CarlWAW
-
Posts
247 -
Joined
Everything posted by CarlWAW
-
@RockinHarry Honestly I see a problem with the fan-attitude of some posters here. They are shooting down good ideas all the time. I fear, if it was told prior, which values were changed and which ones are original, they would (maybe even subconsciously) prefer the unchanged ones. Psychology, you know. Therefore I think blind tests are best to receive unbiased feedback. Afterwards ofcourse we should discuss what the effects of the values are. For shader testing I think that it was good, if we would have certain test-scenes, to make reproducible screenshot comparisons among the different shaders. Therefore I plan to upload the savefiles, of the screenshots when I am finished uploading the pics.
-
Clear sky, 1500 (rapeseed with vehicle in shadow with sky through the leaves and vehicle further away) 4A 4B 4C 4D
-
Clear sky, 1400 3A 3B 3C 3D
-
Again strong haze, same time, but this time camera is aimed against the light. 2A 2B 2C 2D
-
Although the editing of the ML-shader seems already outdated thanks to Barbaric's fantastic progress, I am nevertheless wondering which setting people prefer?0 1A 1B 1C 1D
-
@BarbaricCo Fantastic job!!! Does that mean you can even apply the changes without activating Alt-M and therefore without losing AA? (on your pics aliasing is not a problem)
-
@BarbaricCo Thanks for the suggestions. I want to play hours without strain on the eyes and the overexposed greens/yellows never did fit my taste. I think the warmth works exceptionally well IN GAME (at least in Red Thunder). The eye adopts anyway and what remains are wonderful shades of green and a feeling of distance, I had no clue CM could show that. @hank24 You are comparing the vastly superior optics of human eyes to the results of cameras? If you look into a shadow in bright sunglight, you mentally focus on the dark area amd the eye adopts to the darkness - therefore you can see details in the shadow, but with the result that the bright areas are totally overexposed, which you do not consciously recognize, because you are not focusing on them - in fact they are so much overexposed, that if you would look back into the brightness, it physically would hurt the eyes. In contrast a computer monitor/camera cannot know on which area on the screen you are focusing. While in filming or photography spot exposure metering allows the creator to determine the area of importance, in the game this is not possible. The whole contrast/brigthness range must be represented with one setting on one single screen. Therefore only a compromise can be the result.
-
How about this? (I aimed for a compromise of less strain on the eyes but improved contrast, colors and depth) New ML: Without ML: Original ML: Washed out, cold, no colors. BarbaricCo ML: As beautiful as it looks, for my taste the very high contrast removes too much of the feeling of the strong haze in this scenario. New ML: Sadly anti-aliasing is not working with ML enabled (see building on the left; this effect is even more disturbing on vehicles or fences). ML off: New ML: ML off:
-
This forum never stops to amaze me. Someone comes up with a great idea, then it is a) either not good not good enough c) old If it is revolutionary and without any doubt fantastic, then it's d) only a matter of taste @BarbaricCo, finally someone who is not half blind and had recognized, that for a realistic look things in shadows should be much darker than they are now (and a few other things). THANKS A LOT FOR THIS BRILLIANT IDEA TO MODIFY THE SHADERS. Would you mind to explain how did you do that?
-
CM has a wonderful C2-model. I think it goes against the capabilities of the C2.model, if the player can order high explosives on spots, where the unit has no clue that there was an enemy unit. Small arms fire is something different, but I think HE is very gamey and unrealistic. What makes it worse, is the availability of the wonderful C2-net which can easily be circumvented by gamey HE-sniping. If a player wants to area fire an ATG with a certain tank? Then he has to make sure the C2-info somehow can reach this tank until a "sound-contact" appears. No contact marker - no clue! Then area fire with a big dispersion over many action-spots should be the result. The better the contact, the less smearing over action spots. I think the idea is great!!! It would emphasize the importance of C2 dramatically - which I think would be realistic. Maybe make it optional for the highest skill level?
-
Migo, cool tests. That's almost a proove that Soviet machine pistols are hitting better at 100m than rifles. Amazing. Your test numbers reflect well how it feels in game to me (=totally wrong). Even when aiming in single shot mode, IMO it is almost completely impossible to hit with machine pistols a target of the size of a human at 150 m. Not to mention when the target is as tiny when it's prone or in cover or only the head is visible. A decent shooter can hit a melon at 150 m with a rifle. But not with a machine pistol and not with 1000 bullets. This does CM no justice because as I understand the system, CM is very well capable to model supression and hit accuracy separately.
-
Test: Vehicle Speeds On Different Terrains
CarlWAW replied to CarlWAW's topic in Combat Mission Red Thunder
So 16 km/h on paved road = normal speed - AND on the worst ground it's normal, too... And this for all vehicles... No damage occuring even when rushing over the worst kind of terrain is fine, too? I understand... -
Test: Vehicle Speeds On Different Terrains
CarlWAW replied to CarlWAW's topic in Combat Mission Red Thunder
Good thought. I just lenghtened the map to 4+ km and checked with a fast command for Kubel and Blitz: absolutely no damage. It seems terrain does not damage vehicles at all - only obstacles do. I think even more important would be in that case that at least terrain has a realistic impact on speed. If it is too much work to model damage from terrain on vehicles, it probably would be good, if the unrealistic indestructible mode was compensated by limiting the faster than normal speeds to the vehicle's normal speed (= speed at which vehicle is not damaged) if it can be expected that terrain will damage the vehicle at a speed above normal. This could be argued, that the AI-driver chooses the correct speed automatically, at which the vehicle will not be damaged. Btw, the test was done by measuring the time for a distance of 1 km after the vehicles had reached their final speed. I rounded the speed to integer numbers. -
I have done a test about vehicle speeds (Kubel, Opel Blitz, 251/1) on different types of terrain. Here are the results: At normal speed, no matter what kind of ground, the speed for all vehicles is 16 km/h. 16 km/h on rocky terrain and 16 km/h on a paved road? This does not seem right to me. The speed on very bad ground (like rocky) seems way to high to me. Driving with 16 km/h on rocky terrain with a truck? Good luck! The normal speed for that terrain IMO should be 10 km/h at maximum. Probably walking speed to avoid severe damage after a few meters would be more suited from realism point of view. Transferring this into more realistic game factors this maybe could result in 5 km/h for normal speed (inflicting no damage) and maybe 16 km/h at fastest speed - but with a dramatically increased chance to damage the vehicle. This leads me to the third problem I see: because bad terrain does not have a devastating impact on speed (or on damage, if the terrain is ignored by the player and he orders a fast movement) the variation in speed between the different types of terrain seems not big enough. For example: "normal" speed: on paved road for a Jeep could be around 50 km/h, but 5 km/h on rocky. Fast: IMO shows a nice variation between terrain types (12 - 70 km/h) - but sadly damage is missing completely. What do you think about the numbers?
-
CMRT module. A rough estimate will do.
CarlWAW replied to Aragorn2002's topic in Combat Mission Red Thunder
I am wondering if you guys even have any schedule at all... -
Trucks, Kubelwagen/Jeeps... Too Robust Cross Country?
CarlWAW replied to CarlWAW's topic in Combat Mission Red Thunder
Not at the speeds in the game. I am wondering if anyone who is defending the cross country capabilities ever drove cross country? In the game halftracks do not show much better cross country capabilities than trucks (although they should). Try to move an empty truck over only one ploughed or rough dry field at any speed faster than "slow". Tracks instead of wheels are there for a reason. -
Hi Steve, thanks for the reply! Good to hear that it's on the list. But sadly we only can profit from it, if it is taken off the list - because it has been implemented.
-
If the reaction speed of tank commanders ducking to incoming fire is dependent on motivation, then I think this would be highly unrealistic. Why should even the worst motivated and green guy wait many seconds longer to get his head into safety? I could understand that an experienced TC could recognize a missed shot earlier than the less experienced one (thinking about sixth sense VS sharpshooters). But once a bullet hits the tank, everyone knows that his head is being served like on a tablet! I think either the first shot is a hit, or the chance should be very high that the TC will seek cover after the first PLING!
-
I just finished Blunting the Spear (ep. III) and I was able to QUICKLY rush with all trucks and kubels cross country over kilometers without noticing the slightest damage. I did not even care where the field paths were or if the ground was cereal or green or a ploughed field. As a rural guy and grown up on a farm I have quite some experience the huge difference cfield paths, roads, cross country makes. I think no truck or jeep/kubel would survive more than a few hundred meters how I can dash them at CM's QUICK speed forward cross country. IMO vehicles being constructed for road use and with light offroad capabilities should be more susceptible to damage because of inadequate speed.
-
I am perfectly fine with the interface. Compared with the amount of information it has to bear, I think it's a brilliant interface. The one thing that really bugs me and which IMO is a real error in interface design, is the missing indicator if a tank or vehicle is opened up. In big scenarios with dozens of vehicles and tanks, I find it really annoying to switch the command pane to see, if the vehicle has the wanted status. It would be great, if this status would be shown permanently somewhere.
-
Operational Level Game Announcement
CarlWAW replied to choppinlt's topic in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
I'd be interested to read the forum, but Google? Never! -
It's a distraction from the topic of this thread which is about the effectivity of SMG units.
-
I noticed that vehicle/tank crews do not button down when they come under small arms fire. Even if their tank/vehicle is being sprayed for several seconds with bullets they keep their heads out and do not react - until their head is gone. Vehicle crews also seem to ignore if enemy aircraft is going after their tank. They just stay open, even when a big bomb is coming their way.
-
uh Sublime what was the official name of this weapon? And what was the cover name? Why aren't for all other weapons not the numerous cover names used?
-
Hi Vinnart, thanks for the heads up. Interesting discussion but sadly without any feedback from the developers? In that discussion a true follow command has been discussed. I think it would already be of great help for players, if only the points from the movement path would simply be copied. Everything else was still up to the player: 1. To use adequate pause or distances or to change the speed of certain path elements to avoid traffic jam (I like that it's up to the player to be forced to decide on his own to trade security (big gaps) vs speed). 2. To make sure that the path was valid for the unit it is applied to (up tot he player not to copy mindlessly paths between units - different abilities for certain terrain types come to mind). The coding effort would be minimal by copying path coordinates. Tactical considerations would not be taken away from the player.
