3D card support for CM

[Guest Big Time Software]

There seems to be a bit of confusion about what cards CM will support. I hope this clears it up...

Nearly every 3D card out there w/4MB of VRAM or greater will be supported by Combat Mission. This is because we support DirectX (WIN) and Rave (MAC). OpenGL will work on some cards, but not all, so we don't specifically support it. However, unless someone can correct me here, no 3D card supports ONLY OpenGL and NOT one of the two standars that we support.

Steve

[Mike D]

Steve,

I can only speak for the PC side of the world, but to the best of my knowledge you are correct. I believe every (or nearly every) graphics card made in the last couple of years, say since about 1995 or 1996, supports Windows DirectX. Now I presume that CM will require the latest ver. of DirectX which is DirectX6 in order to get the best video performance out of the video card and the game. Every other new game out there always seems to require the latest version and they generally include it on the CD rom w/ the game so those that don't have it don't have to go to the evil empires web page (i.e. microsoft.com) and download it.

For those that are not sure whether their cards support DirectX I would recommend that they look at the spec sheet that came w/ their card and see if it does. Alternatively visit your cards manufacturer's web site and check it out. If you can't find it there you have a pretty old card (many of us do) in which case the best thing to do is call or email their tech support and ask. And while you are at the website it is highly recommended that you go find the drivers database and locate your video card and download the latest set of drivers for your card. Installing these is generally very straightforward, just follow the instructions in the readme/installation text file that you also need to download if it isn't encapsulated in the main download file which might be zipped. In some cases w/ older cards getting the latest driver might mean the difference in having, or not having, DirectX support (i.e when card first shipped the drivers didn't support DirectX, but subsequent driver updates added this capability). Besides that the latest drivers usually run better/higher efficiency.

If your card doesn't support DirectX and a driver update won't cure the problem then you are probably way overdue to upgrade your video card and probably your entire computer. If you are going to play high tech games then you need to have a computer that is equal to the task. In my humble opinion if your computer is 5 years old, or older, you need to get a new computer (or at least do some major upgrading). That's just the way things are these days. Like it, love it, or leave it. I've been putting this off for a year now myself, but the time has come. Very soon I will be upgrading my motherboard, cpu, memory and video card in my 3.5 year old pentium 100 to a Pentium II 400 Mhz machine w/ 64meg of RAM and a just released Diamond Viper 770 ultra video card which features the Nvidia TNT2 chipset, 32 MB of RAM and unheard of display resolutions and framerates. For those that are curious this is only going to cost me about $800-$900 and a little bit of my time. I say bring CM on, I'm going to be locked, loaded, and ready when the UPS dude comes knocking on the door later this summer to deliver CM.

Mike D

aka Mikester

[Richard]

nvidia is cool but the new ATI card has all of that PLUS superior hardware DVD support and a TV out.

Try CM on your 29 inch TV .

The Rage Fury with 32M is only 139 right now...

[Mike D]

Decisions, decisions. God, sometimes it is terrible to live in America isn't it? Guess I'll have to go check this out now.

Mike D

[Thomm]

I do not see to much visual effects in CM that would actually need a 3D acceleration ! Not even the smoke is transparent, which I think is really unacceptable and outdated ! Fire effects are years behind, too ! This might be a great game, but the graphics just cannot compete in these respects !

On the other hand there are these beautiful tanks and the *really* great atmospheric shock waves ! If you need more CPU power then use sprites for the infantry (I still consider polygon infantry an unforgiveable waste of resources, especially if it means to have three men symbolizing ten). By the way, in the videos their legs do not seem to be synchronized with their speed too well).

So, please do not just satisfy the hardcore strategy players but also add enough eye-candy to attract ordinary people like me !

Good luck,

Thomm

[This message has been edited by Thomm (edited 05-11-99).]

[CRourke]

Eye candy? Eye candy?!!? Geeze, kids these days. Why back in my day, we were just happy if our hex borders didn't look too pixelated. Thats if the games even had graphics at all. Lots of times you'd just sit there with a map and get coordinates from the computer. Thats if the computer hadn't blown a vaccuum tube.

In all seriousness, CM may not look as good as the very latest 1st person shooter, but thats because a) the scope is much larger and graphically, its still a tremendous improvement over any wargame made to date.

Sprites for infantry is a terrible idea. I think the bt folks have already pointed out that creating 3d views of sprites doesn't work very well. Wolfenstein and Doom come to mind where certain objects looked the same no matter what direction you looked at them from. Plus, polygon based units will only get more and more practical as cpu power continues to grow.

You might want to check the screenshots for panzer elite though, thomm. Its really a differant type of game, with a totally differant scope, but that allows them to make some really mouth watering graphics.

