aka_tom_w

OLD bones from Jan 2005 revisited and listed here Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted January 31, 2005 04:05 PM I have to close up this thread due to its size. Feel free to start up another one. However, keep in mind that we (Battlefront) need to design something that is pleasing to both the eye and the grog. We'll be torn to pieces if the 1:1 representation looks silly or woefully incomplete, even if eveything is neato mosquito under the hood. Likewise, grogs will tear us a new one if the important 1:1 simulation aspects aren't done well enough. In other words... there is no one right answer to this debate you guys are having. We need to have a balance between the two, and that balance is in part determined by how easy/hard it is to program and/or how well it functions from a performance standpoint (eye candy and underlying sim stuff BOTH!). Not even we have the answers to all these questions at this point, so I might suggest that both sides of this debate keep that in mind. NOTHING is decided except for the fact that we are seeking a balance, which inherently means some grog stuff and some eye candy wish list items won't be happening. Steve Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted January 30, 2005 08:48 PM The 3D environment of CM does offer us some challenges in terms of where to draw the line between a simulation of the individual soldier and larger groups of soldiers (i.e. units). It's something we've all be struggling with since the early days of CMBO's design. Back in the old days of wargaming you'd have a cardboard chit with some numbers and a shape on it. Nobody called for more than that simply because the system was so abstract probably nobody thought of it (at least not thinking it possibly practical). The first couple of generations of computerized wargames fell into the same category. As time went on and technology improved wargamers wanted better looking maps, more attractive looking units, and of course more under the hood. But again, for anything but the smallest scale wargames nobody thought about simulating the individual soldier to any significant degree. Until, that is, Close Combat came out. CC was the first commercial wargame to model the individual soldier in detail and in substantial numbers. And for all its flaws, the game worked very well and people saw the value in having the 1:1 soldier simulation. Then CMBO came around... Our problem, from the beginning, is our chosen scale. MUCH larger than CC's, yet not so much that individuals ceased to matter. But due to technical limiations we never once thought about doing 1:1 because it simply wasn't possible. However, the desire has always been there, at least to some extent. Now comes CMx2... What we are doing now is giving the individual soldier a place on a larger scale battlefield (larger than FPS, CC, etc). That is the right thing to do. However, there are limits. We must make sure to not lose sight of the fact that this is a larger scale wargame and not a FPS of even Close Combat scale game. Therefore, when push comes to shove, decisions are made which favor the larger scale wargaming environment. Clutter, unnecessary development distractions, big hits to the CPU for little simulation gain, etc. are all bad things for CMx2. In short... we know what CMx2 is supposed to be and what it isn't. We have this vision very clearly laid out and will not waiver from it. There will be no mission creep. Steve

