Guest PeterNZ Posted October 24, 1999 Share Posted October 24, 1999 Ok. Before i start, i'm not going to get into any debate about OSCAR or anything, cos i agree with what everyone else has stated, however, having a think lying in bed last night, i reckon i've worked out what he was trying to ask, and my guess is the question is one that others might think, so raising it might be usefull! I reckon i've already worked out the answer too, but i'll post anyways for others benefit ? What i think the question was is: "if you have the scale set to say 400% and you get a tank to fire, at 400% a tank might be able to in theory, see over say, a little hill, which at 100% scale it wouldn't be able to see over, so how does the game handle it?" My guess is that no, the game engine treats all units as if they are at 100% scale for LOS and other firring issues. My other guess is that due to the auto-scalability of scale, that as you get in close to see and move a unit it will automatically become 100% to scale, or close enough so that working out LOS by sight and common sense will be easy enough. I think it's an interesting question, which is fairly self-evidently answered.. But of course, some people will not think things through and get the wrong end of the stick. so to repeat my understanding of it. The game engine treats all units as being too scale, for LOS and firring and movign purposes, but that the player can change the scale without affecting the gameplay. You might end up seeing something from a zoomed back view like a huge tank next to a tiny building but when you get close you'll see the more appropriate scale, and that the tank doesn't dwarf the building. My second assumption is that most firring and move orders are done with a combination of zoomed in and a zoomed out view, so that it'd be difficult to let the large scale views confuse you. I also think that no doubt, if you watched and played the entire game from a zoomed out and large scale view the game would look kinda weird, revenge of the 50ft tank anyone? But who is going to play the game like that? Getting in close, using the views and scale interchangably is what it's all about, and no doubt the better players will use these methods to get good hull-down, LOS and ambush positions eh? PeterNZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Davie Posted October 24, 1999 Share Posted October 24, 1999 Peter; I will play the game exclusively from a 2d top down perspective. 3D does not do anything for me. Quite simply I can not play Quake, DOOM, Duke, etc because I puke. SO, to answer you I will not be getting down and dirty in the close up 3d points of view. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PeterNZ Posted October 24, 1999 Share Posted October 24, 1999 Motion sickness sucks eh!? Glad I don't suffer from it. Almost did when Doom II first came out, and playing Descent II drunk hehe I think you're going to have to use the 3d views to some degree.. i mean, you won't have to have motion like a fps, but i tihnk looking over your tanks shoulder and at surrounding terrain will be usefull? PeterNZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Davie Posted October 24, 1999 Share Posted October 24, 1999 Peter; no, I will not have to use the 3d views to any extent at all (note; if someoen really wishes to engage me in a discussion of almost theological proportions about the relative merits of 2d .vs. 3d please send it to my email ). I've board gamed since '68, table gamed since the early 70's and computer gamed since I could weasel onto a card punched main frame. I haven't played a 3d wargame yet, so why should I *have* to know. I am assuming that the engine of Combat Mission is as flexible as Battlefront claims and I have no reason to disagree as of yet. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted October 24, 1999 Share Posted October 24, 1999 Thomas - when I bought a Playstation as a present for a cousin of mine, we checked it out and played one of those FPS (was it Half-life or something? Dunno) Anyway, I couldn't play for longer than half an hour because I has to puke and started feeling dizzy, so I know what you mean. However, I have been playing CM for 12 hours without a break often in the last few months, and nothing like this happens. Reason is: although you CAN race down the battlefield like in an FPS, most of the time you simply place the camera here and watch, then move it elsewhere and watch. Even if you lock the camera behind a tank or an infantry squad, the screen is still moving much slower than in FPS games, so I believe you will find out that in CM motion sickness is not going to be your problem. But, of course, the time to check it out for you is very close... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest L Tankersley Posted October 24, 1999 Share Posted October 24, 1999 On the motion sickness front...I don't suffer from it (at least not when sitting at a computer ) but I know a couple of people that do get it. And I know one that is fine _playing_ a FPS, but when watching someone else play quickly gets green around the gills - interesting the difference that being in control and being able to anticipate how the display will change can help. As far as ... he who shall not be named's questions, Peter, I agree that what you pointed out was indeed one of the issues he was trying to bring up. I think another was something along the lines of "if there is any abstraction of position or terrain AT ALL within the underlying ('LOS') engine, then the use of a 3D engine is misleading and in fact less 'accurate' than a 2D hex-based game which acknowledges its inherent abstractions." I disagree with this position, although I admit it's not laughable on the face of it and I can see how a neutral observer might get the wrong idea, so I'll briefly attempt to answer it: First, abstraction is everywhere. The only way to avoid