Thomm

I have played around a little bit with the face bitmaps yesterday, and I am now convinced that most of the textures make the face appear to big! One of the bitmaps (the guy with the blue eyes) is frightenly realistic for the low bitmap size, and I am sure that this is because the distances between his eyes and mouth are well related to the size of the polygon head. I tried to make my own face mod (with MS Paint, no less!!!), but it is very tedious, since every single pixel seems to count. In any case, a lot of care has to be taken when mapping scanned pictures to CM heads! Regards, Thomm PS: Sorry for being off-topic.

I think that the casualty markers are very clever and cool in their present form, and when I feel like watching some gore I could still go to a certain website with a "rotten" in its url. But actually, visiting this page once was more than enough for me! Regards, Thomm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Charles: Geek time! Now a little math. Each point on the subgrid (2m x 2m) requires two bytes: 6 bits for terrain type and 10 bits for elevation. A typical CM battlefield (1000m x 2000m) requires a 501x1001 subgrid, or 501501 points, or 979K. A large battlefield (3000m x 3000m) requires a 1501x1501 subgrid, or 2253001 points, or 4400K. Because of the need for dynamic playback, at times a copy of this information must be held internally, so we're up to 8800K for a large map. Shew!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Very interesting indeed! Some notes: Minimum Height Resolution: 20 levels at 50 m / 2^10 = 0.1 m (Close Combat: 0.5 m). 6 Terrain bits -> 2^6 = 64 different terrain types! (CC4: 256 Terrain Types, CC5: 158 Terrain Types). If the whole subgrid is kept in memory ... 1) it should theoretically be possible to place buildings on the 2x2m grid. 2) it should be possible for knocked out vehicles to block LOS on a 2x2m "Wreck" element tile as in CC. ad 1: It is very likely that the pathfinding uses the 20x20m tiles to eliminate impassable paths (e.g. water). Randomly placed buildings would prevent this. ad 2: Maybe BTS considers 2x2m resolution too coarse for this. Very likely considering the high detail level of view level 1. Regards, Thomm "CM does not use tile to tile movement ploting." - Maximus

Maximus, I really admire the confidence with which you put forward your "down-to-the-meter" theory! Let me just ask you one question: if there was this geometric precision you claim, why do those LOS issues involving the corners of houses and ridges of hills exist? I am convinced that movement and LOS on Combat Mission "Tiles" is resolved on a sub-grid of smaller tiles, not with geometric operations as you state. This is because everybody tries to use integer arithmetic for this task, and tile-based methods are the method of choice for this. Regards, Thomm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: Second, the complexity of the terrain is nowhere near the complexity of CM. What you see is a painting slapped over the "real" battlefield. You get the same basic components in both games, but CM is 3D. A lot, lot more difficult.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Terrain data in Close Combat is defined at a resolution of 2mx2m, in Combat Mission it is 20mx20m. That means that for every terrain tile in Combat Mission there are 100 terrain tiles in Close Combat. Whether this is an advantage is arguable. It certainly puts a lot of strain on the planning and pathfinding AI. Also, terrain data in Close Combat has a height value for every 2m x 2m tile. Therefore, the terrain data (LOS) is 3D, but the display is 2D (large bitmap instead of 3D polygons). So what you say with regard to complexity may be wrong: both engines use 3D terrain, yet Close Combat works with tenfold spatial resolution. Regards, Thomm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CrapGame: Well, then how do you explain the Close CombatAFV Dance of Death???[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>A problem of map design/terrain coding. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The CC-series AI is nowhere near to the same caliber of the AI in CM. Not even close.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, once, when I still had time for such follies, I rebuilt a CC scenario in CM. Same map, same units. The battles and the results were very similar. Human victory, either side, either game. The point is that in CC you cannot create force ratios of 1:3 because of the 15 unit slots limit. This always puts the attacker in a difficult situation. And for that stereotyp "Dance of Death", I encountered it rarely enough to take away from the game, especially in CC5, which had appropriate map design to avoid this pathfinding problem in most cases. The AI of CC is not bad, in fact it is quite amazing considering the COMPLEXITY of the environment and the soldier model. Regards, Thomm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stixx: If you thinks CM's AI is bad have a go at Close Combat. Then you can really see some bad AI.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The AI of Close Combat is not bad.

Upcoming squad level game "GI COMBAT" is supposed to be 3D and real-time. Maybe this is what you are looking for! It is produced(?) by Eric Young of Close Combat fame. http://www.gicombat.com Also consider Operation Flashpoint for real-time action and immersion. Regards, Thomm

