Explanation of CM's Tile System

[Guest Big Time Software]

The tail end of the "Map Building" thread we got into a discussion about CM's treatment of terrain as "tiles". This seems to have taken some by surprise, and just plain confused others. To further explain why we have a system based "tiles" and not "pixels"...

LOS is the big factor why we can't have pixel by pixel terrain. For even a small map the CPU would crawl to a halt if we went with an absolute "pixel" based system. There are all sorts of other reasons, but this single one kills it dead all on its own.

So what does CM use for terrain and how does it work?

Basically, the terrain is done in tiles (squares), with each being 20x20 meters. This tile is then subdivided into 2x2 meter squares for determining unit position and special terrain placement (like a wall or hedge). Elevation differences are averaged between each 2x2 square as well. So a large map of 3000x3000 meters has 2,500 tiles and 225,000 subtitles (provided I did the math correct ). This is a HUGE amount of data and takes up about 7MB of RAM to store. Just imagine what would happen if we increased the resolution any!

There can be multiple types of terrain in one tile (road and Heavy Woods for example), but all are predefined "building blocks". The base terrain contained in each tile is an approximation of whatever it is supposed to be. For example, a Woods tile does not have individual trees, instead it is an approximation of large, dense tree growth. However, something like walls and buildings are defined using the 2x2m internal grid. Therefore, if your unit looks like it is in a building, and the display panel says it is in a building, it is in a building (unlike some others ). Windows, doors, interior walls of buildings, etc. are all approximated and are not represented directly.

A unit does not move from one 20x20m tile to another one like a unit would move from one hex to another. The unit actually moves smoothly along using the 2x2 meter grid. Also remember that a squad is has a "footprint" but no actual tracking of where each man is at any given moment. The end result at CM's level of simulation is identical, or so close that it isn't interesting to note differences. However, the difference makes it possible to make CM now instead of waiting several years for CPUs to improve.

The KEY point to take away from this is that having both units and terrain be approximated makes the game work, not only from a technical standpoint, but also from a SIMULATION standpoint. The problem with something like CC is that the units are "exact" but the terrain is full of approximations (apparently larger ones than CM too). This means that a soldier standing in the open might be behind a wall, or one behind a wall in the open. Trying to get fair results from incompatible treatments like this is very difficult.

In the end Combat Mission's tile/unit system is infinitely more flexible and realistic than something like West Front's traditional 2D hex design, but it also lacks the problems associated with CC. So while it isn't pixel perfect, it is the best system possible for today's computers.

Steve

[Doug Beman]

Thanks for the step-by-step. It also helped to explain why my soldiers in CC3 just can't seem to hide from the enemy in buildings.

Keep up the good stuff!

ps Any more movies available soon? (he said, with big sad puppy-dog eyes)

DjB

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

A lot of my schoolmates called me "warmonger."

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi Doug,

Yes, puppy eyes are noted Actually, I have one more that has been captured but not finished. I might put it up some time soon. But right now I am busy cleaning up some new 3D models (including the PzIV and Jagdpanther ones!).

Steve

[Marko]

OK, that clarifies it pretty much for me. Just to further clarify it, do you use subtiles or tiles to calculate LOS? And just to reveal my pedantic character, in a 3000m by 3000m map, you would have 22,500 tiles, and 2,250,000 subtiles, assuming that a tile is 20m x 20m and a subtile is 2m x 2m.

Again thanks for the info. It's great that you can share this info with us. Most other companies consider such info to be secret intellectual property so it's nice to see you buck the trend.

Marko

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hehe, thanks for the correction. When you start talking about things being squared, my math starts to get weak

Charles may correct me on some of this, but as I understand it the subtiles are used for LOS to some extent. A direct line is drawn from A to B using the unit's subtiles as the start and end points. Anything getting in its way, subtile terrain or otherwise (smoke for example), counts against it to whatever degree it should.

In general the LOS line crosses "whole" terrain tiles (like Woods, or Open, or Wheat Field), which the system knows about and therefore can keep the calculations to a reasonable number. When the LOS line does hit some subtile, like a wall, the LOS line is penalized right at that very point. The line *might* be able to keep going, depending on what is blocking it.

Another interesting aspect of subtiles is using them for distance. If a squad is in Heavy Woods, for example, which subtile it is on matters. If the squad is 4 or 6 meters from the edge of the woods, they might get spotted. But if they are 20 or 30 meters into the woods, not a chance.

Ah, I hope that cleared up your questions.

Steve

[Thomm]

Dear BTS team !

I do not see the difference in your tile system and the one of the CC series ! Is it just the higher resolution ? Why should it be more of a problem to have LOS checks for every single soldier ? CC has problems, but I do not think this is one of them.

In your LOS walk-through you give a tank hiding behind a house as an example how accurate your algorithm works: "If you can see it, the game can see it". This is a dangerous statement, because the minimum requirement for it to be true would be to check the bounding box of the tank ! Are you doing this ?

All in all I think that the tiling method is (still) a very elegant way of discretizing reality, but it is far from being a revolutionary approach, and while in 3D you have the advantage of an easy visualization of height levels, it might appear strange that soldiers are hidden by undergrowth yet you cannot visualize this undergrowth for obvious reasons.

I hope you have some comments for me ! It is always a pleasure to discuss with you !

Thomm

[Thomm]

Pssssst, for the math:

(3000/2)^2 = 2,250,000, not 225,000 !

Well, it is just ONE order of magnitude ...

How does this link to 7 MB. If I take one Byte for terrain type and one for elevation I end up with approx. 4.5 MByte for all subtiles. And even less with the clever homogeneous tiles you proposed.

Regards, Thomm.

[S Smith]

I still have a question. You say that LOS is measured from subtile to subtile. Also, that each unit (squad, and presumably vehicles as well) has a certain 'signature' rather than a specific location for each soldier (which, again I am assuming, is larger than one subtile). How do we as players control the location of our units? If we want to put a squad along the edge of a woodline, how do we know that the squad is on the edge, and not half in and half out of the woods? This was a constant problem in CC, and I don't understand how you are able to eliminate that problem-I get the impression that we as players set the 'midpoint' of a unit, and the 'signature' of that unit is some circle around that midpoint. So is LOS from midpoint to midpoint? Or perhaps from subtile to subtile? Again, these are the same problems that plagued CC, and it sounds like CM will suffer from the same.

Steve

[Rhet]

How does a tile for a bridge work in this 3D environment? How does it affect LOS? Can bridges be placed over any terain and can units pass under the bridge? How many levels high can the bridge be set at? Are we alone in the universe? To many questions, to many questions, Aahhhhhhh.

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

Rhet

[Guest Big Time Software]

I think we need to clear up a few misconceptions.

First, remember that CM does not literally simulate the positions of individual men on the map. Reasons should be faily obvious, but the biggest one is CPU power. Consider that your average game of CC has maybe 100 men involved. CM can go as high as 3000 or even higher. Thirty-to-one! Now figure in that most algorithms that depend on number of soldiers, like line of sight, are what we call "n-squared" algorithms (which means that every man on one side must 'look at' every man on the other side) this increases the CM:CC CPU load ratio from 30:1 to NINE HUNDRED to one!

Ouch. 900:1. Now you can see why we simulate squads as a "whole", not as individual men. NOTE: We do track individual casualties and weapons within a squad, however, just not multiple locations. Note: For most purposes, squads "occupy" a single point in the map, not an amorphous footprint. So a squad centered on the edge of woods occupies entirely woods not half-in, half-out. The only time the game considers dispersal directly is when incoming fire takes casualties. For example, a direct artillery hit on the squad's central location point does not stupidly wipe out the entire squad. They're not literally all standing on the head of a pin.

Geek time! Now a little math. Each point on the subgrid (2m x 2m) requires two bytes: 6 bits for terrain type and 10 bits for elevation. A typical CM battlefield (1000m x 2000m) requires a 501x1001 subgrid, or 501501 points, or 979K. A large battlefield (3000m x 3000m) requires a 1501x1501 subgrid, or 2253001 points, or 4400K. Because of the need for dynamic playback, at times a copy of this information must be held internally, so we're up to 8800K for a large map. Shew!

Tanks are also considered to also occupy one "point" on the map, not a "bounding box" (again, due to CPU limitations). So you either see the tank or you don't. You don't see the front fender but nothing else, for example. It would be nice to add this detail, but we'll need faster hardware first, so perhaps in the future. Another reason we don't allow spotting "just the fender" is that CM allows (optional) scaling-up of unit graphics so you can see your tanks and men better. 1:1 scale is like fighting with armies of ants. So, because your tanks are often drawn larger than real life (though you can turn this feature off!) it would get strange when you, as a player, can "see" the fender because the tank is enlarged, but the program tells you that you can't, because it's using the real size of the tank to make its calculations. So it's an issue that has user-interface implications as well as CPU limitations.

All in all, the idea of a grid is hardly one we can claim to have invented. But as far as I know, no wargame of CM's scale exists that goes to anywhere near the lengths that CM does to provide precise LOS calculations. Most are just based on hexes - i.e. if the center of hex A sees the center of hex B, the LOS is clear. Obviously that's very crude by CM's standards. The only game I know of that even comes close is CC, and as I've described it's at a lower scale with far fewer men, and yet its LOS is still less precise than CM's.

Charles

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 05-19-99).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Now for Steve's 2 cents...

I have played CC2 to death and have played many hours of CM since the LOS system was put in. Obviously I am not an unbiased source, but I have got to tell you that the two play completely differently in terms of "feel" and outcome. While playing CC2 I was constantly reminded that the interaction of men to terrain was imperfect (not to mention other problems...) In CM everything is the opposite. The interface is smoother and very precise. If you put guys in the woods, they look like they are in the woods. If you have any doubts, a simple check of the unit (just click on it!) tells you EXACTLY what terrain it is on. No second guessing.