OLD bones from Jan 2005 revisited and listed here Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted January 31, 2005 04:05 PM I have to close up this thread due to its size. Feel free to start up another one. However, keep in mind that we (Battlefront) need to design something that is pleasing to both the eye and the grog. We'll be torn to pieces if the 1:1 representation looks silly or woefully incomplete, even if eveything is neato mosquito under the hood. Likewise, grogs will tear us a new one if the important 1:1 simulation aspects aren't done well enough. In other words... there is no one right answer to this debate you guys are having. We need to have a balance between the two, and that balance is in part determined by how easy/hard it is to program and/or how well it functions from a performance standpoint (eye candy and underlying sim stuff BOTH!). Not even we have the answers to all these questions at this point, so I might suggest that both sides of this debate keep that in mind. NOTHING is decided except for the fact that we are seeking a balance, which inherently means some grog stuff and some eye candy wish list items won't be happening. Steve Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted January 30, 2005 08:48 PM The 3D environment of CM does offer us some challenges in terms of where to draw the line between a simulation of the individual soldier and larger groups of soldiers (i.e. units). It's something we've all be struggling with since the early days of CMBO's design. Back in the old days of wargaming you'd have a cardboard chit with some numbers and a shape on it. Nobody called for more than that simply because the system was so abstract probably nobody thought of it (at least not thinking it possibly practical). The first couple of generations of computerized wargames fell into the same category. As time went on and technology improved wargamers wanted better looking maps, more attractive looking units, and of course more under the hood. But again, for anything but the smallest scale wargames nobody thought about simulating the individual soldier to any significant degree. Until, that is, Close Combat came out. CC was the first commercial wargame to model the individual soldier in detail and in substantial numbers. And for all its flaws, the game worked very well and people saw the value in having the 1:1 soldier simulation. Then CMBO came around... Our problem, from the beginning, is our chosen scale. MUCH larger than CC's, yet not so much that individuals ceased to matter. But due to technical limiations we never once thought about doing 1:1 because it simply wasn't possible. However, the desire has always been there, at least to some extent. Now comes CMx2... What we are doing now is giving the individual soldier a place on a larger scale battlefield (larger than FPS, CC, etc). That is the right thing to do. However, there are limits. We must make sure to not lose sight of the fact that this is a larger scale wargame and not a FPS of even Close Combat scale game. Therefore, when push comes to shove, decisions are made which favor the larger scale wargaming environment. Clutter, unnecessary development distractions, big hits to the CPU for little simulation gain, etc. are all bad things for CMx2. In short... we know what CMx2 is supposed to be and what it isn't. We have this vision very clearly laid out and will not waiver from it. There will be no mission creep. Steve

OK to both of those points.... Good Thinking -tom w This adds nothing to the game for me, and indeed, from the point of view of anyone not looking through an optical device isn't at all realistic. I make some exceptions for sun glare when a rising or setting sun behind enemy units would make them harder to see under many conditions. This is a game factor only if the player is acting as a gunner. Not a game factor in a game such as CM. Should be one of those things calculated "under the hood". Michael </font>

OK to both of those points.... Good Thinking -tom w This adds nothing to the game for me, and indeed, from the point of view of anyone not looking through an optical device isn't at all realistic. I make some exceptions for sun glare when a rising or setting sun behind enemy units would make them harder to see under many conditions. This is a game factor only if the player is acting as a gunner. Not a game factor in a game such as CM. Should be one of those things calculated "under the hood". Michael </font>

I Wonder how many of these T72 Balkan's on Fire (Latest PC ONLY Gone Gold, game not shipping yet) features we will see in CMx2??? • More than 70 types of buildings and installations that can be damaged or destroyed •Over 40 types of plants, trees and grass sway in the breeze High-quality modeling of water surfaces and amphibious vehicle capabilities •5000+ polygons per vehicle including detailed bump mapping Scalable realism settings •Powerful mission, map and structure editor available Local Area Network (LAN) multiplayer capable Advanced Physics and Environmental Game Engine •Vast open spaces with draw distances of more than 2 km •Topographic height differences on maps of up to 800 m •Realistic passage of time transitions (day changes to night) •Dynamic weather and environmental effects: smoke, fog, rain, rainbows, dust, wind effects (I am looking forward to Rainbows in CMx2! ) •Deformable terrain - shell holes and trenches dug out in real time •Destroyable structures, vehicles and vegetation •Clouds cast shadows •Optical lens flares and sun glare effects •Realistic ballistics – wind effects, shell aerodynamics and flight characteristics, barrel wear and droop •Shell impact angle calculations •Detailed armor penetration results •Post-penetration shell path and damage assessments •High Explosive fragmentation dispersal calculations •Realistic vehicle and structure collision detection and damage •Individual internal and external vehicle system damage modeling including track damage, engine overheats, fuel leaks, turret jams, crew casualties, bailouts and more QUESTION: Did they are did they not say something about the possibility of a MAC version of this game? wondering :confused: -tom w

I Wonder how many of these T72 Balkan's on Fire (Latest PC ONLY Gone Gold, game not shipping yet) features we will see in CMx2??? • More than 70 types of buildings and installations that can be damaged or destroyed •Over 40 types of plants, trees and grass sway in the breeze High-quality modeling of water surfaces and amphibious vehicle capabilities •5000+ polygons per vehicle including detailed bump mapping Scalable realism settings •Powerful mission, map and structure editor available Local Area Network (LAN) multiplayer capable Advanced Physics and Environmental Game Engine •Vast open spaces with draw distances of more than 2 km •Topographic height differences on maps of up to 800 m •Realistic passage of time transitions (day changes to night) •Dynamic weather and environmental effects: smoke, fog, rain, rainbows, dust, wind effects (I am looking forward to Rainbows in CMx2! ) •Deformable terrain - shell holes and trenches dug out in real time •Destroyable structures, vehicles and vegetation •Clouds cast shadows •Optical lens flares and sun glare effects •Realistic ballistics – wind effects, shell aerodynamics and flight characteristics, barrel wear and droop •Shell impact angle calculations •Detailed armor penetration results •Post-penetration shell path and damage assessments •High Explosive fragmentation dispersal calculations •Realistic vehicle and structure collision detection and damage •Individual internal and external vehicle system damage modeling including track damage, engine overheats, fuel leaks, turret jams, crew casualties, bailouts and more QUESTION: Did they are did they not say something about the possibility of a MAC version of this game? wondering :confused: -tom w

this is still a VERY significant bone: "Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted May 29, 2005 05:16 PM We do have to be quite careful in the subject matter and scope we choose for each title. We want to make sure that you guys get something that is still fun to play by the time the next module or full title comes out. If we start out with an idea for the subject and scope that later on in development seems to be too narrow... then we'll widen it out a bit. But the days are gone when we'll release a game that people can play for 2-3 years without getting bored of it. Fortunately, with quicker release schedules the need for a game that has 36 months of playtime in it is made unnecessary. As for the modules working with each other... yup, that is the thoght. Let's say you get a WWII ETO game that is limited to Battle of the Bulge, US vs. Germans (specific unit types). 6 months later we release a Normandy modlule that allows you to play US vs. Germans (specific unit types). The latter will simply add options to the game you already own, kinda like CMBO. Another module comes out that supports Commonwealth for both Normandy and Battle of the Bulge. Now it really is like CMBO. Yes, it took three releases to get it to that stage, but in the mean time other games have been released and others started."

this is still a VERY significant bone: "Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted May 29, 2005 05:16 PM We do have to be quite careful in the subject matter and scope we choose for each title. We want to make sure that you guys get something that is still fun to play by the time the next module or full title comes out. If we start out with an idea for the subject and scope that later on in development seems to be too narrow... then we'll widen it out a bit. But the days are gone when we'll release a game that people can play for 2-3 years without getting bored of it. Fortunately, with quicker release schedules the need for a game that has 36 months of playtime in it is made unnecessary. As for the modules working with each other... yup, that is the thoght. Let's say you get a WWII ETO game that is limited to Battle of the Bulge, US vs. Germans (specific unit types). 6 months later we release a Normandy modlule that allows you to play US vs. Germans (specific unit types). The latter will simply add options to the game you already own, kinda like CMBO. Another module comes out that supports Commonwealth for both Normandy and Battle of the Bulge. Now it really is like CMBO. Yes, it took three releases to get it to that stage, but in the mean time other games have been released and others started."

no no Greyhounds are only REALLY useful when you "buy" them exclusively WITH the speedy Hellcat packing the 76mm Krout tank killer main gun! Bring on those Panthers! did someone just say "GAMEY!" he he he -tom w

Hey Elvis! Good to hear from you! -tom w

CMBO CMBB and CMAK are all CMxx type games I am guessing Moon is hinting at some "game wrapper" or operational layer type thing on top of or including the CMBB or CMAK game engine, as a way to play CMAK or CMBB from a division level or operational level OR Something. :confused: :confused: -tom w

I know, but it would be even more cruel to tell you more, THEN leave you hanging... For example, if I tell you that it's CM (not HistWar, not CMX2), does that make it better or worse? See! Told ya so... Martin [/QB]</font>

I was also wondering if he was refering to some form of NEW not yet talked about ( see Aurora or Brilliant Pebbles forums for clues WHICH NO ONE CAN GET INTO! :mad: ) game that would be a NON Combat Mission game but might have some element of combat Mission Scale and game engine (or something) embedded in it? :confused: But what the hell do I know? -tom w

Oh, that's just ehwul! Common, spill it! I've been drooling for an option to automate the quick battle generator since I first saw it in CMBO! </font>

Its actually just superior Intel MOBILE processor chip technology Apple is seeking but nevermind. -tom w

Ok ok I was wrong, I am still in a state of shock and denial and utter DISBELIEF (really) -tom w

there was another bone some time ago that said there would be nothing ready to look at until mid to late summer. its still too early if it is "still too early" by this September then I would expect to see some grumbling here on the board for now it is still "officially" too early to expect to see anything... ok? -tom w

there was another bone some time ago that said there would be nothing ready to look at until mid to late summer. its still too early if it is "still too early" by this September then I would expect to see some grumbling here on the board for now it is still "officially" too early to expect to see anything... ok? -tom w

I hope the using Xcode is part of the Master Plan good luck -tom w

More reaction from Mac Game developers here: web page: Actual Quotes from Real Developers from specific Mac Gaming companies. Quotes: "Anonymous Porter: This is the death of the platform. Unless Apple integrates DirectX, the port time would only decrease by roughly 33%. We really only spend about a 1/3 of our times AT MOST on Endian issues (ie, byte-swapping). The rest of the time is spent converting DX and Windows OS calls to OpenGL and Mac OS. The big problem is that for the next few years, developer time will increase. You now have to make sure the software runs on two completely different architecture sets. We'll still have to do all the byte-swapping mess for the older PPC Macs. So say a game today takes 12 months to port. That time will be increased to probably 14-16 months, simply on the basis of having to do additional testing and debugging on the Intel architecture. The margins for game ports today are already very, very small. Anything that adds development time is a bad idea. Who's going to buy a Mac now? Apple has effectively just deemed their entire product line obsolete." "Aaron Fothergill, Strange Flavour: Our future Mac games are using XCode at the moment, so shouldn't be too much of an issue technically and as the phase in will take until the end of 2007 (and PPC apps should work on the new IntelliMacs anyway) it's not something we need to put a lot of dev time into at the moment." "Brad Oliver, Aspyr Media: I'm in total shock right now. It sure sounds like this new Mac is going to be x86-based rather than a different Intel chip. If so, it's hard for me to see that porting companies will have much to offer once the inevitable Win32 virtual machines get released. It seems so inevitable that a decent Win32 virtual box will come along, and that will surely spell doom for any Mac-specific ports of not only games but major products. I think Apple bought time with Adobe and Microsoft committing to OSX-on-intel, but once that time is up, there's not going to be anything keeping them around on OSX, IMHO. Running windows on a Mac pretty much eliminates the need for Mac ports of PC software." I would say this does not look good. -tom w

the panorama section is in the "footage" section try this web page it is well done nice sunny blue sky shots of the area in modern day. -tom w web page

OK..... To be honest I felt exactly the same way at first when the whole "module" system/concept news was released. Then Steve said: "You have ALL been SPOILED rotten!" AND "That old CMBO/CMBB/CMAK business model is not sustainable." So that means modules are the new game delivery medium, like it or NOT it looks for sure like that is NOT going to change. At this time we have no idea what is going to be in those games or modules or exactly when they will be released but we can count on a game coming out first with 2-3 modules for it to follow (maybe one every 6 months if we are lucky) If this new module business model is sustainable and BFC really profits from it then, we should be lucky they plan to stay in business AND NOT sell out to the likes of Micro$lut or Electronic Arts and that they will continue to offer games we really want because we must all admit we are a VERY small niche market and so far as I can tell ONLY BFC likes to develop, design, sell AND play, the EXACT kind of games we REALLY want to buy and enjoy! Far enough? -tom w [ June 09, 2005, 04:54 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