Since this thread is on top anyway ... ... some good points have been made. Thanks for the responses and to KwazyDog for the consideration! Regards, Thomm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Schrullenhaft: Varying levels of foreground detail isn't really a part of the current engine or something that could be incorporated into it without a lot of hacking around ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If you mean changing texture detail ... I did not ask for that!! I am talking polygons here, not texture sizes! If you indeed mean geometric detail, then I can assure you that CM indeed uses varying levels of detail (four?) already! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The tesselation engine may also be a bit hard to incorporate since it takes a bit additional floating point horsepower to compute the curves. And with all the possible viewpoints of a large number of objects this could slow down the scrolling of the battlefield even further. If it became a choice between applying floating point to a tesselation engine for rounded objects and calculating dynamic LOS ("being able to hide behind AFVs, etc.) I would choose the latter.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hmmm. Where do you get this from? I am sure that putting a few more polygons on the one tank or squad in the foreground does not slow down anything. Furthermore, a fictitious tesselation engine would have nothing to do with the LOS calculation, which is done during the turn-resolution phase. KwazyDog, where are you??!? Regards, Thomm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: As for soldier faces, about the only modified textures I use are soldier faces, because I really don't like the originals. A good texture map makes all the difference!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry, David, but the screenshots on your CM page prove the opposite to me, although they display mostly 'uncritical' frontal views. The sphere-like faces just do not cut it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>At the moment it's not practical to expect the level of figure realism you would find in first-person-perspective games.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I do not ask for the impossible. For example, I do not care about the bodies of the soldiers, which are just fine. But the faces are something the observer focuses on so I think they deserve some more attention. And I do not see the problem: level-of-detail is implemented; why not give the one squad in the foreground or the single tank commander/driver some more polygons for his face ... the textures would remain the same, and if implementing 300 vehicles is not a problem how difficult can it be to design a proper face abstraction ... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>BTS would probably have saved themselves a lot of trouble by not allowing us to zoom in so far and criticise what we see in minute magnification..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I fully agree with this! As for the rounded objects: I see that this is very difficult, but ... not impossible Regards, Thomm

Dear BTS, and Charles in particular, I want to make two graphical suggestions for CM2, which are motivated by the fact that everybody seems to prefer close-up screenshots of units: Give the soldiers an additional level of detail that adds some distinct facial features like the nose or chin.Consider a flexible tesselation engine for tires, gun barrels, external fuel tanks and round commanders cupolas. This tesselation engine should provide additional polygons for curved objects which are viewed from a short distance. This would improve the look of vehicle close-ups, which seem to be so popular. Thank you for your precious attention! Regards, Thomm

I still hope that the guys will get a proper nose in the long run ...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Priest: And those skaters, who do they think they are Tony Hawk?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, I do admire these kids for their seemingly unlimited frustration tolerance. I would not have the patience to try a trick two hundred times (ruining my ankles in the process) for the 201st time when it actually works (followed by 100 unsuccessful follow-up attempts.) Requires quite some ambition I would guess.

I assume that the fact that the Maus carries a coax cannon (75mm???) rather than a coax MG would require custom code ... unlike the JS-3, which is a "conventional" tank ... Regards, Thomm

Will handgrenades be thrown one by one or in groups?

There is one situation that gives me a headache: Say a tank (unbuttoned) spots an AT team and turns its turret to engage it. Another tank, let's assume it is buttoned up, did not spot the AT team yet, but it sees how the tank in front of it turns its turret and coax MG tracers stream into a patch of wood. Now what is the blinded tank supposed to do? Area fire into the wood or not? To pose the question differently: will tracers, explosions, or dust be able to "mark" units hidden from direct observation or not? Tricky ... Regards, Thomm

You could call them symmetrical maps. Sounds more scientific ...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>OOB's will be exportable and importable so you can keep OOBs for specific historical units and carry them from scenario to scenario.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>... found on the Combat Leader Forum of Matrix Games ( http://www.matrixgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=27&t=000322 ). Seemed relevant to this discussion. Regards, Thomm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by deanco: Now, I'm waiting for the relative spotting thread to start up... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>They said it can't be done ... :confused:

Could anyone point out to me a (historical?) scenario with Jagdtigers? I have never encountered them so far (having played almost all original scenarios). Thanks in advance, Thomm

This seems to be the right place to dump these ****ty error messages: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>THE ANALYSIS IS ENDED BECAUSE OF THE PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED LOOK AT THE MSG FILE FOR THE CAUSE OF THE TERMINATION<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>We apologize for the inconvenience!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stacheldraht: "reconstructing part of Stalingrad's sewer system to depict the underground fighting that took place there."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It must take a lot of guts not to skip a feature that requires a second layer of possible pathways for the pathfinding AI. Not to mention the graphical representation. I hope they just "beam" squads behind enemy lines - same result, minimum effort. On the other hand, the sewer network should be pretty easy to model as a network of essentially one-dimensional channels that converge at nodes under buildings. This network does not interact with the surface other than allowing squads to enter basements and vice versa. Combat is easy to resolve on a straight line. Spotting by sound is especially important under ground. But should the AI use the sewer system on the offense? Is the capacity of the sewer system large enough to influence action on the surface? I have doubts! Basements would be cool, though! Regards, Thomm

Dear Me 262! I live in Vienna and have studied a book on WW II in Austria. There was some fighting for Vienna, but it was over in a matter of a few days and, most importantly, done exclusively between the Wehrmacht and the Russians! So maybe we can go back to the subject when CM 2 arrives. Regards, Thomm

To take this one step further, Combat Mission could also export the result of the battle as a text file such that the outcome of a battle can be re-imported in the front-end program. This way, a strategic layer could be designed ... Regards, Thomm