Jump to content

Ryzen CPU - Intel latest Gen latest tech vs cm2


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, sttp said:

Action squares every 4 meters instead of every 8 would be incredible. 4 times the processing horsepower would be (theoretically) needed, sure, but I think modern systems could handle that.

Very likely, since most modern computers now have processors with four cores.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, sttp said:

4 times the number of action squares, with each testing LoS to 4 times the number of other action squares...?

Yes I think you're right. But it seems like it's a job that would benefit from having more cores, since every single LOS check is independent of the others, so each core could just chug away at the problem, not having to wait for the other cores.

In any case, doing LOS checks is not the only thing going on behind the scenes, so I'm not saying having more cores would magically solve things. Amdahl's Law and all that.

But I think the engine could already do it, with a bit smaller map sizes. Currently, I think the max size is 8x8km. So going down to 4x4km would mean 1/4 the number of squares. Then each square could be divided into four. From the computer's point of view, I think that would be the same.

Going for 4m squares would mean having squads split into smaller teams too, I suppose. So there'd be more independent actors on the field, meaning more AI work too...

Edited by Bulletpoint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone attempted to make or run an 8Kmx8Km map?

Would love to see that.  Probably more so than more detail on a 4kmx4Km.   It would be great to have a use for vehicular recon down long roads etc in order to locate the enemy.  And also more mobile-type ops.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, sburke said:

Map size is neither, but 4x4 is closer. There is an overall size I expect is limited by maybe action squares but you can do approx 4x4 or 5x3 or stretch it way in one direction with a narrower frontage say maybe 8x2. 8x8 is not possible. 

Thanks for the correction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/4/2018 at 5:23 AM, LongLeftFlank said:

Care to elaborate for nontechs what this is?

(I expect to be lucky if I can grok 1 word in 10) 

Apple is deprecating OpenGL and Metal is the graphics API going forward. Vulkan is the new cross-platform graphics API, but Apple does not want to support it. MoltenVK is a translation layer between Vulkan and Metal. In theory, one can develop a 3D renderer that uses a single graphics API that can work across all the major desktop and mobile operating systems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would prefer Combat Mission to use more abstraction if the trade off was more CPU cycles available for frame rates and, say, improved or additional AI routines.  There is already plenty abstraction in there - no gun elevation, AI tanks not stopping to shoot in WW2 games, etc.

It seems to me that if you don't have millimetre perfect control of individual units, then abstraction is ok in a tactical game.  For example, if my tank gets flanked I have made a tactical error and/or the other player has had a tactical success.  Neither of us has any control over where his shot will hit.  So is it wrong for the outcome to be a dice roll, if that takes less computation?  Particularly if getting the shot off means that the gun is at an elevation that is not achievable in real life?

Edited by Jock Tamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Jock Tamson said:

When was that introduced?  For clarity, I am not talking about guns moving up and down graphically which obviously they do, I am talking about limitations of depression etc

Yeah CM just doesn’t really do that well. It is one of the pet peeves for urban engagements. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jock Tamson said:

I would prefer Combat Mission to use more abstraction ...

So is it wrong for the outcome to be a dice roll, if that takes less computation?

Then you would not be playing CM any more. Armour and ballistics are based on physics - that's what gives CM its feel. Without that we don't have CM any more. Sure the aiming, human reactions, AI's handling of elevation are abstractions but that don't have a detrimental effect because the game uses physics for the ballistic part. As the saying goes "there is a reason for everything and that reason is usually physics." :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Jock Tamson said:

Neither of us has any control over where his shot will hit.  So is it wrong for the outcome to be a dice roll, if that takes less computation?

I don't think it's the shot calculations that eat up much computation time actually. I don't see any slowdown even in the moments when there's hundreds of bullets flying at the same time.

But in situations without any firing, scrolling around over a map feels sluggish to me, even when reported framerates are at a level that should be reasonable, around 30 FPS. It doesn't seem like normal low FPS lag like in other games I played. More of a "stuck in molasses then sliding on ice" kind of feel.. if that makes sense :)

Edited by Bulletpoint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

I don't think it's the shot calculations that eat up much computation time actually. I don't see any slowdown even in the moments when there's hundreds of bullets flying at the same time.

But in situations without any firing, scrolling around over a map feels sluggish to me, even when reported framerates are at a level that should be reasonable, around 30 FPS. It doesn't seem like normal low FPS lag like in other games I played. More of a "stuck in molasses then sliding on ice" kind of feel.. if that makes sense :)

You are probably experiencing stuttering due to the rendering scene complexity. Trees are a bad culprit since each one is rendered separately. Each tree takes a few function calls (too lazy to give you an exact number) to render. It's not a problem if you are rendering a few, but it adds up quickly when you have to render 50.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
On 7/27/2018 at 5:42 AM, Battlefront.com said:

In the mid 2000s OpenGL was API of choice for 3D gaming.  Or at least it was supposed to be.  DirectX had a spotty history and OpenGL was still regarded as the better platform to be based on for the type of game we make.  We also chose it because we didn't want to rule out having a Mac version, which is what would have happened if we went with DirectX (we can't afford to make and support two versions of the game engine).  That said, as we were moving along DirectX got much better and OpenGL kinda lost the attention of both game developers and card makers.  That shaped what came later.

 

...

That said, eventually we will have a new game engine.  Obviously it will be written with contemporary technology in mind and won't be OpenGL as we view it as a dead end.  It will also benefit from 20 years of experience with how best to simulate tactical warfare on a computer.  It's only a matter of when, not if :)

Steve

Hello Steve,

I have missed this post so sorry to react with one month delay.

Have you already decided on which technology the new engine will be based? Do you lean towards Vulkan? Or, are you going back to DirectX?
I imagine that you will develop your own engine not using things like Unreal Engine, Unity or something else to remain independent.

And, just for my information, did you program CMx2 in C, C++, or something else?

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On 7/27/2018 at 4:42 AM, Battlefront.com said:

That said, eventually we will have a new game engine.  Obviously it will be written with contemporary technology in mind...  It will also benefit from 20 years of experience with how best to simulate tactical warfare on a computer.  It's only a matter of when, not if :)

I'm sure all of us hope this won't be too far into the future.

It seems to me that playing with having the icons only showing spotting contacts removes the stuttering (maybe I should call it lag) on huge maps. I have no problems on medium or large maps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Athough that new engine probably won't be live until many in this forum spend their days in a nursing home where they are having other oldies or care assistants as their hotseat opponents, I hope Steven and Charles consider what is being mentioned in the topics Improvement Suggestions and What I'd Like To See In CM3 when making it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...