I love CM....but I hate it when.......

[iggi]

I found my answer to my question: can vehicles block LOS. The search engine can be helpfull

[Moon]

Lt. Bull, don't forget that EVERYTHING you see during the action phase has been pre-calculated before the movie actually starts. I am sure you know it, but maybe did not fully see the implications? During the time it takes to compute the movie, all the necessary calculations are done - the movie simply is a visual display of what happened on the battlefield to convey the result of a turn to the player in an enjoyable way.

Therefore, the 3D battlefield of CM is just a representation of the mathematical engine under the hood. The graphical representation of the surroundings (the polygons and textures) play no role in the calculations. If a round strikes a target or not does not depend on a part of the vehicle (one of its polygons) crossing the trajectory of the round - rather, a hit or miss is determined by mathematical algorithms which are used during the calculation phase BEFORE the movie begins. The algorithm itself takes into consideration of a target is moving or not and the time to impact, but this does not depend on the graphical representation of the 3D battlefield.

Uh... I think I confused myself now...

[Guest Big Time Software]

I see what Lt. Bull is asking. Easily cleared up (I hope )...

There are two ways, in theory, that we could simulate a round leaving a gun, its eventual path, and where it lands:

1. Use a whole bunch of variables (like weapon accuracy, guner training, suppression, etc) to determine a trajectory to the target. The trajectory would then be "traced" and wherever the shell hit damage would be done. If the hit whacked a vehicle then CM would go through all the armor pentration stuff to figure out what the impact did.

2. The trajectory itself is only a binary LOS calculation. Either the shooter can, in theory, get a round from the gun to the target or it can't. A whole bunch of constant and situationally unique variables (like LOS quality, weapon accuracy, guner training, suppression, etc) to determine the chance of the target being hit. If it is a hit then various equations determine where and HOW (angles) the shell strikes its target. Then damage is calculated based on the physics for the particular situation (HE blast near infantry, AP shot hitting sloped armor, etc). If the round is a miss there are equations to determine how badly the shooter missed based on several variables (i.e. a bad unit will miss by a LOT greater margin than a good one). Then the shell trajectory is calculated to the predetermined location (either the hit or miss one). Colateral damage is calculated based on the detonation of the round where it hits. Terrain is checked along a "miss" vector to see if it strikes something along the way. Hits don't need to check because they have already been calculated to be hits based on a clear line of fire.

WOOOOO!! That took a little longer to explain than I thought

OK, now what are the real world difference between the two...

Method 1 -> as real as you can get! Unfortunately, it is also a CPU cruncher from Hell. If we had one or two vehicles shooting in more sterile conditions it wouldn't be a problem. But when you have letterally dozens of shots being made on a somewhat average turn, this becomes a HUGE problem.

Method 2 -> On average will come up with the same results as Method 1, but only spews out a realistic number of calculations on the CPU to crunch. What you lose is the ability for the shell to accidentally strike something between A and B other than terrain. As the link Iggi gave will explain a bit more. Thankfully, the cases where this matters are few and far inbetween.

So there you have it Method 1 and 2 yield pretty much the same results, with the exception of variable blockage (i.e. vehicles). Oh, well, the other difference is that Method 1 would make CM tedious to play and Method 2 works just fine

When you get CM take a dozen vehicles for each side, plop them on opposite sides of a level battlefield and see how slow the turns calculate. Now do that until one side is wiped out and you will notice how much faster each turn becomes with the elimination of each vehicle. Then remember that this is using Method 2 in sterile conditions with no blocking terrain or vehicles (especially not ones in motion!!) to bog down the LOS calculations.

Steve

P.S. Grazing fire for MGs is in fact simulated. Charles found that the math to simulate just this one feature wasn't too horrible for the CPU to deal with.

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 04-29-2000).]

[Guest Ol' Blood & Guts]

Ahhh, gotcha now Steve.

Heh, after all that explanation, I've got it!

One again it all boils down to what today's CPUs can handle.

I now fully understand that when the game engine goes through the turn calculation, that's what determines what happens in the movie; with the movie only being a graphical representation of what the CPU calculates.

As far as the turns being calculated quicker as the scenario goes on, YES, I've noticed that too even in the Beta Demo. Makes sense now.

Now I can fully explain to my sometimes dense friend about this when we play Hotseat games or whatever if he starts bitchin' after he sees a round pass through a "target".

Thanks Steve for the clarification, I was just a bit confused after last nights posts.

------------------

"Fear is the path to the Dark Side.

Fear leads to anger.

Anger leads to hate.

Hate leads to suffering."

