Annual look at the year to come - 2023

[kohlenklau]

25 minutes ago, SgtHatred said:

I saw the recent thread about a terrain mapper tool, but the way it has to work is pretty hilarious.

I think the CMAutoEditor will improve through the normal process of making it better. @Butschi For example, the first version took inspiration from the movie Aliens and Nico had you sealed in a pipe and you had to crawl 188m to get to the remote terminal to do the Python code. We have come a long way since that version of his tool.

[SgtHatred]

5 minutes ago, Artkin said:

Yes that's the tool in question. No wargame that I know of allows you to do this in the first place. Maybe armored brigade? But their way of doing maps is for crackheads and is unacceptably ghetto. It is what it is... and it's bad, so not a lot of maps were made for that game.

It would be great to have a fully functional 3d editor but that just isn't in the cards given our current situation. I imagine it would require an obscene amount of work.

You don't need a fully functional 3d editor to read a terrain file and create a battlefront map from it, then you load the existing map editor for the fine details.

[Sunbather]

2 hours ago, Combatintman said:

BOAR

Wild boar - Wikipedia

BAOR

British Army of the Rhine - Wikipedia

Not sure whether people are asking for a flavour object that is not a dead cow or horse or the Brits for the Cold War module.

 

Since I was the one to introduce the acronym in this thread, I am gonna go ahead and say that it was a test and I wanted to see if anyone would notice.

[Artkin]

36 minutes ago, SgtHatred said:

You don't need a fully functional 3d editor to read a terrain file and create a battlefront map from it, then you load the existing map editor for the fine details.

Seeing that it can be done, yes I would VERY much like BFC to look into this. 

[Battlefront.com]

The full game movie playback tool we made for CM2 Professional is not commercially viable.  IanL has it pretty much spot on:

3 hours ago, IanL said:

I have no idea if Steve will chime in but I'll take a shot at writing an explanation. This is from memory so have your salt handy: the issue is the memory, disk space requirements and load times. There is no way to make it work on machines that are not top of the line because there is just too much data to push around. For CM2 there is just no way to improve this since the game was never designed to handle what would be required - my impression is that would be dynamic loading and unloading of data. I'm not sure if that would even help with hard drive space either. While the professional edition can have specs that are much higher than the commercial edition there is no real way to manage that for the rest of us. Even those of us that have machines that can handle that what about those that don't? What about those that are borderline? What about when some dope tries to fight two battalions vs two battalions on a huge heavily forested map (me)? The support issues around all that is just too much for how the CM2 engine was designed.

We have been making wargames for almost 30 years, 22 of which as Battlefront.  There is one thing we know quite well is that customers can tell us "I don't care about the downsides, just give it to me and I'll be happy" is nonsense.  The tool is a kludge that only a few customers would be able to use and even then it would be a royal PITA.  We'd rather endure complaints from people that think they are entitled to something we never promised than to suffer the wrath of customers who think we owe them something better than what we delivered.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

13 hours ago, Simcoe said:

Some of us might not have caught the original explanation. Would you mind explaining again?

Apologies for the brief answer.  See previous post.

13 hours ago, Simcoe said:

Also, are there any features that will transfer from profession to commercial?

Some things already have, but they are more-or-less low level things that are specific to the modern titles.  But in terms of full features unique to Professional?  No, features and units made explicitly for Professional will not be made available for Commercial customers.  Whether it be games, other software, cars, home electronics, etc. there are some features that people pay more money for and some that are common.  The Pro customers pay a lot more to use what we provide than Com customers do.

13 hours ago, Mr.X said:

Can You give us some more information about the CMFB Modul to come?

Time frame till May 1945?

Yes on the timeframe.  The release is still a ways off, but the fundamentals are long ago nailed down.  I will get a more detailed bone for the Module ready for you guys soon. 

12 hours ago, SergeantSqook said:

I'm choosing to interpret "advancing the timeline" as a confirmation on the BAOR in CMCW. Up to '83 for the Chally 1 or up to '89 for the Warrior. I will not brook any alternate views on this matter.