OK..... To be honest I felt exactly the same way at first when the whole "module" system/concept news was released. Then Steve said: "You have ALL been SPOILED rotten!" AND "That old CMBO/CMBB/CMAK business model is not sustainable." So that means modules are the new game delivery medium, like it or NOT it looks for sure like that is NOT going to change. At this time we have no idea what is going to be in those games or modules or exactly when they will be released but we can count on a game coming out first with 2-3 modules for it to follow (maybe one every 6 months if we are lucky) If this new module business model is sustainable and BFC really profits from it then, we should be lucky they plan to stay in business AND NOT sell out to the likes of Micro$lut or Electronic Arts and that they will continue to offer games we really want because we must all admit we are a VERY small niche market and so far as I can tell ONLY BFC likes to develop, design, sell AND play, the EXACT kind of games we REALLY want to buy and enjoy! Far enough? -tom w [ June 09, 2005, 04:54 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I think this means he is telling us the first Game and Module on CMx2 WON'T be Normandy or the Bulge for example. IMHO -tom w

found here:web page this highlites: "What’s more, added Greenstone, Rosetta isn’t a viable solution for game developers. Rosetta is Apple’s code name for the emulation solution that will allow new Intel-based based Macs to run unaltered PowerPC code. “Rosetta doesn’t work with applications that use AltiVec,” he said. AltiVec, or Velocity Engine, is a floating point instruction set implemented in G4 and G5 processors. Using AltiVec, programmers can accelerate the display of graphics and other operations, and support for the technology has been used extensively in some games. AltiVec operations need to be converted to similar functions supported in Intel’s hardware, and Rosetta doesn’t support AltiVec. “Rosetta will almost certainly be useless for games,” said Gordon." WWDC: Game developers react to Intel news By Peter Cohen pcohen@maccentral.com Macintosh software development will soon shift to focus on an Intel-based architecture. How is this major change in the way Macs work likely to affect Macintosh game development? Experts in the Mac game business see both positives and negatives in this latest turn of events. Executives with two of the most influential companies in Mac gaming both agree that Apple’s next big move may let them reap big rewards, if Apple plays its cards right. Destineer and MacSoft president Peter Tamte calls Apple’s decision to switch to an Intel-based architecture “an aggressive move” to grow the size of the Macintosh’s market. “The switch to Intel should also help us narrow the gap between a game’s release on Windows and release on Mac.” Aspyr Media director of development Glenda Adams hopes Apple can “explode their marketshare” with a move to competitively-priced Intel-based hardware. “If OS X has a 20 percent market share the revenue possibilities for native games could make things a lot different.” The dual-boot quandary Apple has said that it won’t prevent Windows from running on an Intel-based Mac, though it won’t sell or support Windows either. Some in the industry have taken that as implicit acknowledgment that Windows will run natively on an Intel-based Mac, or at the very least, considerably faster than is now possible using Microsoft’s Virtual PC emulator. If that’s the case, it’s conceivable that serious Mac gamers could create a dual-boot system that would allow them to run Windows versions of games. That could decimate the Mac game business, which is dependent on conversions of PC and console games that take months to release after their original counterparts. “This may result in developers not wishing to spend the money to port games to the Mac, certainly,” said Ambrosia Software president Andrew Welch. Epic Games programmer Ryan C. Gordon compared the current concern over Mac gaming to another platform he’s familiar with: Linux. Gordon has brought games to the Mac and Linux including Unreal Tournament 2004, America’s Army, and Postal 2. Gordon advocates against Intel-based Macs’ potential ability to run Windows in a posting on his Web site. “Will people dual boot? Will they still prefer a native port, even if they can run Windows? What about a Windows emulation layer like Linux’s WINE project … would that