Jump to content

sebastian

Members
  • Posts

    113
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by sebastian

  1. In TOW1 the mouse wheel is moving the camera up&down, instead of zooming (in contrary to what the options screen says). Especially in the camera modes "lock to center" & "lock to cursor" this behavior is:

    1) useless, because your area of interest goes out of the screen (this should happen only when scrolling)

    2) redundant, because you can change the altitude of the camera by vertical mouse movement (without losing sight to the current area of interest)

    The mouse wheel should zoom the camera or move it along it's current view axis, not in vertical. At least in the two orbiting camera mode mentioned above.

  2. Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:

    But people still not getting to grips with the camera interface...? Are you kiddin?! It's the easiest I know.

    Then you don't know much. The problem is not "getting to grips camera interface", It not like the camera interface is to difficult, but simply inefficient. And every time I have used other software with a better one, and I go back to playing CM, I see the difference: more mouse action to achieve the same camera action.
  3. Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

    I think it is fair to say, did not like the camera controls and the Commands UI when they first tried it.

    Because they are bad.

    We told them to try them out for awhile and see if it got better. And that is exactly what happened.
    Because you can learn to use even the worst UI, if you waste enough time on it.

    The newness and unexpected design was MOST of the reason for their initial mixed/negative reaction,
    "Newness" and "unexpected design" is almost always bad, when it comes to UI:

    The first rule of computer UI design is: Use standards that have evolved over years. They are tested, optimized and known to many people. Why not have a look on other strategy games, or standard 3D-software or Google Earth, before inventing new crappy camera controls.

  4. Originally posted by Swift:

    However it is not (in my opinion) as easy to use as other 3D games camera.

    It is terrible compared to popular strategy games, or standard 3D software like Google Earth, Maya or 3D Studio. Orbiting camera is the most efficient, and therefore used in all of the above.

    If I play a strategy game, I want to view the action from different angles, without loosing the focus on current the area of interest. I don't want to "fly the camera around" like in a flight sim.

    However reading on this board I see that many people really like the current controls.

    You can get used to everything, I guess. ToW has 3 different camera modes to choose. That would be nice for CMSF.
  5. I don't want to repost, what I said about camera controls in strategy games on the ToW forum, so here the direct link:

    http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=63;t=000045#000000

    In short: Implement the orbiting camera from Google Earth, instead of badly reinventing the wheel.

    Speaking of wheel - Now that you found out about the mouse wheel and finally make use of it in CMSF, here is more news: It can be also pressed and used as a third button. For example you could rotate the camera by holding the wheel pressed, instead of wasting the right button for this.

  6. Originally posted by Nikki Mond:

    Myself I'm not interested in seeing my own tank and the enemy. Just the enemy.

    Well I need to see both. Think not one tank, but multiple of your units. I need to keep them in sight, to be able to select and give orders and to see what they are doing.

    The speed of rotation(orbiting)and panning schould be adjustable. The speed of zooming and panning schould be adaptive (faster if camera is far away from the ground).

    Most 3D RTS you mentioned games are using a limited kind of the orbiting cam I'am asking for. Google Earth is more the pure thing: orbit angles and camera distance(zoom) are independent.

  7. Originally posted by Nikki Mond:

    The turn on zero axis is the best because it is the fastest. This allows you to see 360 degrees in the shortest possible time.

    What does the speed of rotation has to do with the axis of rotation? :confused: You can orbit an camera by 360 degrees just as fast as you rotate it around its own axis.

    The difference is, when you are looking at your tank, and rotate the camera in place by 180deg, to see who is shooting at it, you loose your tank out of sigth. When you orbit the camera around the tank by 180deg, your tank stays on screen and you see the enemy behind it.

    To make it clear: I don't want the Combat Mission style orbiting. I want the Google Earth camera, with faster non-linear zooming.

  8. Originally posted by Markus86:

    no the camera in ToW is fine, at last for me, I can handle it without any problems.