Here is an example of the power and ease of the interface. Say you have a unit at the edge of some woods taking MG fire. If you want to move your guys into more secure cover all you need to do is to move them minimum safe distance further into the woods. Hit a key to get the LOS cursor, move it until you see where where the LOS breaks up and that is where safety lies. You don't even have to know that 16m (or whatever) is the minimum safe distance you need to move, the LOS line shows you that graphically on the fly. It also tells you what terrain you are going to move to and how far it is from your present position. Keep the LOS cursor over the desired spot, hit a hot key to change the cursor into a Move order, click, and you are done. You can do this whole procedure in under 5 seconds once you are good at it, 10 seconds otherwise. No looking up stuff in a manual, no doubt about the game system treating you fairly, just total precision and ease of use. The opposite of CC. And I won't even compare it to other games that use hexes

I hope that sheds some light on the difference between the systems.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 05-19-99).]

[Mike D]

Guess I'll throw in my 2 cents as well. What the heck, eh. Er, well, as Steve has pointed out before I can tend to be rather verbose. Let's make that my 10 cents worth.

Charles answered several of my questions. First, the mathematical grid used for LOS, range and other calculations is centered in the middle of the mini 2m x 2m grid squares.

Now for question 1:

Since CM is 3D what is the resolution of the grid in the verical, or Z, direction? Is it 2m? Assuming that we really have a 2m x 2m x 2m cube we are dealing with is the mathematical location of the cube for all calculations assumed to be tied to the center of the cube?

Question 2:

How does the LOS algorithm handle the cubes? What I mean by this is say that squad one is on a hill 40m above squad 2 which is 100 m away. Between the 2 are some 15m high woods. Part of the LOS just passes partially through the uppermost cube (vertically) of the the 2m x 2m x 2m cube that contains the tree tops. Can the two squads see each other? (Assume squad 2 is moving and squad 1 isn't, both are in clear terrain and there are no weather effects, or distractions to consider). If on or both can see the other is the LOS considered blocked? Partially blocked? Could either unit fire at the other assuming they have spotted the enemy unit? Is there a firing penalty if the LOS is partially blocked?

Question 3: Say I have a squad of 10 men. I believe Steve told us that they all won’t be scrunched into a single 2m x 2m area. That being the case, on average, how spread out will the squad be? Will the approximation of the squads position (since individual men are not modeled) spread them out over say 3, or 4 mini tiles? Assuming for the moment that is the case and we have a somewhat dense area of buildings and/or trees. Is it possible that only one of the 3-4 mini-tiles occupied by the squad could be sighted by an enemy unit and fired upon? My guess is from reading the above statements that the answer to this question is no, but thought I would ask just to be sure.

Next, while it would certainly be nice to have a higher resolution of grid squares (wouldn't .5m or 1m be great?), I can understand that the physical limitations of the average computer cannot handle this. I.e. video card, RAM, CPU type and speed, etc. just are not up to snuff today. Or are they?

Question 4: If the minimum hardware requirements were raised to a really good video card (say nvidia TNT2 w/ twin texturing and 32MB of ram), a Pentium II 400 Mhz processor, and 128MB of RAM, what would be possible? Could we get a better grid? Say 1m x 1m x 1m? Could we display squads w/ the acual numbers of soldiers shown on the screen instead of making approximations like 3 men are a squad, 1-2 are a team, etc.? Could you "see" a portion of a tank hiding behind a building and be able to fire at it as Charles talked about above?

I realize you don’t want to do this because the percentage of people out there that have this kind of hardware right now is probably only on the order of 1 in 10. Still, I would like to get a feel for what could have been done w/ CM1 if we didn’t limit ourselves to the lowest common denominator in terms of hardware, but instead used the best of what is available today.

Which leads us to one of Mikester's pet peeves. People that think they can buy a computer and it is going to last forever (Fess up, how many of you out there are still running that Pentium 66-100 Mhz machine, or worse yet, a 486!)