Yes to BAOR, no to BOAR

Steve

[QuiGon]

16 hours ago, Artkin said:

Was hoping for some bones, but thanks for the news, good or bad the clarity is appreciated..

This! So thanks a lot for the update Steve! I really appreciate it!

[SgtHatred]

If anyone is wondering why the full game replay would be difficult to do, just look at your PBEM file size. Each turn is larger than 50 Starcraft2 replay files, just to provide a random comparison.

[laurent 22]

2 hours ago, Artkin said:

When the turret rotates the gap becomes more extreme, about half a meter of gap at a 90* angle

It's the PZIII G. The PZIII M and N have no problem. The bug was fixed by @kohlenklau last year. The issue fix works fine in RT until a final patch comes.

View PZ 3G - RT fixed:

https://www.mediafire.com/view/rj99blzb9cbjh2v/Pz_3G_RT.jpg/file

Link kohlenklau post:

https://community.battlefront.com/topic/140214-bug-panzer-iiig/?do=findComment&comment=1894625

link kohlenklau drop box pz 3G fixed:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/onjq96c2gh5jmxn/AADVW2t1TK3c0mOhJqUD1Sgqa/CMRT Pziiig late issue fix?dl=0&subfolder_nav_tracking=1

Edited January 30, 2023 by laurent 22

[chuckdyke]

5 hours ago, BornGinger said:

Have you downloaded and tried the free program OBS Studio? It's usually used for streaming but could possibly be useful for what you want to record and save on your computers. It could probably work on both your laptop and desktop. There are videos on YouTube about it to watch and learn.

I have Geforce on the laptop and it is fantastic, can't make it work on the desktop. She won't let me sign in.

[Eeee]

Will we see mine clearing vehicles added in-game in the future?

[Battlefront.com]

16 hours ago, SgtHatred said:

AMD's rewritten OpenGL drivers have been considered wildly successful, which isn't really something you expect out of AMD, but they did it. The older drivers may have been more lenient with software that went out of spec, but that's why you are supposed to stick to the spec in the first place, otherwise you will be going back again and again to keep your software functional when updates break things that weren't in the spec.

I suppose I should bow to your superior knowledge about how Combat Mission works, but since you have vastly oversimplified the issues I think bowing isn't appropriate.

APIs change over time to support new hardware.  As long as the API, drivers, and hardware continue to support older methods, then software that correctly used the API works as it should.  With one exception, all of this has worked as it is supposed to for all these years.  Therefore, someone who knew what they are talking about would conclude that Combat Mission was properly coded to work with the OpenGL API as it was at the time the core game engine was developed.

The one exception was an AMD driver that introduced two bugs into standard OpenGL API calls.  We had a customer high up in the tech side of AMD and he was able to track down and identify the bugs, but it still took AMD more than a year to release a fix.  Until then we did, indeed, have an optional hack around the API that people could opt into.  It didn't work as smoothly, but it did work.  After AMD fixed the problems we removed the option since it was no longer necessary and it would likely stop working at some point anyway.

The problem developers face is not so much that they wrote code that used calls incorrectly, but that new calls have been introduced to access hardware that previously did not exist.  Optimally, existing calls are looped into the new hardware and therefore gain a benefit without the developer needing to do anything.  Unfortunately, that's not always possible to do.  It certainly isn't possible to do when novel features are added that have no prior API equivalent.

Sometimes improvements can be implemented relatively easy, though it usually still takes a fair amount of time.  As an example we added support for bump maps and shaders, two features that IIRC weren't available when we the engine was developed.  At the very least they weren't deemed viable due to framerate issues.

Unfortunately, integrating some improvements is so technically problematic that they aren't viable.  In such situations there's a significant, and generally difficult to quantify, cascade of other changes that have to be made to support the new feature.  Oh, like someone saying "we have these new amazing new energy efficient windows" which turn out to be too big to fit into your window frames.  Which means you can't just swap out the old windows for new ones, but instead have to rebuild all the framing around the windows, then probably reside the entire building.  Oh, and that porch roof that had to be rebuilt because the window is now under it instead of next to it.  So on and so forth.