abstraction in simulation and modeling in a wargame such as CM is to take two armies, equip them with WWII armament and vehicles, and bash them into one another on the field of battle. [Even that won't remove all the abstractions, but it's a start.] Since we cannot avoid abstraction in wargaming, we need to decide the scope of the game we're building and choose what will be abstracted and what will be explicitly modeled to bring out the issues and nuances we are most interested in. In CM's case, the goal is a game that presents the player with squads, teams and vehicles as maneuver units, and which attempts to more accurately and explicitly model certain things such as armor penetration, terrain effects, turret and vehicle rotation rates, and free rotation (that is, unconstrained by the artificial limits of a hexagon or other grid). You could argue that the "more accurate" CM armor penetration model remains an abstraction, since a) every factor affecting penetration has probably not been addressed (I'm no expert, and I don't know _what_ CM tracks, but it wouldn't surprise me if for example ambient temperature had an effect and wasn't factored into the penetration algorithm) and there are acknowledged abstractions such as the "critical hit" chance which reduces the effective armor thickness for a small percentage of shots against a target. Why are some things abstracted and others not? Well, probably because of the availability (or lack thereof) of data. I think in past threads discussing the critical hit implementation a few specific vehicles were discussed. To implement the actual vulnerable locations on a vehicle-by-vehicle basis would no doubt be time- and cost-prohibitive from BTS's perspective, even if accurate data detailing these locations for all of the vehicles they plan to provide was available. So it makes sense to abstract that, based on some data that _is_ available, and generalize to the rest of the vehicles. Similarly, there's been talk recently of US 76mm rounds shattering on impact rather than penetrating. I doubt CM is tracking the ammo lot numbers or the quality of each round; that's a lot of data to carry arround for very little benefit. Instead I imagine that when an ammo type that was susceptible to this sort of defect is used, there's a probability function used to see whether it affects that particular round. Also, I think (based on various screenshots of data screens as well as a bit of thought about the details involved) that armor thickness in CM is also abstracted (albeit to a lesser degree than in any other game I'm aware of). The exact thickness of every square centimeter of armor is _not_ explicitly addressed in CM, I'll bet. It's just not practical. There are probably 8, or 12, or 20, or however many different armor values and slope angles stored for various portions of the vehicle. When a hit is scored, a determination is made which value to use. Maybe some interpolation is done between the values. Certainly angle of incidence and armor slope is accounted for. Is this 100% accurate? Well, no. But it's a reasonable compromise, and it is sufficient to support the 3D, independent position tracking that is a big feature of CM. I've gone on for rather longer than I had intended, so I'll wrap this up: PiTS has abstractions. CM has abstractions. EVERY war game has abstractions. Abstractions are good. But the particular things you model, and the level to which you model them, affect how the game plays. If you think something that has been abstracted needs to be modeled explicitly, or dispute the validity of a given abstraction, that's fine. Looking at what I know of CM, I think that BTS has come remarkably close to building the game that _I_ would have if I were writing a WWII wargame. By and large, they've included the things I would have included, and the choices to leave things out have seemed reasonable, so I'm looking forward to the game. Of course, the proof is in the pudding, and your mileage may vary. Leland J. Tankersley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 25, 1999 Share Posted October 25, 1999 Peter, that was indeed one of the intial lines of "thought". However, many posters (including Charles twice and myself once) explicitly stated that visual representation (i.e. polygons) has nothing to do with the simulation. So, having a 400% scalled up unit doesn't have any bearing on the game system at all. This misconception that visuals need to be tied to the game engine is a common, but silly (when you look at it) notion. A traditional 2D "chit" game isn't question in this regard, so why must CM? I mean, nobody would suggest that an infantry "chit" in a game like PitS is simulated as an opject with 4 perfectly laid out sides, no height, and always with the same orientation on the map, right? Our theory is that CM's 3D einvironment makes it APPEAR that 1:1 graphics and game engine unity is actually going on, which is most certainly not. Shells in flight are about the only thing that is, but this is an exception. Leland is absolutely correct about abstraction. Not only is it in every wargame out there (including the ones that train armies for real), but it *has* to be in there. Programming time, money, CPU cycles, etc. are all finite and not anywhere near up to the task of doing a completely accurate representation of the world. As far as the data bit goes, Leland, if you only knew how right you are Research materials are FULL of holes, gaps, and outright errors. It isn't like we can even check most of this stuff. I mean, we would LOVE to drive a King Tiger and check out the turret rotation speed ourselves, see how fast the gun can elevation, use ultra sound to find all the various weak spots, etc. This is not only impractical, but impossible to do. So we have to go with what the books say, and when there isn't anything in there, we take our best HIGHLY educated guess. An example is artillery accuracy for a given gun. If anybody thinks there is data for this, think again. The military rates things in such broad ways. "X gun performed to expectations". If we are lucky we can find out what those expectations were, but generally this stuff simply doesn't exist. So, as Leland says... abstractions are everywere, in every game, and are here to stay. The differnce should be one of realitive comparison (i.e. game vs. game), since that is the only MEANINGFUL one to do. In this sense CM is head and shoulders above all others, by a wide margin. And very soon we won't need to keep asking you to take it on faith that we are correct. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PeterNZ Posted October 25, 1999 Share Posted October 25, 1999 I thought that might be the case, BTS. Thanks for reclarifying it. I hope he's read i and felt his question has been answered, but i don't think he will, o well! Anyway, bring on the demo mmmm demo! So many people are waiting.. I want, I want! .. the wait is killing me PeterNz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted October 25, 1999 Share Posted October 25, 1999 You guys talking about motion sickness while playing FPS are SERIOUS! I honestly thought my parents and older friends were BS'ing me when they said they get sick after playing FPS. I don't know maybe it has something to do with being raised on anime, Nintendo, and cable TV but I have never suffered from motion sickness while using a computer (or even a console system for that matter). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom punkrawk Posted October 25, 1999 Share Posted October 25, 1999 The only time I've ever gotten motion sickness on a FPS was when I was playing Doom and put the screen on the smallest it would go so it would run faster.....and I was sick at the time too..but other than that I've never gotten motion sickness from games..but man, those tire swings...after about two turns.I'm ready to barf... ------------------ We ain't got no place to go,let's go to a punk rawk show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guachi Posted October 25, 1999 Share Posted October 25, 1999 When I first got X-Wing, my roommates and I found ourselves dodging out of the way of incoming TIE fighters. Man I loved that game. I bought a joystick and a soundcard just to play that game. We even rigged up a costume like in the movies with helmet and gloves and stuff. (Okay, the costume didn't really look anything like the real thing) Hey, that gives me an idea. Maybe for Christmas I'll try to get some WWII uniforms... I have a book on SS uniforms and they look REALLY cool. Although that might be getting a little too immersed in the game. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Davie Posted October 25, 1999 Share Posted October 25, 1999 Apocal; no I'm not joking about the motion sickness when playing fps games. And in my opinion, it's got nothing to do with being raised on adifferent generation of games; I think it is just individual variation. If I get a visual clue (on screen for example) that I am moving, but my body does not perceive that motion actually occuring I puke. And as an aside, I'm not particularly hopeful that the slow panning down the battlefield (as opposed to rapid fire fps playing) is going to help all that much. But heck, I have the top down perspective, and that *is* what I want. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mikeman Posted October 25, 1999 Share Posted October 25, 1999 Tom, I wonder if playing the game ONLY using the vertical view will hamper you in any way? I would think you might be operating at a disadvantage. Could you miss something that others might notice using other views? It will be interesting to fine out. Mikeman out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Preacher Posted October 25, 1999 Share Posted October 25, 1999 He's definitely not kidding. I'm an FPS puker, too. I've experienced times where a long session at the 'puter playing an FPS has affected me for DAYS. It's no joke. Blech... Preacher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Preacher Posted October 25, 1999 Share Posted October 25, 1999 Isn't interesting that a discussion thread about "a certain person" has turned into a discussion of vomiting? Interesting... Preacher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Davie Posted October 25, 1999 Share Posted October 25, 1999 Mikeman; my honest opinion is that I will be operating at a distinct advantage by using an exclusively top down perspective. Of course, this can only be born out when the game/beta arrives, but my rationale is that I am pushing lines of force along a map (which by its very definition is 2d). I would contend that it is impossible to do this accurately if using an exclusive 3d mode. And I really think that if you use a mixed 2d/3d mode you will be missing the big picture (which is, I think what I will be concentrating upon). Anyway, sorry to get long winded, but if the LOS and other in game tools work as well in the 2d mode as they will in the 3d mode, no I won't be at any disadvantage at all. Mind you, I am making a very large assumption that there will be equivalent on screen cues, question marks and the like in 2d mode just as I've seen in some of the 3d screenshots. If there are, I don't anticipate any problems. Tom off topic ps The Perfect Martini -1.5 oz Bombay Sapphire Gin -0.25 oz Noily Prat Extra Dry Vermouth Put in a shaker with 4 ice cubes and a twist of lemon. Shaken until outside is frosted. Strain into appropriate glass. Garnish with a twist of lemon or pimento stuffed olive. Eh, what can I say....I'm on a martini kick at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom punkrawk Posted October 25, 1999 Share Posted October 25, 1999 Thomas,I believe nothing be off topic now.We could talk about the smell that comes from one's shoe and we'd get a discussion about.That's what's nice about this place,anything you bring up, someone will respond. ------------------ We ain't got no place to go,let's go to a punk rawk show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted October 25, 1999 Share Posted October 25, 1999 I have never heard of a person under 28 with FPS motion sickness (the ones older than that I thought were BS'ing me). Even so, thats a pretty strange afflication (but apparently not too rare among wargamers). As someone who has commanded troops (real people, not AI) in a 2D/3D environment (Starsiege: Tribes) I can say that mixing these environments together is really helpful for making command decisions. 