Ben Galanti Posted May 10, 1999 Share Posted May 10, 1999 There are two new screenshots at the Inside Mac Games website www.imgmagazine.com . They're on today's news page. Just thought I'd pass the tip on for the PC gamers who might miss 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted May 10, 1999 Share Posted May 10, 1999 Cool stuff. Thanks Ben. Say, what caused the BIG explosions on the right screenshot? ALso, the burning THING doesn't seem to be a tank? What is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Deych Posted May 10, 1999 Share Posted May 10, 1999 Just a quick comment on those screen shots... that smoke looks awefully thick. Any plans to thin it out a bit? [This message has been edited by Greg Deych (edited 05-10-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRourke Posted May 10, 1999 Share Posted May 10, 1999 I'll settle for improvement in the smoke until CM2:EF. Translucency and atmospheric interaction (aka wind) effects would be really really cool, but the idea of bt going back to work on the graphics more is just too much for my impatient self to take. Heck, its all I can do to not scream "I DON'T CARE IF ITS ALPHA, JUST RELEASE IT NOW!!! GIMMEE GIMEE GIMMEE GIMMEE GIMMEE GIMMEE". I think doing that would really freak my roommate out. Still can't get over how good those trees look. Wargaming has come along way since "Fields of Fire" (anyone remember that?). Chris R Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDW Posted May 10, 1999 Share Posted May 10, 1999 Steve, yet another graphics question from me... I noticed in the "righthand" screenshot at the Mac site that the hill on the right hand side of the shot had patches of trees on it. I could tell it was a hill becuase the color of the "grass" was lighter than the lower terrain. however, I notice that whereever a patch of trees was placed, the grass under the trees was very dark. So what I am wondering is if you make a hill that is totally covered with trees if you will still be able to tell that it is a hill still? Wow. That was a strange sentence. Well I think you know what I am asking. thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted May 11, 1999 Share Posted May 11, 1999 Possible explosion cause... Check out the trees towards the bottom center of the screenshot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted May 11, 1999 Share Posted May 11, 1999 Both shots are of a mixed US force trying a frontal assault against a strongly defended German pillbox line (dumb, but it makes for nice screenshots). There are about 4 pillboxes, three of which are just wooden MG nests, but in the center is a concrete one with an 88AT in it (Moon, that is your "thing"). Supporting infantry, HMGs, and a Panzerschreck team are also located around the line. You can also see a line of barbed wire running in front of it. The US assulated with only 2 platoons of infantry, 7 tanks, and some heavy weapons. Had I really been playing this, I would have put in a BUNCH more US infantry. This was a totally unfair fight. Even still, the airstrikes provided enough cover that 2 US squads managed to get into the defensive line. Given time they MIGHT have been able to take control of at least the main pillbox. However, the losses were huge! Rod you have VERY good eyes The big explosions are from some Allied plane that just soared overhead and unleashed a bunch of rockets on the main German pillbox. It didn't cause any damage, but it sure did make the infantry next to it think twice about coming out of their foxholes! A later strike had one rocket fall away from the pack and land in front of a house occupied by US troops. Nobody was hurt, but they didn't like it much. Greg, the smoke has to remain "thick" as it can not be made translucent. CPU and graphics cards would choke on it. By the end of that battle there were something like 10 plumes of smoke, so keep in mind that what might be possible for one plume isn't possible for 10. BDW, the forest "floor" is needed to let you know where the woods begin and end. You can turn off trees altogether (which is good to do sometimes), so there must be some graphical representation that doesn't require trees. We *wish* we could have a different color of the forest floor for each height, but we did the math and can not afford the VRAM for this. Man, if you think YOU guys want us to support 32MB cards to the fullest, just think how we feel! The next version of CM will most likely double the min. VRAM requirements from 4 to at least 8, possibly even 16. But since this is still at least 1.5 years away, no sense thinking about it beyond that. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted May 11, 1999 Share Posted May 11, 1999 88AT pillboxes... geez, these things are deadly... As to the different woods elevations: since CM is 3D you just have to change your viewing angle from overhead to basically any other position and the hills are clearly visible, no matter what color they have. As far as I remember the reason you see different shades of green on hills is because of the overhead view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike D Posted May 13, 1999 Share Posted May 13, 1999 Steve, What do we see when we turn the trees off? Close Combat has always displayed at least the trunk of the tree (kinda look like little tree stumps all over the place in the top down view). This is great because you can see your unit alot more cleartly in the forest, but you also still know where the trees are, how thick the clumps of them are, etc. Will we still be able to see where the trees were if we turn them off in CM? If not, you might want to think about this and see if it would be possible to display a short tree stump at least when they are turned off, or something. Mike D aka Mikester Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted May 13, 1999 Share Posted May 13, 1999 When trees are turned off all you see is the forest "floor". No tree representations at all beyond that. Unlike CC we don't track individual trees for any purpose, so seeing a tree trunk means nothing in terms of game play. CM uses aproximated tree cover. The reason why we don't simulate individual trees is simply due to scale. On a typical map the tree count in real life would be hundreds (sparse forest) to many thousands (thick forest). Plus, all calculations in CM are 3D, unlike CC's 2D LOS. CC's scale is also quite different and that allows them to do individual trees, though I am curious to see how they do the Bulge. The realistic tree count is going to be a lot higher for that theater than in any of the 3 previous games. Steve [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 05-13-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts