Panzer76

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tiborhead: To some, this may sound like "Well to hell with someone with a crappy system. If they can't shell out the dough, they don't deserve to play." Again, I'm not saying that (...) comment. Since you say you're not a newbie, I'd think you should have noticed how quick some people are to take offence to something they feel is a slam. Just my thoughts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ok, if this is why people are reacting, Im sorry. It's not my intetion to be condecendig towards people who have low end machines. Ok? But really, this is just getting silly. As you said, yes, I've should have known, next time I post a message here I will post it in the most diplomatic way possible to avoid hurting ANYBODYS feelings. We can all become politicans and write alot, but not really mean anything, that would be great! Ok, so that was abit much, but the tolerance level on this BBS doesn't impress me. And with everbody saying there is such a adult audience on this BBS, it sure doesn't seem like that at times. Panzer

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus: The graphics will look better if you download some nice hi-res mods. The community HAS realized that the stock graphics sucked and we have created some really nice replacements. I'd suggest downloading everything from Marco Bergman, Gordon Molek, Shane Petersson, & Fernando J. Buil Carrera.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I know, I have most of them and those guys really kick ass! Too bad Tiger left... But, I was thinking about future CM's, but lets not rip up in that again, we've got as much of an answer that we possible can. Panzer

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dalem: I didn't get so much of a concern about the direction of CM development in general as I got a concern with your definition of what a minimum system should be. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No problem. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dalem: But as far as the actual issue of graphics development of the CM concept, I'm probably the worst type of person to poll: I will upgrade to whatever CMX may require, -dale<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thats the spirit! Panzer

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV: Your point is so obvious it is really... unnecessary. The problem is that you have posted an opinion, and some people have disagreed with it. Therefore, you have repeatedly replied that they must be "missing your point" or that your point is somehow hard to get across. It isn't. We got it. We disagree with it (some of us, anyway). You are not being flamed by anyone that I can see. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, if I pose a question or a comment or an opinion, I expect that people who disagree with me disagree with what I'm saying, and don't twist and turn on what I've been writing. That's what I mean when I ask them if they are "missing the point". Because, they have not replyed to my opinion, rather, fabricated a new "opinion" I supposedly had. As you can see, several others have been disagreeing with me (and my opinion), and thats not a problem. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV: Kingfish responded with very nice logic. The broader the base, the more they sell. Are you getting his point? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Was that his point? For me it just seemed that he tried to twist what I wrote. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV: And it you click the thoughtfully provided links to previous discussions, you will find that BTS has ALREADY raised the standard for CM2, etc., on into the future. In other words, they too have discerned the trend of PC platforms getting faster and better over time. So this is really a non-issue. Are you understanding that? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, I do thank you very much. And I have not pressed this issue any more: " As it has been stated several times by now, BTS supposedly hasn't even started designing the new gfx engine, so we'll just have to wait and see what they figure is the average machine when they do start designing it, hopefully not in the too distant future! " <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV: (...) Can you understand this? My machine has the same specs, exactly, as yours. I bought it mostly because of CM, although my PII-350 ran it fine. (...) If you are trying to be persuasive, a good rule is to consider your words from a neutral perspective, to make sure you aren't unintentionally insulting anyone, or to adopt the condescending stance that anyone who disagrees must be incapable of understanding your logic. You know what I mean?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I've not been, in my opinion, been condescending towards anybody who has had any constructive feedback, for those who are just trying to be a pain in the ass, frankly, I don't care. I don't think I've been rude to anybody in particular during this discussion. Yes, I know what you mean, try not to "adopt the condescending stance". Maybe I'm not the only one... Panzer

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gen-x87H: For Bungie, I thought they sold PC (and X-box, mind you) games also, I know I have a few of them " Actually Bungie was bought by Microsoft and the most funny part about all of it is the much acclaimed and waited game "Halo" which was hailed by Stevie jobs at a mac fair is now going to be for the X-Box. Gen<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I know, but Bungie published PC games long before Microsoft bought it. Panzer

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gen-x87H: Sure but since OS-X wont run CM or CM:BB what is the point? As for the dual 800Mhz equals 3.2Ghz in the x86 world get off the crack pipe. Even with altivec the G4 at 600Mhz is on par with an Athlon at 750Mhz. Without AltiVec it is more like a 650Mhz Athlon. Putting into SMP is making it worse. the Athlon has a superior bus design and will scale better than the P3,P4, and G4. G4 is not 2 times more powerful LOL! Gen<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OMG, he opened the can, run, RUN I say! BTW, I agree Panzer