Chris R

[A Arabian]

Gotta agree on the anti-eye candy front. Although I do like 'pretty' games, I generally don't choose to buy or not to buy based on that. I've blown cash on WAY too many games that looked good on the box, but never delivered when it came to game play (Ref Fionn's articles on ga-source ). Maybe its just an experiential kind of thing, but I'd much rather a months worth of man hours be spent on a good AI and UI than on pretty graphics in front of an inherantly fecal-matter ridden game.

BTS - prioritize as you see fit, but as far as I'm concerned, I'd be happy with a game on my Apple ][ green screen if the AI actually was competent and the game plays well

[This message has been edited by A Arabian (edited 05-11-99).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Thomm, unfortunately you criticize CM's graphics without having any idea about the technical reasons for our decisions. You really should poke around on this board more, because we have had discussions about the reality of today's hardware limitations all over the place. Upshot is that you can't compare CM to any 2D game, and if you try to compare it to a 3D game it would be good for you to know more technical details before doing so (looking at one and then the other does not mean anything).

We could easily do all of the things you asked for, but you would need a computer system from at least the year 2001 to run it on. Plus, if you have ever run a 3D game without a 3D card, you would know that the card does a WHOLE lot more than just make pretty smoke and fire effects.

Combat Mission can not be compared to any other 3D game out there, period. We are pushing more polygons than probably any 3D game in existence today. Therefore, we have hit limitations that other games simply skirt around by having "fog" in the distance, or keeping the game inside, or having nothing on the ground, etc.

You also have no idea what you are asking for when you say that you want sprites. It would degrade the game part of Combat Mission AND you STILL wouldn't be able to have a 1:1 representation. CM can simulate battles with as much as 3000 men. If you think that your system can handle all the polygons for terrain and vehicles AND 3000 sprites... thing again.

In short, you are judging CM's graphics quite unfairly. We challenge you to find any other wargame that is even 1/10th as good looking, that is 3D, has real world physics, and 1/100th of the game detail. Such a game just doesn't exist, so please be fair when you compare.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 05-11-99).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Thomm, in case I might have sounded too hard on you, understand that we too would like to see photo realistic renditions of things like smoke and fire. I guess the difference is that we know we can't do this at this point in time. Please understand that it is very frustrating for us as developers to know our limitations, but be asked to exceed them.

The fact remains, however, that CM kicks ass as is, graphically as well as gameplay wise. If you find the QT movies even remotely interesting, the real thing will blow your socks off

Steve

[Fionn]

Hell Thomm,

If you only knew the vast number of in-depth failures of most of the games out there and the HUGE number of fudges and errors they ship with you'd be amazed.

I know one particular game (which I can't name due to NDAs ) which has a SNIPER mode but has limited the viewable area to ONLY 300 METRES. OUCH ! (It's a great-looking game and a very fun game too. It's also 3D-accelerated only.)

SO, Thomm BTS has made some of the most intelligent design decisions I have seen and while they have had to compromise on some issues so does EVERY game. The difference is I have every confidence that BTS compromises don't end up in an unrealistic poor game as all too many other compromises do.

Anyone who can argue T/D ratios with me AND design a great-looking game to implement it deserves a lot of praise IMO .

BTW. last thing. CM is in alpha (getting close to beta as far as I understand it)... Thomm, have you ever alpha and beta-tested? I have/am doing alpha and beta testing now for a lot of games, some wargames, some sims, some actiony and let me tell you that an alpha is not something you can make hard judgement calls about. All the stuff about leg movement etc can all be tweaked during beta.

BTW did you spot the tank gun recoiling when it shot a projectile? Did you notice the infantry's heads turning left and right as they looked? Did you spot the weapon recoil jerking the soldiers hands?

If you've seen these in any other good games out there which attempted to deal with this topic let me know. I sure as hell haven't ..

With that said and to borrow a line from Kelly's Heroes, "Have a little Faith."

[Thomm]

Hi Guys !

Thanks for your replies !

I am sorry if I stepped on your feet, but, as you surely know, topics like sprites vs. polygons are a little bit religious and I am still under the impression of games like Myth II or even Syndicate Wars, where sprites just delivered, pretty or not ! Same goes for Panzer Elite ! But I want to stop here, because I should do my homework and read the previous posts before ! Yes, you are right that I did not read all of the posts here, the more I admire you to answering me in this depth and detail, thank you. Just be hard on me, since my previous post was bitchy enough to deserve a good flaming !

Mr. Fionn Kelly mentioned your attention to detail and I have to agree. But do not worry about my attitude, because you have already won my heart with those brilliant shock waves ! I think they alone are worth buying this game ! Sounds are dramatic, also !