Question 5: How many of you out there are like me and would like to see the minimum hardware requirements increased (I'm thinking CM2 the Russian Front here, not CM - Beyond Overlord)? I would certainly like the soldiers to look better, have them represented 1 for 1 instead of 3 for 10, have a more refined grid for calculations, etc., etc. What would everyone say to raising the minimum requirements to say 64MB of RAM, a Pentium II 300 Mhz processor, and at least a 16MB video card (say a nvidia TNT first generation card just as an example) for CM2? Common guys, most of the hardware that right now forms the minimum requirements for CM is so out of date today that it isn't even being sold anymore (or won’t be in the very near future). For sure, it certainly doesn't cost all that much to get something a little bit better. All the video cards that are just now coming out only cost $100-$200 and they blow away the TNT / other generation cards that came out just 6-12 months ago. Same holds true for the processors (although the new ones tend to be pricey, but then who really needs a Pentium III 500Mhz processor?). I don't even know if you can buy a 300 MHz Pent. II anymore. Heck, by the end of the year I believe I've read that the 700-800 Mhz Pentium III chips are supposed to be out. When CM2 comes out say a year or so from now is it really going to be tied down to a machine that is only running at 120-166 Mhz like CM??? Give me a break! MY VOTE IS TO INCREASE THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR CM2! Everyone seems want to moan and groan about this doesn't look good enough, or that doesn't seem as accurate as I think it should be; and yet oh so much more could be done by folks like BTS if they didn't have their hands tied behind their backs trying to cater to people that in my opinion are running sub-standard, or near sub-standard hardware. Sorry if I offend anyone, but that is just the way I see things. I say it is time to raise the bar and give BTS a chance to make CM2 an even greater game than CM will be when the time comes to start coding it. In my most humble opinion (hah, hah) the minimum system for CM2 definitely ought to be a 200-266 Mhz Pentium II processor, a "good" (it’s all relative, so I won’t get specific) 16MB video card, and at least 64 MB of RAM. If we don’t raise the hardware standards for games like this at some point it is going to be pretty darn difficult to make CM2, 3, and so, on better games. Dear God, do you realize that by the time CM2 comes out say mid to late 2000 that there will most likely be a 1000Mhz processor out there??? Think about it. Here’s the tally so far:

In the question of those in favor of raising the minimum hardware requirements for CM2:

Yes’s = 1

No’s = 0

Now that I’m done ranting and raving I’d be interested to know what everyone else out there thinks. Oh, and maybe some answers to the earlier questions too.

Thanks for putting up w/ me. Sorry if I ticked anyone off.

And for those of you that may be wondering I currently only have a 100Mhz pentium machine w/ 48MB of ram, a fairly good 8MB video card (nothing special though) and a first generation VOODOO 3D accelator card. Thankfully for me, though, that is all going to change in the very near future.

PS: Do I win the award for the longest post???? I thought I remember Steve saying something about the guy w/ the longest post getting on the Beta Team, or a free copy of CM, or something.

Regards,

Mike D

aka Mikester

[This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 05-19-99).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

#1: The 2m LOS grid is used only to determine the terrain in a given location. A unit does not "lock to grid" every 2 meters. It can occupy any point inbetween grid points. It's smooth, not discrete. Same is true for elevation. A given location's elevation is interpolated from the nearest 4 grid points. So elevation is also smooth, not discrete.

#2. Not sure how to answer this as the premise is based on the "cubes" which don't really exist.

#3. Squads occupy a single point for LOS purposes. You either see the whole squad or none of it. The dispersion of the men versus incoming fire is abstract.

#4. Better hardware makes lots of things possible, but even today's best still doesn't cut it for showing all the men in a squad. And it still doesn't solve user-interface issues like the ones I mentioned for partial-vehicle spotting.

#5. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What would everyone say to raising the minimum requirements to say 64MB of RAM, a Pentium II 300 Mhz processor, and at least a 16MB video card (say a nvidia TNT first generation card just as an example) for CM2?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It depends on when CM2 ships, of course, but I'm generally against targeting the high end. I don't want to cut out 90% of our audience. CM certainly isn't targeted at the low end either, but a balance must be struck.

Plus, all the things you ask for will require many, many more months of work to implement, delaying the release of the game (CM or CM2, whichever). We can't just buy a 500 MHz computer and snap our fingers and have new features magically appear.

Charles

[Thomas Davie]

Mike D:

Although I would have whatever type of system that would be required to play a game that I wanted, I'd be willing to bet that would not apply to everyone. An audience must be targeted. As a subset of the general computer owner population, I think wargamers are slower to upgrade than regular computer owners (seriously, to date can you show me a wargame that has benefited from increased horsepower?). Not wanting to go broke, the companies that produce these games will not program for a *very* small market segment.

Specifically, what would you think could be gained by having a prohibitive system requirement?

Tom

[Mike D]

Thanks for the answers Charles.

#1 Now I understand much better.

#2 No cubes, OK. I guess the crux of what I'm driving at w/ question 2 is that 3d is a complicated business. When there are intervening objects such as buildings, trees, etc. between two units at different elevations which could otherwise see each other if those intervening objects were not there how "accurate" is the LOS model when the LOS just "grazes" an intervening object which might strecth from the ground level to some given height. To put it simply, how is the LOS determined and/or affected by such objects between two units at different elevations???

#3 And I assume that the single point you refer to for the positioning of the squad is not necessarily locked to the grid either (i.e. it is not discrete)?

#4 Bummer, maybe someday when everyone has a 1000 Mhz CPU things can get really cool.

#5 By the time CM2 ships (assuming late next year at the earliest) I would hardly think that a 300 Mhz CPU, 64 MB ram, etc. would be considered as "high end". If anything, I would think it would probably be close to the average, or slightly above average, system that a typical (whatever that is) CM player would have.

"We can't just buy a 500 MHz computer and snap our fingers and have new features magically appear"...

What!!! We all thought the great CM programming guru could do anything overnight! My world of illusion has been shattered.

In all seriousness though, I do completely understand where you are coming from. Nothing comes without a price.

