Why can't Combat Mission look and run as well as Wargame: European Escalation?

[altipueri]

Fu#k, just lost 5 Shermans in a QB. Bloody tessellation. Get it sorted.

[moeburn]

That's the other thing that really bugs me about Combat Mission; the shading of the hills. I've never played a strategy game that made it so difficult to figure out where hills are without zooming in to the soldier's level. I mean sure its nice to see what the soldier sees from time to time for a more realistic experience, but if you're playing an unpausable real-time game, you don't have time to be zooming or line-of-sighting every time you need to know if a unit can target an area.

I semi-found a way around this; by setting the play time to early morning/evening and having the sun right at the horizon, it just BARELY shades the ground enough to make it easier to tell. I'm not saying that high-contrast war movie filters are needed, I'm saying more realistic shading is necessary so I can tell that a valley is a valley.

Or maybe a system in which different elevation levels have different textures? Like the lower you get to the ground, the greener it gets, and the higher up you get, the rockier/whiter it gets?

[poesel]

Also thanks sfhand! That's a very informative article.

I for one am very glad that BFC chose OpenGL because else I wouldn't be here. No Mac version with DirectX. Also no iPhone or Android version, mind you.

My guess at the speed issue is that the game wants to support RT and WEGO and have the same accuracy with both modes. RT is obviously more demanding than WEGO so the RT speed is the limit. WEGO is probably some kind of 'scripted' RT running at the same internal clock speed to keep everything in sync.

So theoretically these playmodes could be split and WEGO could look much better (given the same resources) but BFC would never do this. 'Why?' you ask: because the RT guys would complain why their game can't look as good as in WEGO. So more work AND more complains. Not quite the wise decision.

I'm fine with the graphics as they are. I will be happy if the glitches get ironed out.

[Vark]

The allusion to micro wargaming is pretty accurate. The models are of the ish type (very 1980's H&R) and the battlefield seems to be the pixel equivalent of a subbuteo cloth over a table, with patches of lichen sprinkled around for cover.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Or maybe a system in which different elevation levels have different textures? Like the lower you get to the ground, the greener it gets, and the higher up you get, the rockier/whiter it gets?

This was something they did in the CMx1 games and I don't know why they abandoned that feature. It's quite effective.

One issue with CMx2 that may also affect this is the LOD draw distance is very short and oddly non-adjustable.

[RockinHarry]

Since OpenGL has been targeted as a suspect in the performance hit question I figure this may be enlightening (it was for me):

http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/01/Why-you-should-use-OpenGL-and-not-DirectX

Edit: I realize this blog is from a gaming site, but as a blogpost that is not promoting a product but rather BF's graphics API of choice I'm hoping I don't get any demerits for posting it

Thanks! Quite enlightening, me beeing still a WinXP user. Assume nothing substantially has changed since the release of the article 2 years ago.

[moeburn]

My guess at the speed issue is that the game wants to support RT and WEGO and have the same accuracy with both modes. RT is obviously more demanding than WEGO so the RT speed is the limit. WEGO is probably some kind of 'scripted' RT running at the same internal clock speed to keep everything in sync.

So theoretically these playmodes could be split and WEGO could look much better (given the same resources) but BFC would never do this. 'Why?' you ask: because the RT guys would complain why their game can't look as good as in WEGO. So more work AND more complains. Not quite the wise decision.

You make a very enlightening point, I would be interested to know if this is the way BF made CMx2. It would be strange to start from RT and program WEGO out of it, since CMx1 only had WEGO.

This was something they did in the CMx1 games and I don't know why they abandoned that feature. It's quite effective.

One issue with CMx2 that may also affect this is the LOD draw distance is very short and oddly non-adjustable.

I thought I remembered seeing it! Man its been a long time since I played CMx1.

And you bring up yet another frustrating point about CMx2, the draw distance. Why does the LOD draw distance affect the way textures are rendered? Even if my video card is having trouble rendering the models the way they are programmed in the game, it should have no problem rendering the highest resolution textures all the way out to the end of the battlefield. Instead I get the high res textures about 3 feet in front of me, and then they suddenly and hideously blur into low-q textures.

Of course, I can fix the short texture draw distance by increasing the "model" quality to 'best' for some reason, but then my framerate suffers to about 5-15fps, which is unplayable in RT and frustrating in WEGO.