    Does it still rotate in place, around its own axes, like seen on the videos? If yes, then it sucks, just like the one in EYSA. I want an orbiting camera like in Google Earth.
    The only sad thing is, zooming out = loosing all the nice visual details shown in the screenshots.
    Well I spend 90% of the time in a zoomed out, top down view when playing a stategy game like CM. This is the most important perspective. However I have not seen many screens showing how it looks, and if its playable, units visible/highlighted etc.
  9. Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

    but it should be desirable to have leadership transfer to the lower grade soldiers when the officer dies, i.e. from the liutenant to the sergeant to the corporal...

    Thats one point, there schould always be a leader.

    But having to double click only the commander to select the whole squad, has nothing to do with realism or simulation. It is just an anoying UI issue. The option schould work on any sqaud member instead.

  10. Random maps in CM (and in general) get boring too. They look all the same, very generic and unnatural, with few different bulidings and roads going only in 45deg steps. CC maps offer much more variabilty and freedom of design, to match the real world theatre.

    I am curious how ToW maps are made. They are obviously not tile based like in CM. The question is if they use an map editor to paint roads, trenches and place buildings and trees - or if the map is modelled within 3DStudioMax.

    [ December 17, 2006, 04:37 AM: Message edited by: sebastian ]

  11. Originally posted by criss:

    Plz rattle of your list of multithreaded / duel core games .

    Every decent clickfest-RTS or GTA-style game, is using seperate threads for the main update loop and AI/Pathfinding computations. Thats the only way to simulate a complex map and still achive high responsivity to user input.

    Games like WoW multithreaded yeah it calls the graphics libraries, which are multithreaded ? The latter is a horse of a different color.

    A program using multithreaded libraries is multithreaded.

    much longer winded than I originally intended but hopefully someone will find it useful/interesting.

    I doubt it.
  12. Originally posted by criss:

    These are the only multithread games out that i could find , I knew there was onle a few .

    I asure you that most games from the last decade use multiple threads.

    Games simply don’t need duel core and can gain just marginal performance out of them.

    Nonsense, games like ToW are the perfect area for multi threading. You have a lot of computing tasks, that can or even have to run in own threads: frame update, path finding, AI, sound...

    The chip companies are hailing duel core to be the natural evolution of chip design.

    Mulitcore is the only way to go, because you cannot increase the clock speed much more.

    As the public, we just have to try and stay educated about whats going on,

    You surely need some education about programing, and CPUs.

    I guess im saying get a good Graphics card over a duel core cpu ...

    ... if you want to play graphic demos. If you like complex simulations with good AI and realistic physics, you stll need a good CPU.

    [ December 07, 2006, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: sebastian ]

  13. Originally posted by Lt Bull:

    I am wondering if the ToW battlefield for infantry is kind of like being on a billiard table with tree with cover being gained from physically sheltering behind individual tree trunks, walls, mounds of dirt etc rather than just the abstract treatment like in CM.

    On the one hand it would be good, if cover would not be abstract, but displayed and simulated individually. On the other this means: More cover -> more CPU time. This dependency leads to unrealistic maps with very little cover.
  14. Originally posted by Daimyo:

    But this function does not always work because line of sight is blocked and it's very difficult to determine when a tank can see the target (in CM you could press L key to know that)..

    So, when giving an attack order, you don't see if your unit has LOS to the target point? In CM or CC you could move the mouse around, and you saw what interrupts LOS to the point, the mouse is over. Seems an important feature to me.
  15. Originally posted by Daimyo:

    In the Stalingrad mission I had 2 tanks and no infantry at one moment and they could not see any enemies. Just as one of the tank crews climbed out of their tank 1 enemy squad and 2 tanks appeared 500 m away.

    So you cannot simply order the tank commander to unbutton and look around? You have to extract the entire tank crew, to spot enemies?
  16. Originally posted by Rollstoy:

    I just hope that companies will start to put up forums for their games two months prior to release instead of two years. *sigh*

    Best regards,

    Thomm

    It's okay for me, if players can give input on an early stage. Two months before release, you can't change anything with your suggestions.
×
×
  • Create New...