David Aitken

Sirocco wrote: > And the CMBO engine isn't "inaccurate and misleading"? I think you'll find it handles most things in an abstract manner. Not misleading. The game engine is accurate, but the graphics engine is abstracted. > With more computing power the CM series will become ever more powerful, with a more accurate representation of the battlefield, and that will include a more accurate visual representation, which some may describe as "eye candy". Did I not say at least twice, that I would expect BTS to model damage once it was possible to do it accurately? The only kind of eye candy I am opposed to is that which does not have an accurate basis, or is superfluous or gratuitous. David

Zaffod wrote: > Is Summer 01 still the ETA??? Yup, and if you drop Charles an e-mail, he'll send you a copy of the beta and an inflatable Jagdtiger with compliments of BTS.

Lordfluffers wrote: > the damage would have to look quite generic and generalised i.e. you couldn't have damage modelled specifically for individual weapon types like a 20mm damage BMP, 75mm damage BMP etc. but it would be interesting just to have an idea of how your tanks look by the end of a battle. How about catastrophic explosions? Or a thrown track? It would require a separate (and much more complex) 3D model. By the same token, simply changing a bitmap will not properly represent damage inflicted on a vehicle. Was it a single high-calibre penetration? A burst of .50 cal or cannon fire? Which angle did it hit from? There are simply too many possibilities to be covered by a single 'damage' bitmap (or even a score of them). And in many cases, the actual damage would amount to an insignificant hole which you'd only notice on extremely close examination. It would be a heck of a lot of work for little point to represent damage, and even then it would be inaccurate, misleading and very often exaggerated. David [This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 01-29-2001).]

The Commissar wrote: > And it opens the door to a CM2 nude patch! You're waiting until CM2? I've been playing with nude soldiers since the Beta!

... about the fact that his mount refused to engage a Jagdtiger, thus proving the gamey superiority of German armour. "At this stage in the war", he yelled, "German soldiers should be so demoralised by the destruction of their homeland, and so crippled by lack of food through supply shortages, that they should have their global morale reduced by 25.3%, thus rendering them incapable of mustering the strength to heave a shell into the breech of the Jagdtiger!" Realising the uncharacteristically foul words he had uttered, Mace...

Despite, or possibly thanks to, his prodigious use of solvents and hallucinagenic weeds, I fear that Le Français is on to me. I can indeed be found at the bottom right-hand corner of the puddle in line with "Stirling" and the V in "River Forth" on the map provided. However, the map, being slightly out of date, fails to record the fact that I have covertly relocated the Maginot Line to Linlythgwoe Shyere (aka West Lothian), thus ensuring that any form of forcible advance upon my position will end in defeat and failure. (Whose is yet to be determined.)

... mug of coffee. "Hey", the trader exclaimed, "get your own!". "But there are no granules left!", his lover retorted. "Well go and buy some!" "The shops will be closed by now!" "Well you'll just have to wait until tomorrow!" "Can't I have some of yours? Please??" "Like hell!" "But... I thought you loved me!!" This touching scene was shattered as an 81mm shell exploded on the roof and sent fragments of tile crashing through the ceiling. "Quick", the trader exclaimed, "let's get out of here before the place falls down!". Forgetting his dejection, the lover offered a voice of reason. "Maybe they're just conducting recon by fire. If we run outside, we'll be gunned down!" They were considering the best course of action when...

Thanks Jon, that's what I thought.

Lordfluffers wrote: > I dont mean accurate damage, just, say a replacement texture showing random damage. if the left hull side got it, then that a left hull damage texture could replace the original one. We gathered that much. But then how many people would complain that the graphic suggests their Sherman was taken out by a forward hull shot from and 88 when it was actually a rear hull shot from a 20mm cannon? In other words, are BTS likely to program something which is simply misleading and unrealistic? As I have said, I would expect them to model damage when it is possible to do it accurately, but that would require a fundamental rewrite of the game engine. David

PawBroon wrote: > REXFORD, KS (city, FIPS 59125) Location: 39.47051 N, 100.74355 W Population (1990): 171 (102 housing units) Area: 0.7 sq km (land), 0.0 sq km (water) Rexford, MT (town, FIPS 62200) Location: 48.90101 N, 115.17034 W Population (1990): 132 (60 housing units) Area: 0.3 sq km (land), 0.0 sq km (water) Zip code(s): 59930 Rexford, NY Zip code(s): 12148 Last time I checked I didn't drink or smoke, but I'm starting to wonder what I was doing last night...

Hun Hunter wrote: > I'm not sure what you mean by "the Jeep company" Am I wrong in thinking there is a company called Jeep? The one that makes Cherokees?

tero > Why does it seem it always assumed that when a German unit does something really stupid it can be explained away with natural causes, like panic, but when an Allied unit does the same it warrants further study to reveal it is indeed a bug ? How on Earth do you come to that conclusion? Would you think it better if the FO had remained in the building, which subsequently collapsed and killed him? The FO is evacuating because the building is falling apart around his head. I argued against this behaviour, which was implemented in 1.1 (I think), because as you have found the AI does not intuitively know where safety lies. However, I also think you will find that half of the time the units in question exit a building on the safe side (if there is a safe side at all). It's a matter of chance, and you've witnessed an occasion where a unit made the wrong choice. As always, though, why should strange behaviour always be regarded as a bug? In reality, this FO could have been forced to exit through the front because he thought it too dangerous to make his way to the back. This is not specifically simulated in the game just now, but it is accounted for. He could also have suspected that enemy forces were behind him, and felt that the front was his best bet. Another thought which comes to mind is that he was concerned to continue his fire mission. And above all, there is a degree of uncertainty programmed into the game, which accounts for simple bad decisions and mistakes. David

aka_tom_w wrote: > Except to INCREASE sales.... How will overloading the game with superfluous eye candy increase sales? I'd have thought striving for detail and realism was the goal. Don't confuse the two. > and keep up with the competition What competition? Louie the Toad wrote: > BTS, please do not waste time on this. Why would we ever want to be able to see the precise path of a shell and the exact damage it inflicts. Interesting point. Many people want WYSIWYG terrain so that spotting can be done visually. I wonder if there really is an argument that it should remain an approximation for good.