All of this has presented us with a choice; deliver more content or deliver an improved game experience for the existing content.  We've balanced the choice pretty well, but for sure we see the need to dig into the details and find out what improvements we can reasonably incorporate.  I'm sure there are some, but I am equally sure that it won't live up to the expectations of people comparing us to AAA titles with far newer engines.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

12 hours ago, Flibby said:

The gulf in the trajectory between OpenGL and DirectX have been there for all to see for decades now. Unfortunately it doesn't really hold water to say that it's a surprise that development is limited by not taking a decision to re-engineer the engine in DirectX years ago.

When we coded the game engine for CM was when everybody was jumping on the OpenGL bandwagon because it was better and held out more promise long term.  It was, and still is, cross platformable while DirectX is not.  The decision to go with OpenGL was the right one for the time and still the right one for us now.  The same sorts of issues I discussed in my post above apply to DirectX as much as OpenGL or any other API.

12 hours ago, Grey_Fox said:

That's profoundly disappointing. The reason I know about CM and bought the games is due to AAR videos on youtube created by the likes of @Hapless

 

For this specific purpose, the tool is OK.  The people using it would be small in number, have better computers, probably better computer skills, and definitely superior motivation to muscle through the quirks and limitations.  It is, in a way, how the Professional customers use it.

12 hours ago, Grey_Fox said:

For PBEMs, the save files already exist in the incoming and outgoing email folders. Why not make use of them?

@Hapless

That is how the Professional version gathers the information it needs to make a full game playback.  It's everything that happens to get those files into a single continuous "movie" that is the problem.

One thing that disappoints me is that after 20+ years of listening to you guys and spending thousands of hours delivering things you have requested somehow, for some reason, you think the evil that lurks in our hearts is finally coming out and we're withholding a feature full of rainbows and fuzzy bunnies simply because it gives us cruel pleasure to watch you beg and plead in vain for something requested since 1999.  The alternative, of course, is what I've been saying all along... it is an ugly, ungainly feature that would please few and would set off a round of abuse and demands worse than we've received for not providing it.

Steve

[kohlenklau]

Hi Steve,

Maybe you have noticed some of the folks playing with Blender and messing about with mdr's.

Question 1: We adjusted some tank commander positions in the turrets. It "looked better" and some folks are swearing that their tests seem to show better TC survival rates. Are we smoking crack to think that?

Question 2: Can these mdr bugs such as Cold War sprockets not turning be fixed by a system of "official BFC mods" where the new replacement BFC approved mdr is posted for download versus waiting on a patch?

Question 3: Will CMX3 use the same mdr files or will it use a "next generation 3D model"...?

Thank you.

[SgtHatred]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

I suppose I should bow to your superior knowledge about how Combat Mission works, but since you have vastly oversimplified the issues I think bowing isn't appropriate.

Combat Mission isn't special, old software breaking in APIs that offer backwards compatibility because they cut corners is a tale as old as Microsoft.

 

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

APIs change over time to support new hardware.  As long as the API, drivers, and hardware continue to support older methods, then software that correctly used the API works as it should.  With one exception, all of this has worked as it is supposed to for all these years.  Therefore, someone who knew what they are talking about would conclude that Combat Mission was properly coded to work with the OpenGL API as it was at the time the core game engine was developed.

This is absolutely not the case and any first year software engineer could explain why. Hell, just look at all the games that broke when Windows Vista released. Microsoft had been telling developers since 95 how to save user data, and when Vista finally started enforcing basic security in the Program Files folder, **** broke. Just because the games used to work does NOT mean they were "properly coded" as you say. 

 

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

The one exception was an AMD driver that introduced two bugs into standard OpenGL API calls.  We had a customer high up in the tech side of AMD and he was able to track down and identify the bugs, but it still took AMD more than a year to release a fix.  Until then we did, indeed, have an optional hack around the API that people could opt into.  It didn't work as smoothly, but it did work.  After AMD fixed the problems we removed the option since it was no longer necessary and it would likely stop working at some point anyway.

Yes, AMD has been pretty famous for **** drivers, but they really seem to have put the effort into turning it around.

