Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Gryphonne

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    249

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Gryphonne

    Will the Draw distance be fixed in Normandy ?

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    The tree draw distance was fixed long ago. If you can't locate a screenshot that may be because we only got distance LODs of trees that everyone was happy just last week. Believe me, everyone is happy :D

    About 'crop circles', in my opinion that's the biggest 'non-bug'. I cannot understand your fixation with them. Would you prefer individual blades of grass placed one at a time? Hozontal rows? CMx1-style grass Xs littering the landscape?

    Well, in CMSF the leafs on trees were crop circles too, when viewed from the top. At least the foliage seemed to rotate with the point of view AFAIR. In CMBN however the trees and foliage are "modelled" along "two (or more) axis", which supposedly would mean they have more volume (from a distance) to them and do not shift with the view point. Is this correct? I hope you can understand my explanation anyway, it's a bit difficult to use clear terms..

    So while the trees in CMSF are more complex from a close distance, the trees in CMBN seem to have more volume when viewed from a distance; look almost as good up close and my guess is that the render is probably a lot more efficient too (=higher framerates)?

    0

    Will the Draw distance be fixed in Normandy ?

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    Hi,

    maybe your remember the ugly draw distance problem in CM: Shock Force.

    http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=90147

    Trees disapperar at some distance and suddenly popping up if you scroll forward.

    So you are thinking: "WTF why is there a forest...".

    Really, this issue has make me stopp playing for a while and because it was not fixed in NATO i did not bought it.

    Now, in Normandy there are much more trees and objects i would think.

    If this problem would be still there, it would be a pain playing this...

    So the Normandy game looks just awsome ! :)

    But, will this issue finally be fixed ?

    IIRC, Steve mentioned that they had a new way of drawing foliage so they may have finally fixed it. I sure hope they did anyway, because trees are such a prominent feature of the European setting. Furthermore, CMx1 handled trees very elegantly and I really want that feature back, you could zoom out all the way and with max draw/horizon distance you could see woods and trees way up ahead.

    0

    CAS questions

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    How is CAS handled in the Normandy game? Is it still completely random or do we have access to slightly more dedicated air control this time around?

    Is the Fw-190F-8 modelled with a different radio set (FuG-16ZS; Fw-190A-8 carries the FuG-16ZY) in order to improve communication between ground units and fighter bombers? Is this reflected in-game somehow?

    EDIT: I just noticed the Sd.Kfz. 251/3 in the TO&E listing, is this the Funkpanzerwagen variant carrying dedicated radios for air support coordination then?

    Regards,

    Gryph

    0

    Finally!

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    Finally indeed. I have waited long for this moment :D The game looks beautiful, Steve. I can't wait to start playing it! One question though, how will the map preview work? Will it be like a 3d preview or a top down view of the map? I didn't really understand this from the feature list :)

    0

    December Normandy Bones

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    I don't think it would be telling tales out of school to suggest the website has been largely held up waiting for long-anticipated replacement game graphics. Seeing 2nd generation Bocage hedgerows instead of the current 3rd generation models would've only upset you. :)

    Well, maybe, but for CMSF they had these cool render graphics of vehicles and small arms, why not put up a website with that, a feature list etc and then let the screenies trickle in :P this entire year we've had like what, 10 screenshots in total and very little additional info?

    Besides, the 2nd generation bocage hasn't scared me off yet :P

    0

    CMSF II and it's modules.

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Based on the response from those who read far more than I did, I was prepared to accept I found the one crazy who would take the time to make up a bunch of tedious figures. But I think we have to separate out crazy blame after reading Normal Dudes post again.

    1. Han Ho Suk, Director for Korean Affairs - is the Author and not the domain.

    2. T he guy who owns the domain and posted Han Ho Suk's article is Jeff Rense Jeff Rense is bat$%$T crazy

    Gotta separate out the two before reading the piece. You also have to give a bit of slack to grammatical errors on a document either translated from Korean post-release.

    Ot doing so, was a huge knock on it and one reason I was going to pass. But I did a bit of searching on the Author, and the article, and enough people picked, a few analyzed it (The one by a Korean War Vet Pilot). That gave it enough legs, for me at least, and I was looking forward to reading it.