This isn't what I'd call "up in arms". And why does everything have to be ironic these days?

Bah. [This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 01-28-2001).]

Now look here, we can't all post at once. I think we need to introduce a rota system. BTS had better program it, otherwise they'll fall behind first-person-shooter developers and Gunny Bunny won't buy CM2.

... He wracked his brains. "Where do I live?", he inquired feverishly of Thermopylae. "Far away from me, mate!" was the response. "In your cell, you freaks!" interjected the guards, digging the pair out from their hideaway amidst the laundry. Resigned to a return to captivity, help came in the unlikely form of a 50-ton German armoured vehicle which crashed through the wall, decapitating the guards with its gun barrel. "See!", the drive exclaimed, "Tanks should be able to drive through buildings!". At this he jubilantly threw the vehicle into reverse, at which point it threw a track, the whiplash narrowly missing mensch. "Damn", thought mensch, "it's been a while since I last had a good whipping!". As though reading mensch's mind...

This would be purely eye candy and serve no practical purpose. It would be misleading for the texture on the vehicle models to degrade or show damage, because it would bear no relation to the actual damage inflicted. I doubt BTS are going to spend any time programming something without a purpose. We can expect to see this kind of thing in the distant future when the graphics engine is WYSIWYG. Then when a shell is fired, you see the precise path and exactly where it strikes and what damage it inflicts. At the moment what you see is simply a secondary representation, so there is no basis for greater detail with the current engine. David

It would be fair to call any four-wheel-drive vehicle a "jeep", since it's simply a phonetic version of "GP", or "General Purpose". Thereafter the term became a marketing ploy because it was common vocabulary and being associated with it was lucrative. I'm not sure how the Jeep company came into being, but their claim to be the "original and best" is a load of rubbish.

Gunny spends his time on his pet newsgroup, alt.games.combat-mission . He just drops in here every now and again either to advertise his group, or rant about graphics for the Nth time. Here's a quote from one of his latest posts over on UseNet: Gunny Bunny wrote: > I can see there are allot of BTS party-soldiers which have infiltrated the ng. I shall have to set more anti-personnel mines around the perimeter. > [...] > Right now I wouldn't recommend buying CM2,unless they are willing to improve the program. Seems like they are just in it for the money !

OPLIZ was sprung a while ago, Mr Presley. And now some words of wisdom from our good friend Mr G. Bunny, from alt.games.combat-mission: Gunny Bunny wrote: > I can see there are allot of BTS party-soldiers which have infiltrated the ng. I shall have to set more anti-personnel mines around the perimeter. > [...] > Right now I wouldn't recommend buying CM2,unless they are willing to improve the program. Seems like they are just in it for the money !

Okay, jake went to the edge of starting an inflammatory thread and then extinguished himself. Rob, we don't need to turn this into a US vs. Britain thread. We can just concentrate on the specific technologies Britain and America and various other countries contributed to the war, can't we? I vote for the Germans' helmets. =)

... Anti Strawman Werfer and pulled the trigger, forgetting the effects of starting a fire in the presence of high concentrations of methane. Both Heidman and Waxx_IK went up in flames and were in the process of crying for their mothers when Gunny Bunny sauntered in. "Whoa!", he exclaimed, "I didn't know CM modelled those awesome fire effects!". "It doesn't!!", yelled Slapdragon, getting tired with all Gunny's new threads on the subject of graphics. "Then why are Heidman and Waxxy on fire?" retorted Gunny. The two prospective human kebabs stopped writhing on the ground and stood up, looking expectantly at Slapdragon, who offered them the response they were hoping for – "They can't be!". They suddenly realised this was indeed true, and they weren't even singed. However, their relief was short-lived before...

iggi wrote: > 1)The enemy unit spots a tree line. > 2)If I am moving in between the tree line and the enemy unit, I am less likely to be spotted. The closer I am to the tree line, the less likely to be spotted. > The area or cone that is created from the enemy unit to all tree lines in effect changes the spotting modifier of the terrain in that cone. Sorry, what you're talking about is still tantamount to having the AI need to "see". How would you propose creating this "cone"? LOS is calculated from point to point. Area does not come into it. A treeline is not a line, it is the edge of an area. What if you have tree tiles scattered haphazardly? Bang goes your neat treeline, and trying to create these "cones" would be ten times the nightmare it already is, if it were even possible in the first place. And that's only on a two-dimensional plane. What about three dimensions? What if you're looking across a valley to a treeline, and an enemy unit is below you? They are within the cone, but they can't benefit from camouflage of the treeline. The only way to do it is to have units basically "see", which is my point. There is no other way they can take in all the factors to decide whether an enemy unit is camouflaged in relation to its surroundings. David

This is not a simple yes/no issue where a unit is either camouflaged against a backdrop or not, in the same way that a unit is either in a woods tile or not. We're effectively talking about modelling visual perception into the AI. Your men would have to "look" and see where an enemy unit is in relation to its surroundings. I can't begin to imagine how much more complex the AI would need to be in order to be intuitively aware of the surrounding battlefield in the way that real humans are. The AI can only react to relatively simplistic criteria, it can't "see" and it can't exercise intuition. That is unlikely to change for a long time. This kind of thing would be nice, but it's on a higher plane from the computer game AI of today. David