--Jedi Master Yoda

[Lt Bull]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

I see what Lt. Bull is asking. Easily cleared up (I hope )...

There are two ways, in theory, that we could simulate a round leaving a gun, its eventual path, and where it lands:.....<snip>

B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, you understood what I was talking about, and how Method 1 is "as real as you can get", but apparently too much of an ask for a pc CPU and that Method 2 is fundamentally different in its appraoch but is the next best comprimise. Thats the response I was looking for.

I understand that the calcs required to determine hit/damage etc in CM would be much more detailed and complex than in most other games. It is still interesting to me to compare the underlying computations required to run say a 8 player multiplayer online game of a true 3D shooter (like Soldier of Fortune) where EVERYTHING happens on the fly in real time with bullets, grenades, rockets and body parts flying everywhere to those done in CM which undertakes computations in blocks of 60 sec of action.

The 3D shooter example would be considerd a Method 1 type of approach game where real time calculations are done virtually instantaneously that CAN be run on a typical PC.

How is it that a game like that is a Method 1 type of game and can be run on a standard pc but CM has to be a Method 2 game?

Is it partly because the physics of the CM world are much more involved and intense, and to calculate all of them "on the fly", virtually instantaneously in "real time", like in the 3D shooter example, is simply too much of an ask on a pc CPU?

Lt Bull

PS: You mentioned of rare cases where Method 2 has its weaknesses (basically becasue it calculates a hit or miss the INSTANT the gun is fired). I could think of an simple example. Assume an AT gun is targeting a tank that is travelling at 25km/hr at a range of say 1.5 km across the AT's field of view. The tank is just about to move behind a building that would in effect put it out of the LOS (and therefore LOF) of the AT gun. It just happens that the CM engine decides to fire the AT gun just at the instant BEFORE the tank is about to travel out of LOS behind the building. It seem that CM considers any target can be HIT (not just targeted) as long as there is LOS to the target at the INSTANT the gun is fired. Back to my example, we know that in reality, guns do not instantaneously hit their target the moment the gun is fired. The projectile has to accelerate out the barrel and travel to its target. In the above case, if we assume the projectile travels at an average velocity of 3000 ft/sec (900 m/s), it would take 1.1 secs to hit the tank which is 1.5km away. In reality the tank travelling at 25 km/hr (6.9 m/s) would have travelled 7.7 m during the time of flight of the projectile, enough for it to have moved behind the building BEFORE the projectile hit. This would appear in the game as a projectile passing through a building hitting the tank. Is this possibly an expalnation of some peoples observations?

[Guest tom w]

Lt Bull asks sone good questions....

In Marathon and other first person real time shooting games

we think we "see" on the video screen what looks like a great deal of math caluculations happening on the CPU all at the

same time all in real time for 8 players running around

trying to shoot each other.

I think Lt Bull makes a good point

can't these damn CPU's handle any more cycles or calculations?

Apple Claims:

"Apple engineers have produced a model that can achieve sustained performance of more than 1 billion floating-point

operations per second a milestone known in computer lingo as a gigaflop. "

{I'm sure that the Pentium Pro (whatever their fastest or latest

is) is every bit as good if not better depending on which

month this is, Lets not fight over Windoze vs. Mac}

surely, if a cpu can handle 1 BILLION floating point operations

per SEC then is CM pushing these CPU's to the max?

In a 1 minute turn based game that does not have to deal with the complexity of LOS and LOF and targets in motion in a real time environment I guess I thought moving AFV's "should" be able to block LOS, although I did read Steve's post carefully and understand that they don't and they can't because it would

slow down the cpu and game too much....

But 1 billion operations/ sec (I think thats alot)??

Heck, Age of Empires is not rocket science but it acurately models a projectile being launched (slow moving one yes) at a moving target (target also slow moving) and in real time shows the projectile miss the moving target.

I like Lt. Bulls questions and observations.

-tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lt Bull:

It is still interesting to me to compare the underlying computations required to run say a 8 player multiplayer online game of a true 3D shooter (like Soldier of Fortune) where EVERYTHING happens on the fly in real time with bullets, grenades, rockets and body parts flying everywhere to those done in CM which undertakes computations in blocks of 60 sec of action.

The 3D shooter example would be considerd a Method 1 type of approach game where real time calculations are done virtually instantaneously that CAN be run on a typical PC.

How is it that a game like that is a Method 1 type of game and can be run on a standard pc but CM has to be a Method 2 game?

Is it partly because the physics of the CM world are much more involved and intense, and to calculate all of them "on the fly", virtually instantaneously in "real time", like in the 3D shooter example, is simply too much of an ask on a pc CPU?