    Now filtering out his personal rhetoric editorials and analysis, and there is enough data in there to warrant an in depth read. There were quite a few things I recognized off the top of my head as spot on or close enough to be in the ball game. That along with the amount of spots picked this up, and its reportedly in a legit publication is enoug,h for me.

    Saved for later had to cut short for tonight.

    Well, I don't know why anyone would go through the trouble of making up these figures, but the point is that a lot of them probably are, a few certainly so and in addition, some figures are just nonsensical to compare.

    I mean, comparing aircraft gun calibers? this isn't WW2 anymore. Not only that it severely overstates the projected air power of the NKs as well as the capability of their individual fighters. Comparing service ceilings? again, this is not WW2. By the time any modern fighter reaches its service ceiling it will have burnt up a good portion of its fuel and in a theatre this small it won't have time to anywhere near reach it. Not to mention it can't avoid missiles at those altitudes anyway.

    Comparing Soviet-era MiGs and Sus to the latest F-16s and F-15s is indeed like comparing apples and oranges, especially when you take fighter pilot training into account. Furthermore, the guy still mentions the use of USN F-14s, I don't know what year this article is from, but these have been phased for some years now.

    Also in terms of fighter pilot training, obviously the guy that wrote this doesn't know a thing, a modern fighter pilot is trained as much in BVR combat as he is in dogfighting. On top of that, conmparing flight training hours between NK and NATO fighter pilots it's hard to believe that the NK pilots will excell in anything.

    Honestly, I don't think the article is worth it, and the author - whoever that may be - has a hard on for fantasy figures. Of course I'm not sure about the other sections in the report, but judging from the ones I am knowledgeable about, I don't think there's a whole lot quality left in the rest.

    0

    CMSF II and it's modules.

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Someone needs to check their sources a bit more carefully. http://www.rense.com is home to a nut job. Just perusing the top of the page shows such sterling links as "How to Build Muscle in a Coma", "Can You See the Human Aura?", and an entire panel on the dangers of cell phone radiation.

    Wow, that was good for a laugh! You know you are in for a ride when the very first paragraph starts with bad quote-mining. My favorite bit out of that trash was that he continually spelled blitzkrieg as "Blitz Klieg". It's almost satirical.

    The part where he wrote that the NK T-62s have 155mm main guns and 700mm armor was equally good :D I really wonder whether this is some official document or just some sort of teenage sympathizer's wet dream. At times it's just too absurd to be real.

    Having said that, in the case of a full conventional war, isn't it so that Seoul would pretty much disappear instantly and in response most of NKs military leadership? I don't think we'd be looking at a prolonged conventional campaign in any case. Maybe fanatical units from NK would wage a guerrila war but I don't see masses of NK tanks driving into South Korea. Thus, this raises the questionability for a Korean themed CMSF II.

    0

    CMSF II and it's modules.

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Well drats, my hopes for a one off game in the PTO just got more remote ah well. Given the lead time and if the tid bit released is an actual hint and instead of us hoping it was, when will the setting for SF II be set?

    And does the availability of military data effect which countries are viable for the CM line? I have been reading a lot more about NK recently (RL + SF), and stumbled across this

    http://www.rense.com/general37/nkorr.htm

    It was very interesting for both reasons mentioned above ( thx btw for letting the NK discussion continue). IDK how much data is needed for a nation to be a candidate for modern era CM games, if there is enough floating on the net or not about Chinese or NK militaries and was curious about the process.

    Needless to say, that link is absolutely filled with nonsensical data. I just had to laugh when I reached both the tanks & air combat part. While interesting, it vastly - and I mean by several orders of magnitude - overstates the military and military-organisational capabilities of the NK army. I'd be really surprised it was anywhere near reality.

    0

    graphics issues any1 ?

    in Combat Mission Afghanistan

    Posted

    That's true, but what you are saying above is something else entirely than "CM is ugly" or "it's so slow". What you are saying is that you have problems on your PC with getting the performance/quality out of it that others get. That's an important modifier. Mind you, I'm not saying that the engine is perfect or can't be improved (it can and will be; with the basic simulation firmed up and polished, we will be able to add more and more visual/performance improvements to it over time). But I am saying that some PCs may need tweaking to get the best performance, and yours seems to be one of them. As I suggested before, tweaking some of your hardware/video settings may have a dramatic effect on what you see in the game. The game manual has various tips on what to try in the Options section, and I believe there are some hints at www.battlefront.com/helpdesk in the Knowledgebase area, too.

