Matrix Games Forums

Ah crap, thank you for pointing that out.

Definitely guilty there as I made them.

Unfortunately, the final hand off is done so these edits will have to wait for the next update, in about 6 months time or so.

PLEASE keep adding though!! Thank you!!!

Hello.
I prefer playing with "old" 3D graphics in a classic CS style. I replaced the files in the maps/graphics folder. Unfortunately, the animation of the burning, smoking wrecks is displayed in the style of the new 3D graphics (they are much too small). You gave players the option to choose between new and old graphics. That's great! Can you please correct this slight error in displaying the animation of old 3D graphics? The problem occurs with CSME and CSVietnam.
Regards
Norbert

Hi Norbert,

that's really strange. Even replacing the burning*.bmp files with older versions doesn't bring back the "old" (I'd prefer "classic" ) fire graphics.

You might need to replace the "aminated*.bmp* files for it to work.

I think

Pages 1-402

The watermark image is an image of the Vietnam game, instead of a watermark from the Middle East game.

Page 15

I already pointed out that its more like six or seven decades since "hex-grid" map ... but for this bit (I have not fully explored CS ME yet) is the underlined true?:

A wide variety of mission types are available to test your command skills, from meeting engagements, firebase building, fixed defenses, exploitation, reconnaissance, mobile defenses, battles of attrition, combat assaults, seaborne landings and much more!

I can see these two for sure being in the Vietnam game, but is there really any firebase building or seaborne landings in the Middle East?

Also, it would be nice to have an actual link here:
Campaign Series Facebook page

Obviously, the "Burning0d0.bmp" and "Burning0d1.bmp" are now obsolete and have been replaced by the "AnimateBurning0d.bmp" file
(which is not present in older versions of the game).
This file contains the flame graphics in classic and new style. I think the only way to get the "old" flames back, is to cut the bitmap
in half and move the "old" flames to the top (first 4 lines) and the "new" flames to the bottom.

I've created a test scenario for Iraq-Iran and noticed that many of the Iranian (and some of the Iraqi units) can't fire -> "Unit is not capable of firing".
There a valid entries in the "weapon.pdt" file, but the range table in the unit handbook (F2) is empty.

Same for the units of my mod....at least partially.
Interestingly enough, the South African and Angolan units (the few I've tested) can not fire, Ugandan and Tanzanian unit can.
I haven't tested Portugal and Rhodesia yet.
IMHO it's a problem of "weapon.pdt" and "weapon.pdx". A complete new installation didn't help....weird stuff.



One of the units in question:
platoon.oob
P579016 2 1 1 55 40 30 90 45 2 1 2 3 23 0 0 1 332 52 P579014 3 161 0 0 88 2097166 0 75 1 85 12 0 0 0 M150 Self-Propelled ATGW , M150 ,

weapons.pdt
P579016 2 105 102 99 97 94 91 88 85 83 80 77
10 8 6 4

BTW, there are two errors with this platoon (a M113 w/TOW): missing armor values and wheeled movesound

Well shit, that's not good.

OK, I did a test with 3 random Portuguese and 3 random Rhodesian units.
All Portuguese could fire, all Rhodesians could not. I'm really confused.

Can you tell me the ID's of the Iran/Iranian units?

Hahah, I'm confused too! Usually it's all or nothing.

Or Iraq but not Iran, because usually if it breaks somewhere, everything below is buggered.

I can confirm the following units that can not fire:

P579006 M825 106mm Recoilless Rifle
P579016 M150 Self-Propelled ATGW
P577032 BTR-60PB
-----------------------------------------
P246036 BRDM-2
P246014 BRDM-2
P242077 Reconnaissance Platoon 73 A

Maybe you can do a cross-check on your system.

Any chance you could load the mod so I can see what's going on

Do you have CSlint available?

cswpnchk.pl for instance verifys the weapon.pdt entries quite thoroughly.

Here's the table of contents of CSlint utilities that ship with the game, under the Tools folder.

I'll check tomorrow.....real life is calling now.

Can anyone confirm that it's not only a problem of my installation?

I found two errors in the weapon.pdt file (two blank rows, one in Iraq, one in Iran) That would likely impact this.

At least partially.

I don't believe empty lines effect anything, while it of course will be good to have them edited out. Empty lines between valid Platoon value sets are ignored. If there would have been an empty line between Hard and Soft values, that would mess up things for that one particular unit, as that would have read as a zero range for that capability. But that was not the case here.

Good luck with the hunt!

I've checked weapons.pdt with CSlint:
- there are a lot of error messages regarding non-combat units (->no corresponding range effect values in weapon.pdt),
because I haven't assigned 0/0 range values to most of these units
- the same message for 5 firing units (none of those I've tested) - corrected
- 2 units with the message -> "with range effects h xxx s yyyy has 0 fire cost" - corrected.

Furthermore I've found an empty line between P619009 and P730001.
This would have been a perfect explanation why the units with IDs 73, 76 and 78 can't fire...but it was not.

Schlonz wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2025 9:15 am I've checked weapons.pdt with CSlint:
- there are a lot of error messages regarding non-combat units (->no corresponding range effect values in weapon.pdt),
because I haven't assigned 0/0 range values to most of these units
- the same message for 5 firing units (none of those I've tested) - corrected
- 2 units with the message -> "with range effects h xxx s yyyy has 0 fire cost" - corrected.

Furthermore I've found an empty line between P619009 and P730001.
This would have been a perfect explanation why the units with IDs 73, 76 and 78 can't fire...but it was not.

Son of a gun, I found the issue, and it was something the CSlint QA utility that the cswpnchk.pl should be - and is - did not detect. But it now does (see next page for download)
Remove the P241501 entry from that line, as it is available in correct form a few lines below.