Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: The bug thread.

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Last Stand Arnhem >> Tech Support >> RE: The bug thread. Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The bug thread. - 8/6/2010 8:27:25 PM   
RD Oddball

 

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline 		Awe sheesh. I see what you were saying by "double". I though you mean connection line with arrowhead at both ends. Duh. I keep forgetting that particular map has double-connections. Trained my brain to think those only exist along the canal. Just having a brain fart.

Done. Thanks for clarifying for me.

(in reply to xe5)
Post #: 151
RE: The bug thread. - 8/6/2010 11:08:28 PM   
Dundradal


Posts: 753
Joined: 6/9/2007
Status: offline 		Vehicles are still counted under the Armor category post-battle in the first full patch.

_____________________________

"To you, we are deeply grateful, and release what little hold we might, as Durandal, have had on your soul.
Go."
- Final Terminal Message Marathon Infinity

(in reply to RD Oddball)
Post #: 152
RE: The bug thread. - 8/6/2010 11:36:24 PM   
mooxe


Posts: 314
Joined: 10/25/2003
Status: offline 		I am going to guess that the armour category still counts damaged tanks as it did in CC5? it should only count destroyed, abandoned and tanks removed due to too much damage (and maybe captured tanks).

_____________________________

Close Combat Series

CCS on Youtube

Join Discord for tech support and online games.

(in reply to Dundradal)
Post #: 153
RE: The bug thread. - 8/7/2010 3:28:05 AM   
kojusoki1

 

Posts: 172
Joined: 1/6/2009
Status: offline 		I think it is a bug....
Para Bren Group in 2nd BN/1st Para BDE has a mortar... :)

(in reply to mooxe)
Post #: 154
RE: The bug thread. - 8/7/2010 5:23:32 AM   
RD Oddball

 

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline 		Actually not a bug. They used them for deploying smoke rounds. They shouldn't have HE afaik though.

(in reply to kojusoki1)
Post #: 155
RE: The bug thread. - 8/8/2010 12:10:00 AM   
SteveMcClaire

 

Posts: 4472
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: xe5

Infantry teams set to Defend show an "Ambushing" soldier action rather tha "No Target"





FYI - "No Target" means the soldier doesn't have anything he can shoot at. Like the leader with the pistol, since nothing is within pistol range. "Ambushing" in this case means the soldier has something he could shoot at, but is choosing to hold his fire. Usually this is if the target is in heavy cover and / or at long range and the soldier doesn't think he's been spotted yet.

That said, I will look at the code where these decisions are made, and see about using an alternate label like "Bad Shot".

(in reply to xe5)
Post #: 156
RE: The bug thread. - 8/8/2010 11:40:23 PM   
xe5

 

Posts: 783
Joined: 5/3/2009
Status: offline 		"Bad Shot" would be a better alternative, if only to deter the player from trying to force a target fire dot in low percentage situations.
As it stands, its just confusing to see soldiers "Ambushing" when the team is defending.

(in reply to SteveMcClaire)
Post #: 157
RE: The bug thread. - 8/15/2010 5:20:15 PM   
stolidog


Posts: 76
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Virginia
Status: offline 		Im not sure if this has already been addressed, but noticed the rail ties are coded as "Wood Debris", which gives great cover for infantry, shouldn't this be coded as "Rail", I haven't looked at all the maps, but know this is the case on Grossbeek and Arnhem Rail Bridge.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to xe5)
Post #: 158
RE: The bug thread. - 8/15/2010 5:50:40 PM   
RD Oddball

 

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline 		Yeah it's a possible area for enhancement.

If you think about rails, and laying prone behind them, they're high enough that they would definitely give you moderate cover from fire perpendicular and probably around +/-45 degrees to perpendicular to the rails. Especially if the enemy was at a lower elevation. I wouldn't want to be in that situation but I could think of worse. So although the current solution of "wood debris" isn't ideal (I'd list cover from being behind rails as poor to fair) it's a fair approximation which ultimately is on par since Atomic never intended for CC to precisely model real life environments to begin with. There are plenty of abstractions throughout.

The "rail" element is intended to be the steel parts so coding the entire rail bed as "Rail" won't work. It'd be even higher protection. If anything there probably is need for a new element called "rail bed" or something that is equivalent cover and protection as paved road. Then the rails could function as a low fence of sorts. Really low. It'd be minimal cover if behind. That scenario would be a more accurate depiction but still not precise since the map elements are in 10x10 pixel blocks.

We'll give it some consideration. Thanks for making the suggestion Stolidog.

(in reply to stolidog)
Post #: 159
RE: The bug thread. - 8/15/2010 7:20:37 PM   
stolidog


Posts: 76
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Virginia
Status: offline 		Not a big deal, but noticed something playing Honinghutie Bridge map, was using the tall structure at the gas works as an observation post since it is 35 m tall, though noticed my team transitioned seamlessly when moving from the 35 m wood platform to the 1.5 meter field surrounding the structure. Should there be some kind of barrier to allow only one ot two entr/exit to this structure (assuming it had a ladder?) and have a lengthy amount of time for a soldier to transition? Thinking something similiar to sheer cliff or along those lines as far as time.

Also, noticed the smoke stack (i am assuming it is, due to the shadow on the building and the black graphics are coded out of bounds) is only 1.5 m tall,





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by stolidog -- 8/15/2010 7:31:47 PM >

(in reply to RD Oddball)
Post #: 160
RE: The bug thread. - 8/15/2010 11:37:29 PM   
squadleader_id


Posts: 302
Joined: 10/29/2006
Status: offline 		Elements file error:
Sandbags "Rubble To" Brick Wall (57), should be Debris (221).

Note: same error for TLD elements.

(in reply to stolidog)
Post #: 161
RE: The bug thread. - 8/17/2010 12:20:36 AM   
xe5

 

Posts: 783
Joined: 5/3/2009
Status: offline 		On the Battlegroup screen, when the reserve BG tab is selected and any frontline BG teams occupying "joint slots" (slots that either BG can fill) are removed from the active roster, the correct point value is returned to the frontline BG point pool but the frontline teams removed from the active roster are not returned to the frontline BG forcepool.

Conversely, when the frontline BG tab is selected and any reserve BG teams occupying "joint slots" are removed from the active roster, the correct point value is returned to the reserve BG point pool but the reserve teams removed from the active roster are not returned to the reserve BG forcepool.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to squadleader_id)
Post #: 162
RE: The bug thread. - 8/17/2010 12:23:58 AM   
RD Oddball

 

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline 		Thanks SquadLeader. Will file a bug.

@Stolidog - Movement restrictions are set by each element and are the same for each instance of the element. So it's not as simple as jacking up the movement restrictions on the "gas tank" element. We could have a "gas tank wall" element that has a high movement penalty then a "gas tank" element or "gas tank floor" similar to the way buildings work and probably would be a reasonable enhancement to add. We'll consider this as an enhancement as well. Thank you.

*EDIT*
Forgot to react to the smokestack question. It's coded as out of bounds as deploying there wouldn't be realistic. The smokestack element should have it's own elevation so the elevation of the terrain that element sits on should be similar to the surrounding terrain.

< Message edited by RD_Oddball -- 8/17/2010 12:27:49 AM >

(in reply to squadleader_id)
Post #: 163
RE: The bug thread. - 8/17/2010 12:31:53 AM   
RD Oddball

 

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: xe5

On the Battlegroup screen, when the reserve BG tab is selected and any frontline BG teams occupying "joint slots" (slots that either BG can fill) are removed from the active roster, the correct point value is returned to the frontline BG point pool but the frontline teams removed from the active roster are not returned to the frontline BG forcepool.

Conversely, when the frontline BG tab is selected and any reserve BG teams occupying "joint slots" are removed from the active roster, the correct point value is returned to the reserve BG point pool but the reserve teams removed from the active roster are not returned to the reserve BG forcepool.


I'll file a report Mick. Thank you.

*EDIT*

Are you using the first update?

< Message edited by RD_Oddball -- 8/17/2010 12:32:06 AM >

(in reply to xe5)
Post #: 164
RE: The bug thread. - 8/17/2010 12:49:06 AM   
xe5

 

Posts: 783
Joined: 5/3/2009
Status: offline 		Yes, 5.60.01b

(in reply to RD Oddball)
Post #: 165
RE: The bug thread. - 8/17/2010 12:50:39 AM   
RD Oddball

 

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline 		Thanks.

(in reply to xe5)
Post #: 166
RE: The bug thread. - 8/17/2010 6:53:04 AM   
zon

 

Posts: 470
Joined: 11/21/2007
Status: offline 		Data glitch: PzIIIG and M mainguns are set to fire 360 degrees. Edit: In other words, the turret doesn`t need to rotate in order for the gun to fire on a target.

< Message edited by zon -- 8/17/2010 7:12:38 AM >

(in reply to RD Oddball)
Post #: 167
RE: The bug thread. - 8/17/2010 3:16:34 PM   
xe5

 

Posts: 783
Joined: 5/3/2009
Status: offline 		Based on the longer shadows of the stone "fence" (1 meter high) at the bottom center of Schijndel, the map maker likely intended this be coded as a stone wall (4 meters high) instead.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to xe5)
Post #: 168
RE: The bug thread. - 8/17/2010 10:13:34 PM   
RD Oddball

 

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline 		Stone wall is made for buildings and is impassable to vehicles. A stone fence, regardless of height, would be passable by a tank plowing into it because of the lack of support by interior walls and floors. So perhaps an enhancement is in order to add an element called "tall stone fence" to suit Shane's artistic whims. Added.

< Message edited by RD_Oddball -- 8/17/2010 10:14:18 PM >

(in reply to xe5)
Post #: 169
RE: The bug thread. - 8/20/2010 5:48:52 PM   
zon

 

Posts: 470
Joined: 11/21/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: zon

Data glitch: PzIIIG and M mainguns are set to fire 360 degrees. Edit: In other words, the turret doesn`t need to rotate in order for the gun to fire on a target.


250/9 has the same problem. Also, it's got a MG34 - wasn't there a larger gun on this vehicle?

(in reply to zon)
Post #: 170
RE: The bug thread. - 8/20/2010 6:37:03 PM   
7A_Woulf

 

Posts: 91
Joined: 1/28/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: zon
250/9 has the same problem. Also, it's got a MG34 - wasn't there a larger gun on this vehicle?


ABout 250/9 from Wikipedia: "Reconnaissance variant with a 2 cm KwK 38 autocannon coaxial with an MG34 or MG42 in a low, open topped turret identical to the SdkFz-222 armoured car (early version) and the sdkfz-234/1 armoured car (late version)."

(in reply to zon)
Post #: 171
RE: The bug thread. - 8/20/2010 6:42:37 PM   
zon

 

Posts: 470
Joined: 11/21/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 7A_Woulf


quote:

ORIGINAL: zon
250/9 has the same problem. Also, it's got a MG34 - wasn't there a larger gun on this vehicle?


ABout 250/9 from Wikipedia: "Reconnaissance variant with a 2 cm KwK 38 autocannon coaxial with an MG34 or MG42 in a low, open topped turret identical to the SdkFz-222 armoured car (early version) and the sdkfz-234/1 armoured car (late version)."


Thanks. Checked again, and it does have a 2cm gun. Duh. So this narrows the issue to the bug shared with the MKIIIs.

(in reply to 7A_Woulf)
Post #: 172
RE: The bug thread. - 8/20/2010 7:14:52 PM   
Ivan_Zaitzev


Posts: 49
Joined: 6/19/2009
Status: offline 		In Driel the maps looks like it haves a big elevation because of the shadows, but it really is just a meter or half a meter of elevation.
Is this a bug?

(in reply to zon)
Post #: 173
RE: The bug thread. - 8/20/2010 8:55:10 PM   
RD Oddball

 

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline 		Yes Ivan it's an enhancement. Doesn't necessarily stop game play (bug) but I agree it would be more correct if it had greater elevation differences. I'll add a report. Thank you for taking the time to report it.

(in reply to Ivan_Zaitzev)
Post #: 174
RE: The bug thread. - 8/23/2010 7:39:56 PM   
kojusoki1

 

Posts: 172
Joined: 1/6/2009
Status: offline 		Im not sure if it is posted or not, but it seems Headgrows allow LOS (see pic)

Also map SOuth OOsterbreck has wrong coding of buildings to the south east (at least there)

Attachment (1)

(in reply to RD Oddball)
Post #: 175
RE: The bug thread. - 8/23/2010 9:00:21 PM   
RD Oddball

 

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline 		It depends upon the elevations of the origination of the LOS and destination. e.g. as an extreme example (not the one you showed) if you're looking across a valley you'll have clear LOS. So if in your example your mortar team and the point their looking at are on the same elevation or one is higher but both are above the max hedge elevation, they'll be able to see over. So we almost need to look at the elevation points. Since you provided a screenshot, I'll have a look.

Do you have specifics on the building coding? Although we went through all the map coding carefully a few times it's possible some spots were missed.

(in reply to kojusoki1)
Post #: 176
RE: The bug thread. - 8/23/2010 11:14:44 PM   
kojusoki1

 

Posts: 172
Joined: 1/6/2009
Status: offline 		I know issues regarding elevation but i think the map should be fixed (but this time im not 100% sure).

Im providing a pic of the building that is certainly wrong codded
Also, Im sending another issue:
KG Brinkannm, after anihilating Brits at the "end of battle" screen had a bug: instead of vehicles I used, I had completly different units. WIth quite a strange stats...see pic

Attachment (1)

(in reply to RD Oddball)
Post #: 177
RE: The bug thread. - 8/23/2010 11:15:48 PM   
kojusoki1

 

Posts: 172
Joined: 1/6/2009
Status: offline 		and the next post as I cant upload 2 pics at the time (this pic is regarding strange stats)

Rememeber - there should be 3 armoured cars

Attachment (1)

(in reply to kojusoki1)
Post #: 178
RE: The bug thread. - 8/23/2010 11:43:17 PM   
Andrew Williams


Posts: 6116
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Australia
Status: offline 		i see the building coding extends about 15 meteres beyond the building... or the walls and roof are glass a very futuristic design in 1944

(in reply to kojusoki1)
Post #: 179
RE: The bug thread. - 8/24/2010 12:55:08 AM   
squadleader_id


Posts: 302
Joined: 10/29/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kojusoki1

Im not sure if it is posted or not, but it seems Headgrows allow LOS (see pic)

Also map SOuth OOsterbreck has wrong coding of buildings to the south east (at least there)


Just like in TLD, Small Hedgerows do not block LOS (see elements file)...only Large Hedgerows block LOS.
AFAIK this was corrected in an unofficial patch for CC5 and in most major CC5 mods...but I guess it's making a comeback in TLD and LSA

(in reply to kojusoki1)
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Last Stand Arnhem >> Tech Support >> RE: The bug thread. Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

5.282