Jeff Heidman Posted December 18, 2000 Author Share Posted December 18, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: I'm sure we'd all like CM to be more visually realistic. It's easy enough to say "Hey, those explosions look a bit funny", but how would you go about changing them? Realistic effects would doubtlessly be a nightmare to program, and would probably be beyond the capabilities of even the latest video cards<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, I think the third-party explosion mods look pretty convincing. Even the original explosion weren't too bad, except for the mentioned issue with expanding dome thingies. My answer would be too ditch the totally extraneous expanding dome (I am not going to call it a shockwave since it has no resemblance to a shockwave) completely. It adds nothing, except to someone who equates a big dome shaped thingie with a "cool-neato" explosion. Don't even get me started on the "dust cloud" that just so happens to also look exactly like an expanding dome thingie, and nothing like a dust cloud or a shockwave. Jeff Heidman P.S. - I really should get some work done... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted December 18, 2000 Share Posted December 18, 2000 Jeff Heidman wrote: > Don't even get me started on the "dust cloud" that just so happens to also look exactly like an expanding dome thingie, and nothing like a dust cloud or a shockwave. This is exactly what I'm getting at. Modelling a realistic dust cloud is no simple matter. The graphics in computer games are made up of textured polygons and free-standing bitmaps. This is good for substantial objects, or static objects viewed from a particular angle. A dust cloud is a big, insubstantial, swirling mass of particles, which tends to move in a very characteristic way in the instance of collapsing buildings – a way which I'm pretty sure would be a pain to try and emulate. It could probably be done, but I'd prefer for BTS to concentrate on enhancing the game, rather than trying to make the graphics look prettier. You may not like some of what is there, but the fact is it serves a purpose. David [This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 12-18-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted December 18, 2000 Author Share Posted December 18, 2000 Where did I *ever* say they should spend time making the graphics look prettier? (although I am certain they will when the time is right) I said they should ditch graphics that detract from the immersiveness of the game. As it stands now, they might as well just place some text on the screen that says "Imagine a dust cloud billowing out from this point right here ->" for all the relevance their current graphics has to what just happened in the digital world. I am not saying they should spend an inordinate amount of time making the graphics super realistic. I am saying no graphics to represent some occurence is better than a completely unrelated graphic. I know that Charles spent some time making this neato expanding dome thingie. It's his game, so he can put in extraneous stuff if he wants, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. And it certainly doesn't mean I have to pretend it makes any sense. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted December 19, 2000 Share Posted December 19, 2000 OK, did someone say "bad tracer graphics" and that CM needs more polishing to bring in greater sales? Com'on Jeff, you're starting to sound like the guy that started the "Bad tracer graphics" thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OsinO Posted December 19, 2000 Share Posted December 19, 2000 Yah really... And again...no matter how much we argue about it, itll be in the game wether anyone likes it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted December 19, 2000 Share Posted December 19, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: I am not saying they should spend an inordinate amount of time making the graphics super realistic. I am saying no graphics to represent some occurence is better than a completely unrelated graphic. Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't get it Jeff, I usually agree with what you say, but saying that this expanding dome is a "completely unrelated graphic" is the biggest bunch of crap since the jack-ass said that the tracer graphics looked stupid. They *are* supposed to represent shockwaves. If you don't have enough of imagination to see that, then well, I feel for ya. I mean *what would* you like to see for a concussion wave? Explain. Remember to take into account of current hardware limitations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subvet Posted December 19, 2000 Share Posted December 19, 2000 I actually like this "expanding dome" effect. I love how it looks when a building falls. I have no problem with it at all. Someday when computers evolve to a higher level maybe we can have true-to-life effects, but for now I'm quite satisfied with CM's "expanding dome" graphic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brer Pinkey Posted December 19, 2000 Share Posted December 19, 2000 I personally want to see the radius of the shockwave effect. It allows me a better guess as to what is firing at me. It also lets me SEE which of my units were in the affected area. I don't mind the look of the dome, and I require the visual cue of the radius. If you delete the dome and just put in an expanding circle it would look even more unrealistic. At least the dome approximates some real world phenomena of an expanding pressure front. That being said. The Hamsters I'm using from Kitty's portrait mod think that the big cheesy bubble look 'really neato and spiffily keen'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subvet Posted December 19, 2000 Share Posted December 19, 2000 Someone brought up what it looks like when a plane (or car) breaks the sound barrier. I have a cool movie on my computer that shows an F-14 doing just that. I found a copy of it at http://www.navy-usna.org/soundbarrier.html if anyone is interested. It is definitely worth a look in my opinion, so I thought I'd share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JAZZA Posted December 19, 2000 Share Posted December 19, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus: That's what I meant. Either the fire diamond or the flamethrowers which I didn't even think of. Actually I think those graphics could be a little redder. Anybody think they could redden it up a bit. I have some filters that could automatically apply to them, but I'm not sure how'd they look.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If they are for the flamethrower's,someone should definitely mod them.They look like their firing orange juice or something at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarhead Posted December 19, 2000 Share Posted December 19, 2000 The first time I called in Artillery and heard then saw the rounds impacting with the "Shock wave" I was all smiles, and I still am. I play with high quality smoke effects on.I would like to say I enjoy the "Shock wave" effect quite a lot. However, I would like to see the expanding bubble effect from firing tank guns and AT guns attached to an on/off hot key. ------------------ Semper Fi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brooktrout Posted December 19, 2000 Share Posted December 19, 2000 If you have a CC2 CD look in the videos folder and play the H8V.MPG file. When I first saw this post, that mpg is what I first thought of. It has, about 2/3's of the way through, some ground fire that has large shockwaves followed by dust clouds. If you pause and step thru frame by frame you clearly see the dome (not a dust cloud) but it is instantaneous if you play back w/o pausing. The dome in CM clearly represents this shockwave although in CM it rises slower similar to a dust cloud. The shockwave in the video is only 1 frame out of 30/sec?. I like the CM dome, but it is a little slow in showing itself, should be "kerpow"! Yeah, like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts