Burning AFVs

[Georgie]

In a large or huge battle you can wind up with ten or so burning AFVs on each side. This, it seems to me, eats up a lot of processing and graphics power. How about letting an AFV burn for say five turns and then stop burning?

[The Steppenwulf]

I thought about this before now also. However I suppose since black smoke actually fades rather than just stops, this might perhaps explain the reason. Providing a more realistic look requires an amended animation sequence to the current loop. I expect it will get addressed soon enough but it may also form part of the broader area of damage modelling such as burned out hulls, broken tracks, displaced side skirts etc...All part of the same box of tricks so my guess is they will all get worked on together at some point.

[Baneman]

Would this be the place to ask BF for more 3D "map clutter" - burned out hulks of tanks, armoured cars, cars, trucks etc. War detritus as it were.

It would be up to the map makers to place it, but it would add immersion and if our graphics cards can render smoke, I can't see a couple of extra objects killing one's system.

[YankeeDog]

Problem with the idea of stopping the graphic depiction of a burning AFV after 5 minutes is that IRL AFVs will burn for much longer than this, and the burn has an actual tactical effect -- the smoke column blocks LOS.

Since the the performance hit from rendering the smoke columns will become less and less of an issue as computers and especially graphics cards get faster, it's a good guess that BFC will just leave this as is and the issue will eventually become less and less important for most players.

[Erwin]

I would hate to lose the smoke. +1 to Baneman's suggestion. More eye candy clutter would be great. Dead cattle, wrecks, crashed aircraft...

It would make the wonderful terrain graphics even more interesting as one's forward units round a road bend or walk through woods and come across such things...

[Pak40]

Sounds like it's time for Georgie to get a new computer

[Vanir Ausf B]

I think the CM battlefield suffers from too little smoke rather than too much. There is a hotkey toggle -- IIRC it is Alt-K -- that will turn off smoke if you computer is bogging. I have personally never noticed smoke making any difference in performance.

[Georgie]

Sounds like it's time for Georgie to get a new computer

No I'v got a new computer but was wondering if a lot of burning vehicles would add to the OOM problem? And its beginning to look like I should have got a Mac.

[Davek555]

Never had a problem with burning vehicles slowing down my computer but then I don't play the large scenarios. One thing that concerns me though is when BFC puts fire in game. A large spreading fire could cause quite a lot of smoke. I hope it doesn't affect frame rate too much.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I'm willing to bet that however much smoke BFC makes fires generate in-game will be much less than it does in reality.

[Sgt Schultz]

BFC's fire-generated smoke will be less than that in real life, because a designer can just add light fog/fog to the atmospheric settings to give that "forest fire" ambiance.

[Vanir Ausf B]

The fog in CMx2 is very thin, not really comparable to a forest fire. Well, maybe if you're a hundred miles downwind of the fire

[Davek555]

I don't think the fog setting would do it. Not unless BFC comes up with a thicker fog like was in CM1.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Not to mention that there is no way to make the appearance of fog dependent on the presence of fire. If you make your scenario or QB foggy it will be foggy even if there is no fire at all.

[nik mond]

Would this be the place to ask BF for more 3D "map clutter" - burned out hulks of tanks, armoured cars, cars, trucks etc. War detritus as it were.

It would be up to the map makers to place it, but it would add immersion and if our graphics cards can render smoke, I can't see a couple of extra objects killing one's system.

Scenario designers can pre-position all the burnt out vehicles they wanted, or, still burning, or disabled etc.

I see what you are getting at tho, the raw map itself as an object

[womble]

Scenario designers can pre-position all the burnt out vehicles they wanted, or, still burning, or disabled etc.

'Tis true, but they don't look wrecked. They're just the normal model with open hatches, a droopy main gun and smoke and flames "pouring" out. It'd be nice for there to be flavour objects which show rather more catastrophic effects, even if those effects can't be displayed on "live" (or formerly so) wrecks generated during the fight.

[Rake]

The fog in CMx2 is very thin, not really comparable to a forest fire. Well, maybe if you're a hundred miles downwind of the fire

Truth! This one ran me out of my home for four days back in '07. As the video shows, there were times when the smoke blacked out the sun.

[Michael Emrys]

I don't think the fog setting would do it. Not unless BFC comes up with a thicker fog like was in CM1.

In any event, CM probably should have a very thick fog setting available anyway. I recall driving through Topanga Canyon one night and not being able to see farther than the next stripe in the road. I understand that London can have even thicker fogs.

Michael

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Thankfully London was never invaded in WWII... except by Yanks of course!

Regards

KR

[Michael Emrys]

Thankfully London was never invaded in WWII... except by Yanks of course!

And Canadians, Poles, and sundry other friends and acquaintances. I understand that the "girls" of Picadilly Circus did a land rush business in the fog.

Michael

[LUCASWILLEN05]

You can of course turn the smoke option off.

I would like to see burning buildings as, if I remember correctly you could in the original CM.

Regarding mist/fog and for that matter weather in general this is one feature I have never been happy with from a visual perspective. Would like to see this improved but made adjustable to suit the varying quality of graphics cards.