Graphics suck?!!?!?!

[Cpl Steiner]

Just checked out Steel Beasts 3.0 on You Tube and I would not rate its graphics that highly either. The infantry in particular look a lot worse than they do in CM in my opinion.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Cpl Steiner

[lordhedgwich]

I play a lot of different games and i really love CMs graphics i just finding it shocking people complain I feel like they fit the game so nicely and it only gets better with mods..

[Cpl Steiner]

I play a lot of different games and i really love CMs graphics i just finding it shocking people complain I feel like they fit the game so nicely and it only gets better with mods..

 

Just for the record I don't dislike CM graphics in their entirety. If I had to pick one thing I don't like it would be the terrain, and in particular the trees. They don't look very real to me. Troops and vehicles are all gorgeous even without mods. To be fair to BFC, nature is a hard thing to do well. The best I've seen was in a game called "Big Game Hunter - Pro Hunts". The terrain in that looks amazing.

[Thewood1]

The funny thing about Steel Beats is that even with all of that work, they only now look as good as CM's vehicle textures.  But LOD and terrain stuff is better.

 

And Steel Beats's infantry is lacking, even with recent updates.  But they do combat engineering better than CM.  That is the one big operational issue I have with CM.  It really glosses over the role combat engineers play in modern war.

[dragonwynn]

I think the modders have done alot to help with the CM series graphics that has gone a long way towards helping with the immersion factor. I also would like to see some better graphics and animations out of the box so to speak but I'm not complaining because BF more than makes up for the graphics with its realistic game play. Some suggestions for better graphic/animation would be to take a few ideas from the Operation Star series such as tanks visually losing tracks in battle or pieces flying off the vehicles when they are hit etc. Flares at night would be another nice touch. Just these little additions would add to the immersion factor in my opinion.

Edited February 18, 2015 by dragonwynn

[agusto]

Personally i would prefer performance overhauls over better graphics, so the game keeps its current graphics but runs faster. CM doesnt have state of the art graphics and still runs at much lower FPS than most modern games on my machine. Currently the Windows version of CM is limited to about 3,5 GB of RAM usage, 1 CPU core and x86 technology (x64 isnt used if available). If you have 16 GB RAM and a 4 core processor with hyperthreading technology allowing 8 threads, CM is only going to use a tiny fraction of the available computing power. I dont know about the way CM uses graphics cards, but given the CPU and RAM limitations, i suspect it doesnt fully use their capabilities either.

[Thewood1]

Ditto on that.  That is an excellent perspective.

[Battlefront.com]

We've had the "your graphics suck" discussion since before we even had a name for CMBO in 1998. It's not hurt our sales because the game is what people are looking for. If we had graphics that were better than Arma3 (which would require about $50,000,000 just for starters), guess what an Arma3 fanatic would say? "Great graphics, but the game sucks". If the game doesn't appeal to the player, the graphics simply don't matter.

Now, I would love to have a $50m budget for a single CM title. That would be fantastic! But that's never going to happen, so we have to live within our means. When CM's graphics are compared against other serious strategy/war games we come out looking damned awesome. Could we look better? Sure, but see previous comment about living within our means.

Over time we have improved the game's look. We have improved its performance. We can continue to do that for a while yet. But yes, at some point it will run its course. Whether we'll be interested in putting another 2-3 years into a new game engine that caters to an exclusive and niche market remains to be seen. I'm not saying we won't, I'm just saying it's not a foregone conclusion. We have been at this particular game series for about 10 years now and 5 with the previous. Nothing lasts forever.

Steve

[dan/california]

Any comment you would car to give on Black Sea's sales?  At least a better, worse, or about at expectations?  Your sounding either rich or burnt out.

[Imperial Grunt]

We've had the "your graphics suck" discussion since before we even had a name for CMBO in 1998. It's not hurt our sales because the game is what people are looking for. If we had graphics that were better than Arma3 (which would require about $50,000,000 just for starters), guess what an Arma3 fanatic would say? "Great graphics, but the game sucks". If the game doesn't appeal to the player, the graphics simply don't matter.

Now, I would love to have a $50m budget for a single CM title. That would be fantastic! But that's never going to happen, so we have to live within our means. When CM's graphics are compared against other serious strategy/war games we come out looking damned awesome. Could we look better? Sure, but see previous comment about living within our means.

