SgtHatred

Wow, this is radically false. Combat Mission is absolutely not the best that can be done with OpenGL. Hell, Doom 2016 runs on OpenGL, and I think any rational person would say that Doom 2016 is superior to Combat Mission graphics-wise.
OpenGL's death has been expected for a decade now, so I hope BFC wasn't too blindsided by that. Still, as long as you aren't foolish enough to chain yourself into Apple's ecosystem you will be able to use your OpenGL software for years and years to come.

Total nonsense. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Total nonsense. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Total nonsense. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Total nonsense. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Total nonsense. You have no idea what you are talking about.

ARMA 3.  What it was originally designed to be.  Task Force Admiral : Coming out soon. Detailed pacific naval battles with lots of graphics. Sea Power Naval Combat in the Missile Age : beautiful graphics, simulates what the name says. DCS : Guaranteed far more CPU intensive than CM's combat sim while being far more graphically impressive.

These are just a few off the top of my head. I don't know about ARMA, but the others have tiny dev teams (<10). None of them are as old as CMx2, but in comparison CMx2 really shows its age. CM is from a time when it was common for small teams to roll their own rendering engine. It's far more difficult for BFC to upgrade their presentation than another team that has adopted Unity or Unreal. There is no technical reason why a game in 2021 doesn't run at 60fps. There is no technical reason why the game has Atari level shadows and really badly aliased fields, zig-zag roads and infantry that vibrate on action points.
The game is good enough to overcome these issues for most people, but they are valid criticisms. Pretending otherwise is silly.
No matter how much you want to pretend Combat Mission is a PC Game much more than it is a "tactical simulator". You can't just add personal restrictions to the way you play and then claim the game was made to play that way. If the game was meant to be played that way there would be a realism setting for it.
 
You can play the game the way you want. Just skip the replay phase if you want. I've played probably a 1000 hours of Combat Mission in the last few years, maybe 10hours in a single player campaign, and I've never played one of the pre-made scenarios. Beating the AI holds no interest for me.

Total nonsense. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Total nonsense. You have no idea what you are talking about.

This has nothing to do with anything I've said.
This is bad. The more decoupled the visual representation of the simulation is from the actual simulation the worse it is.
The game has a lot of good points, that isn't in dispute.

This has nothing to do with anything I've said.
This is bad. The more decoupled the visual representation of the simulation is from the actual simulation the worse it is.
The game has a lot of good points, that isn't in dispute.

No, I mean when one unit can see another unit through bush and trees, but if you move your camera to that position trees and bushes 100% cover the LOS, but the game simulation has decided that no, there is a gap units can see through. Would be nice if the graphics more reflected the simulated reality.
 
Remember that "graphics" means more than just pretty models and fancy textures.
Don't demand unwavering praise from people, and don't trust people who offer it.

It has nothing to do with technology. There are plenty of games out there with an advanced look that also have a great deal of complexity under the hood. The difference is resources. Neither BFC or the Graviteam guys had the large resources required to make a combat simulator with AA or AAA type graphics. That requires manpower.
It's also important to note that graphics goes beyond just making the game look pretty in screenshots. Better rendering would also make the game feel better to play. 15-25fps depending on the map, especially larger maps with lots of buildings? It can be a drag. Also, the accuracy of the rendering could be improved, so that LOS makes more sense in certain situations where visually it looks like trees and bushes block an LOS but the game simulation has decided there is an opening.
Hopefully with the new resources from the partnership with Slitherine we might see some progress on this front? I'll still be buying practically any module they put out, but I would love to see an improvement in the way the game renders.

Wow, this is radically false. Combat Mission is absolutely not the best that can be done with OpenGL. Hell, Doom 2016 runs on OpenGL, and I think any rational person would say that Doom 2016 is superior to Combat Mission graphics-wise.
OpenGL's death has been expected for a decade now, so I hope BFC wasn't too blindsided by that. Still, as long as you aren't foolish enough to chain yourself into Apple's ecosystem you will be able to use your OpenGL software for years and years to come.

It has nothing to do with technology. There are plenty of games out there with an advanced look that also have a great deal of complexity under the hood. The difference is resources. Neither BFC or the Graviteam guys had the large resources required to make a combat simulator with AA or AAA type graphics. That requires manpower.
It's also important to note that graphics goes beyond just making the game look pretty in screenshots. Better rendering would also make the game feel better to play. 15-25fps depending on the map, especially larger maps with lots of buildings? It can be a drag. Also, the accuracy of the rendering could be improved, so that LOS makes more sense in certain situations where visually it looks like trees and bushes block an LOS but the game simulation has decided there is an opening.
Hopefully with the new resources from the partnership with Slitherine we might see some progress on this front? I'll still be buying practically any module they put out, but I would love to see an improvement in the way the game renders.

It has nothing to do with technology. There are plenty of games out there with an advanced look that also have a great deal of complexity under the hood. The difference is resources. Neither BFC or the Graviteam guys had the large resources required to make a combat simulator with AA or AAA type graphics. That requires manpower.
It's also important to note that graphics goes beyond just making the game look pretty in screenshots. Better rendering would also make the game feel better to play. 15-25fps depending on the map, especially larger maps with lots of buildings? It can be a drag. Also, the accuracy of the rendering could be improved, so that LOS makes more sense in certain situations where visually it looks like trees and bushes block an LOS but the game simulation has decided there is an opening.
Hopefully with the new resources from the partnership with Slitherine we might see some progress on this front? I'll still be buying practically any module they put out, but I would love to see an improvement in the way the game renders.

Yes, average graphics, as in:
Awful fog rendering The worst-looking shadows I've seen in any game Plowed fields that give a moire effect when viewed from certain angles High-detail texture and terrain object rendering that stops way shorter than it should for those with high-end systems Nonexistent proper 4K resolution support None of those things have anything to do with Fog of War. Yes, the gameplay is still great, but the graphics are definitely lagging behind in certain areas.

I love this game, but yeah I feel like this forum has a hyper sensitivity to criticism like some of the above posters said. No one is above criticism, and if reviewers are saying the graphics are bad then thats their opinion and they can still enjoy the game whilst critiquing that aspect of it. I still have my issues with the game, low FPS issues, graphically i agree it's not very appealing, BF are not very quick at responding to issues with the game (The steam version of CMBS still doesn't have pouches for the US army models, a month after release, hasn't been any acknowledgement of this issue yet either.) I think people need to realise that criticism usually comes from a place of love, wanting to see their favourite product grow and improve rather than stagnate. 

Wow, this is radically false. Combat Mission is absolutely not the best that can be done with OpenGL. Hell, Doom 2016 runs on OpenGL, and I think any rational person would say that Doom 2016 is superior to Combat Mission graphics-wise.
OpenGL's death has been expected for a decade now, so I hope BFC wasn't too blindsided by that. Still, as long as you aren't foolish enough to chain yourself into Apple's ecosystem you will be able to use your OpenGL software for years and years to come.

Wow, this is radically false. Combat Mission is absolutely not the best that can be done with OpenGL. Hell, Doom 2016 runs on OpenGL, and I think any rational person would say that Doom 2016 is superior to Combat Mission graphics-wise.
OpenGL's death has been expected for a decade now, so I hope BFC wasn't too blindsided by that. Still, as long as you aren't foolish enough to chain yourself into Apple's ecosystem you will be able to use your OpenGL software for years and years to come.

Wow, this is radically false. Combat Mission is absolutely not the best that can be done with OpenGL. Hell, Doom 2016 runs on OpenGL, and I think any rational person would say that Doom 2016 is superior to Combat Mission graphics-wise.
OpenGL's death has been expected for a decade now, so I hope BFC wasn't too blindsided by that. Still, as long as you aren't foolish enough to chain yourself into Apple's ecosystem you will be able to use your OpenGL software for years and years to come.

I've noticed that, at least in multiplayer games, the M4 Sherman flail tank produces a perfect invisibility screen from any angle, any distance.
 
eg.  
 
 
I've used this in both CMBN and CMFI now, and as a result the flail is now banned from any game me and my friends play. You'll note that this effect only works on terrain that generates dust. My opponent in the game and in tests said that not only does the tank disappear completely, but that the dust is also invisible if the tank cannot be seen.
 
I imagine this is not intended behaviour.

I've noticed that, at least in multiplayer games, the M4 Sherman flail tank produces a perfect invisibility screen from any angle, any distance.
 
eg.  
 
 
I've used this in both CMBN and CMFI now, and as a result the flail is now banned from any game me and my friends play. You'll note that this effect only works on terrain that generates dust. My opponent in the game and in tests said that not only does the tank disappear completely, but that the dust is also invisible if the tank cannot be seen.
 
I imagine this is not intended behaviour.

Capitalist trickery.

Capitalist trickery.