Graphical improvements in the future?

[Rokko]

Hi folks,

Combat Mission BN came out more than two years ago but is still going strong having dozens of scenarios I have yet to play or want to replay and plans are to keep the game going in the future by further upgrading it as the CMx2 engine progresses with further titles.

So I was wondering, are there plans to also improve graphical aspects like textures and models? Especially ground textures appear pretty lo-res to me by now and with gamer PCs getting better and better it should be possible to up texture resolution at least for some textures every now and then I'd expect, for instance with engine upgrades.

Another aspect are some of the soldier models and textures. I find the American and especially the Italian ones (in CMFI) very good, but the German ones particularly don't look very great anymore. The collar textures are distorted, rank insignia often looks blurred, camo patterns don't match up at limb joints etc. so there I also see some room for improvement.

[phil stanbridge]

I think BFC are always looking to improve things. But don't forget there is far more to the game than just the graphics and with a game such as this, scalability is key. For what it's worth I actually rate the graphics as they are now. They are clear and well defined, and with ansitropic filtering enabled they look great.

[womble]

There are quite a few mods around which improve on the current paint jobs for vehicles and environmental effects at least. I'm pretty sure there are "grass mods" too.

[Wodin]

When people question the graphics in CMx2, I point a finger to the mod forum section and say one word..."Aris"

[Rokko]

I have no problem with the textures per se and I don't really bother with downloading mods. I am arguing that the texture RESOLUTION could be upped in some instances. Vehicle, weapon and (in many cases) soldier models and textures are perfectly fine as they are. But for upcoming releases like Bagration (which I believe will come as version 3.0 of the engine) it would be kinda lame if it featured the same old low-res gras texture that came with CMBN back in 2011. Within a two year timeframe the computer specs of the average customer improve, so why not improve ingame graphics as and port them back for older games in the engine upgrades that cost like 10$ as well. And I'm not saying that the graphics haven't improved in those two years because they have improved a lot, but the superficial stuff like textures has stayed the same.

Also, if I remember correctly BF plans to make rank insignia on the soldiers' textures coherent with the ranks assigned internally that you can see in the unit panel, with the current soldier model, at least the German one, that would just not be worth the effort because rank insignia on German infantry models mostly look plain awefull.

[weapon2010]

Phil

How do I enable ansitropic filtering ?

[The Steppenwulf]

The texture resolutiion of stock files has been replaced in modded terrain files with a broad selection of HD textures. Thus, ignorance of the repository and the huge enhancements provided by modded files but requesting better visuals is an odd stance to take. Just go see first before making the argument. Anyway, compared with CoH my CM visuals compare at least as well - with a certain authentic aesthetic that carries a charm all of its own.

Besides that it should be considered that there are other game features that come before prettiness; with high res graphics we must accept smaller battles with smaller forces. That's not my preference. I'd prefer to see the capacity for 4 x 4 miultiplayer battles beng fully realised, way before DirectX 11 style graphical quality.

[Rokko]

COH is seven years old, I'd expect a 2011 game to look better than a 2006 one in any way, assuming you mean the 1st installment.

Also I am well aware of the repository and, in fact, have also contributed to it. I know of the various terrain mods. Of those only Aris' one has a higher resolution alternative grass textures. But I find none of the terrain texture packs so far to be visually pleasing. They may have a few textures that look better than stock ones when reviewd individually, but the textures are not well attuned to each other or to other stock textures they leave unchanged, so they fail to create a coherent picture, at least in my mind which is why I prefer stock textures, which are all made to concert with all the other textures.

[phil stanbridge]

I'm guessing you will be disappointed then Rokko. Not that any of us know what is around the corner, but I doubt very much that significant improvements in graphics will be forthcoming with the Eastern front title.

As I said above, it is all to do with scalability and a certain amount of compromise. Let's not forget that CM is very bespoke. From tiny engagements up to huge battalion on battalion battles and more, all modeled 1:1. The graphics engine is fundamental to how the game is perceived of course, and any significant changes in that department surely would require engine rewrites. If we see anything in that department it would be an upgrade rather than a complete rewrite. A rewrite would require a huge investment in time and money. I'm sure BFC will want to address the DirectX/OpenGL change in due course, but I'm also positive that is not a priority.

[Rokko]

In fact there have been pretty major updates to the graphics engine in the last two years according to BFC, like the introduction on normal maps, shading improvements, fog improvements, etc.

What I am arguing for are in fact more superficial improvements that (I assume) would require little to no code rewriting.

[phil stanbridge]

I'm no programmer Rokko, but maybe you assume wrong? Who knows eh

[Offshoot]

What I am arguing for are in fact more superficial improvements that (I assume) would require little to no code rewriting.

Unless there is an engine limit to the size of the textures, any of the current textures could be replaced with higher res ones if your PC is capable of handling them. Don't be under the illusion though that redoing textures at higher res is a superficial job just because it doesn't involve coding. This is especially so if you want cohesion between the textures, which would mean one person doing them all or a team working under an art supervisor.

As to that anyway, I really like Aris's high-res terrain mod, which I think looks fantastic, especially with Rambler's folliage mod. The one thing that could really improve the terrain is to enable normal mapping for it, but that might be a resource sink too far.

[The Steppenwulf]

What I am arguing for are in fact more superficial improvements that (I assume) would require little to no code rewriting.

But which would push greater demands onto memory - a precious resource in any 32 bit game, but least of all one which is handling a large number of different game objects/entities.

[MikeyD]

I suspect for 'superficial improvements' of that sort BFC would first need to kill off the current game artists and hire a whole new batch. Which isn't entirely unlikely, Eastern Front is liable to kill us all off anyway. There's three big constraints on generating art - budget, time and manpower. The big game houses can assign entire departments to massage particular aspects of a piece of artwork. If you assembled all BFC artists in one room (which would be difficult because they're literally spread around the globe) you might have enough people assembled to play a round of poker... if you included the freelancers. BFC is 'The little game engine that could' - I think I can, I think I can

[Jock Tamson]

But which would push greater demands onto memory - a precious resource in any 32 bit game, but least of all one which is handling a large number of different game objects/entities.

I've just played a few turns of one of the Huge CMBN CW battles - the application is using under 900MB.

[Macisle]

I think the current CM series has reached a point where better graphics and more animations need to actually be the top priority going forward.

As things stand, the only gameplay feature on my "critical" list is allowing infantry heavy weapon teams like ATG crews to bail and re-crew their weapons. Other than that, I'd really like to see triggers added to the Mission Editor.

The gameplay itself is damn awesome at this point. However, after spending recent months playing IFL1944 & Inv44 (which can be made to "ballpark" CMx2 gameplay, if you learn the editor), the fact is, I have a hard time re-adapting to CM's visuals (sounds are fine).

As I've said before, I understand and accept all the reasons for CM's graphics/anims being the way they are and why comparing them to FPS games is apples to oranges. And, I've always defended them on those grounds. However, as I said at the beginning of this post, I think it's time to make them the main priority for improvement.

The yardstick is always moving and though CM can never have "cutting edge" graphics, it does need to keep moving forward. I think gameplay features have come far enough along that more resources can go to the visuals.

(-Kinda' surprised I feel this way, but it's my honest opinion at this point.)

[Vinnart]

I would really like to see the rocky areas become more 3D. Even CMx1's were more 3D, and wouldn't mind a similiar look for Cmx2.

[Buzz]

I've just played a few turns of one of the Huge CMBN CW battles - the application is using under 900MB.

Wittmann's Swords at Villers Bocage (2013-11-21)

A very large map (around 1.5km wide by nearly 3km long).

Activity Monitor showed CMBN was using @ 2.8 GB of memory for game.

Mac Pro 2 X 2.26 GHz Quad-Core

ATI Radeon HD 4870 512 MB

DELL U2713HM Display

1920 X 1080p Resolution

[Rokko]

Why the heck would higher res textures require new texture artists? I am NOT arguing for a completely new art style for the game, far from it. Higher filesizes and more polygon counts for the models. Why should the same 2D artist that created the relatively low-res terrain textures (by 2013/2014 standards) not be able to create higher res versions of the same textures? Actually I believe that probably high res versions are created at first and then downscaled for the sake of performance and ressource/memory use.

Also, it is completely normal for a newer game to have better graphics than its predecessor so I don't really get what the fuzz is about.

[poesel]

I'm fine with the graphics as they are. Look at the screenshot section - brilliant pictures all over the place (photoshopped and not).

Curved roads would be nice.

[TheVulture]

Why the heck would higher res textures require new texture artists? I am NOT arguing for a completely new art style for the game, far from it. Higher filesizes and more polygon counts for the models. Why should the same 2D artist that created the relatively low-res terrain textures (by 2013/2014 standards) not be able to create higher res versions of the same textures?

They are perfectly able to create higher res textures. It's just that it takes longer to produce a higher res texture, so to get the same number of textures in game in the same time requires more artists.

Actually I believe that probably high res versions are created at first and then downscaled for the sake of performance and resource/memory use.

That's very variable. Any artists who has been stung by having to redo a whole bunch of textures in higher resolution will probably end up adopting a policy of creating source at at higher res and then scaling it down as it is exported into the game data. Particularly when there is ambiguity about the size that certain things are going to appear on screen. But it is by no means universal, and also depends on time constraints etc. - making the higher res textures in the first place takes more time.

And in the world of computer games, things are almost never as straightforward as you think; there can be all sorts of obscure technical reasons why certain limits exist.

[nachinus]

Curved roads would be nice.

Indeed!.

If only one visual improvement was ever to be made I'd vote for 'rounding' angles in terrain, disguising somehow its squared nature (unavoidable on account on CMx2 being an action squares based engine). I know, neverhteless, that this would be a massive endeavour.

[Michael Emrys]

I'm fine with the graphics as they are. Look at the screenshot section - brilliant pictures all over the place (photoshopped and not).

Curved roads would be nice.

I agree. Everybody is entitled to their own priorities and tastes, but for me the graphics are more than acceptable, especially now with improved processing. I would welcome further improvements, but those are definitely not at the top of my wish list. Actually, once I get a game going I seldom take much notice of them, I am so caught up in the action.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Indeed!.

If only one visual improvement was ever to be made I'd vote for 'rounding' angles in terrain, disguising somehow its squared nature (unavoidable on account on CMx2 being an action squares based engine). I know, neverhteless, that this would be a massive endeavour.

Agreed. Switching to a hex grid instead of squares might help some of that, but it would be a profound, fundamental change in the game that might require rewriting huge quantities of code. The kind of thing you'd put off until you were ready to do a massive rewrite anyway, such as the move from CMx1 to x2.

Michael

[togi]

I prefer to be corrected the crappy bocage and tree visuals