3D is good for getting a better feel of the terrain, and 2D is good for keeping track of your men. They both have advantages and disadvantages, but if you use them intelligently the advantages will nullify the the disadvantages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted October 25, 1999 Share Posted October 25, 1999 Just to set this straight because it might be misleading for some people: there is really no 2D mode in the game. Everything is 3D. What Thomas means is a top-down view on the map. However, the game remains 3D (e.g. when vehicles go uphill, you will see their front part rise even in top-down mode) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest R Cunningham Posted October 25, 1999 Share Posted October 25, 1999 Re: FPS induced vomiting..... I'm beyond Apocal's window of safety (I'm 31) and I was never much of a FPS guy until Half-life. I played a little Wolfenstein years ago and had no problems. I play Half-life with no problems. I've played Doom and the various Quake demos without a hitch. And then I downloaded a updated Wolfenstein for Windows 95/98 (for nostalgia) and after about 10 minutes I'd get this nausea and I'd have to go lay down. I guess it is not a good idea to run the maze on a PII 266 when the game was originally meant to run on a 386/25. I do know a guy who is in the "nintendo safe" (he's 25)age bracket who says if he plays an FPS he'll barf but I've watched him play Hidden and Dangerous without a hitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenSp Posted October 25, 1999 Share Posted October 25, 1999 Thomas: I can't play FPS either because I get motion sickness too. This hapened while trying Half-Life and Dark Project, and so I never even tried one of the other ones. However, having read all the great reviews about Rogue Spear, how much planning was involved and how realistic it is, I decided to give it a try and I was pleasantly surprised to find that I could play this one without problems. I guess one of the factors is the speed of the motion. Rogue Spear is a lot slower that the other "action-oriented" games. I suppose you will be able to play Combat Mission strictly from a top down perspective, but I can't find a reason why I should miss all the great pictures from another perspective if there is no downside to it. To be honest, I never understood why wargamers still had to go with that look of cardboard wargames when there are more than enough resources for details, realism AND great graphics. [This message has been edited by BenSp (edited 10-25-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest L Tankersley Posted October 25, 1999 Share Posted October 25, 1999 Actually, Thomas, I wonder if CM would actually induce motion-sickness in you at all. As you say, this is caused by having the visual perception of motion not match up with your physical perception. But I think in most cases while watching a CM movie, your viewpoint is fixed, and you watch the action take place in front of you. If you don't get sick watching a WWII movie, I'd think you'd be ok (as long as you don't tether the camera to a tank turret or something). But just to be safe, use caution and have a bucket handy. The prime disadvantage I can think of to sticking solely to the "view from on high" has to do with LOS, in particular gauging elevation changes and their effects on cover and visibility. Leland J. Tankersley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold Jones Posted October 25, 1999 Share Posted October 25, 1999 I think that people are confusing the orders phase and the action phase. During the orders phase (if I understand it correctly) you will be able to pan around the map checking LOS and such. For most people this shouldn't cause motion sickness since you can set the camera angle (for example set the view to directly overhead) to avoid a first person view. To eyeball the LOS you pan over to the unit or position and then select the camera angle that represents the unit's viewing level, this should allow even the most sensitive person to use all of the benefits of the 3D view without having to worry about getting sick. During the action phase you just don't watch the movie from the unit perspective. During the replay the 3D stuff is just eye candy since the action has been processed before the movie is generated. In either case you lose nothing by not zooming around the map in first person view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foobar Posted October 26, 1999 Share Posted October 26, 1999 I know there might be some serious grogs here who could care less about the opinions of beer & pretzels gamer like me, but the 3d dynamic of this game is what has drawn me to it. This might be the game that creates a common ground, Where quake2 deathmatchers and Avalon Hill gamepiece accountants can stand beside each other as brothers and cry out "ITS FUN TO BLOW STUFF UP" Thank you, this concludes my diatribe on gamer unification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted October 26, 1999 Share Posted October 26, 1999 Diatribe Foobar ? You ain't seen nothing yet. Mike, Markus, I call on you to show the innocents how a TRUE expert diatribes ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts