CMFB (Unofficial) Screenshot Thread

[RockinHarry]

4 hours ago, Lucky_Strike said:

We could make the tree root balls deeper - I imported plenty of third party models with much deeper roots, though it may still look a bit odd - a test would be neede I think. What angle is the terrain about 45 degrees?

Think tree roots are still fine for intended slopes. (-20cm would suffice for steeper ones) Yet I´m undecided on maximum slope angles I´d likely using on some my hilly maps. So here´s some pro stuff:

Here´s a table of CM terrain slopes that should be passable for most foot sloggers. But what about a pixeltrooper with full combat load? BFC set limit to 4m height difference for still beeing passable to all units. Height diff of 5m is where cliffs terrain gets generated and thus impassable to all. Since my terrain tweak allows avoiding any auto generated cliffs for infantry type units, I´d like to know from experts what´s "practicable" limit in combat situations?  Special forces and mountain troops excluded. @George MC maybe?

CM terrain slopes

L = 8m    Height-Difference (between action spots)

AS H-D    1m    2m    3m    4m<cliff    5m    6m    7m    8m    9m    10m

Slope °    7       14      20    26              32    37      41     45     48     51
in %         12     25      37    50              62    75      88    100    112    125

 

 

[George MC]

19 minutes ago, RockinHarry said:

Think tree roots are still fine for intended slopes. (-20cm would suffice for steeper ones) Yet I´m undecided on maximum slope angles I´d likely using on some my hilly maps. So here´s some pro stuff:

Here´s a table of CM terrain slopes that should be passable for most foot sloggers. But what about a pixeltrooper with full combat load? BFC set limit to 4m height difference for still beeing passable to all units. Height diff of 5m is where cliffs terrain gets generated and thus impassable to all. Since my terrain tweak allows avoiding any auto generated cliffs for infantry type units, I´d like to know from experts what´s "practicable" limit in combat situations?  Special forces and mountain troops excluded. @George MC maybe?

CM terrain slopes

L = 8m    Height-Difference (between action spots)

AS H-D    1m    2m    3m    4m<cliff    5m    6m    7m    8m    9m    10m

Slope °    7       14      20    26              32    37      41     45     48     51
in %         12     25      37    50              62    75      88    100    112    125

 

 

In mountain walking we use a formula for estimating time based on average speed on the flat plus 1 minute per 10m contour. Eg walking at 4km/h = 1.5 minutes for 100m; if over that 100m you went uphill for 10m you could add another minute so would take 2.5 minutes to walk 100m section that rises for 10 m. Note this is an average. Factors like fitness, pack weight etc would add to the uphill component or subtract. Eg a light pack might only = 30 seconds for 10m contour whilst really heavy pack could double it i.e. to 2 minutes per contour. 
 

All this assumes walking. Once you get into very steep terrain, like starting  to scramble/climb it becomes a wee bit harder to estimate. And fitness and ability really kick in here! 

Edited November 2, 2022 by George MC

[Combatintman]

6 hours ago, George MC said:

In mountain walking we use a formula for estimating time based on average speed on the flat plus 1 minute per 10m contour. Eg walking at 4km/h = 1.5 minutes for 100m; if over that 100m you went uphill for 10m you could add another minute so would take 2.5 minutes to walk 100m section that rises for 10 m. Note this is an average. Factors like fitness, pack weight etc would add to the uphill component or subtract. Eg a light pack might only = 30 seconds for 10m contour whilst really heavy pack could double it i.e. to 2 minutes per contour. 
 

All this assumes walking. Once you get into very steep terrain, like starting  to scramble/climb it becomes a wee bit harder to estimate. And fitness and ability really kick in here! 

I assume this is Naismith's rule or a variation thereof.  Temperature, wind, ambient light and ground conditions are also factors of course.

[Lucky_Strike]

9 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

Think tree roots are still fine for intended slopes. (-20cm would suffice for steeper ones) Yet I´m undecided on maximum slope angles I´d likely using on some my hilly maps. So here´s some pro stuff:

Here´s a table of CM terrain slopes that should be passable for most foot sloggers. But what about a pixeltrooper with full combat load? BFC set limit to 4m height difference for still beeing passable to all units. Height diff of 5m is where cliffs terrain gets generated and thus impassable to all. Since my terrain tweak allows avoiding any auto generated cliffs for infantry type units, I´d like to know from experts what´s "practicable" limit in combat situations?  Special forces and mountain troops excluded. @George MC maybe?

