons was originally made, but it's one of the things that fell through the cracks and we forgot about it because of the gazillion other things that needed attention. OK, so we'll do it in one of the next patches.
  9. .RAW files can be simply renamed as .HGT (conversely, if a .RAW is the registered height map in a given scenario and you have a .HGT file of the same name, there's a good chance (not a guarantee, though) that they contain identical data).
  10. Actually, zooming in reduces the tolerance zone for clicking objects. I hope that with a new GUI (one day) we can find a more intelligent solution to have, possibly, dynamic click zone sizes if a mouse hovers near an object for a longer time, or other ways to make it easier to select the one thing that you want, maybe a highlight effect on mouse over. We'll think about this (and other concepts).
  11. That would be terrible. Obscuration needs to be identical irrespective of graphics detail settings. This isn't just an atmospheric/aesthetic consideration; obscuration has a very real tactical effect. Any slider could only influence the looks marginally. But we haven't yet found a proper mechanism to do exactly that. But at least we're working on a solution that creates consistent results, irrespective of the artillery fuze settings (ground or airburst); right now, it's mostly airburst rounds that create dust - something that won't remain that way.
  12. Well, there's 18 pages in this thread, you could look at some of the first pages.
  13. Well, the question is of course what "a normal RTS game" is. If we take classic click fests like Starcraft, then Steel Beasts doesn't play at all like it. If we compare it to recent Combat Mission titles, there are clear similarities with the Overhead View mode although we don't show casualties in a similar way.
  14. You know that you can select multiple units before setting those conditions, right? Even with the lasso function, if you disable the display of routes, waypoints, and map graphics.
  15. Saying "it's a woodland theme" doesn't help at all to identify the issue. We don't know "which" woodland theme exactly unless it's uploaded here. But before you do that, review it yourself! The question is, what are the dustiness settings of the terrain type in question (both dry and wet), and what are the initial weather condition of the scenario (the determine the initial water saturation of the ground), and what are the weather conditions up to the point in the scenario where this (lack of) dust was observed. Only if all these factors are know we can make a statement whether this is intentional/a consequence of the conditions, or if it is a bug.
  16. No, tunnels aren't supported yet. I suppose you could end a railway line at each tunnel entrance and exit to represent that.
  17. These seem to be the result of the actual scanning process, IOW, they are raw data output of how LIDAR data are generated, and not the result of procedural bumps. I don't think that there's something that we could do about it at all, unless we increased the elevation resolution from the current 16 bit to soemthing like 20 or even 32 bit, which however would, once more, double the elevation map data sizes. In any case, there's nothing that you could do about it, right now, as far as I can see.
  18. While this video doesn't cover all cases, it probably covers more than 90% of all your legacy scenarios.
  19. Apparently not, but this seems to be a case quite similar to this one.
  20. Didn't you report that all your tracers were gone, too?
  21. There's a bug however, in that duplicate IEDs fail to carry over the information of their composition. They still have the same strength I believe, it's just that the information if it's composed of, say, two 120mm mortar rounds or five 81mm rounds gets lost. We'll fix that eventually, of course. Just FYI.
×
×
  • Create New...