 

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Sometimes improvements can be implemented relatively easy, though it usually still takes a fair amount of time.  As an example we added support for bump maps and shaders, two features that IIRC weren't available when we the engine was developed.  At the very least they weren't deemed viable due to framerate issues.

I don't think you'll find that many people have a big issue with how Combat Mission looks. I mean, some chuds online will certainly ****can it for not looking like CoD, but I think you'll find a lot more people interested in getting the tiny view distance for textures fixed, or the seeming 25fps cap even on extremely high-end hardware, or the input lag.

 

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

All of this has presented us with a choice; deliver more content or deliver an improved game experience for the existing content.  We've balanced the choice pretty well, but for sure we see the need to dig into the details and find out what improvements we can reasonably incorporate.  I'm sure there are some, but I am equally sure that it won't live up to the expectations of people comparing us to AAA titles with far newer engines.

I don't think anyone here is expecting AAA production values, but I think seeing some progress on some of the problems Combat Mission has isn't the same as comparing you guys to EA. When it takes 9 months (and counting) to fix an issue like the T-90 not having front armour, or a year and a half to fix infantry units retreating forward into the fire they are supposed to retreat from, or the game lagging and stuttering just as much now as it did in 2011... that's a problem, and you have to expect that people will be frustrated by it.

 

But hey, if you are happy with how you are performing, then who cares what us suckers think, right?

[Jaime]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

The one exception was an AMD driver that introduced two bugs into standard OpenGL API calls.  We had a customer high up in the tech side of AMD and he was able to track down and identify the bugs, but it still took AMD more than a year to release a fix.

Some companies just take an unjustifiable amount of time to patch their products. It’s almost feel like their customers aren’t important to them.

[Artkin]

44 minutes ago, SgtHatred said:

you'll find a lot more people interested in getting the tiny view distance for textures fixed

For sure, this would be essential to fix.

 

44 minutes ago, SgtHatred said:

 the seeming 25fps cap even on extremely high-end hardware

I disagree, the games runs great for me up until a certain point (Usually around 3-4 battalions). Then the performance quickly drops off. The amount of movement orders you give at the same time contributes to this big time. If you are an Iron player you will notice the insane FPS boost you get when you click on troops that have no visual on others. The game can run fast even with ****loads of troops, it's just weird.

44 minutes ago, SgtHatred said:

the input lag.

Very annoying at times, but only occurs when you hit that FPS drop off point. And if you are getting input lag your system does not have a fast enough CPU for the scenario you have chosen. Overclocking helps SIGNIFICANTLY.

 

44 minutes ago, SgtHatred said:

EA.

**** those fairies anyway.

44 minutes ago, SgtHatred said:

When it takes 9 months (and counting) to fix an issue like the T-90 not having front armour

Much longer than that. Years since first reported. This bug should have been squashed with the CMBS battle pack. It was at least acknowledged in the first post of this thread, so there's that.

44 minutes ago, SgtHatred said:

or a year and a half to fix infantry units retreating forward into the fire they are supposed to retreat from

Still happens to this day in CMRT 2.12. I don't have the new version yet because managing two installs is a bit of a headache... it wasn't claimed to be fixed in the patch notes though. I believe this happens typically in more complicated terrain like a well-done town (Last saw it a couple days ago on the Nikishyne map by Zveroboy.. it's one of the best maps I've ever played, dare I say the best).

44 minutes ago, SgtHatred said:

or the game lagging and stuttering just as much now as it did in 2011...

Well this is untrue unless you are talking about the titles that were released that long ago. Every new title has seen some sort of FPS boost. CMCW runs maps from other games with much better fps. CMCW is able to have larger battles with more infantry at better fps.

If you want a real raw example of this try SF2 or CMFI which struggle at the battalion level.

Edited January 31, 2023 by Artkin

[Artkin]

I will add the last thing this game series needs is bureaucracy intervention nonsense by Slitherine. Release the games when they are ready, ffs. You all already wasted a year on this nonsense PBEM++ which was clearly a downgrade. I assume this was heavily persuaded by/forced upon by Slitherine.

I'm not mad or anything but it has to be said. What the hell are we pushing release dates back for? These games are niche and pushing release dates makes absolutely no sense until you can market the game as something more. I.e. multiplayer.

I wouldn't doubt a large percentage of people see the lack of multiplayer and are turned away.

[Artkin]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

but for sure we see the need to dig into the details and find out what improvements we can reasonably incorporate.  I'm sure there are some, but I am equally sure that it won't live up to the expectations of people comparing us to AAA titles with far newer engines.

This is much appreciated. CM currently has an mind-numbing amount of content especially after you learn how to port maps. Creating scenarios is not difficult as the process is super easy minus AI plans which take a bit of learning. Maps are more difficult and time consuming to create. Despite that both of these are abundant in the community currently. And given how slow games can take (PBEM games specifically) there's no need to drown us in content (Not that it goes underappreciated). If content (Maps, scenarios) takes away from development time (New features, new vehicles *rolls eyes at lack of mod support*) then it's not worth it currently.

Edited January 31, 2023 by Artkin

[SgtHatred]

17 minutes ago, Artkin said:

I disagree, the games runs great for me up until a certain point (Usually around 3-4 battalions). Then the performance quickly drops off. The amount of movement orders you give at the same time contributes to this big time. If you are an Iron player you will notice the insane FPS boost you get when you click on troops that have no visual on others. The game can run fast even with ****loads of troops, it's just weird.

Very annoying at times, but only occurs when you hit that FPS drop off point. And if you are getting input lag your system does not have a fast enough CPU for the scenario you have chosen. Overclocking helps SIGNIFICANTLY.

 

I'd love to know how you've managed that. I can never crack 25 fps in this, and I usually play multiplayer TCPIP, Large sized quickbattles, which is usually battalion+ sized. CMCW, CMFI, CMBS, doesn't seem to matter, they work the same. I've gone from an old 6700K to a i7 8086K overclocked at 5.2ghz, to a AMD 5800X with a 3080ti... no difference for CM.

[Artkin]

3 minutes ago, SgtHatred said:

I'd love to know how you've managed that. I can never crack 25 fps in this, and I usually play multiplayer TCPIP, Large sized quickbattles, which is usually battalion+ sized. CMCW, CMFI, CMBS, doesn't seem to matter, they work the same. I've gone from an old 6700K to a i7 8086K overclocked at 5.2ghz, to a AMD 5800X with a 3080ti... no difference for CM.

Are you playing the steam version by any chance? I have a 9600k which is supposed to be at 4.7 or 4.8 but it's Windows 10's slave and runs at speed when daddy lets it.

[SgtHatred]

25 minutes ago, Artkin said:

Are you playing the steam version by any chance? I have a 9600k which is supposed to be at 4.7 or 4.8 but it's Windows 10's slave and runs at speed when daddy lets it.

I've used both over the years. Doesn't seem to make a difference for me.

[Artkin]

7 minutes ago, SgtHatred said:

I've used both over the years. Doesn't seem to make a difference for me.

I assure you I get the best fps in CMCW, CMRT, and CMFB. It is definitely beyond 25.

If you dont see a difference between CMFI and CMCW then you have a problem. If you want a direct comparison load up a chunk of the Berlin map from CMRT in CMCW and compare the difference. Or the nijmegan map from CMBN in CMCW.

Edited January 31, 2023 by Artkin

[JM Stuff]

10 hours ago, Sunbather said:

 

I wish Battlefront no harm, quite the opposite frankly. But we all saw what a driving force competition can be when AMD finally released competitive CPUs. I am no liberalist when it comes to economics but Jesus did we all prosper from that competition. Just the kick in the *** Intel needed so badly. This only translates roughly to the video game sector, especially the wargaming niche, but a recent example would be the release of Regiments and it seems to have exerted at least some pressure on the developers of Warno. At the end of the day, I can't say if Combat Mission can be rivaled in the foreseeable future. Despite its apparent dated-ness, CM still has a 25 year long headstart.

All that being said, I remembered a post from Reddit from last year. Apparently the guy is still working on it. And apparently the it's also a guy working from his garage, hahaha.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZZi3x8VdKE

Very realistic animations, game very prometting, I like it already  .

Cheers

[Artkin]

I'd love to see how that functions with 2000 troops on screen