[Gryphonne]

I have defended CM valiantly over the years, but here's my personal opinion on it these days:

Good grief there's a lot of fan-boys defending their turf around here. Personally, I've grown a bit tired of CMx2, I had high hopes of it every time a new release came (SF, Afg, BN and all the modules). Well, needless to say, it was mostly a mediocre experience (more so since BF ceased ALL communication lately and we never got the fix for those ugly Commonwealth models). None of the feeling of grandeur that accompanied the CMBB release has ever been present with CMx2.

While CMx2 has and probably always will do a great job at simulating hard data, it lacks the oomph to keep players going (outside of the hardcore "i-only-playCM-and-all-other-games-are-stupid-cause-they-are-not-CM"-players). Quite frankly, it lacks a soul.

If you would leave your ivory CM tower for a minute what you see is a dated, sluggish game that in all honesty doesn't really do a whole lot. It has a mediocre campaign (oh dear, the AI is so easy to fool every single game); sure you can make your own maps, consisting of the same bland palette of textures and "stuff" every time; the graphics engine.. good grief.. what an abomination; the thing that made it fun to play online (WeGo) removed. Pff.. boooring and soulless.

The comment about CM not using "hollywood" colours and how WE looked unrealistic made me snicker, no, it made me laugh.. really loud. Have you ever compared CMBN to what is outside your window? The colours in CMBN are anything BUT close to reality! Now, having played W:EE myself - which is more than most of the fan-boys can say here - I found it to be a GREAT little Game. It was nicely polished and generally just a lot of fun to play around. Much more realistic than your standard RTS game, but not staring itself blind on hardcore data. Not to say it was the best gaming experience ever, as that place is still held by CMBB, Homeworld and Baldur's Gate, but it was sure far more enjoyable than any CMx2 I've played so far.

As for CMBN only having one programmer, that excuse is both lame and old (and totally not applicable since they have two these days). These days there's so many indie/one-man games with graphics far superior to CMBN with properly working shadows too! Single-core? x86? DX8? Old.. dated.. really no more excuse to use that crap.

[JonS]

This was something they did in the CMx1 games and I don't know why they abandoned that feature. It's quite effective.

It was effective, but CMx1 only had 20(?) discrete elevations. CMx2 has 999.

With that number of steps the range of shades in any 'normal' scenario where there's maybe 50-100m from top to bottom of the map would be too subtle to really tell the player anything useful. To be at all useful the game would have to dynamically assign shades to elevations based on the min and max within each scenario. That's possible, I suppose, but it's also One More Thing On The List That's Already Too Long.

[RockinHarry]

Would be interesting to know if there is anything needed to "optimize" OpenGL handling of CMN for my particular GC and driver version 275.33 WHQL, in say ...Nvidia Inspectors advanced profile settings? Or is that handled automatically, so that there´s no need to tinker with that? Any probable DX settings, that mess or interfer with OGL performance?

[Vanir Ausf B]

It was effective, but CMx1 only had 20(?) discrete elevations. CMx2 has 999.

With that number of steps the range in any 'normal' scenario where there's maybe 50-100m from top to bottom of the map would be too subtle to really tell the player anything useful. To be at all useful the game would have to dynamically assign shades to elevations based on the min and max within each scenario. That's possible, I suppose, but it's also One More Thing On The List That's Already Too Long.

Interesting. Did not know that.

[moeburn]

While CMx2 has and probably always will do a great job at simulating hard data, it lacks the oomph to keep players going (outside of the hardcore "i-only-playCM-and-all-other-games-are-stupid-cause-they-are-not-CM"-players). Quite frankly, it lacks a soul.

You could have said it all without offending the game's creators with that statement right there

Combat Mission is labelled as a "game", yet has always been geared towards realism, not fun. I have never played a game that fit this description that was a commercial success. If anyone here has ever played the ultra-realistic UT99 mod INFiltration - "This Is As Real As It Gets", you'll know what I mean. INF had the most dedicated fanbase I've ever seen; almost every single person that played INF regularly bought a copy when they made it commercially available. Even kids with no credit cards got their parents to buy them a copy.

But as you can see from the website, INF hasn't had a single update for 6 years. There were pretty much constant debates from the community over which aspects of the game were "realistic" and which were "arcade", and while the developers tried their best to please the community, every step towards "realism" made the game more unaccessible to new players.

I think we gamers like the idea of realism because it makes the game more immersive. When we ambush an M1A1 tank with a LAW from behind in CM, or when we suppress an infantry squad with an FN Minimi in INFiltration, we get the feeling that if we had tried the same thing in real life, it would have actually worked. To me, no amount of graphics, sounds, colors, or anything else will make a game feel more 'real' than realism itself. After all, why do we play games, but to play pretend? To pretend that we are actually soldiers fighting on the battlefield, without all the pain and boredom that comes along with that title.

If we took all the realism from the vocation of warfare, it would be about as enjoyable as real soldiers find it. The trick is finding which aspects of realism make a game more immersive, and which serve to only get in the way of fun.

[Vanir Ausf B]

You make a very enlightening point, I would be interested to know if this is the way BF made CMx2. It would be strange to start from RT and program WEGO out of it, since CMx1 only had WEGO.

That is in fact what they did. This is why.

[noob]

While CMx2 has and probably always will do a great job at simulating hard data, it lacks the oomph

Could you explain exactly what you mean by oomph please ?

If you would leave your ivory CM tower for a minute what you see is a dated, sluggish game that in all honesty doesn't really do a whole lot.

Could you please add the words "in my opinion", then that way i won't think your talking about objective fact and not subjective opinion, it makes your statement less inflammatory (unless that is your intention)

It has a mediocre campaign (oh dear, the AI is so easy to fool every single game)

I never play the AI so i cannot comment on this particular criticism.

the thing that made it fun to play online (WeGo) removed.

WEGO has not been removed ??????????

The colours in CMBN are anything BUT close to reality!

I didn't like the colours of the release version of CMBN but once the modders got to work the maps look great now.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Good grief there's a lot of fan-boys defending their turf around here.

You know someone is looking for a fight when the first sentence is a preemptive insult towards anyone who may disagree with what they are about to write...

Personally, I've grown a bit tired of CMx2, I had high hopes of it every time a new release came (SF, Afg, BN and all the modules). Well, needless to say, it was mostly a mediocre experience (more so since BF ceased ALL communication lately and we never got the fix for those ugly Commonwealth models). None of the feeling of grandeur that accompanied the CMBB release has ever been present with CMx2.

"Personally" is the key word here. I played a lot of CMBB and I was never able to get into it like I have CMBN. In fact, my feelings about that game were much the same as yours regarding CMBN, so much so that I did not even buy another CM game until CMBN.

I think CMBB was graphically as dated or more so for its time than CMBN. BTS received endless amounts of grief from the haters (see what I did there?) on the forums about the abstracted 3 man squads.

The colours in CMBN are anything BUT close to reality!

I have to disagree with you there. I know people have accused the game of having neon glowing grass and too-bright colors, and a lot of mods have "toned-down" color, but I have seen recently taken pictures of Normandy and the game is pretty close to correct.

As for CMBN only having one programmer, that excuse is both lame and old (and totally not applicable since they have two these days). These days there's so many indie/one-man games with graphics far superior to CMBN with properly working shadows too!

Could you name a few?

[moeburn]

WEGO has not been removed ??????????

Yeah, seriously, what the heck did you mean by that? Were you saying that because BF implemented RT, it became too difficult to find anyone willing to play WEGO? I exclusively play WEGO, simply because there is always too much going on in the battlefield for me to pay attention to at once, and the WEGO system allows me to rewind and review the same 60 seconds of combat for each section of the map.

[moeburn]

Could you name a few?

Kerbal Space Program and IL-2 1946 are two games with smaller or similarly sized developers that I play right now, both use OpenGL and both enjoy better shadows and higher framerates on my PC than Combat Mission. IL-2 might have a bigger budget than Battlefront, I'm not sure, their latest DirectX flight sim suffered from huge performance issues at launch, otherwise it would have been a commercial success.

[Vanir Ausf B]

According to it's Wiki page the company that makes IL-2 has over 700 employees.

Combat Mission is a hardcore wargame. Always has been. By hardcore I mean it emphasized the sim aspect over graphical "oomph". If you want oomph there are plenty of other games out there that offer it. In fact, most games are all oomph. I like oomph and play those types of games, but CM offers something they don't. If CM was just a Company of Heroes clone I wouldn't bother with it.

[moeburn]

According to it's Wiki page the company that makes IL-2 has over 700 employees.

Combat Mission is a hardcore wargame. Always has been. By hardcore I mean it emphasized the sim aspect over graphical "oomph". If you want oomph there are plenty of other games out there that offer it. In fact, most games are all oomph. I like oomph and play those types of games, but CM offers something they don't. If CM was just a Company of Heroes clone I wouldn't bother with it.

Wow, I didn't know 1C had that many employees! I was given the impression that it was a small company because the original IL-2 was programmed by a single guy called Maddox.

Also, regarding realism.vs.graphics, please read this post I made on the earlier page:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1370210&postcount=37

[JonS]

Yeah, seriously, what the heck did you mean by that? Were you saying that because BF implemented RT, it became too difficult to find anyone willing to play WEGO? I exclusively play WEGO, simply because there is always too much going on in the battlefield for me to pay attention to at once, and the WEGO system allows me to rewind and review the same 60 seconds of combat for each section of the map.

I think he's probably talking about ... um, what was it called? TCP-WEGO? Sumfink like that. Two machines connected as if they were playing RT, but actually pushing what are essentially PBEM files back and forth. It's kind of an enhanced PBEM methodology, and you can shunt through a bunch of turns in fairly short order. I think I personally used it once, for maybe half a game, but other folk thought it the bees knees.

CMx1 had it, CMx2 doesn't. But AIUI PBEM Helper pretty much covers off that functionality anyway.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Combat Mission is labelled as a "game", yet has always been geared towards realism, not fun. I have never played a game that fit this description that was a commercial success.

So you never played Combat Mission?

"Fun" is subjective. For some people realism is fun. Admittedly, that seems to be a niche market, and I agree that CM has to find some balance between the two.

Personally I'm fairly happy with CMBN graphically. I'm actually much more annoyed by lack of anti-air weaponry than I am of glitchy shadows, and more concerned about the Tiger tank's mysteriously shrunk mantlet than texture resolution when zoomed out. But I would like to see graphical improvements if they have time. I've always thought it would be neat if vehicles left tracks and you could see the mud clods fling off a moving tank. I do hope they give us more options so that people with higher end machines can make the game look as good zoomed out as it does at ground level.

[moeburn]

I'm actually much more annoyed by lack of anti-air weaponry than I am of glitchy shadows, and more concerned about the Tiger tank's mysteriously shrunk mantlet than texture resolution when zoomed out.

Maybe its one of those Tiger tanks with the end-half of the barrel painted in a wave camouflage pattern to confuse distant spotters? I hear they did that because artillery often prioritised heavier tanks over light ones, and so they would make the barrel appear shorter at a distance to give the impression of a light tank. Or maybe I'm thinking of a different tank entirely.

I've always thought it would be neat if vehicles left tracks and you could see the mud clods fling off a moving tank. I do hope they give us more options so that people with higher end machines can make the game look as good zoomed out as it does at ground level.

Just thought I should mention, Wargame:EE does a great job of vehicle tracks:

Those pictures don't do it justice, and I'm too lazy to take one myself, but if you zoom in the game you'll instantly see all the tall grass has been flattened by the vehicles passing over it, and in 3D too!

[JonS]

IIRC, permanent tracks have been kept off the TODO list since CMx1 because of FOW issues.

Deformable terrain is already possible in the game - craters form, walls can be crushed, and buildings destroyed. But, generally speaking, thaose don't have much of a FOW impact. However, imagine watching a turn replay as several sets of tank tracks magically form and grow on the other side of that big hill, gradually extending their way over towards your left flank.

Terrain deformation could, like anything else I suppose, be made subject to FOW. But what list of features would you be willing to forego to have it?

[moeburn]

Terrain deformation could, like anything else I suppose, be made subject to FOW. But what list of features would you be willing to forgoe to have it?

None. Considering the huge amount of other issues, this shouldn't be a priority until there's nothing left to do.

[Vanir Ausf B]

IIRC, permanent tracks have been kept off the TODO list since CMx1 because of FOW issues.

AFAIK it shouldn't have to be an issue, as long as it doesn't deform the terrain, a-la foxholes. Given that it's just eye-candy that doesn't affect gameplay you could even make the tracks only visible to the side that makes them. They could also expire (disappear) after a short time if they introduce a performance issue.