CM terrain slopes

L = 8m    Height-Difference (between action spots)

AS H-D    1m    2m    3m    4m<cliff    5m    6m    7m    8m    9m    10m

Slope °    7       14      20    26              32    37      41     45     48     51
in %         12     25      37    50              62    75      88    100    112    125

Yes, could easily extend the root ball to accommodate max steepness. Do it for the stock models and also apply to any new models I make. Will keep in mind for next tranche of tree mods. 

[George MC]

3 hours ago, Combatintman said:

I assume this is Naismith's rule or a variation thereof.  Temperature, wind, ambient light and ground conditions are also factors of course.

Aye spot on. Naismith (I know his great great granddaughter!) with Tranter’s variations, though hugely simplified them!

[RockinHarry]

12 hours ago, George MC said:

In mountain walking we use a formula for estimating time based on average speed on the flat plus 1 minute per 10m contour. Eg walking at 4km/h = 1.5 minutes for 100m; if over that 100m you went uphill for 10m you could add another minute so would take 2.5 minutes to walk 100m section that rises for 10 m. Note this is an average. Factors like fitness, pack weight etc would add to the uphill component or subtract. Eg a light pack might only = 30 seconds for 10m contour whilst really heavy pack could double it i.e. to 2 minutes per contour. 
 

All this assumes walking. Once you get into very steep terrain, like starting  to scramble/climb it becomes a wee bit harder to estimate. And fitness and ability really kick in here! 

Thanks George. It´s somewhat comparable to info I have in some my german tac handbooks, though all relate to marches and non combat situations only. The latter is what I´m interested in basically. Off course there´s no "limits" if it comes to objectives that need or want to be taken, like i.e Mt. Cassino and comparable. So I´m thinking about what still would be halfway "realistic" when offering players a CM terrain that´s bit of off limits in game terms. Here´s some shots of some CM test map. Slopes is from level 5 to level 10  (32 - 51°)

From Level 5 (foreground) 32°

to 10 - 51°

[RockinHarry]

17 hours ago, Lucky_Strike said:

Yes, that hard line drawn across the map shows one LOD level. With trees it varies quite a bit with the rendering set to Balanced 3D Texture Quality and 3D Model Quality set to fastest the first LOD kicks in at less than 25m, with 3D Model Quality set to balanced it's under 40m, and this remains the same for the 'better' quality settings. The biggest differences in distances happen with LOD 2 and LOD 3 as these tend to be the most commonly displayed models. If a map has a lot of trees then LOD 1 can be displayed almost to the point at which the viewer is effectively stood next to it. The most optimisation can probably be made with LODs 2 and 3. I always try to produce a set of my textures that will suit most tastes, and am keenly aware that if I start to slow down the game for players they will not want to use my mods, that's why there are multiple resolutions included.

Thanks Mark, that´s interesting info! For tree Lods I just changed the "bb" billboard ones to look darker and lower res as well. This to give a more coherent "dark forest mass" look at a distance. Tweaking distant ground stuff is yet another measure.

Just experienced bits of problems with my "slopes" and variations. Can´t get LOD´s for them to work correctly. At first I thought it´s due to texture stretching which is the case (LOD ratio is at 1 to 2 size), but any my changes there don´t quite work. Could also be the foot path LOD´s (on slope texture) interfere as well. Have an idea how to get the distant looks right maybe?

18 hours ago, Lucky_Strike said:

Yes and there's that of course. We'd be hard pressed trying to persuade troops and vehicles to drive along a stream bed even if it's dried up! 

And I had bits the opposite problem with footpaths placed on slopes. In order for road types to work, they need to be connected properly. But for foot paths I got to place them perpendicular ( to intended move direction ) and non cennected so my pixeltroopers don´t run up the hills in record speed.