kill native game ports?” Gordon asked. “In the end, at least we’re going to find out whether it was Linux that made Linux gamers a hard market or Mac OS that made Mac gamers into discerning customers,” Gordon told MacCentral. Carrots and sticks “Even if users can run Windows on a Mac, we’ll still make Mac OS X versions of our original games,” said Tamte. “Plus, if Apple’s shift to Intel does grow the Mac market, I’m willing to bet there will be lots of unique features we’ll be able to build into our Mac versions in the future.” Adding value to Macintosh conversions is an approach shared by another major Mac game publisher, Feral Interactive. “We at Feral improve games, and add extra features over the PC version,” said Edwin Smith, who’s in San Francisco this week to attend WWDC. For Feral’s conversion of Chessmaster 9000, for example, the company reworked the game’s interface to be more Mac-like. Its most recent release, Commandos Battle Pack, comprises two releases, Commandos 2 and Commando 3, into one package. That approach has also been used by Aspyr Media Inc., which has created “Deluxe” editions that include expansion packs and other add-ons not included with the original PC game. Aspyr’s Adams believes that the switch to Intel may have “a negligible change” on sales of Mac games, at least to start. While she agrees that a dual-boot Mac might cause hardcore gamers to simply buy Windows and Windows games, she doesn’t think that “normal” Mac users will want to jump through hoops. “So the net effect may be a shift in products, but revenue may stay about the same overall,” said Adams. Potential pitfalls Pangea Software president Brian Greenstone suggests that Mac game developers who need to get existing projects working on Intel-based Macs are in for a tough ride, Steve Jobs’ Monday comments about recompiling and gaining Intel compatibility notwithstanding. “This is far, far worse than the switch from 68000 to PowerPC ten years ago,” said Greenstone. “That was essentially just a recompile. This require a complete recode of data handling.” That opinion is shared by Brad Oliver, who works with Glenda Adams at Aspyr Studios, Aspyr’s internal game development house. “Byte-swapping bugs are a pain to track down,” Oliver told MacCentral. Oliver added that this also puts in a quandary game developers who rely on Codewarrior, the Integrated Development Environment (IDE) created by Freescale-owned Metrowerks. Steve Jobs made it clear during his keynote that developers using Codewarrior will need to migrate to Xcode if they want to make the jump to Intel-based Macs. “For porting, Codewarrior is still the main option, although we’re moving to Xcode,” said Adams. What’s more, added Greenstone, Rosetta isn’t a viable solution for game developers. Rosetta is Apple’s code name for the emulation solution that will allow new Intel-based based Macs to run unaltered PowerPC code. “Rosetta doesn’t work with applications that use AltiVec,” he said. AltiVec, or Velocity Engine, is a floating point instruction set implemented in G4 and G5 processors. Using AltiVec, programmers can accelerate the display of graphics and other operations, and support for the technology has been used extensively in some games. AltiVec operations need to be converted to similar functions supported in Intel’s hardware, and Rosetta doesn’t support AltiVec. “Rosetta will almost certainly be useless for games,” said Gordon. Original Mac game developers speak out Colin Lynch Smith of Freeverse Software said that he doesn’t think updating their titles to run on Intel-based Macs will prove to be much of a problem, and he’s also hoping that Rosetta will help ease the transition to the new platform for some titles in Freeverse’s catalog. “Although we’ll probably have to put a guy on doing this, which will cost us money,” he said. Aaron Fothergill is one half of Strange Flavour, a U.K.-based original game developer responsible for creating Freeverse Software’s Toysight and AirBurst games. As an original developer of Mac games, Fothergill has concerns that are different from Mac game conversion studios. “Our future games are using Xcode at the moment, so it shouldn’t be too much of an issue, technically,” Fothergill told MacCentral. “And as the phase-in will take until the end of 2007, it’s not something we need to put a lot of development time into at the moment.” [ June 08, 2005, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]