[After all this time, tooltips are still missing from important things]

Points for "antediluvian".

 

Is it getting better? Yeah. We have hotkeys, we have spacebar menu. That's better than just having the on-screen UI.

 

Is there (a lot) of room for even more improvement? Um, yeah. But, as often posted, what would you do? How could a UI show all the information, and allow all the commands, in a better way?

 

(Seriously. The more/better ideas that get put out, the better a new UI could be.)

I think you seriously overestimate the amount of time doing something as simple as that would take. It's, say, a few lines of code maybe? It's not rocket science to anyone with an inkling of UX knowledge. This company has multiple, multiple games out. They can find the time to figure this one out.

 

He already posted what he would do; add tooltips. It really is that simple. 

[The use of DirectX 7 in CMBN and its terrible performance (edited)]

Hmm, Uncultured Swine is offended by snide comments. How ironic.

 

I think Ian's tone is because there have been quite a few people over the years that post claims and their supposed knowledge of how Battlefront.com should be running their business. And quite frankly it gets old for us that have been with Battlefront since 1999 or there abouts. We know, more or less, the reasons behind their software development decisions because Moon and Steve occasionally pop in the forums and give us answer to questions about these topics.

 

Anyway, forgive Ian and others, including me, if we seem a little cranky. We can be a little defensive about the software we love. I understand why you posted: you're like us -  you want a better Combat Mission.

Firstly, as a gamer and simulation fan, I want to say that I do love this game. Absolutely. It and everything it does is incredible, and I appreciate how much goes into it by the dedicated souls who work on it. It's the only title like it, and for that I am grateful. However, as a CG artist and someone with knowledge of the pipeline, it both bothers me and arouses questions and concerns as to the inner workings of the development process here. Hell, I would volunteer as an artist if I could/knew how. It's my admiration for this game that brings criticism, and I hope that doesn't get confused. 

 

@IanL: Thanks for the welcome. Coming off as arrogant or antagonistic was not my intent, and I apologize. However, I hope you understand my concern. I don't want to come off as a passive complainer. If I see something that could be improved, I want to take action and help in any way I can. 

[The use of DirectX 7 in CMBN and its terrible performance (edited)]

What hell are you talking about?

The game does not use Direct X - of any version. It uses Open GL.

Can you clarify what you mean by smooth frame rate? I don't play a lot of games and I am not a measurebator so I think of smooth as - does the camera move smoothly and does the action unfold nicely. Sure a decent frame rate has some importance but if my camera moves around smoothly and the frame rate counter drops below 20 I don't even look. So do you have a problem or do you have a frame rate count that you are watching like a hawk?

As for all your other spouting I recommend you ask questions instead of making declarations. You might learn something.

DXtory, my chosen recording software, (erroneously, apparently) detected Combat Mission as operating under DirectX 7, so I don't know what the disconnect is. 

 

That having been said, there's even less of an excuse for such poor performance, though I doubt the technical merit of whatever OpenGL engine they are using doesn't much surpass the ability of DX7 to begin with.

 

As for your other inquiries, I could argue the semantics of the meaning of "smooth" all day long, but I would generally agree with your definition. I don't experience your definition of smooth unless, as previously stated, I tweak with my framerate settings. I don't have a problem with doing that, but it's something that shouldn't have to be done. The game just runs poorly, period. The exact poorness was only illustrated to me after I attempted to record the game, which prompted an FPS counter. 

 

Your snideness is not helping you much nor is it appreciated. I apologize for my incorrect assertion and perhaps the blunt nature of my OP, but there's no need to be callous.

[The use of DirectX 7 in CMBN and its terrible performance (edited)]

Do you have a Nvidia-card? In that case, do a search for Nvidia settings on the forum. There is a thread with suggested video card setting that, at least for me, helped a lot in improving frame rate and speed of navigating the battlefield. Even on highest graphics settings and with maps with lots of woods and with shadows turned on.

 

Hope it helps.

Really, the point is not "you can use x and y workaround for acceptable performance." The point is precisely that I shouldn't have to do that for a game that looks like this. It is, to me, indicative of a wider development problem that appears to have been swept under the rug for the past n number of years. 

 

I use RadeonPro for my 7950 3GB card. In order to get smooth gameplay, I have to limit my framerate to 30. I shouldn't have to do that. This is how consoles deal with poor performance, and I'm not playing on a console.

[The use of DirectX 7 in CMBN and its terrible performance (edited)]

The fact of the matter is that videocards and processors today are not manufactured with the intent of running, by now, 15 year old API packages like DirectX 7 (e. Or old OpenGL versions). When will we see modern development for modern hardware? Or are we always destined to run decade-old looking games (on decade old architecture) with sub-30fps gameplay? I understand a lot goes on under the hood, but we live in an age where games like Crysis can now be run by most decent gaming PCs and GM chess matches can be simulated at the click of a button. The fact that I can't maintain a smooth framerate in Combat Mission leaves me in awe. 

 

I read Steve's assertion that rewriting the game for multiple cores is not viable. That's because you're dealing with an old engine running on old APIs - decade and a half old architecture - created six years before the first multi-core processor was even developed. I understand not retroactively updating old games; don't fix what's not (sort of) broken. But why on God's earth wouldn't you, with a new game, start from scratch with newer, better, more dynamic game development tools? With the technology we have today, doing just that would be easier than ever. 

 

Again, I don't mean to be inflammatory. I just discovered the game and I find it to be an incredible piece of simulation software. I just am genuinely oblivious as to how a development process works in a way that results in this kind of performance. I only speak as someone with knowledge of the pipeline and experience in game modelling, and that's why it bothers me. Thanks for reading.

 

Edit: DXtory falsely reported to me that the game ran under DirectX 7. It actually runs under OpenGL. I apologize for that mistake.

[CM Black Sea – BETA Battle Report - Russian Side]

I just want to thank you for doing these incredible AARs. I, as well as many others, I'm sure, have learned a lot from them. You alone have probably sold many copies of this series! Keep up the awesome work.