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by xerxes: 1. "Designing a game for a mac is bad marketing" - Hmm, Bungie did exactly this and seems to have made out ok. From a pure marketing perspective, designing purely for a Mac is a better idea than it sounds from a small company perspective. It's a similar startegy to that used by some successful convenience store chains that targeted towns under 30k people. The reason is less competition in a much smaller market is a solid business strategy. You just won't ever get to be a top-dog that way and you have to produce your product very cost effectively. - xerxes<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I guess you are refering to my "I would rather choose the PC market than the Mac, if I had too choose" opnion? This was just to reply to Slapdragon, but I mean what I said. You have a couple of valid points, but I disagree in this case. Combat Mission is not an FPS clone or just a rehash of old games which is so common these days, neither is BTS a big company with huge payrolls, and therefor have to sell a lot of games. No, CM is a small revolution in wargaming, and as such syicks out of the crowd. Also, BTS have relative small expenses, and can survive even if not CM sells XX thousands of copys. For Bungie, I thought they sold PC (and X-box, mind you) games also, I know I have a few of them Panzer

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gen-x87H: 50Mhz? I wish. 486 SX 25Mhz, 8 MBs of RAM, 1 GB HD, 4MB video card. If this baby does run CM3 im going to be pissed! Gen<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You must be kidding!??! Don't tell me you can run CM on that thing? Panzer

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ben Galanti: Another previous thread on this subject in which BTS comments: Improvement of the graphics ??? Ben<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ok, Steve states: " 1. People do have unreasonable expectations of what bleeding edge hardware can do (as well as average hardware ) 2. People who have, or at least follow, the latest and greatest technologies vastly overestimate how many people have such stuff. And since we are catering to wargamers, they are even less likely to have it than the average (which is low enough). 3. We will improve CM's graphics over time, but we can't do more than the customer base has at their disposal. And that is generally last year's or two years' ago technology. " But what was wondering about is what BTS now reckons is the "average" computer system? As it has been stated several times by now, BTS supposedly hasn't even started designing the new gfx engine, so we'll just have to wait and see what they figure is the average machine when they do start designing it, hopefully not in the too distant future! But first, where is my bloody eastern front?!? Panzer

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GenSplatton: top system is. All I can say, after reading this thread, is that apparently war gamers tend to lag severly behind the average PC owning community, or at least the PC gaming community, by a large margin. I <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's the thing, are they (we) lagging SO far behind the rest of the gamers? If we are not, than BTS can safely adjust their minimun requirements and get the most out of the new graphics engine. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GenSplatton: Hopefully I didn't offend anyone. Tough subject to broach without stepping on any toes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's very though! Panzer

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lindan: Panzer, I think you overlook the fact that this game wasn't developed with "the gamers" in mind. It's first and foremost a product for wargamers. Older machines to find with this crowd, as there is no point in upgrading when you don't play graphics intensive games. (My ms-office runs really smooth at 150Mhz, thank you.) I got your point and we can argue a lot about this (I for one would really love to see smoother infantry graphics) but bottom line is that BTS wants to keep lower-end users in, and I respect their decision. Many people here are all for a historical correct database and accurate modelling of all kinds of weapons and stuff and don't care at all if there are 364 polygons used to create a grim look on a Panzer commander's face. [ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: Lindan ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, I know the whole "wargaming" community isn't as hardware focused as the rest of the gamers out there. But, the thing is, I'm not that sure that there are so many who have low end machines. It seems that "everybody" thinks that the majority of wargamers have **** machines, but is this true? Of the (very few..) who have posted their specification in this thread, nobody had less than a 400 Mhz machine (i think). So maybe this is just an old myth? But how can we know if everybody just says, "this is bull****, you are stupid"?. Not everyone, but you get my point. And, thanks for the constructiv feedback, a nice change indead. Panzer

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kingfish: Let see what it sounds like when we change it a little: And if you want to earn any mony selling games, it's a remarkable bad idea to only make a game for high end systems, when in fact it would have been better to design it to run on mid-range systems, from an economically perspective if you had to only choose one range.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And it's remarkable how difficult it is to get my point over to some people! I said they should scrap the LOW end machines, IF (are u getting this Kingfish, IF) this seriously hampers development of the new 3d engine. Now, as been stated by Priest before, even BTS doesn't know the specification for the new 3d engine, so it's a bit early to discuss it. And where did I state they should only make games for high end system? Nowhere! All the time I've been saying mid-high range. Please, try to read my posts before before commenting it. Then we have the disussion of what a low/mid/high range system is... This is going to get ugly! Panzer

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Murph: Panzer 76, my hat's off to you for your thick skin and pleasant demeanor in the face of some, in my opinion, over-agressive replies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh my, a kind word! :eek: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Murph: I think your point is quite valid (regardless of whether I agree with it or not), and you have graciously sidestepped a potential flamefest that would have obscured the issue completely after like, 5 posts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, I hope one can ask a question without getting the whole "established" BBS down your neck! And not ALL questions need to be "what the velocity of the X gun is" or "how many grumpy one legged hamsters with headaches that can fit in a jeep with red paint"... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Murph: Welcome to the board...oh wait...never mind! Murph<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Panzer

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: They could, comments aside, design for a much higher end Macintosh OS-X dual processor 800 (equivilant in power to a 3.2ghz Pentium IV) with 64mb of VRAM, and <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Right.... The old Mac vs PC thingy, let's not go there. And if you want to earn any mony selling games, it's a remarkable bad idea to only make a Mac version, when in fact it would have been better to only make a PC version, from an economically perspective if you had to only choose one plattform. Panzer

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Porajkl: Hey, you all young FPS graphics maniacs out there... Graphics is not everything what makes game great - especially in wargames. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree 100%. For too long (in general) developers have had too much focus on eye candy and no focus on playability. BUT sometimes it seems that some people think that with better gfx the game gets worse... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Porajkl: seen him for quite a long time. And Panzer76, why are you so proud that you're not new to a forum? Any resemblance? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not, but some of the others began with a "you are a newbie, so be obidient" kinda line, which I don't care for much. Maybe it shows that some of the BBS members think a bit too highly about them self. Almost high school all over again. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> upgrade for at least a year. And by the way - most CM players aren't involved in forum, so your statistic may not be valuable...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Never said or pretended they were anywhere close to being valid statistics. Just curious. Panzer

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cpl Carrot: Actually I only pull it out when I get a X-Com urge. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good game BTW! Panzer

I guess you are right Mattias. Let's just hope that the sucsess of BTS will continue so they can employ even more competant people which can lift this great game to new hights. Panzer

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: I'd assume that if CM2 would require 400Mhz, 128MB's of RAM and a 16MB card, that'd cut out about half of the current users. Maybe half of those cut off would upgrade to be able to run CM. And CM still wouldn't look nearly as good as Halo or something like that. In short, I believe upping system demands beyond certain point would cost BTS more customers than it would gain them. The question is, where's the point. Not too far up I wager.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, I wonder what the average really is, it would be interesting to see some statistics about that, and I guess it would also help BTS plan their next engine. Maybe the average is much higher than you think, then agai, maybe lower. Sadly there are no such statistics (as I know of anyway), that's why I wondered what the other users out there have. And, I don't think CM will ever compete graphically against FPS games, that's just unrealistic, but it can do better than now... Panzer

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Priest: As far as the CMII engine is concerned, I believe it is way too early to be concerned with PC requirements when the BTS gang does not have a clear picture of what they are going to try to implement. (...) But as we do not know about the engine yet (the soon to be creators do not know about it yet!!!) then we can pretty much end this discussion. Anyways there is a good chance that by the time the CMII engined games come out your PC will be one of those that you are now labeling as obsolete. BTS has many strengths, but the ability to balance between two extremes is probably their key ability in the design of their games.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ok, if even BTS doesn't know what they will include and so forth it's still to early with a discussion like this, I agree. I only hope they don't aim too low though (just look at the Mhz of the machines from the few who have responed), but since they are such a competent crew, I'm sure they won't. If my PC is obsolete by then, fine, I'm not going to make a fuss about it. Panzer

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rollstoy: Okay, so where are your suggestions? Hint: This thread should have most of them: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/015600-7.html Regards, Thomm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, lot of good sugestions. I don't have any specific suggestions like "real time lighting" and so forth, but the main goal of the game, when it comes to grapichs, must be that it looks as close to real life that is possible. Of cource, the hardware aviable to the user must be taken into account. It's no use looking real good if only 5 % can play it. The average machine should be able to cope with it. But's that what I'm wondering about, what is the average machine of the people who play it?? Unitll now it seems that its around 800-900. Panzer