 

18 hours ago, Lucky_Strike said:

I tried to widen the stream to see how well that can work and it's certainly easy enough - looks quite a bit better as well. So that will be another addition to the terrain at some point.

Great! Looking forward to what you´ll come up with!

18 hours ago, Lucky_Strike said:

Gravel is similar to dirt roads, it's a generic texture without any directional ability so texture-wise it's a bit limited - certainly won't work for rutted tracks. Of course the one that would really slow down most vehicles is railways - that'll cripple trucks and other soft skins if they try to go fast on it and should slow down tracked AFVs, but again I suspect keeping them on it will be a real struggle, though the Loco Protze stayed on it's rails in testing. Course the AIP will likely avoid disguised railways.

Yep, the AI "sees" all of that internally. As for movements it prefers quick no obstacle type terrain, while it mainly seeks cover as provided from terrain mesh. Unfortunately both of it excludes each other when not setting waypoints properly. But knowing that one can bits of guideline and channelize its movements and also telling "This is cover...dumb@sses!"

 

[Lucky_Strike]

6 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

Thanks Mark, that´s interesting info! For tree Lods I just changed the "bb" billboard ones to look darker and lower res as well. This to give a more coherent "dark forest mass" look at a distance. Tweaking distant ground stuff is yet another measure.

Yes there's a real need to do something like this, sadly colours at distance are not properly corrected in game, what I'd like to see is a proper darkening/shifting of the colours and under-shadows for all seasons, weather etc. How it looks in game now:

(an artists impression ) an improvement IMO:

Maybe something like this could be achieved by lowering the distant LOD 4 models and adding artificial shadow to the bottom of the textures, sort of similar to what you're already doing by darkening the texture.

Also, technically there's nothing to stop us using the billboard LODs as nearer LODs. The only caveat is that LOD 3 (at least I think it's LOD 3 from memory) is used as the stick trees when trees are toggled. The billboard LODs just disappear, but that's probably resolvable. The game already renders LOD 4 quite close when struggling even with balanced graphics settings ...

... they kick in at about 40-50m here. If also using LOD 4 as LOD 3 the effect is very similar ...

... the original BF LOD 4 as LOD 3 on the right. One big issue that might be a deal breaker is the overhead view - it ain't pretty ...

But these are original BF LOD 4 as LOD 3 - it might well be possible to improve the models. LOD 4 uses a 1-bit, jaggy alpha channel and only sixteen faces, they are very low res. Whereas LOD 3 uses softer 8-bit greyscale alpha channels and could potentially have many more faces since they are 3D at present ... it's a thought.

With LOD 4 as LOD 3 AND LOD 2 we can almost walk right up to the LOD model in game ...

... here tree 5, LOD 4 (original BF model and texture) next to tree 8 (my own model/texture) in game.

Of course a plus is the massive increase in render speed ... might actually be an aid to map and scenario makers.

7 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

Just experienced bits of problems with my "slopes" and variations. Can´t get LOD´s for them to work correctly. At first I thought it´s due to texture stretching which is the case (LOD ratio is at 1 to 2 size), but any my changes there don´t quite work. Could also be the foot path LOD´s (on slope texture) interfere as well. Have an idea how to get the distant looks right maybe?

You are probably at the limits of the game engine, about to stray in to the Twilight Zone  ...

7 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

And I had bits the opposite problem with footpaths placed on slopes. In order for road types to work, they need to be connected properly. But for foot paths I got to place them perpendicular ( to intended move direction ) and non cennected so my pixeltroopers don´t run up the hills in record speed.

Very odd ... not Maiden of course, gotta love em, though I must admit I still prefer Paul Di'Anno on lead vocals ...

7 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

"This is cover...dumb@sses!"

WHY are you all running towards that machine gun nest when I ordered you to run away! 

[RockinHarry]

2 hours ago, Lucky_Strike said:

10 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

Thanks Mark, that´s interesting info! For tree Lods I just changed the "bb" billboard ones to look darker and lower res as well. This to give a more coherent "dark forest mass" look at a distance. Tweaking distant ground stuff is yet another measure.

