tecumseh
-
Posts
260 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by tecumseh
-
-
I still have the screenshots, but I don't think the problem is with nvidia. The downsampling code is all written by BFC, and it appears faulty.
My guess is CMBB does a check for what graphics card is installed (and how much VRAM it has) and downsamples accordingly. This check is failing on mac GeForce cards, so downsampling still occurs on 64 and 128mb cards. This is a CMBB bug.
-
Originally posted by Michael emrys:
I hope this bug is fixed one day - I thought BFC used macs? Maybe they're all radeon based.But who cares about us while - OMG - HMGs crawl when under fire?!?!?!
-
If you're using a mac, it's probably downsampled. I've never seen a GF card on a mac display CMBB without downsampling...even the 128mb GF4.
-
DW - this is only for mac cards. The GeForce range might work fine with CMBB on the PC.
-
The JPEG quality is not involved here. JPEG compression is introducing it's usual effects to these pics, but only in a subtle way. The effect is dwarfed by the effect of CMBB using lower res textures. Also the different quality of geforce vs radeon is not to blame. This effect is also dwarfed by the effect of CMBB using lower res textures.
CMBB has introduced a new system of downsampling or compressing textures on mid-to-low-end video cards (32mb and under), this is obvious. Looking at my version of CMBB I noticed it straight away.
The bug is that it seems that gf3 and gf4 mac cards are compressing textures like they are a 32mb card.
If, for example, BFC released a patch which stripped out all the code that determines the user's video card (and compresses textures appropriately), I think Michael's CMBB would look great and run fine.
-
Here's what CMBB is almost supposed to look like. Side hull, track wheels and infantry uniforms are definately crisper than on all of the other screenshots. Still it is not perfect - the shadows suck, and the smoke - not pictured - is opaque. (Both of these might be driver issues, coz the 32mb radeon doesn't have these problems.)
This looks better than the other screenshots to me. It shouldn't be better than the 128mb Titanium, but it is.
Why is CMBB downsampling on the 128mb titanium and the 64mb geforce 3?
This is a bug, and if i was Michael E who'd just paid for a new 128mb titanium just for CMBB I would be PISSED :mad:
[ November 07, 2002, 03:38 AM: Message edited by: tecumseh ]
-
PCI is a common interface for plugging things into your PC. Computers have PCI "slots" where you can plug in cards and expansions and stuff.Originally posted by Xavier:Please, could someone explain me what are PCI and AGP please. I have an warning message about these stuff on my graphic card vonfiguration panel?
AGP is a much faster and newer interface specifically for graphics cards. There's usually only 1 slot. If you have an AGP slot it is worthwhile getting an AGP graphics card becasue it will communicate with your computer faster than the equivalent PCI card.
I think that is right
-
Did you try again with the large scenario after you restarted? I have had textures go to lowest level downsampling (blurry mess) after I'd launched a few games in a row, but it was fixed after a restart. In my experience the downsampling has nothing to do with map size or complexity, but i could easily be wrongOriginally posted by AndrewTF:I quit and restarted CMBB, then began a new 500 pt QB on a small map. What a difference! I could post some comparitive screenshots when I get home.
[edited to say sorry to andrew for editing my reference to him which made him edit his post again]
[ November 06, 2002, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: tecumseh ]
-
yeah there seems to be two levels of downsampling - one pretty obvious one for low end systems and a more subtle one for medium systems. BFC have done a great job on the subtle one...it is quite hard to tell. But up next to each other, it's easy:Originally posted by lcm1947:Very interesting. Thanks for showing them to us.
I actually don't see a whole lot of difference in them. Example: you would think the 128 mb would really out do the lower ones but unless it's my eyesight or monitor I really don't see much difference except in the 8 mb.
32mb radeon PCI
32mb radeon AGP[ November 06, 2002, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: tecumseh ]
-
Hey thanks folks for the help. I have started the new thread in the main forum with the pics i have so far. My free web space (8mb) is pretty much run out, so if you've got more shots maybe you could host them and post them to that thread? I still am interested in the 64mb radeon and the "fuzzy uniform" thing.
Cheers
tec
-
Thanks to everyone who sent the screenshots to me
-
[EDIT- there appears to be a major bug where high-end nvidia cards have downsampled textures on the mac. Both the mac128mb geforce 4 titanium and mac 64mb geforce 3 have blurry textures. The 64mb radeon 8500 does not. The mid-low range 32mb Radeon produces a crisper result than either expensive nvidia card. 64mb Radeon 8500]
(These are only Mac cards, but PC users might be interested too.)