My main reason for going into this is that I would like to take kind of a little informal poll here on the forum. What kind of systems do people have now? What do they plan to have, or think they will might have, say 1 to 2 years from now when CM2 comes out. I would be interested in seeing what the average current and future systems look like from a sampling of 10-20 people and how it compares to the current minimum requirements for CM, as well as CM2. Maybe raising the minimum hardware requirements for CM2 won't be as difficult as you believe????

By the same token, while I understand that you don't want to push people into buying what you refer to as "high end" systems just to play a game; if you (the game programmers) don't slowly push the envelope in terms of hardware requirements as time passes we will be sitting here playing CM 4 five years from now on our good old 120-166 Mhz Pentium I's while the rest of the world has moved on to the Pentium V 2000Mhz machine.

No doubt, it's kind of one of those chicken and the egg scenarios. In general the software driven hardware requirements always seem to lag behind the forefront of hardware development itself because there are so many people w/ "older" systems out there that you as a software developer can't afford to ignore this portion of your potential sales market. Only problem is if you keep lowering yourself to the lowest common denominator of said market then folks can just simply keep their good old 486's and early Pentiums and never have to change. Thats' why I think that the software industry (games included) needs to push the envelope a little w/ each new release. If you don't then you are penalizing the people that really do have "high end" systems by delivering a game to them that is certainly somewhat less than it otherwise could be. In my mind this is just as bad as cutting out folks because they don't own a system that meets the minimum hardware requirements needed to play the game.

But as you say, it is difficult to find a happy medium when there is such a wide range of hardware qualities out there that your potential customers are using. IMHO, CM shot somewhat below the mark that it should have. The minimum required CPU should have been a 166-200 Mhz Pentium II machine and a 3d card accelerator card should have been mandatory, etc. With the advances in hardware that will be coming out in the next year the minimum requirements for CM2 should be even higher still.

The bottom line is folks have to either step up to the plate and have the hardware that is necessary to play 3d games, or else just plain forget about playing them. If many / most people want to first of all have you the programmer provide "high end" games (better 3D graphics, more than 3 men depicting a squad, etc.) and second of all be able to play such "high end" games, then it is bloody well going to take a "high end" computer to do it. If you don't want to purchase a system cabable of doing this then you can keep on playing solitare, scrabble, and your old hex based wargames while the rest of us move on into the 21st century. It's just that simple.

Again this is just my opinion, so take it for what it is worth (and there is certainly many a time that my opinion is ISN'T (correction)worth a whole lot)

Regards,

Mike D

aka Mikester

[This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 05-20-99).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Mike, to add to Charles' answer to #5...

Even *IF* the high end of today's computers could handle a 1:1 representation on the monitor, I really doubt it could do so for more than, say, a Company sized force on either side. Battalion for each side? I doubt it as much as I doubt I will not enjoy seeing Episode 1 this Friday at 7:20pm EST The point here is that we aren't talking about doubling the number of polygons, but tripping it and perhaps even quadrupling it. The new 3D cards are fast, but they aren't THAT fast. Charles is using one of the brand new ATI 128 cards, and although it improved his frame rate over his old one (2nd generation ATI 3D card), we are talking the need for exponential frame rate improvements. We haven't tested CM on a real highend system yet, but I expect it won't be faster than 30fps with a great card. Just a guess. But even if it were 40fps, the 1:1 representation would crush its performance. And this is with our current relatively low res 3D models even, not the Uber-res ones you also want to see.

In short, what you have won't do what you want it to do, even if we coded it up. And there is the other big problem. Doing a 1:1 representation would mean having a 1:1 GAME representation of each soldier. This means all new AI, all new grid system, all new everything basically. A whole new game. And the UI would be horrible for this. First of all, graphically enlarging unit graphics is still necessary (this problem won't be solved until monitors are better than 72dpi). This means that the graphics for a squad of 12 men would probably fill an entire 20x20m area. This is an area that could easily hold a platoon. So now picture 40 men all in the same spot! Unplayable. And where would we get the CPU power for all of this finer resolution and map detail? As stated above, the system will already be broken by a 3-4 fold increase in graphics without this stuff (and no model improvements), so there is no extra horsepower to draw from...

I think this is probably enough food for thought. Sometimes things look very easy and doable to gamers, when in fact they are anything but. This is the difference between a gamer and game developer. What you dream about we have already dreamed about, talked about, tried to find a way to do, found that we can't do all of it, and come up with a system that does work. We don't mind explaining this to good, open minded and humble gamers, but we don't like the ones that stick their fingers in their ears, clamp their eyes shut and scream "NNHANAHNANHAANHANAHNA I can't hear you!!!!! NAAHAHANAHANAH AHNAHANAHNA" when we have to explain that they can't have what they want. Some people have no respect for reality, so we have little respect for them

Steve

P.S. If we catered only to the highend we would never last long enough to make the next game. Since most of our customers don't have kick ass systems we have to keep this in mind because guess who pays most of the bills? BTW, neither of us have a system faster than 200MHz, so we are our own audience...