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shatter: --------------------------------------------- I guess I misinterpreted your statement, about getting a new machine with the Exclamation at the end.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Lets put this in context shall we? It's great that BTS is thinking about low end machines also when they are developing a game. And, as long this doesn't DEGRADE the game for the rest of us (with mid-top line) it's just dandy. But, if BTS designs CM3 with 200-300 Mhz machines in mind, and therefore DEGRATES, and are therefor unable to make the game as good as it could have (for again, the mid-top end) been, then, and only then, IF so is the case, I think BTS should scrap support for low end machines, ok?! You can disagree with me, or agree with me, but please do it on the basis of the point I'm trying to make! (And not doing a very good job, it seems ) Panzer

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shatter: I for one think it is great that BTS thinks about the gamers who cannot afford a top of the line PC. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Me too! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shatter: You also should watch your strong oppionions on the board. A lot us here do not take kindly to newbie coming here a voicing his oppinion about our beloved CM and the GREAT individuals who developed it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Doesn't anybody READ my posts?! And, I'm not a newbie. Yes, CM is great, the people who developed it are great, however, its NOT the point. Panzer

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Priest: Panzer it is called MODS! Get some!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's not only that, it's also the DEVELOPMENT of the new engine. Panzer

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dalem: Hey Panzer, I'm running a - hold on let me check - well, sure enough, it's smaller than yours. (...) and without knowing anything about you I'm still willing to bet that I can pony up enough dough as an afterthought tomorrow to buy a system that would blow yours into geosynchronous orbit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good for you... I bet I'm stronger than you.... Your missing the point, it's not about having the best PC. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dalem: The beauty of CM is that I don't have to do that, and the further beauty of CM2 is that I still won't have to do that. BTS has chosen, deliberately chosen mind you, to aim for the middle and pick up lots of the bottom. This approach does not exclude the top, and therefore gets BTS more customers, and more satisfied ones at that - the high-end hogs (and I've been one) are far fewer to begin with, and the high-end hogs who will flatly refuse to buy a game simply because it doesn't tax their system and justify their expenditures are fewer still. And even more bottom line than that is who the heck are you to tell anyone what system they "should" have? That kind of arrogance still astonishes me even though I see it often enough. Sheesh. -dale<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You assume a lot. First of, either I'm having a very difficult time expressing my self or you don't want to see my point. 1. I'm just saying that BTS shouldn't get HAMPERED developing CM3, trying to accomedate people with lousy machines. 2. If the 3d engine can scale up/down according to client machine, SUPER! Everybody is happy. But I don't think anybody who owns a 200 Mhz machine should be angry if he finds out that he can't run CM3 on it! 3. I guess there are very few people who whould refuse to buy a game just becuase it doesn't tax their PC. I certainly don't do that! IF, as i said, that BTS developes a game that will run just fine on a wide degree of machines, WITHOUT setting restrictions on their development, that would be great. But they shouldn't (in my opinion of course) try to accomadate low end machines, if, and I say IF, it's seriously affecting how the game could have been for the rest of us (mid range-top end). Then it's just holding the development of the game back, and we wouldn't like that, now would we? BTW: Just because it stands "Junior Member" next to my handle, it doesn't mean I'm new to this forum. Panzer

Ok, when reading various posts about what the 3d engine can or cannot do, it seems that often people say that this and that can't be modeled because of the hardware constraints. It seems to me that people on this message board have below average PCs at home. I for one would like to see more graphical detail in the game. The thing is I'm afraid BTS is maybe trying to hard to make the game playable for people with ancient PC with the consequence that the game doesn't look as good as it could for the rest of us. Do you see my point? I don't want to have to settle with worse graphics just because some people insist CM shoould be playable on an 4 year old machine. Sorry, but then its really about time to get a new machine! This is especially a topic when BTS is gonna revamp the whole gfx engine in CM3. Bottom line is, IF this degrades the look of the game, BTS shouldn't care if some people with old machines can play the game or not. Take advantage of what a modern PC can do instead of trying to please everybody. If ofcource the 3d engine is constructed in such a fashion that it accomedates different levels of hardware on the users machine, it's all good. Im not saying that u should have a 1 GHz machine with GeForce 3, but, atleast a PIII/Celeron/AMD 400 with 8/16 MB gfx card. So what kind of machine do YOU have? I myself have a 1.2 Ghz AMD with a GeForce2-MX 64MB gfx card. Panzer