Just an additional comment: I watched the videos (day.mov) from the shoot and noticed that after the salvo both the target and the guns were obscured by smoke and dust ! I am really looking forward to see this kind of environmental interaction in future games, what about you ?

Thanks again for your answers and accepting the apology for my ignorance !

Regards and good luck,

Thomm

[Moon]

Thomm,

as one of the very few people privileged to have seen the game myself (oohh... I just LOVE to rub this in... ) and NOT associated with BTS, I can assure you that you should not judge the graphics by the QT movies! They REALLY REALLY do not do justice to how the game looks in reality! Hell, I almost missed my plane out of Boston because I just couldn't leave...

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi Thomm,

Well, I think I should have gone a bit easier on you (first time posting and all that), so I am really happy you took it the right way. Your humbleness is very refreshing and greatly appreciated

Combat Mission is up against technical hurdles that all other 3D games avoid because of framerate issues (mostly) or artistic window dressing (often). Combat Mission has no choice but to have an open realistic landscape with LOTS of little dudes running around with big tanks shooting up stuff No rooms, no "horizon fog", no flat textured ground surfaces, no predictably small "character" head counts, etc. tricks are available to us for keeping the framerate lightning. As it is we are using as many tricks as possible, and we still can't match these other game's framerates. Putting in special "fluff" effects will just make it that much tougher on the hardware. We have no more spare CPU cycles to play with. Fortunately, since CM is not a sim/1stPShooter we don't need every 1/4 FPS that we can get. For example, at 20+ FPS the game "feels" as fast as Quake does at 40+.

The reason we didn't go with sprites was touched on by Fionn to some extent. There are plenty of more reasons, one of which being the cost of making sprites. We would ten times as much development money to get even 1/2 the sprites would need to swap in for the current 3D animations. And since we don't have that kind of cash, the idea of sprites was dead even before we looked at it.

But this is not to say that we went with polygonal figures to save on money. The truth is that a fully 3D environment is just SOOOOOOO much cooler than a mixed one. Myth I&II are probably the best games to have used mixed mode, but even Bungie will drop sprites as soon as technology catches up with their artistic and framerate requirements. Sprites are very limiting to a 3D game, very limiting, and Bungie hates limitations Just think of the difference between Quake and Doom II and you can see what I mean.

Thanks for taking the time to post!

Steve

[Brian Rock]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Fortunately, since CM is not a sim/1stPShooter we don't need every 1/4 FPS that we can get. For example, at 20+ FPS the game "feels" as fast as Quake does at 40+.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not convinced this game is up there with Quake in any significant way. Just some of the things you are missing:

* ability for single soldier to take multiple hits from AP weapons (if an 88mm can kill my vehicles what hope do the infantry have?)

* powerups (esp instant healing - suppose my tank is *hurt*?)

* newer and cooler weapons lying around (why can't I start in a Kubelwagen and find a King Tiger further along the battlefield)?

* levels (surely the campaigns should get tougher - swarms of conscript inf and Pz I's in the early stages, Tigers & SS Ubermensch later)

* no end of level bosses (mecha-Goering or something)

Oh, I know you'll have some pathetic excuse like "we're concentrating on historical accuracy" or "modelling real-world physics" or "the battlefields are larger and have more units", but I just don't buy it.

At least put in a BFG, or come out and admit this game can't be compared to Quake.

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>At least put in a BFG, or come out and admit this game can't be compared to Quake.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, we do have one vehicle with a 128mm Pak44 L55. I'd call that a BFG And if you count stuff like the 8in Howitzers... you're talking a RBFG! Not even Quake 3 has that.

Steve

[Fionn]

OOH I see the JagdTiger made it in then (cue endless mirth)..

You DO know that I have read accounts of its shells going through TWO Shermans in one shot and obviously brewing both of them up don't you . Now THAT'S a force multiplier.

Just remember, it's not the size of your gun that matters, it's the tactical positioning that does hehe.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Fionn, for years Charles and I have both been very puzzled over sources that listed the 128 being not that much better than a regular 88 AT. After putting in all the stuff into CM's penetration code we realized where these sources were wrong. I'm very fuzzy on the details, but basically the 128 and 88 at close range are not all that different. However, the size of the 128 shell does give it the "brute force" advantage when kenetic energy is factored in. But the HUGE advantage is that of range. The 128 can punch through as much at 4000m as the 88 can at short range. Basically, the 88 finally tapers off in punching power while the 128 is just getting warmed up Again, I'm fuzzy on the details, but that is the jist of it.

Steve

[Moon]

Uhm... Brian was joking, was he?

[Doug Beman]

Of course Brian was joking. And he did a really good job of it; stated in 1 paragraph why I am less than impressed with FPS games. I dislike games where there is a "trick" that works every time, or where each/every player knows the effect each/every weapon will have.

