CM Red Thunder page is up

[RyanE]

I have not encountered that in Arma, Rise of flight, IL2 (The old one), Steel Beasts Pro, Command, and a few others.  But CM2 really seems to lag on some top end video cards and processors.  And those games are not cupcakes.  They have a lot of graphics and CPU cycles spinning.

One of the issues is that there minimal tweaking you can do with CM2.  With all of the above games except SBPro, there are a lot of in-game tweaking options available,

[Zulu1966]

Well I find that comment a bit odd. I have all the graviteam games and all the DLC - and frankly they seem exactly the same game to me then as now. Still the same UI and poorly written manual and still essentially an RTS game not a wargame as such - which to my mind is the gaping chasm between the two.  I would be interested to know what these game changers have been as I struggle to see them myself.

Odd....?

What's so odd about it?
If you played the original APK43 and have followed the developments from that game to the present(GTOS) you will see an immense difference.

Here are just a few since I don't want to turn this into a pissing contest.

1)The UI is completely revamped-go back and look at the old APK43 and earlier versions of APOS.
2)The graphics have been improved immensely also along with a multitude of weather varieties.
3)No more 1 platoon per SqKm.
4)The modern and WW2 DLC content can be used together in QBs.(No family of games that aren't compatible).
5)The AI uses cover and concealment when attacking or counter attacking objectives when triggered instead of making a straight beeline assault.
6)There is now a command and control bar when issuing orders.

I could go on and on,but it's pointless if you haven't played this game as long as I have and played APK43 and taken notice of how far the game has matured since the beginning. If I really thought that CM was the better game I would be playing it instead GTOS.
Next up is Mius Front43 with a completely different UI and game engine and a bunch of other features that will take the game into a whole new era of improvements and new ground breaking ideas.

As far as I'm concerned Graviteam is looking at CMRT in the rear view mirror.(already been there and done that).

My biggest concern right now with this game are the problems in the Ukraine presently and how it will effect if the game will be released in the west.
I am not looking forward to CM as my only choice for this type of game in the future.

With that I'm going to refrain from posting in this thread anymore.  Way too much disinformation concerning Graviteam posted here that is getting bothersome and irksome to reply too.
Those of us who have played both CM and Graviteam and Squad Leader and ASL from the get go and have made the switch to Graviteam no exactly why we prefer Graviteam over CM.

1. erm - You presume no one plays as much as you do - well that may be true - and you do seem to have some kind of vested interest in the game given the amount you post about it and seem to have access to things others don't - but to call the differences between the two interface from the original to current "a major revamp" is frankly ridiculous.
2. Nope - don't see that - I thought the graphics were always nice - but again - the chasm like difference you point to is not there
3. Yes - that is an improvement from the original - but in a comparison with CM - if its meant to make your point its a better game - is again frankly ridiculous
4. could care less - fighting a t62 against a Mk III doesn't really do anything for me
5. Does it - frankly I cant get my troops to line up against a fence properly so I am failing to see a masterful Tac AI in this. That's something I have not been able to do since the first game
6. Wow, just wow.

My presumption is - despite the fact "you could go on and on" is that you at least picked the best 6 from that endless list to make your point - and as might be gleaned above I think that's a pretty piss poor list overall - especially in an attempt to beat on CM as opposed to APOS.

There is no "disinformation" in regard to the game - as I said I like it - but for  equally as many others if not more - its easy for us to see why we prefer CM over APOS.

[Redwolf]

  Having problems with high-end rigs seems to be pretty common these days.  Actually, I think it has been true for the last decade at least that buying a mid-range, two-years-behind-the-cutting-edge machine has been a better strategy for getting less frustrated in one's gaming experiences.

Well a lot of that is caused by two kinds of people.

The first is who buys CPUs with lots of cores but ends up with slower per-core speed than what their old rig had. This is poisonous for pretty much all non-blockbuster games, and most MMOs, too.

The second is people who trust AMD drivers.