Over time we have improved the game's look. We have improved its performance. We can continue to do that for a while yet. But yes, at some point it will run its course. Whether we'll be interested in putting another 2-3 years into a new game engine that caters to an exclusive and niche market remains to be seen. I'm not saying we won't, I'm just saying it's not a foregone conclusion. We have been at this particular game series for about 10 years now and 5 with the previous. Nothing lasts forever.

Steve

Steve is alive! I heard a rumor that he was dead. Or was that J-Lo. ****, I'm getting old...

 

I agree, CM has come a long way. The game overall looks great. There is room for improvement that would really complete the game in my opinion in the graphics department,  namely better modeled destructible terrain and destructible vehicles and bringing up the sounds and SFX just a notch above what the mods that are out there do, but in a seemless manner. ARMA III level looks and investment is surely not needed.

 

Game engine wise, the game is very close to being fully mature. But there are some tweaks that would exponentially add longevity to the game, like updating the scenario editor with improved AI capabilities and functions, making a very user-friendly multi-player system that makes head-to-head games (besides PBEM) easy and fun, and perhaps adding multi-core processing for a fast running game for a wider variety of users.

 

I really hope tactical level WeGo never goes away as a BFC core product. New engine, new style, etc... bring it, but CM is very special for a reason! We love you for it.

 

And if BFC can master an tactical to operational level game that does not play like a game of cardboard counters but instead puts the player in the boots of a battalion or  RCT commander with his Alpha and Bravo command elements, that would be groundbreaking for the next decade!

 

A man can dream!

Edited February 19, 2015 by Imperial Grunt

[lordhedgwich]

We've had the "your graphics suck" discussion since before we even had a name for CMBO in 1998. It's not hurt our sales because the game is what people are looking for. If we had graphics that were better than Arma3 (which would require about $50,000,000 just for starters), guess what an Arma3 fanatic would say? "Great graphics, but the game sucks". If the game doesn't appeal to the player, the graphics simply don't matter.

Now, I would love to have a $50m budget for a single CM title. That would be fantastic! But that's never going to happen, so we have to live within our means. When CM's graphics are compared against other serious strategy/war games we come out looking damned awesome. Could we look better? Sure, but see previous comment about living within our means.

Over time we have improved the game's look. We have improved its performance. We can continue to do that for a while yet. But yes, at some point it will run its course. Whether we'll be interested in putting another 2-3 years into a new game engine that caters to an exclusive and niche market remains to be seen. I'm not saying we won't, I'm just saying it's not a foregone conclusion. We have been at this particular game series for about 10 years now and 5 with the previous. Nothing lasts forever.

Steve

This comment worries me makes it sound like we dont have much more combat mission coming =(

[Chevalier Bayard]

I think the balance between graphics and depth of gameplay is alright.

Many things calculated in CM are CPU intensive like balistic for every bullets.

 

Like Imperial Grunt I would prefer nicely modeled destructible terrain buldings and vehicles rather than "new" graphics.

At least few more states between an intact building and a collapsed one for exemple.

It would improve the blocky and not so lively look of the urban maps indeed !

Oh and the black smoke effect for the burning vehicles could be improved without impacting performance too much I think.

Anyway, CM is the best tactical wargame by far !

[astano]

Steve is alive! I heard a rumor that he was dead. Or was that J-Lo. ****, I'm getting old...

 

I agree, CM has come a long way. The game overall looks great. There is room for improvement that would really complete the game in my opinion in the graphics department,  namely better modeled destructible terrain and destructible vehicles and bringing up the sounds and SFX just a notch above what the mods that are out there do, but in a seemless manner. ARMA III level looks and investment is surely not needed.

 

Game engine wise, the game is very close to being fully mature. But there are some tweaks that would exponentially add longevity to the game, like updating the scenario editor with improved AI capabilities and functions, making a very user-friendly multi-player system that makes head-to-head games (besides PBEM) easy and fun, and perhaps adding multi-core processing for a fast running game for a wider variety of users.

 

I really hope tactical level WeGo never goes away as a BFC core product. New engine, new style, etc... bring it, but CM is very special for a reason! We love you for it.

 

And if BFC can master an tactical to operational level game that does not play like a game of cardboard counters but instead puts the player in the boots of a battalion or  RCT commander with his Alpha and Bravo command elements, that would be groundbreaking for the next decade!

 

A man can dream!

 

Plus one to pretty much all of this.  I would happily buy CMSF, CMBN, CMRT and CMBS all over again with sufficient upgrades, especially if they came in the AI and scenario editor department (expanded trigger capabilities, copy/paste or map "tiles", and a fully 3D editor, at least for flavor objects, being my top three).  And I might lose my mind if BFC could come up with a realistic, semi-first-person operational game - I've been dreaming of such a thing for years.

[grunt_GI]

We've had the "your graphics suck" discussion since before we even had a name for CMBO in 1998. It's not hurt our sales because the game is what people are looking for. If we had graphics that were better than Arma3 (which would require about $50,000,000 just for starters), guess what an Arma3 fanatic would say? "Great graphics, but the game sucks". If the game doesn't appeal to the player, the graphics simply don't matter.

Now, I would love to have a $50m budget for a single CM title. That would be fantastic! But that's never going to happen, so we have to live within our means. When CM's graphics are compared against other serious strategy/war games we come out looking damned awesome. Could we look better? Sure, but see previous comment about living within our means.

Over time we have improved the game's look. We have improved its performance. We can continue to do that for a while yet. But yes, at some point it will run its course. Whether we'll be interested in putting another 2-3 years into a new game engine that caters to an exclusive and niche market remains to be seen. I'm not saying we won't, I'm just saying it's not a foregone conclusion. We have been at this particular game series for about 10 years now and 5 with the previous. Nothing lasts forever.

Steve

 

Hear, hear!  Personally I am not a fan of FPS..too twitchy for me...the ONLY games installed on my Mac are the CM series...and I enjoy them all...are the graphics "good enough"  Oh, hell yea...could they be better, sure...does it make a difference to me in the long run...NOPE.  

[Charles Foulkes]

I think they look fantastic, but I have low standards.

 

Honestly, I wish the graphics were worse so I could play larger battles more smoothly on my laptop =P For example, I much prefer Steam and Iron over the prettier Distant Guns / Jutland for the same reason when I have a hankering for some dreadnought brawls.

[Kieme(ITA)]

There is no excuse for the textures not being better IMO, when within days of release the modders have got it looking so much better (and have managed to do so with every CMx2 release).

 

Actually, there are some..

 

First of all standard graphics are done by one or very few people who have to deal with all the 2d "painting" of the game, and that's a huge task to deal with.

So, having to work on so many files of different nature it's hard to keep an extreme standard quality.

 

Increasing quality would require a lot more time, thus asking many more months of development time. Time is money and BFC has to do cuts as well as set a certain quality to assure a good time/development ratio.

 

Second, BFC sets a certain level over which the game must not go, and this level is about performance on a given machine (minimum computer requirements).

 

Increasing quality would hurt that choice, force BFC to increase the target level, increase the minimum requirements, thus cutting a potential portion (estimated) of customers away... moreover, all of this would require game computing resources, so changes on the programming side should be done too.

 

All in all I agree that at least some textures of the original game are not really good (personally, I dislike the buildings, that's where I started modding CM2x games), but we must keep in mind the contraints BFC has to deal with and operate within.

[Macisle]

Actually, there are some..

 

First of all standard graphics are done by one or very few people who have to deal with all the 2d "painting" of the game, and that's a huge task to deal with.

So, having to work on so many files of different nature it's hard to keep an extreme standard quality.

 

Increasing quality would require a lot more time, thus asking many more months of development time. Time is money and BFC has to do cuts as well as set a certain quality to assure a good time/development ratio.

 

Second, BFC sets a certain level over which the game must not go, and this level is about performance on a given machine (minimum computer requirements).

 

Increasing quality would hurt that choice, force BFC to increase the target level, increase the minimum requirements, thus cutting a potential portion (estimated) of customers away... moreover, all of this would require game computing resources, so changes on the programming side should be done too.

 

All in all I agree that at least some textures of the original game are not really good (personally, I dislike the buildings, that's where I started modding CM2x games), but we must keep in mind the contraints BFC has to deal with and operate within.