There has been some confusion of the way certain mac cards display CMBB, and how the program downsamples textures based on the card's VRAM. I was quite disappointed the first time I got in close, particularly with the vehicle tracks, uniforms, wheat/steppe and the sky.
So I have collected some shots from a range of mac cards to compare. However it is difficult to draw conclusions from this because the resolutions are all different, and some mods have been installed.
But it is very clear that nvidia and ATI have different ways of displaying things like wheat and fences.
The best comparison to show the subtle downsampling is the 32mb Radeon AGP vs 32mb Radeon PCI. You'll see the later has downsampled (fuzzy) uniforms, while the former are crisp.
The problem is the 64mb gf3 also has fuzzy uniforms. They look identical to the gf2mx (my computer) and those are definitely the fuzzy bastards. Why the AGP Radeon looks better than the PCI Radeon and gf3 I don't know.
The 16mb Rage Pro shows a downsampled building and other ugly effects. Also there is a shot from CMBO on the same Rage Pro to show how it never downsampled.
I cannot tell if any of the nvidia cards have crisp uniforms, but it looks like the 128mb one might (tho the shot is only 800x600). It certainly should.
(If anyone wants to try the same screenshots, check out the "mac video card test' thread over in tech support, and download the scenario. I really would like to know which cards downsample uniforms)
[ November 11, 2002, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: tecumseh ]
-
Wreck is hooked on tropico? I tell you one thing, that guy will run one mean mf tropical resort island.
-
I'm just waiting for two more to roll in...hopefully tomorrow NZ time. I'll put it in the main CMBB forum.Originally posted by Michael emrys:Tecumseh, when and where do you plan on posting the pics?
-
That would be great, thanks mate.Originally posted by L.Tankersley:I can do a 64mb radeon 8500 shot; it'll have to wait until late tonight, though. I could throw in a Rage Orion also if you like.
-
OK so far i have
32mb gf2mx
16mb rage pro
128mb gf4 titanium
32mb radeon PCI
32mb radeon AGP
I would really like a 64mb radeon and a 64mb gf3. And is there an 128mb radeon yet?
So far the results are dissapointing...I am thinking mac CMBB doesn't look as good as the PC version, or my expectations based on seeing doctored and shrunken screenshots for so long was too high. Anyway, I'll start a thread tonight in the main forum.
PS. Michael - 800x600 is pretty low for a 17'' monitor and an 128mb gforce card! Have you tried playing at a higher res? For example I use 1152x870 on my 17'' with a 32mb card. If you got used to the smaller buttons and writing, the visuals would be much crisper.
-
Thanks for those who have sent shots so far. Please keep them coming!
-
oh yeah, I wasn't clear: take the screenshot from the starting view of this scenario, don't move the camera!
-
I am going to post a comparison between mac video cards and how they make CMBB look.
I have a 32mb geforce2MX and a 16mb rage pro so far. I need 100% screenshots from other mac cards
If anyone wants to help, just download this small scenario here:
and then open it in CMBB scenario editor and put tree coverage and doodads on FULL (not extreme) and turn off play aids and take a screenshot and email me the file.
Also take a shot of anything else you think is important (eg fog or smoke).
Please tell me your graphics card and your screen resolution. Please keep the screenshot 100%, but making it into a JPEG is a good idea as long as the compression is 60% quality or higher.
i'll post the comparisons later in another thread. This should help solve this confusion over mac cards.
Thanks for your help
-
How come?Originally posted by Nashorn:exceedingly disappointing compared to BO's.
-
Maybe "attrition" is a better word that "casualties" for this feature.
-
dalem - if the second gun had "kill:none" on the light armour it will not fire unless fired on. maybe this is why your second ATG didn't fire - because it was not under attack? This is a good thing - it may have gone back to the "lost contact" icon as far as your opponent was concerned, and hence be saved.
-
Human players set their pre-planned arty strikes in the orders-phase of the first turn - rather than in the setup. If the AI does the same, it may have seen your IS-2 and set up the smoke barrage in front of it during turn 1 orders.
Humans are able to do this to each other too. Any unit visable to the opponent on turn 1 can be hit by a "pre-planned" barrage.
-
Also, make sure you chuck any ATI extensions you've got running. I had the black sky problem with my nvidia card, but this fixed it.
Macs used to (still do?) ship with ATI extensions loaded, even if the card is nvidia.
CMBB downsampling?
in Combat Mission - Tech Support
Posted
I even installed CMBB on 2 computers here at work one evening to confirm the effect. One was an old G4 with a 32mb Radeon, one was a new G4 with a 64mb nVidia.
The Radeon was crisp, the nVidia was fuzzy.