    Unfortunately, you can't assume just because you have the latest gadgets that the game should be running at 60 FPS with all the latest gizmo catchwords enabled. Many of the modern cards are optimized for specific big budget games and are using specialized functions and settings to provide you with the latest marketing-optimized eyecandy.

    Martin

    PS. I know this isn't primarily about FPS, but here is an interesting web find: http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

    Well, in all honesty and my pc problems aside, it _is_ sluggish, especially the camera. And i know for a fact that this isn't limited just to my pc. Also the LODs are unelegant as I mentioned before, there's a huge difference between low grade textures in the distance and high res textures close by, and there is no transition between these at all. I just hope that Normandy is a lot more efficient and elegant.

    I appreciate the help, Martin. However, I am very well aware of what hardware I buy, I have been building my own systems since the dawn of time and I know what to look for; also having said that, I never buy the "latest gadgets". I am also very well aware that the human eye can't register past 32 or fps. I don't need 120fps, but a constant 40 would be nice. Besides, the extra buffer in fps is always handy when you do have a scene that requires a lot of processing power from the GPU so the fps doesn't drop below 30. That is the reason why people want as much fps as they can have, not for shows or otherwise.

    0

    Best ATI drivers for CMSF/CMA?

    in Combat Mission: Shock Force Tech Support

    Posted

    Right now i'm using the 10.8s, but the performance is horrible, i just can get above 20 fps with EVERYTHING turned low including the resolution to 1024x786. The only thing that i have set high is the model quality. As soon as i bump down the model quality the fps rises to 50-60 or so. However, this game has way less demanding models than any other current generation 3d title, what gives?

    Is this a driver thing? Before, i had better fps results with an older card (the GF7900GTO)

    0

    graphics issues any1 ?

    in Combat Mission Afghanistan

    Posted

    Yeah, it's very nice and dandy that it works for you, however, i only get 20 fps with everything turned to lowest running at 1024x786 on a system with HD5770. Tbh, that is just plain stupid. There is so much discrepancy with performance between various computers that one does not know where to look for the problem.

    0

    graphics issues any1 ?

    in Combat Mission Afghanistan

    Posted

    Number crunching should be less of an issue when watching WeGo movies.

    Since I use WeGo only for generic tests, I cannot state this with certainty, though.

    Best regards,

    Thomm

    The issue is that even when nothing is actually crunched the fps are still low. Making a map (without units) such as the one in the 3rd mission of the CMA campaign drops the fps to 10 on a high end system at best settings for both 3d model and textures. This is with just 2x AA and 4x AF. My machine can handle the vast open spaces of ARMA II even better than it can CMSF/A; and CM, in all honesty, is not a beauty queen.

    Don't get me wrong, I _love_ the CM series and have been playing them since the very first days of CMBO, but the new engine just seems so inefficient at what it does graphically, and I don't understand why. I thought a high end system would cure my woes, but alas, it's still the same.

    Also I dislike the current LOD system a lot with things popping in and out of existence like mad when you scroll around, and of course the extremely low res textures that pop into existence right next to a high res texture; it's just very unelegant. In my humble opinion, the terrain in CMx1 "felt" a lot smoother and far less artificial in the old days, even despite the high amount of abstractions.

    EDIT: Adding to the above, I feel that the terrain in TOW looks far better for example, and plays smoother in my opinion.

    0

    graphics issues any1 ?

    in Combat Mission Afghanistan

    Posted

    Of course, but still, there is games that render a whole lot more and they do it a whole lot more smoothly, FSAA & AA or not. We're not living in the early 00's anymore, gfx rendering cards are a lot more powerful than say, when CMSF was released, and the problems with CMSF have persisted through time.

    0

    graphics issues any1 ?

    in Combat Mission Afghanistan

    Posted

    Is there a way to make the terrain on which the map is hovering just black? the repetitive dirt is annoying and besides i have a feeling that it affects fps.. also the engine is so friggin choppy. People say that the game utilises a lot of CPU power, but even with one unit and some buildings and bushes it's just slow..

    I hope Normandy looks different or at the very least is a lot more efficient.

    0
×
×
  • Create New...