[Guest Big Time Software]

Mike, to add to Charles' answer to #5...

Even *IF* the high end of today's computers could handle a 1:1 representation on the monitor, I really doubt it could do so for more than, say, a Company sized force on either side. Battalion for each side? I doubt it as much as I doubt I will not enjoy seeing Episode 1 this Friday at 7:20pm EST The point here is that we aren't talking about doubling the number of polygons, but tripping it and perhaps even quadrupling it. The new 3D cards are fast, but they aren't THAT fast. Charles is using one of the brand new ATI 128 cards, and although it improved his frame rate over his old one (2nd generation ATI 3D card), we are talking the need for exponential frame rate improvements. We haven't tested CM on a real highend system yet, but I expect it won't be faster than 30fps with a great card. Just a guess. But even if it were 40fps, the 1:1 representation would crush its performance. And this is with our current relatively low res 3D models even, not the Uber-res ones you also want to see.

In short, what you have won't do what you want it to do, even if we coded it up. And there is the other big problem. Doing a 1:1 representation would mean having a 1:1 GAME representation of each soldier. This means all new AI, all new grid system, all new everything basically. A whole new game. And the UI would be horrible for this. First of all, graphically enlarging unit graphics is still necessary (this problem won't be solved until monitors are better than 72dpi). This means that the graphics for a squad of 12 men would probably fill an entire 20x20m area. This is an area that could easily hold a platoon. So now picture 40 men all in the same spot! Unplayable. And where would we get the CPU power for all of this finer resolution and map detail? As stated above, the system will already be broken by a 3-4 fold increase in graphics without this stuff (and no model improvements), so there is no extra horsepower to draw from...

I think this is probably enough food for thought. Sometimes things look very easy and doable to gamers, when in fact they are anything but. This is the difference between a gamer and game developer. What you dream about we have already dreamed about, talked about, tried to find a way to do, found that we can't do all of it, and come up with a system that does work. We don't mind explaining this to good, open minded and humble gamers, but we don't like the ones that stick their fingers in their ears, clamp their eyes shut and scream "NNHANAHNANHAANHANAHNA I can't hear you!!!!! NAAHAHANAHANAH AHNAHANAHNA" when we have to explain that they can't have what they want. Some people have no respect for reality, so we have little respect for them

Steve

P.S. If we catered only to the highend we would never last long enough to make the next game. Since most of our customers don't have kick ass systems we have to keep this in mind because guess who pays most of the bills? BTW, neither of us have a system faster than 200MHz, so we are our own audience...

P.P.S. Mike, in case you were wondering you are firmly in the "reality" camp in our minds

[Mike D]

Tom,

I think you bring up a great point when you mention that wargamers seem to always be the last ones to upgrade there systems. I have noticed this as well, but never really understood it. I guess I'm just a technocrat at heart.

"Specifically, what would you think could be gained by having a prohibitive system requirement?"

I think if you read my post just below yours you might understand better where I'm coming from. "Specifically" I'm not trying to gain anything. In fact I think such a question looks much too hard at the short term instead of focusing on what we as gamers (and programmers too for that matter) should really be focusing on which is the long term.

In the long term I would like to see the CM series improve with each release. Better graphics, more features, better depiction of squads, etc., etc., etc. The list is probably endless in terms of added features and/or improvements that could be made to the game system. Anyone that has frequented this forum for any length of time knows that Steve and Charles have had to "just say no" to any number of "good" ideas. And the reasons are almost always the same. Either they don't have the time to do it now, or, you guessed it, current technology and/or the minimum hardware specification that have been set down don't allow it. In any event, at some point I believe "we/BTS" are going to run into a wall trying to implement such improvements to the "game" when the hardware requirements either 1) Always aim low in order to maximize the number of people reached in the market, or 2) worse yet remain stagnant in order to maintain and/or increase said potential market.

And as you have stated wargamers are notoriously slow to upgrade their systems which in turn further drags down what the "average" system is that most people have to use. And since we all know that good business people like Steve and Charles are going to have to play to a large portion of the market below this now substandard "average" then the "problem" becomes even worse yet.

That's why I firmly believe that a game series like CM has to slowly raise its hardware requirements / standards with each successive release. If it doesn't, then at some point (probably relatively quickly I might add) we will hit that wall I talked about earlier. Don't get me wrong. I'm not proposing that BTS simply raise the min. hardware requirements just for the h*** of it. Rather, they should raise the requirements and then use that additional video, CPU, and memory power to make a better game. If you don't then the CM5 game that I described in my post above probably won't be a whole lot different than what the CM2 (maybe 3) game will be like. Charles / Steve please correct me if I'm wrong here, but at some point the min. hardware standards are going to have to be increased. I say that point should be w/ CM2. And, in fact, every version of CM that comes out after CM2 as well.

Tom, I hope this and the post above answers your question.

Regards,

Mike D

aka Mikester

[Thomm]

Dear Big Time Software Team !

First of all thank you for this thread ! Maybe the best and most informative I have ever read !