Lt Bull

PS: You mentioned of rare cases where Method 2 has its weaknesses (basically becasue it calculates a hit or miss the INSTANT the gun is fired). I could think of an simple example. Assume an AT gun is targeting a tank that is travelling at 25km/hr at a range of say 1.5 km across the AT's field of view. The tank is just about to move behind a building that would in effect put it out of the LOS (and therefore LOF) of the AT gun. It just happens that the CM engine decides to fire the AT gun just at the instant BEFORE the tank is about to travel out of LOS behind the building. It seem that CM considers any target can be HIT (not just targeted) as long as there is LOS to the target at the INSTANT the gun is fired. Back to my example, we know that in reality, guns do not instantaneously hit their target the moment the gun is fired. The projectile has to accelerate out the barrel and travel to its target. In the above case, if we assume the projectile travels at an average velocity of 3000 ft/sec (900 m/s), it would take 1.1 secs to hit the tank which is 1.5km away. In reality the tank travelling at 25 km/hr (6.9 m/s) would have travelled 7.7 m during the time of flight of the projectile, enough for it to have moved behind the building BEFORE the projectile hit. This would appear in the game as a projectile passing through a building hitting the tank. Is this possibly an expalnation of some peoples observations?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Guest Big Time Software]

Ah, good! Glad to see I got what you were getting at

The differences between CM and a FPS game, or RTS for that matter, are many. Everything in a FPS is geared towards the physics you spoke of and little else other than pushing polies as fast as possible. In an RTS pretty much everything is geared towards dozens of units and frame rate. CM is more like an RTS than a FPS.

In CM you have dozens of units on each side as the typical force. There are more environmental rules (or more complex ones) for these units to follow. The TacAI chews up a decent quantity of CPU cycles. And in FPS there is nothing like "spotting", so there aren't constant LOS checks going on all the time like in CM or in a RTS (which of course has simplier spotting).

But I would think the big killer is the fact that in a FPS game you have generally fewer than 3-6 players in the same spot at the same time. Compare this with CM's couple of dozen, each complete with their own LOS checks and TacAI.

But I would guess the big thing would be distance. In CM you can shoot up to 4000 meters away, where units are tracked on a fractional meter by meter basis. So the LOS check would have look at tens of THOUSANDS of places to see if something were there for each and every shot. And since there are no ways of short cutting this (by small rooms or very limited shooting ranges) CM has to plan on the worst.

OK, end of train of thought

The bottom line is that CM is fundamentally different than either FPS or RTS. On a fast machine a large scenario might take closer to 2 minutes to PRECOMPUTE 1 mintue's worth of combat. As computers get faster we can possibly change the way this works, but for now it really does have to stay the way it is.

As for your AT gun shooting at a fast moving vehicle example... for some reason that doesn't seem right to me. What I mean is I think Charles has something in there to at least minimize this, if not prevent it. I'll try and remember to ask him about that.

Steve

[Kraut]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tom w:

can't these damn CPU's handle any more cycles or calculations?

Apple Claims:

"Apple engineers have produced a model that can achieve sustained performance of more than 1 billion floating-point

operations per second a milestone known in computer lingo as a gigaflop. "

{I'm sure that the Pentium Pro (whatever their fastest or latest

is) is every bit as good if not better depending on which

month this is, Lets not fight over Windoze vs. Mac}

surely, if a cpu can handle 1 BILLION floating point operations

per SEC then is CM pushing these CPU's to the max?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, you're volunteering to buy us all one of those "1 billion whatchamacalits a second machines"?

I'm sure if BTS knew that you would give away a new machine to every person who bought CM they wouldn't mind doing the extra math stuff for us. lol

MK

[Eric Alkema]

I'm curious how much slower method 1 is than method 2. 10 times? 100 times? 1000 times?!! Granted that the scenarios in the demo are relatively small but my computer only takes a few seconds between clicking on "Go" and it being ready to show me the movie. I think I would be willing to wait a minute, maybe even two minutes for a turn to be resolved. It seems to me that amounts to something in the neighborhood of 40 times the calculation time.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Just my impression of the grog community Steve...

But I humbely suggest you 'package' that explaination you just posted. Because this WILL come up after CM is released. If it does not come up here then in the newsgroups and elsewhere.

If you can explain it well, and "nip it in the bud" it may save you quite a bit of bad publicity. Bad publicity is not something I think you want right after CM is released, whether it is fair or not is not really relevent when it can cost you sales.

Just a suggestion.

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[iggi]

Double post

[This message has been edited by iggi (edited 04-30-2000).]

[iggi]

Scott, we know CM is ahead of anything out there so what can the grog commonity say anyways? Can they say it's not perfect? It can't be perfect, it's a game. Unless the 'grog community' can make anything better, they should say thank you, but they'll probably be too busy enjoying themselves .

[Lanzfeld]

I think meathod 1 would cause a HUGE slowdown. Think about it: Every round in CM that you see during a normal turn. Every pixel that a round travels the computer would have to stop and check to see if that round is contacting some other objet in the game. Every round, every pixel. Plus...LOS calculations, the three levels of AI, graphics....sounds....all this in the 4000 X 3000 meter area we could have on a map. The math gets REALLY BIG....REALLY FAST.

[Mark IV]

I think Scott is right. Grog or not, to the first-time or potential users the perception is the reality.

If they think CM has taken shortcuts to simulate reality a negative "buzz" gets started that is hard to counter (kinda like the Polish Lancers charging panzers). And there are some folks who live to see the mighty fallen. They are looking for negatives.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>we know CM is ahead of anything out there so what can the grog commonity say anyways<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read the newsgroups. Once a "flaw" is discovered in a wargame, the blood's in the water and the sharks gather to feast. If any community gets the notion that inaccuracies are inherent to the game, it will lose some sales.

If we, the faithful, can devote this much discussion to the topic, what would would an attitudinal reality-freak with an audience make of it? We can't assume that everyone will accept that this is "ahead of everything out there". A concise explanation of turn resolution math and its relationship to the graphics would help.

This is another slippery slope- the gray distinction between "game" and "combat sim". Better to address it upfront.

[Lanzfeld]

Mark IV is right. Trotter has an artical on this subject in the June 2000 PC Gamer.

[Mike D]

I just got done reading through this entire post. It's an excellent read on how CM really works and should be read by everyone.

However, it won't be. About mid-way through reading all this I came to the same conclusion that Scott Clinton and the other gentleman did above. Namely, that these kind of "inconsistancies" in the game are going to cause all sorts of folks to question whether CM is really realistic, accurate, etc.

I can tell you for an absolute FACT that this is going to happen. I know that I and my one wargaming buddy went through all these same type of discussions regarding realism, etc., when we played the Close Combat series games. And we engaged in any number of near arguements over certain aspects of the game and whether they were "realistic", or not. And why? Because we didn't have a clear explanation like that which is found within this post to clear matters up.

Therefore, I would ever so strongly urge BTS to write up a summary of this post and at the very least post it in the FAQ on this board. And the sooner the better. It would probably be an even better idea to have it printed in the games manual (maybe something like this already is in there?), or print it up on a sheet of 8-1/2 by 11 paper and slip it in the box before it gets shrink wrapped and shipped.

If you leave people to draw there own conclusions as to how CM really works without any real framework on which to base their understanding of the game, and they then witness one of these situations as that which started this post, I CAN ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE YOU MANY OF THEM WILL BE CRYING THINGS LIKE: "CM IS NOT REALISTIC", "CM SUCKS, FPS's ARE WAY BETTER, "CM IS NO BETTER THAN 2D WARGAMES LIKE STEEL PANTHERS", ETC., ETC., ETC.

As Ben Franklin said, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

Regards,

Mike D

aka Mikester

[Kevin Peltz]

My brother and I played Tobruk, as a matter of fact, I think he still has it in his closet... the die-rolling was a bit of a chore...

[Guest Big Time Software]

To be sure, some wargamers are going to whine and complain, even IF we give a detailed explanation. That is why we have a love/hate relationship with some gamers. There are just some people that have little interest in being happy, and take every opportunity they can find to not enjoy life. And for those people... we really don't care. We can't change their core personality.

Bottom line is that CM isn't 100% realistic. We have never said that ever. What we say is that it is the most realistic wargmer ever made. Nobody can argue against this. No wargame ever made yet has used Method #1, or for that matter Method #2. So it doesn't matter, in realtive terms, which we use because it is leaps and bounds ahead of anything else out there. And people that can't see that can just kiss our asses, for we have no interest in wasting our time justifying what doesn't need justification to someone with the brain capacity of a bug whose ass has just passed through its head after hitting a windshield

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Scott,

There is a blurb in the manual clarifying that CM is the most realistic, not totally realistic. But there will be no detailed discussions about major design decisions like what I just posted above. The manual isn't the place for such things in our opinion. The vast majority of even hardcore wargamers don't care and/or don't even know to question. Hell, how long did it take for this discussion to happen in the first place? 7 months? It can't be such a burning, obvious thing to question since it took so long to be brough up

Steve

[Guest tom w]

I'm glad I'm not the only one here

foolish enough to have played Torbuk and

rolled the dice THREE times for every damn

round.