[RyanE]

The problem is, most mid-range laptops with Intel CPUs use Intel graphics and and far as I know, those still don't work with CM2's OpenGL platform.  Don't know if that has changed.  It is why I still buy AMD laptops.

[Yskonyn]

Battlefront has confirmed there is a shader problem in RT. A hotfix should be inbound, probably with the next patch.
You guys spoke about a hotfix in this thread earlier? Any news on that one, cause I can't find anything on it over at BFC's forums.
Any ETA on the fix?

[undercovergeek]

i see only that its been worked on - there are a few things, the shaders been the big one

[Zonso]

Yes I understand a hotfix regarding the old shaders as well as the mixup of the hotkey files, to name two things I'm aware of, is in the works. I'm not aware of any eta. A proper hotkey file was posted by the dev and fixed the issue for me.

After playing a couple more small/medium scenarios I reiterate what I wrote earlier re gameplay. The scenarios are really well done, kudos to the designers, and not wanting to give away spoilers, the AI triggers kick it up to another level and you need to be on your toes. Complacency will get you in deep trouble. It feels like the Russian front with timed artillery barrages, fast armor thrusts and a callous disregard to casualties (from the Russian perspective). :)

[Yskonyn]

The best part is that this evolution (CM v3 engine) will be made available for CMBN and CMFI as well. If they keep this up CMx2 will be a current game for a long time to come. I like the way BFC went with this so far.

[Zulu1966]

The best part is that this evolution (CM v3 engine) will be made available for CMBN and CMFI as well. If they keep this up CMx2 will be a current game for a long time to come. I like the way BFC went with this so far.

And it looks like they are trying to shift CMSF to the new engine as well - which will give a whole new lease of life to a huge amount of content - even though these are still excellent games a play regularly years after the initial release.

[RyanE]

Didn't Steve say that they would have to rebuild the CMSF models?  If they do, it seems like they are basically rebuilding the whole CMSF game.

[Yskonyn]

I dont recall CMSF getting the upgrade. I do recall, though, that there is a new modern Era CM in the works, conveniently titles CMSF2.

[Elvis]

Didn't Steve say that they would have to rebuild the CMSF models?  If they do, it seems like they are basically rebuilding the whole CMSF game.

There has been talk about doing this. Previously it was said that they wouldn't e able to do it. More recently it has been suggested that they may have found a way. I imagine it won't be a small task. My completely uninformed thought is that if they are able to pull it off then CMsF will be able to carry on in the same way as CMBN and CMFI as the engine evolves. That would be pretty cool, if you ask me.

[Con]

I dunno.  I think there is merit based on this discussion of CM and GT APOS of Battlefront ripping up the old engine and moving forward with something that supports more modern programming architecture and takes advantage of dynamic lighting etc.

If they have the resources to do both than that would satisfy both camps (those who have machines that currently run CMSF with upgraded engine).  While simultaneously developing the new engine based on years of feedback and knowledge of what the current limitations are for graphics, gameplay, LOS, spotting and flat earth syndrome etc.  If you can only do one I would argue you are better putting those resources into the latter that can meet those needs and grow your market as opposed to always being limited in the scope of the abilities of the old engine and retaining your current customers only.

Con

[Yskonyn]

I do not think its a case of either / or.
The CM engine as it is now, seems to be the evolving tech where the assets are just thrown in to make a specific Era game. The skeleton, if you will, is continuously being developed and updated.
If they may have found a way for CMSF then I suspect they have found a way to port the assets over to the new framework, namely the CMx2 v3 engine.
I would not expect this to have a big effect on the development of the other games / modules?

[RyanE]

I do think there is a point though where an engine that started development 10 years ago can only go so far.  Multi-core processing, OpenGL sunsetting, 64-bit Windows, etc. are things that are making the CM 2.0 engine seem very dated.  They also seem to have a new programmer who has a better understanding of modern 3D programming.  But he seems somewhat hamstrung by CM's current architecture.

They had to make that decision on CM1 and will have to make that decision on CM2 at some point.