 

These are very good points. My guess is that making the game accessible to people with older/less robust rigs has more impact than we tend to give it credit for. Luckily, mine is new enough that it can handle the great mods (like Kieme's!) coming out. However, I've noticed a slowdown since adding them. It's not enough for me to remove them, but I've definitely lost some frames per second.

[Kieme(ITA)]

The HD mods are indded stressful. Doubling the resolution inevitably increases the amount of monkeys needed to run the game. (I can't be more technical than that)

 

I never did specific tests, but the fact is sure as MickeyD pointed out time ago. If a hand gives the other takes.

 

On a side note all the mods that are not HD and therefore use the same resolution as the original ones do not have an impact on the game, because they load the same amount of pixels.

 

In my opinion the best textures in game are those of the vehicles. Yes, I am modding all of them, but what I really appreciate is that they show with great fidelity where bolts, nuts, hatches are located on a vehicle. Each vehicle model is a plain box before these textures are made (take a look at some of ChrisND Alpha or beta videos to see "naked" vehicles), and I can only imagine how much work it is to find the right size and place for every detail.

Also the tree textures are great, the foliage etc. not an easy thing to do. And the terrain, which has improved a lot since CMBN.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[sawomi]

I always see Combat Mission as virtual tabletop miniature war games. Seen from this angle the graphics are hyper real. To ask for more 'realistic' graphics would be a step back.

 

[Jock Tamson]

Actually, there are some..

 

First of all standard graphics are done by one or very few people who have to deal with all the 2d "painting" of the game, and that's a huge task to deal with.

So, having to work on so many files of different nature it's hard to keep an extreme standard quality.

 

Increasing quality would require a lot more time, thus asking many more months of development time. Time is money and BFC has to do cuts as well as set a certain quality to assure a good time/development ratio.

 

Second, BFC sets a certain level over which the game must not go, and this level is about performance on a given machine (minimum computer requirements).

 

Increasing quality would hurt that choice, force BFC to increase the target level, increase the minimum requirements, thus cutting a potential portion (estimated) of customers away... moreover, all of this would require game computing resources, so changes on the programming side should be done too.

 

All in all I agree that at least some textures of the original game are not really good (personally, I dislike the buildings, that's where I started modding CM2x games), but we must keep in mind the contraints BFC has to deal with and operate within.

Yes, this is all true, but there are issues such as the saturation of the textures on the different tree lods causing that nasty draw line which have been present in every CMx2 title and were fixed by modders [you, I think] very quickly http://community.battlefront.com/topic/117497-some-technical-questions-about-trees-rendering/

[agusto]

Over time we have improved the game's look. We have improved its performance. We can continue to do that for a while yet. But yes, at some point it will run its course. Whether we'll be interested in putting another 2-3 years into a new game engine that caters to an exclusive and niche market remains to be seen. I'm not saying we won't, I'm just saying it's not a foregone conclusion. We have been at this particular game series for about 10 years now and 5 with the previous. Nothing lasts forever.

Steve

 

What are your plans for the future after Combat Mission? Are you going to stay in the games industry or are you going to do something completely different?

[Wiggum15]

I dont like all the "uhh poor Battlefront" talk here.

They sell games to people, those games are not cheap, especially when you consider that they use the same engine since 8 years now.

That they dont care about simple things that modders like Kieme do in a few days could be considered disrespectful to their loyal customers.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

I dont like all the "uhh poor Battlefront" talk here.

They sell games to people, those games are not cheap, especially when you consider that they use the same engine since 8 years now.

That they dont care about simple things that modders like Kieme do in a few days could be considered disrespectful to their loyal customers.

 

I am more than happy with the graphcs. If anything they seem to have improved since CMSF although perhaps not greatly. What you get depends on things like your PC and graphics card specs. While not cheap the game ost is still a lot cheaper than the purchase of a new graphics carrd let alone a new PC

[Wiggum15]

I am more than happy with the graphcs. If anything they seem to have improved since CMSF although perhaps not greatly. What you get depends on things like your PC and graphics card specs. While not cheap the game ost is still a lot cheaper than the purchase of a new graphics carrd let alone a new PC

Sorry but you completely missed my point.

[Wodin]

I would like to see the running animation redone..also a few new chrome animations too. Thats it really though.