Now my unavoidable comments:

#2 In the case of trees and buildings I think the "tiles" have to be envisaged as COLUMNS with a certain extension in the vertical direction, thus being 2.5D. I cannot think of an actual advantage of a cube system in the kind of environment we live in !

About the vehicle bounding box: Thanks for making clear that there is none. But I am afraid that you have to be more humble with regard to your "best LOS algorithm ever" attitude. You might raise false expectations.

About your comparison with CC: Please be aware that you avoid a lot of the problems the CC engine faces. Well in fact the problems are just transferred to another abstraction level, meaning that instead of single soldier objects you move around squad objects. So there is really not that much of a difference in the technology behind it. But I have to pay some respect to CC here because the engine has to tie the soldiers together as squads, something you entirely avoid.

However, do not misunderstand me: In the course of the discussion you made it quite clear to me WHY you are doing the things the way you do, and I find it very well thought through, indeed.

But, just for matters of political correctness: Do not say that your TECHNOLOGY is better than CC's because, well, it is pretty much the same. What you can rightfully state is that the SCALE of your game is more suitable for a WW II strategy game (esp. involving tank warfare).

Thanks for your attention and for letting me contribute ! It is very pleasant to watch your project evolve !

Thomm

[Doug Beman]

What's this about seeing Episode I? Steve, you shouldn't be thinking of your own movie-going pleasure! You should be at that keyboard 24/7, fulfilling the dreams of us armchair generals. I'm ashamed, really. (And, as for the movie, here's a little hint: the ship sinks at the end and lots of people die) Jeez, I crack me up

If you're serious about the system poll, let me be the first to toss a ballot in the box:

Celeron overclocked ~450

64 MB PC100 SDRAM

3 GB hard drive

standard Micron 17" monitor

DiamondStealth video card

Monster2 3D 8MB (installed last summer, have yet to play a game requiring it)

MonsterSound MX300 (I sense a trend in peripheral hardware maker)

Barring a new system, my next upgrade (after I get a real/career job) will be to the hard drive, then to the normal video card. Since I don't play any hard core 3D games, the Monster2 isn't at the top of the list.

DjB

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

A lot of my schoolmates called me "warmonger."

[A Arabian]

With regards to 'pushing the envelope' technologically, I recall from many moons ago speaking with one of the programmers for Origin. I had mentioned to him my *minor* frustration with never being able to buy their games when they are first released as my computer is never up to snuff (they had a reputation for always releasing to the highest common denominator). His reply (paraphrasing):

1. 'People upgrade only when they see a need.' This I agree with - I've already bought (ok, was given ) a 3D accelerator card specifically for this game. Granted thats not nearly as much of an investment as a new motherboard/CPU, but the point remains and leads us to the second comment:

2. 'Increased shelf life' If you release a game to the highest common denominator, people will continue buying it for longer. The technology is 'cutting edge' for longer, and as people upgrade they will choose to buy CM for their new systems.

3. 'Its just plain more fun' Basically the programmers he worked with loved pushing technology. Tweaking every last new element out of it.

On the flip side, I currently drive a 200mhz chip, so I'm all for keeping CMs minimums around that area

Just some thoughts.

A. Arabian

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi Thomm,

Well, needless to say I don't really agree with much of what you said. So, time to do the counter point thing

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In the case of trees and buildings I think the "tiles" have to be envisaged as COLUMNS with a certain extension in the vertical direction, thus being 2.5D. I cannot think of an actual advantage of a cube system in the kind of environment we live in ! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We totally disagree. Even what you suggest isn't reality, in fact it is no better than squares. The natural world we live in isn't on a grid of any sort, so squares, rectangles, hexes, triangles, whatever are all very artificial in that sense. Unfortunately, the real world can not be simulated in any other way but through abstraction. Just to make a correction though, buildings are shaped however we like within a tile. In fact, we do have rectangular buildings. But we have to keep the complexity down because it doesn't add to the game but does slow it down.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>About the vehicle bounding box: Thanks for making clear that there is none. But I am afraid that you have to be more humble with regard to your "best LOS algorithm ever" attitude. You might raise false expectations.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note that we did not say "100% realistic LOS algorithm". Saying that would be incorrect. Unless you can show us a game that does LOS even 1/2 as well as we do, we stand by our claim that it is the best ever. NOTE: no 2D game can even come close to challenging our system because we live in a 3D world, so all 2D systems are automatically inferior to our 3D model even if it was 1/4 as good as it is currently.

Don't forget that our system also includes things like partial spotting, spotting by sound, incorrect identification, incorrect placement of enemy units, and other such things. Name us one game that has all of that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>About your comparison with CC: Please be aware that you avoid a lot of the problems the CC engine faces. Well in fact the problems are just transferred to another abstraction level, meaning that instead of single soldier objects you move around squad objects. So there is really not that much of a difference in the technology behind it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are missing the whole point of Combat Mission's system. It doesn't "transfer the problems", it works around them without compromising the realism aspect. The end results in Combat Mission are very realistic because of this, even without simulating every tree, shrub, and placement of each soldiers feet. The end result in Close Combat is generally frustrating and sometimes even outrageous. There is a huge difference. But again, I have the advantage of having played both systems, so I am in a much better position to understand the differences.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But I have to pay some respect to CC here because the engine has to tie the soldiers together as squads, something you entirely avoid.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do not forget that CC is at a whole scale lower than Combat Mission. Even our modest sized maps are likely to be bigger than the largest CC map. And CC has a hard limit to the number of soldiers you can get on the map at any one time. CC's system would choke if it had to handle even 1/5 the number of soldiers that Combat Mission can simulate. You may respect CC for simulation of individual soldiers, but you must understand that it simply won't work for CM's scale. And some would argue that it doesn't even work that well for CC's scale...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But, just for matters of political correctness: Do not say that your TECHNOLOGY is better than CC's because, well, it is pretty much the same. What you can rightfully state is that the SCALE of your game is more suitable for a WW II strategy game <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We disagree completely. Close Combat has taken very many well documented shortcuts that seriously affect the realism of its simulation. This is something you will not find in Combat Mission, so that alone makes our system "better". But do not forget the biggest reason our technology is better, and VASTLY SUPERIOR -> Combat Mission is 3D, with 3D LOS in a 3D world. CC is flat, 2D with many technical problems. And don't even get us started on the differences between CM and CC's treatment of armor and ballistics. Compared to our treatment, CC's armor and penetration system is... I'm not even going to get started...

So to sum up, we think you are being far too easy on CC and do not understand the fundamental differences between it and Combat Mission. Once you play CM you will probably know in 10 minutes what a whole day's worth of words can't explain. Again, I have the advantage of playing BOTH systems.

And for the record... I really liked Close Combat 2, flaws and all. I think that, for the most part, it was a great game. I just don't think it was a fantastic simulation. In my obviously biased opinion I think CM beats CC hands down in terms of both simulation and game play. But soon you will get to determine this for yourself.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 05-20-99).]

[Moon]

Thomm: I also have the advantage of actually having seen CM in real life (thanks to Steve and Charles and The Wargamer) AND playing through the big campaign of CC3, and, frankly, I strongly object to comparing these two game engines. As Steve said, the claim of CM is not to have a "100% realistic" LOS engine, just the best possible with current systems. That does include certain abstract compromises to keep such a game playable, i.e. not tracking individual trees and men.

However, I feel that CM's engine is far superior to CC3 for one simple reason: while CC3 pretends to simulate single men, trees and all that, it in fact does not. CC3 (and all the other games in the CC series) are hiding their abstract compromises behind a nice graphical interface, but they are there. Have you ever wondered why guys in a building or in a trench in CC3 die like flies? There are some fundamental flaws in CC's game engine and the fact that as a player you don't know about them makes it all even worse.

CM, otoh, does not even attempt to hide their inavoidable compromises to the simulation, but instead thrives to produce an engine that, as the end result, offers the player the most realistic simulation experience. I don't know about you and the others, but I am perfectly happy with KNOWING that my MG squad is in the woods (by clicking on it) and KNOWING that the game engine will reposnd accordingly - I do not have to actually see every tree and every rock to enjoy the game. In a few years, when computers have advanced to new highs, maybe this will be possible and it will be cool - but this is not more than eye candy. What's underneath the surface is what counts.

[Guest John Maragoudakis]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I do not have to actually see every tree and every rock to enjoy the game<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

%%agreed. Even physicists use probability

formulas to estimate the position of electrons. That doesn't mean atomic bombs don't work.

<FONT COLOR=#000FF>CM is looking great. Keep up the good work</FONT>.

[Guest Lokesa]

follow up to Moons why do you think infantry die like flies in cc series comment, some people I know were investigating a problem in cc3 where LOS and LOF could at certain places be traced through hills and such, seriously teams were getting shot up with direct fire while in places that according to the graphical representation of the map should have been blind spots, so they put some maps through a program that converted it to graphically show elevation and it was found that the visual data of cc3's maps often do not correspond to the map's coding. Some examples: one hill that appeared on the map to be a los block running continously from the bottom of the screen to about halfway up the map turned out to be two seperate hills with a gap in the center, so while you think from the visual clues that your tank is hull down behind a ridge in a spot where it should have great LOS from it is in fact in a sort of valley between to hills, does not have the LOS from the ridge but from ground level, and furthermore is not recieving any benefit whatsoever from being on the backside of the ridge and is in fact a potentially open target. Trenches, foxholes, and bunkers were found to have no depth to them and to actually be at the same level of surrounding terrain giving no cover so though it looks like your men are in great cover they're really just sitting in the middle of a field. another thing noticed was that in some places gullies on the map were coded and in others they weren't with nop visual clues as to which are.

I tried to keep the faith with my old CC2 buddies thinking we could work around all the BS but just couldn't. Finding out through map and statistical data why CC3 felt so wrong finally pushed it in to the "Coaster of the month" catagory for me.