Mike D Posted August 21, 1999 Share Posted August 21, 1999 BTS, I know this is a really dumb question. But how truly 3d are the trees, buildings, etc. going to be as you move around in CM? What I'm getting at is in many games they look 3d (panzer elite for example), but in reality when one approachs them they start to appear as more of a flat facade. Then, as you move through them (often times right through the side of a building wall for example in Panzer Elite) it instantaneosly feels as if you've just moved through a transparent wall. All of a sudden your on the other side of the supposed trees / wall and all you see are the terrain features on the opposite side of the "majical curtain" representing that feature. If you turn back around it appears once again as if you are staring back a "flat" looking scenary wall of trees, building wall, etc. Having not seen CM in person and not having any screen shots with a camera attached to a unit attempting to move through such features its kinda hard to tell how well CM stacks up against some of the other games out there. To be quite honest w/ you I was surprised that Panzer Elite even allowed tanks to drive right through building walls and out the other side as if the didn't even really exist. They did at least have the insight to turn the building into rubble behind the overrunning tank. But the graphics as you moved through the building in your tank were as described above. Same if you moved through trees, or other similar terrain features. Of course, this doesn't even touch the subject of whether, or not, the tank should have even been able to drive right through the house in the first place which is totally unrealistic to begin with IMHO. In any event, I certainly hope CM has a better 3d representation of trees, buildings, etc. than those depicted in Panzer Elite, Over the Rhine, or some of the 3d golf games that I've seen. Mike D aka Mikester Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted August 21, 1999 Share Posted August 21, 1999 We haven't played Panzer Elite ourselves, but we have it on VERY good authority that our trees look MUCH better. MUCH MUCH better But the underlying problem you mention (cardboard) is in CM all over the place. It is in ALL 3D games ALL over the place. It HAS to be that way. Each and every little thing has to be simulated with a combo of polygons and textures. The more polygons, the slower the game. The more textures the more VRAM needed. If you are making a static picture, or a very small visual display, you can go nuts with polygons and textures. But when you are trying to simulate a big space (say, a 90000sqm map with 3000 men and vehicles on it...) you have to watch each and everything you do VERY carefully. A single tree in CM is made up of 2 polygons (rectangle) with a texture stretched over it. As you rotate the camera around the tree does not rotate, but rather pivots in place and remains facing you. This is called "posterboarding" or similar. If there is only one tree in front of you it is noticable, but when you are amungst many, it isn't noticable at all. In any case, it is noticable only to the extent that you are staring right at it and saying "gee, it doesn't move" So why MUST trees be kept so simple and flat? Well, because there can be thousands of trees on the screen at once. Even at 2 polygons per tree, this is enough to make the framerate drop to VERY low levels on less beefy machines (hence the option to toggle tree density). To make a true 3D tree you would probably need about 40 polygons to make it look at least half way decent. So it ain't going to happen PE uses another method, that makes trees look pretty realistic at med-far distance, but totally silly at close. The way CM does trees look fantastic at med-far distance, and perfectlly fine up close. So why are they doing it they way they are? No clue Other elements in CM are like this as well. A house can be driven through by a tank, even though it really isn't. This is because you will generally play with graphics larger than 1:1 scale. This means that a tank next to a house in 1:1 scale has no visual conflict, but an enlarged vehicle might visually "drive through" the side or corner simply because its graphical representation is larger than its real world footprint. There is NO way to code around this, except to play at 1:1 scale. And as we have pointed out before, this is NOT a practical way to play the game. Monitors are only 72dpi, which is about 3 to 4 times too low res to play at 1:1 scale effectively. In other words, a whole tank might show up as 2 pixels, and a whole squad as none. IBM supposedly has a 300dpi monitor in the works, and we would LOVE to have everybody run out and buy one when they eventually are released So in short... much of what you don't want to see in a 3D game is going to be in CM, just as it is in every other 3D game. It has to be, like it or not. We can only do so much with hardware, and it really is the hardware that is holding 3D gaming back from getting more towards realism. This is still true even though 3D technology is getting exponentially better each and every year. We figure it will be about 5 more years before we get the kind of hardware we really want. Yes, it is that far away (at least!). However, we still think CM looks better than the others out there! So inbetween now and 5 years from now, enjoy what can be done Steve [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 08-21-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike D Posted August 22, 1999 Author Share Posted August 22, 1999 Steve, Thanks for the lengthy and detailed reply. I was kind of afraid that CM was going to suffer from this phenomena, but hopeful that you guys might have found a way around it. Your explanation of why this isn't possbile is entirely understandable. Guess I'll just have to wait for a couple of years for the 2500Mhz Pentium cpu's and video cards w/ 256MB of ram running at 1000Mhz to come out. Then we can all have some real fun!!! Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted August 22, 1999 Share Posted August 22, 1999 1Ghz chips are due out about mide to late next year, if I recall correctly. The top version of windows 2000 (is it called workstation, I dont remember now?) apparently supports up to 32 processors, hehe. Hmmm, if youve got about 1/2 of a million to blow I think you should be able to get something worked out there On a slightly more serious not, the standard version of 2000 (hehe, called professional I think) has support for 2 processors, which opens interesting possabilities. Instead of having to upgrade to a new processor, youll be able to add another....I did say slightly though, this does all rely on it being released one day, and it being pretty bugless in its first release *cough*... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts