Jump to content

Graphic Limitations In Game


Recommended Posts

Haven't tried CMFI yet as I understand that Arnhem will be out shortly and will include the upgrade to 2.0. I plan on getting Arnhem. Where do I get the hotfix with the improved shaders? Thanks.

The hotfix with improved shaders was for CMFI (we'll be incorporating the improved shaders into the next release, so by the time Arnhem rolls around they should be built in). It improves shadow / lighting quality, fairly significantly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

When you get the opportunity, i would love to see a screenshot of the CM KT you mention, the one that came with CW is below par by CM standards, as others have mentioned, and as i do not play QB's, i never use it, so has someone modded it ?

BTW, your screenshot of the Panther is excellent, but i still maintain that IF44 is the benchmark for looks, with CM a close second.

IF44Panther.jpg

The primary difference between CMFI and ArmA is specular mapping. That's in the works for CM. The normal mapping and per-pixel lighting in CMFI got us about 2/3 of the way there in terms of capabilities. CW's original release was using simple per-vertex lighting, which isn't nearly as pretty.

I think we'll be seeing similar things soon. Or at least, I'll be trying to make that the case. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I still do not like the concept of the über-weathered textures, I bow to the artistic achievement! Most impressive!

Best regards,

Thomm

I agree with this statement, and it's pointless trying to prove CM looks as good as IF44 because nothing is as good as the way the ARMA2 does lighting, so IF44 always has the edge visually, irrespective of the artistry of the textures for CM units.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and tell me this isn't as pretty as the screenshots from other games being touted in this thread:

It isn't as pretty as IF44, and i resent the use of the term touted, it makes me sound like i'm trying to sell something, which i am not, the pictures i posted were there to show the original creator of this thread what i thought was the best looking WW2 game, and nothing i have seen yet makes me believe otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I still do not like the concept of the über-weathered textures, I bow to the artistic achievement! Most impressive!

Best regards,

Thomm

Another +1 from me.

I have nothing but respect and admiration for Aris's work. My personal taste though, would be about 10-20% of the weathering shown on the Tiger. Basically, I want exactly what it looked like in real life. No more. No less.

-Have to say, though...Damn! Nice!

It's interesting. When I look at the two Panthers from IFL44 pictured above, my mind says, "Hand-drawn ASL Journal cover." When I look at the Tiger, it says, "That looks like a photo of a real Tiger, except it has way too much weathering and the terrain is middlin' CGI."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with this statement, and it's pointless trying to prove CM looks as good as IF44 because nothing is as good as the way the ARMA2 does lighting, so IF44 always has the edge visually, irrespective of the artistry of the textures for CM units.

I wouldn't try to argue that pound for pound, CMx2 is graphically on par with IFL44. And, lighting/shading is a weak point in CMx2, as compared to say, its vehicle modelling (which is superb).

I think the problems I'm having with IFL44 graphics (based on watching about 6 extended gameplay vids on YouTube, as I can't find a demo for it) come down to two things:

1) The Uncanny Valley effect. While many things look superb, this has the effect of making its warts glare out when they arise. The graphics seem uneven to me. CMx2's graphics look more consistent (but I am also using mods--mainly EZ's uniforms for Amis and Germans, and Vein's Flames. Currently no vehicle mods.). Therefore, my overall visual enjoyment is better in CMx2, because I'm not having the frequency of inconsistencies between what is superbly done and what is only average.

2) Not everything is as good as CMx2. Bits and pieces (I don't have time do to screens) in CMx2 are better than in IFL44. --Parts of vehicles, and assuming mods, soldier's uniforms.

Plus, on a purely subjective point, CM is less stylized, which is what I like. I'm one of those players who wants to see what it really looked like, rather than what a Hollywood art director thinks will "heighten" the experience.

I guess that's why I lost my taste for FPS in general. No matter how good the graphics and equipment modelling are, it's all just paintball. CM has spoiled me on a realistic battlefield. To create that, you have to have a core design based around AI units filling in the formations and roles. Humans alone can't do it, because it is boring for them (how well I remember guarding bunkers in WWII Online...).

Really, once contact is made, there is so generally so much more fighting action in a CMx2 battle than the usual WWII FPS. The FPS offers first person adrenaline, which CM can't give. However, CM offers a full, realistic battlefield experience to the armchair commander. That's something no FPS can, no matter how good it looks or well-modeled the equipment is on an individual basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing graphically that I'm not happy with is basically the explosions effects/fires etc. Also the way the world is represented as far as the map and the horizon. Unless your all the way zoomed in you always see the gap between the edge of the map and the horizon.

I know that they will have a true fire effect coming in the future and maybe more enhancements. I dont know how or if they would ever be able to fix the edge of map issue. I guess im so used to play FPS that its a bit weird to adjust to the world map.

I would like to see more explosions effects like these ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't as pretty as IF44, and i resent the use of the term touted, it makes me sound like i'm trying to sell something, which i am not, the pictures i posted were there to show the original creator of this thread what i thought was the best looking WW2 game, and nothing i have seen yet makes me believe otherwise.

I apologise for the word 'touted' if it offended you - it wasn't intended that way. Maybe this is a difference between UK and US English (I'm a Brit), but I often hear touted being used as little more than a synonym for 'nominated' or 'proposed' (probably one of those cases wher an over the top word is used for effect, and then over-used so much that the word more or less loses its original meaning).

(And I'd agree BTW that model and texture detail is only part of the story. Lighting (as you say, coherent design and palette across all models and other stuff all has a strong effect on how a game looks overall).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...