Any one who complains about Combat Mission realism (and I hope it is not widely believed that I was complaining, although my post may

have sounded like I was complaining, my applogies), should be sat down and forced to play Tobruk and have to roll 2 - 6 sided dice up to three times (if they actually score a hit) for EVERY round that their AFV's fire and then deduct that round on their score sheet from the available rounds left to fire.

This game is way ahead of everything else

and Steve is right when he says:

"Bottom line is that CM isn't 100% realistic. We have never said that ever. What we say is that it is the most realistic wargame ever made. Nobody can argue against this.No wargame ever made yet has used Method #1, or for that matter Method #2. So it doesn't matter, in realtive terms, which we use because it is leaps and bounds ahead of anything else out there. And people that can't see that can just kiss our asses,"

Ok

thats good enough for me

-tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kevin Peltz:

My brother and I played Tobruk, as a matter of fact, I think he still has it in his closet... the die-rolling was a bit of a chore...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Steve,

It's your game, and your company. But as someone said above "An once of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

As for:

> Hell, how long did it take for this

> discussion to happen in the first place?

> 7 months? It can't be such a burning,

> obvious thing to question since it took

> so long to be brough up

I think you forgot the HPS freak that was heard right after the demo was released (sorry I forgot his name, the one that was almost banned for being a jerk). He did not have a specific example, but this is exactly what he was talking about. He (not me, mind you) appeared to be of the opinion that if the 3D is not done 100% accurately then the entire concept is wrong.

Once CM hits the streets, and people start digging into it...I would estimate less than 60-90 days before this comes up. There will those that will create 'test' scenarios just for this reason. It will become an issue, that is unless it is 'defused' before hand.

No one ever expected CM to win over the "super-pain-in-the-arse-gronards-that-are-never-happy" (grumbling grognards? ).

But how many OTHER gamers who would otherwise have purchased CM and been happy with it...now 'shy away' from a game they know little about, made by a small company they have never heard of, that sells only via the internet when this game is supposed to be very realistic and yet there is a flame war in the newsgroups regarding its two main selling points: its true realism and its 3D environment?

Like I said, it's your game and your company, but if it was me it would not only be in the manual, I would be fully prepared to address it upon release on the net.

(Btw: I have always been of the opinion that the unit AI will make or break CM because of the way the turns are sequenced, not whether the 3D is 100% or 95% accurate)

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Guest tom w]

Hi Scott

I just just playing such a test situation the Beta Demo

not like designing a whole scenario but just play testing a turn.

Why don't you check out the "Info/Kills and LOS through units"

thread.

-tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott Clinton:

Once CM hits the streets, and people start digging into it...I would estimate less than 60-90 days before this comes up. There will those that will create 'test' scenarios just for this reason. It will become an issue, that is unless it is 'defused' before hand.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Guest Big Time Software]

Scott,

I agree that an ounce of prevention is called for. That is why we clearly state in the manual that CM is the most realistic wargame, not a 100% realistic wargame. That pretty much answers any valid criticism of CM's simulation of reality.

The people that would NOT buy CM based on a odd example of something like spotting here and there are not going to buy CM for any reason in all likelyhood. That is my point. The HPS guy you spoke of is just such a person.

Such people won't apply the same standards to the games they do play as they do to CM, for if they did they wouldn't be playing ANY game (PitS very much included here) because NONE of them are without their abstractions and limiations. These nutballs are just looking for some sort of lame excuse to not buy CM for some deeper reason, so an explanation is wasted effort since it isn't going to get us one extra sale, or in fact lose us one.

hehe... and the notion that if we can't do it 100% correct we shouldn't do it at all applies, once again, to any wargame out there because it implies that there is some sort of perfection that can be obtained. And as we all know there isn't, so such thinking is so far out of the realm of rational thought that it isn't worth our time trying to correct for what is basically a birth defect or learned flaw.

On the other hand, I have no problems taking the time to explain things to people who raise a good critical question and are willing to look at things using something called A BRAIN, like Lt. Bull. But I really doubt someone like Lt. Bull would have NOT bought CM even if he had discovered some limitation and did not get an explanation from us. No game is perfect, and people like Lt. Bull understand that.

Steve

[iggi]

Scott, what's the address of that newsgroup. I'd like to read what's going on over there.

[Brian Rock]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think you forgot the HPS freak that was heard right after the demo was released (sorry I forgot his name, the one that was almost banned for being a jerk).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, what was worse was that he was flaming CM *before* the demo was released. It's pretty hard to have an open-minded discussion with someone who concludes you're wrong before he's even looked at the evidence.