(In sum, IT'S STILL DOOM! Get over it)

IMHO, if you have a skilled FPS player and a skilled wargamer, and you let them play vs each other, first in FPS and then in wargames, chances are that the wargamer will win only about 5-10% of the FPS games, but 99% of the wargames.

In fact, a friend and I did just that experiment--played a couple hours of Goldeneye/Doom64, and then played a console-based WWII strategy game. I won just a few of the twitchgames, but won the strategy game hands down.

You can "fudge" it in a FPS game, but if you don't know tactics, you're gonna get wasted every time in a wargame.

DjB

------------------

A lot of my schoolmates called me "warmonger."

[Brian Rock]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Uhm... Brian was joking, was he? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I was joking.

This is why I usually put in those damn smileys everywhere I bloody can

[This message has been edited by Brian Rock (edited 05-13-99).]

[Brian Rock]

OTOH, may be *Moon* was joking... interpreting things on the net is so *hard*...

[Guest Big Time Software]

Nah, Moon is pretty thick. He probably thought you were serious. (hmmmmm... thinking if I should use one of those smiley things... NAH!)

Steve

[Fionn]

Steve,

Yeah the 128mm L/55 has a huge advantage in sheer kinetic energy (1/2 Mass by velocity squared). The difference in penetrating power is down to something I like to call a shell's SHOCK EFFECT.

Basically a BIG shell travelling very fast is going to have a much bigger shock effect then a smaller shell travelling very fast. Simple but true.

So many people get all worked up about the statistics about the 88 and comparing it with the 128 trying to prove the 88 was better than the 128 (funny ). What all these people forget are a few simple facts.

1. The 128 (by virtue of its immense mass) suffers less of a total drop-off in KE due to airspeed "bleeding" away from the shell during flight.

Thus while both shells can penetrate anything at close range at long range the 128 (by virtue of its HUGE mass and still pretty high velocity) can penetrate really well while the 88 is pretty much too slow and too light to penetrate.

2. The T/D ratio. By 1944 the 88 was at best as thick as the armour it was penetrating while the 128 had an overmatch of 20% or so over even the most aggressively armoured US, British and Soviet medium tanks it encountered. Such an overmatch means that by virtue of pure physics the 128mm shell hitting with the EXACT SAME KINETIC ENERGY as an 88mm shell would penetrate some 15% MORE than the equivalent 88mm shell (rough figures from memory here).

3. By 1944 the Germans had figured out how to make penetrators really penetrating hehe. The 88mm shells were based on 1940 and 41 designs in the main the 128mm cap and shell was designed using the latest knowledge and tests (that's an often forgotten factor but still relevant nevertheless... shell design plays an important part in penetration).

4. The 128mm Pak44 L/55 had its calibre reduced to an L/55 since otherwise its velocity was found to far exceed 3000 feet which led to standard strength shells "shattering" when hitting face-hardened test armour.

Let's put it this way, the 128mm L/55 was a toned down version of a gun which was found to have TOO HIGH a kinetic energy in testing. That means it was pretty damned lethal. The 88 never had those problems.

Basically, shell design, the 128mm shell's greater mass (and presumably aerodynamic design.. although I have never seen any figures on its co-efficient of drag unfortunately :-( ) and its ability to significantly "overmatch" allied armour thicknesses (when the 88mm shell was at this time experiencing undermatching effects) all combined to give that gun GREAT penetration.

Obviously this is only a quick answer and doesn't go into all the details and is pretty subjective but it should be relatively correct.

Enjoy hehe.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Allright. Youse guys asked for it.

A little "friendly fire" to illustrate the difference between the 88mm and 128mm guns, versus the thick armor of the King Tiger, up to 4000m... click on the link below.

http://www.bigtimesoftware.com/images/88_128.jpg

Charles

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 05-14-99).]

[Moon]

Brian - guess your joke was too good. I was pretty sure you joked, but then hesitated for a second... let's ask I thought...

As to the "bloody smileys" - it is REALLY easy to misunderstand posts. In the above sentence, without a smiley, you might think that my brain is the size of a walnut. If I add a smiley, it's more clear that I am joking...

Brian - guess your joke was too good. I was pretty sure you joked, but then hesitated for a second... let's ask I thought...

I have seen really bad stuff happen in discussions on the net (Fionn, remember that cdmag "mud fight" between Scott and the JA2 guys? LOL) just because people DIDNT use the smiley. If that's all it takes to make things more clear... I prefer to do it... Without the smileys one could think everyting looks so darn serious...

OK, enough off-topic again. I have also one question for Charles: how, actually, do you make those penetration graphics?