Yes there's a real need to do something like this, sadly colours at distance are not properly corrected in game, what I'd like to see is a proper darkening/shifting of the colours and under-shadows for all seasons, weather etc. How it looks in game now:

(an artists impression ) an improvement IMO:

Maybe something like this could be achieved by lowering the distant LOD 4 models and adding artificial shadow to the bottom of the textures, sort of similar to what you're already doing by darkening the texture.

Also, technically there's nothing to stop us using the billboard LODs as nearer LODs. The only caveat is that LOD 3 (at least I think it's LOD 3 from memory) is used as the stick trees when trees are toggled. The billboard LODs just disappear, but that's probably resolvable. The game already renders LOD 4 quite close when struggling even with balanced graphics settings ...

... they kick in at about 40-50m here. If also using LOD 4 as LOD 3 the effect is very similar ...

... the original BF LOD 4 as LOD 3 on the right. One big issue that might be a deal breaker is the overhead view - it ain't pretty ...

But these are original BF LOD 4 as LOD 3 - it might well be possible to improve the models. LOD 4 uses a 1-bit, jaggy alpha channel and only sixteen faces, they are very low res. Whereas LOD 3 uses softer 8-bit greyscale alpha channels and could potentially have many more faces since they are 3D at present ... it's a thought.

With LOD 4 as LOD 3 AND LOD 2 we can almost walk right up to the LOD model in game ...

... here tree 5, LOD 4 (original BF model and texture) next to tree 8 (my own model/texture) in game.

Of course a plus is the massive increase in render speed ... might actually be an aid to map and scenario makers.

WOW! That´s some great discoveries and ideas of yours here! Think that´s the path to follow further! I don´t mind much for odd billboard tree looks from birds eye view. It´s good enough for getting an overview if required, but the actual fun comes from playing at eye level. So I´d likely be fine with having LODs popping up nearer if they´re just few rows behind high poly trees. I just see the benefits here which is both overall good looks and less strain on the system.

And yes, your "artists impression" looks gorgeous. But with current graphics and shader engine I doubt we could achieve or approach that in sufficient ways. So maybe tweaking LODs and texture colors, as well as letting ReShade do some the magic is way to go then!

2 hours ago, Lucky_Strike said:

You are probably at the limits of the game engine, about to stray in to the Twilight Zone  ...

Re odd texture LOD on slopes + footpath I´ve one idea left. Will try that out later today.

2 hours ago, Lucky_Strike said:

Very odd ... not Maiden of course, gotta love em, though I must admit I still prefer Paul Di'Anno on lead vocals ...

Ooookay..... ...better not discuss with a metal musician beeing active on the metal boat since 1978. lol Think we derailed the screenshot thread enough already.

2 hours ago, Lucky_Strike said:

WHY are you all running towards that machine gun nest when I ordered you to run away! 

Exactly that.

[Lucky_Strike]

8 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

WOW! That´s some great discoveries and ideas of yours here! Think that´s the path to follow further! I don´t mind much for odd billboard tree looks from birds eye view. It´s good enough for getting an overview if required, but the actual fun comes from playing at eye level. So I´d likely be fine with having LODs popping up nearer if they´re just few rows behind high poly trees. I just see the benefits here which is both overall good looks and less strain on the system.

Thanks Harry. Your mention of LOD issues made me look again at what I'd seen before. As you say it may well be a price worth paying for some improvements in performance on tree heavy maps. I suspect that BF have investigated this themselves.

I'm going to experiment with one tree style - tree 5 since it's so important at the moment - to see what I can do with poster styles and the various LODs. I already have a system for making the individual billboards, and I seem to recall that I found a Blender addon or tutorial for creating these poster LODs, but dismissed it because they were too complex for our LOD 4 models, but maybe they're useful after all ...

8 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

And yes, your "artists impression" looks gorgeous. But with current graphics and shader engine I doubt we could achieve or approach that in sufficient ways. So maybe tweaking LODs and texture colors, as well as letting ReShade do some the magic is way to go then!

I  know , in my dreams ... but absolutely yes I think ReShade could well help in this respect. The same depth map that aids with stuff like DoF could be used for mapping colours in some way. I must get that explanation of depth maps sorted.

