iMolestCats Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Well ive been wanting to know how many polygons are in a just random tree in CMFI. Im argueing with a friend about if Combat Mission's graphics are bad. So far the only thing hes been able to say is that the only reason i think CM's graphics are good is that im loyal to CM xD. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanzfeld Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Your arguing with a friend if CM's graphics are bad? Might as well argue how long is a rope? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergeltungswaffe Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 If your friend is comparing it to the average first person shooter with cutting edge eye candy, he needs to know that it isn't rendering anywhere near the calculations that CM is rendering, so it can look nice and not bog down. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iMolestCats Posted February 5, 2013 Author Share Posted February 5, 2013 Hes very persistant on the matter he cant give it up. I admit it is a pretty pointless arguement idk why hes dead set on trying to kill CM i think he has something aginst it maybe hes lost one to many battles xD. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Hes very persistant on the matter he cant give it up. I admit it is a pretty pointless arguement idk why hes dead set on trying to kill CM i think he has something aginst it maybe hes lost one to many battles xD. What CM is doing is putting up potentially 300-a-side (or more, and plus vehicles) deathmatches, if you want to put it in 1PS terms. With infinite viewable angles. It's hardly surprising every pTruppe isn't as gorgeously rendered as CoD. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simast Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 If your friend is comparing it to the average first person shooter with cutting edge eye candy, he needs to know that it isn't rendering anywhere near the calculations that CM is rendering, so it can look nice and not bog down. That is not correct. CPU calculations and 3D rendering of the scene has little in common.. It's just that the first person shooters have massive budgets and lots of developers dedicated to working/optimizing the graphics engine. Personally, for me the current state of CM graphics is "it works". It's horribly lacking optimizations (the draw distance issue, anyone?), but it kind of does the job.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 A lot of supposedly 'superior' art from other games is all flash and dazzle. Its easy to make art appear superior if you can't leave the designated path, if they don't let you wander up to the map corner and peer at the back side of the art. If you 'Google 3-D Max trees' you'll see there's only a few ways to make a tree. But there's lots of ways to keep you from getting close enough to inspect it. Oh, one more thought. Many people who claim the game looks 'primitive' tend to play it a board game height, hovering godlike 40 ft off the ground. The exact height where you do lose much of the detail. Heck, usually 1st LODs have kicked in from that distance! If they played it more like a shooter game looking over the soldier's shoulder they'd be able to read the serial number on the side of his pistol. I mean that literally. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 ...the serial number on the side of his pistol... Outrage! All the pistols have the same serial number! BFC fix or do sumfink! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Counting polygons to debate which looks better? That's funny. Just look at it. If something looks great with 2 polygons, is an ugly render made with 1.2 million polygons better? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
para Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Outrage! All the pistols have the same serial number! BFC fix or do sumfink! Right on brother 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergeltungswaffe Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 That is not correct. Actually, it is. Though BFC could certainly do more with a gigantic budget, the number of things that can happen in a FPS is very limited compared to CM. You're only rendering what is in your LOS at any given moment, not everything that is going on everywhere. Plus with a limited number of maps, it can all be statically preloaded as a much smaller amount of data. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Belenko Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Outrage! All the pistols have the same serial number! BFC fix or do sumfink! But do the serial numbers correspond to the actual date of release for a particular weapon? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 The introduction of normal mapping makes polygon counts less relevant. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pord Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 It has to be compared to a game of a similar type for any fair argument to be made. I would compare it to the Total War series' land battles, and would say it holds its own against them. I would say TW has much less environmental detail, but excels in other areas. The number of units in TW is probably larger on average, but not by too much. I've always thought the game looked amazing for a 3d battle simulator. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 TW can use some optimizations we can't, as well. Each soldier in CM needs to be individually animated; TW can use powerful crowd-animating (and -rendering) optimizations. And the engine is vastly different in terms of goals and necessities. Just the ones I can think of off the top of my head: - TW has fixed (low) map levels of detail; scenario designers in CM can make maps as complex as they want. Soldiers are much less detailed model-wise and have very simple animations. - Each soldier in CM has a complex tactical AI. Individual soldiers in TW do not. AI is handled at the unit level in TW (and is extremely simplistic even there, though impressively capable-looking). So you're looking at an 80- or 100-to-1 ratio of active "thinking / planning / deciding" AI. - Pathfinding in TW is very simplified and high-level (mostly flocking / steering, and most terrain is not impassible, making paths easier to calculate - you'll notice if you get into urban actions in TW pathfinding breaks down considerably); in CM pathfinding is extremely complex and low-level. Basically TW's tactical battles are probably the closest you can get to CM in terms of what they're trying to do, and they do not set the bar as high as we do in terms of what they're trying to accomplish. They have an impressive product, but they're not trying to do what we do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordhedgwich Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 im not really sure why people complain about CMs graphics i have yet to play/see a game in the same genre with better graphics... At least on the level this game is on 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
permanent666 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 what i have noticed on screenshots is that this game looks so much better on nvidia systems than on my ati system 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pord Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 TW can use some optimizations we can't, as well. Each soldier in CM needs to be individually animated; TW can use powerful crowd-animating (and -rendering) optimizations. And the engine is vastly different in terms of goals and necessities. Just the ones I can think of off the top of my head: - TW has fixed (low) map levels of detail; scenario designers in CM can make maps as complex as they want. Soldiers are much less detailed model-wise and have very simple animations. - Each soldier in CM has a complex tactical AI. Individual soldiers in TW do not. AI is handled at the unit level in TW (and is extremely simplistic even there, though impressively capable-looking). So you're looking at an 80- or 100-to-1 ratio of active "thinking / planning / deciding" AI. - Pathfinding in TW is very simplified and high-level (mostly flocking / steering, and most terrain is not impassible, making paths easier to calculate - you'll notice if you get into urban actions in TW pathfinding breaks down considerably); in CM pathfinding is extremely complex and low-level. Basically TW's tactical battles are probably the closest you can get to CM in terms of what they're trying to do, and they do not set the bar as high as we do in terms of what they're trying to accomplish. They have an impressive product, but they're not trying to do what we do. Very informative post. I couldn't what made TW and CM different into words like that. Urban combat in TW can be infuriating now that you remind me (getting my men stuck behind a wall or on a bridge, arggg). It makes me appreciate CM's graphics that much more when the level of AI needed for each man is taken into consideration. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MG TOW Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 What CM is doing is putting up potentially 300-a-side (or more, and plus vehicles) deathmatches, if you want to put it in 1PS terms. With infinite viewable angles. It's hardly surprising every pTruppe isn't as gorgeously rendered as CoD. Actually the individual soldiers and vehicles are much better modelled in CMFI than CoD. Where CoD may look better are certain things like buildings, bridges, water, and ground. But CoD maps are really puny too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.