8 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

Ooookay..... ...better not discuss with a metal musician beeing active on the metal boat since 1978. lol Think we derailed the screenshot thread enough already.

  it was too quiet here ... 

[RockinHarry]

12 hours ago, Lucky_Strike said:

... here tree 5, LOD 4 (original BF model and texture) next to tree 8 (my own model/texture) in game.

Your new tree 8 model looks great btw!  Forgot asking.... How about fir tree model with branches extending to close above ground? For those more uncultivated forests and younger pines. Maybe more appropriate for CMRT but would be nice to have.

Off course LOS/LOF won´t change when compared to original CM trees, unless we figure out if we can set it in META maybe.

 

[Lucky_Strike]

1 hour ago, RockinHarry said:

Your new tree 8 model looks great btw!  Forgot asking.... How about fir tree model with branches extending to close above ground? For those more uncultivated forests and younger pines. Maybe more appropriate for CMRT but would be nice to have.

Thanks. That one is based on a Scot's pine, but it plays havoc with frame rates at the moment. I need to look at the top again to get it under control. I have a big Spruce that I made with quite dense lower branches touching the ground almost, that was before I had a better understanding of the meshes so I need to rebuild that one as well:

Nice for mountains ...

All coming sometime ...

 

 

[RockinHarry]

20 minutes ago, Lucky_Strike said:

Thanks. That one is based on a Scot's pine, but it plays havoc with frame rates at the moment. I need to look at the top again to get it under control. I have a big Spruce that I made with quite dense lower branches touching the ground almost, that was before I had a better understanding of the meshes so I need to rebuild that one as well:

Nice for mountains ...

All coming sometime ...

 

 

gorgeous looking (again)! Won´t take long until we have CM: The Forest Sim. Maybe you could make BFC selling this as DLC so you could earn some pence and not doing that all just for fun.

But back to more realistic things again. I´d likely try approaching detail with mix of geometry and texture variations. Maybe halfway between original stock game trees  and what´s yet possible without overstressing the OGL graphics engine. That combined with LOD refinements (and their popping up distances) might get us results that are far better looking while still giving great performance. Maybe for both in WEGO and RT play modes. (I never use the latter so don´t care anyway)

[RockinHarry]

On 11/2/2022 at 8:09 AM, RockinHarry said:

Here´s a table of CM terrain slopes that should be passable for most foot sloggers. But what about a pixeltrooper with full combat load? BFC set limit to 4m height difference for still beeing passable to all units. Height diff of 5m is where cliffs terrain gets generated and thus impassable to all. Since my terrain tweak allows avoiding any auto generated cliffs for infantry type units, I´d like to know from experts what´s "practicable" limit in combat situations?  Special forces and mountain troops excluded. @George MC maybe?

CM terrain slopes

L = 8m    Height-Difference (between action spots)

AS H-D    1m    2m    3m    4m<cliff    5m    6m    7m    8m    9m    10m

Slope °    7       14      20    26              32    37      41     45     48     51
in %         12     25      37    50              62    75      88    100    112    125

So if there´s no more specific community opinions about that I´ll likely go with slopes that match terrain that was fought over historically. Hurtgen forest campaign gives me lots of practical examples and I´ll decide then from case to case. The AIP thus far deals well with this special steep slope terrain when beeing scripted properly. So no issues here.

[Lucky_Strike]

5 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

So if there´s no more specific community opinions about that I´ll likely go with slopes that match terrain that was fought over historically. Hurtgen forest campaign gives me lots of practical examples and I´ll decide then from case to case. The AIP thus far deals well with this special steep slope terrain when beeing scripted properly. So no issues here.

My vote is for historically and geographically correct as possible within the constraints of the game. You'll have to produce an instruction manual addendum for how to create and manage steep terrain in CM.

[RockinHarry]

5 hours ago, Lucky_Strike said:

My vote is for historically and geographically correct as possible within the constraints of the game. You'll have to produce an instruction manual addendum for how to create and manage steep terrain in CM.

Yep, agree. I can always exclude those terrain or parts of it if it´s of no concern for a mission´s game play or creating troubles with the AIP nonetheless.

Think I outlined the procedure already. If there´s demand for a "how to" I´d create a seperate thread then. First I´ll do testing on (halfway) finished mission to go safe. Can´t rule out AIP issues for all possible situations yet. Though I don´t expect any. Human player can play it just like normal. Vehicles don´t move there (up or down) and infantry will have a slow going, exhausting experience as can be expected from underlying base terrain (marsh in this case).

[chuckdyke]

Buddy Aid not correctly modelled, house clearing at least against the AI. Wait till you spot an enemy wounded lay in ambush and take out the acting medics. '

[RockinHarry]

1 hour ago, chuckdyke said:

Buddy Aid not correctly modelled, house clearing at least against the AI. Wait till you spot an enemy wounded lay in ambush and take out the acting medics. '

you´re serious? https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/cm-mod-warehouse/combat-mission-battle-for-normandy/cmbn-other/cmbn-alternative-buddy-aid-animation/

 

[chuckdyke]

3 minutes ago, RockinHarry said:

you´re serious?

I like a proper medic to be modelled. To be split from an HQ or a medical unit and not to be shot at. 

[RockinHarry]

1 minute ago, chuckdyke said:

I like a proper medic to be modelled. To be split from an HQ or a medical unit and not to be shot at. 

Agree. I´m afraid it´s more of a wishlist thing for next game engine. The ani file change is the best we could do now, avoiding overly self sacrificing wannabe medics.

[chuckdyke]

1 minute ago, RockinHarry said:

Agree. I´m afraid it´s more of a wishlist thing for next game engine. The ani file change is the best we could do now, avoiding overly self sacrificing wannabe medics.

It goes straight against the training even for civilians. First make sure the area is safe before doing anything. Then aid in recovery and prevent further injuries. 

[RockinHarry]

39 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

It goes straight against the training even for civilians. First make sure the area is safe before doing anything. Then aid in recovery and prevent further injuries. 

Yep agree. I´d recommend playing ARMA3 (and Iron Front AIO Mod for WW2 1944 eastern and western front) to see something like that happen. Can´t recall if even GT Mius has any such implementations, but it´s long time since I launched this game so IDK. It´s still beeing updated and improved til today and devs likely keep doing so.

Edited November 13, 2022 by RockinHarry

[NamEndedAllen]

On 11/13/2022 at 12:21 AM, RockinHarry said:

Yep agree. I´d recommend playing ARMA3 (and Iron Front AIO Mod for WW2 1944 eastern and western front) to see something like that happen. Can´t recall if even GT Mius has any such implementations, but it´s long time since I launched this game so IDK. It´s still beeing updated and improved til today and devs likely keep doing so.

ArmA3 is quite strict in enforcing this. In our weekly co-op sessions, courageous attempts to heal a fallen comrade before taking out the threats 

[RockinHarry]

1 hour ago, NamEndedAllen said:

ArmA3 is quite strict in enforcing this. In our weekly co-op sessions, courageous attempts to heal a fallen comrade before taking out the threats 

Yep, in coop many the things are doable in realistic ways. Also depends on what mods/modules are to be used generally. Similar for single play.

Buddy aid system in CM is a really dumb one. Only consideration for getting it started is when an enemy bullet didn´t pass by in a given amount of time. The game engine does not consider that the shooting can start any second again. Also revealing the whole of a team´s/squads´s position when the medic starts popping up unasked for.

Sometimes I want shooting that medic myself if he starts doing it. Say... you got your team/squad on "hide" while beeing in a position you don´t want change for the moment. But you´ve a wounded in same or adjacent AS. Now a heroic buddy aidee starts doing his own thing, also waving his hands for a "Here we still are! Shoot at us (again)".  Not that this guy will mostly be the first who got a bullet in his head, everything that comes in then also might kill more of the same team/squad. Colateral buddy aid damage. Haha. That was the hide command then.

So I keep sticking with my mod. Can´t change the hero´s attitude but at least he keeps his dumb head down below.

 

[Erwin]

Is it certain that the medic up position is not just eye-candy and the computer calculates him as being in the same state as his squad members?  A lot of visual things like that are eye candy. 

IIRC even though some squad members may not look like they are in a foxhole, the system calculates as if they all get the foxhole benefit.