Disaster@work Posted August 2, 2000 Share Posted August 2, 2000 I'm reposting this from a previous thread because I think it bears a thread all itself. I'm not a graphics programmer, BTW, just an artist. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Juardis: One word of advice, invest some of that money in upgraded graphics for CM2. That, and lack of TCP/IP, seem to be the number one complaints in these reviews. If you do not update the graphics for CM2, then you will get dinged hard. I can see it now, "much like the first game using the now dated graphics...." Note: I'm not saying the graphics in CM1 are bad, I love them and think they're great. I'm just projecting into the future. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My roommate who is a programmer at Relic (Homeworld) saw me playing this and said that one thing would change the look of CM dramatically, proper lighting. That is true, sez I. Everything in CM looks flat shaded. But let's just wish for dynamic lighting too, eh? How about the terrain and models shaded from passing tracer fire, explosions, gunflares too! Wouldn't that be just dandy watching a nighttime firefight? LOL. I told him previously that I thought Homeworld should have a straight screensaver mode so that you can just leave it on and watch some of those beautiful space battles out of the corner of your eye. I'd do the same thing with Combat Mission. "What's that coming from your computer, dear?" "Oh, just a panzer battle." Of course, any new lighting scheme (not talking about dynamic lighting) will add more to the engine needs. If you want to see totally advanced lighting in a game, I suggest you look at the demo trailer for Neverwinter Nights. OMG. Everything else in the graphics is reasonable for the amount of units you see on the board. The soldier models, more animations, all of that is just candy IMO. Opinions, all? [This message has been edited by Disaster@work (edited 08-02-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rob/1 Posted August 2, 2000 Share Posted August 2, 2000 I think there is some work to be done on the lighting to i just did a scenario that was during the day it was clear. The lighting for clear and overcast is not that much diffrent. ------------------ Check out my CM web page! www.geocities.com/robisme_ca/Combat1.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rollstoy Posted August 2, 2000 Share Posted August 2, 2000 Hey Disaster, tell your roommate that Homeworld is a f- great game! I remember how much I admired the graphics .......... until I realized that I was running the thing in SOFTWARE mode only! Oh my God! Also, it has the free-movement feature which I love so much (see CM)! Regards, Thomm ... still waiting for a WW II "Syndicate Wars" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disaster@work Posted August 2, 2000 Author Share Posted August 2, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rollstoy: Hey Disaster, tell your roommate that Homeworld is a f- great game! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh, actually this is a misunderstanding. He didn't work on Homeworld, he's on one of their next projects: Sigma. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Also, it has the free-movement feature which I love so much (see CM)!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes is this is one of the reasons CM works so well. It's the virtual way of leaning over the game board and looking right down at the figures. [This message has been edited by Disaster@work (edited 08-02-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Posted August 2, 2000 Share Posted August 2, 2000 Graphics are nice, but there is only so much programming time avaiable. Instead of fancy graphics (and I think the graphics in CM are great!), I would prefer it, if the time at hand would be used for further improvement of the (already fantastic) underlying game engine and the AI. Whatever the reviewers from the mainstream magazines would say. Fred ------------------ "I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disaster@work Posted August 2, 2000 Author Share Posted August 2, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fred: Graphics are nice, but there is only so much programming time avaiable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, graphics programming for a title is definitely a one man job all by itself. That's ok because you can have it done more or less independently from the game engine before it comes to integration once you finalize design. That is, CM can be played out entirely using coloured boxes So BTS can make that decision based upon money they have for extra staffing. I don't think it's a case of "instead of", rather, what improvements they can afford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schrullenhaft Posted August 2, 2000 Share Posted August 2, 2000 It would definitely take a lot longer to compile a turn with lighting taken into consideration. Admittedly it would add a lot more graphical depth, but with the number of 3D items in a CM battlefield it could easily take 2 or 3 times longer to compile a "turn-movie" (and that's a wild guess). Depending on the quality of the lighting (which would have to be applied to each instance of the bitmapped textures individually) and the number of lighting sources (gunfire, shade, explosions and fires) this could take a long time and/or be quite memory/CPU intensive. And this would have to be calculated for each second of movement. Obviously not impossible, but I believe it will make turn execution slower and increase the memory/CPU requirements significantly. Other than some new terrain and tweaks to the AI (to handle the new terrain and AFVs/weapon systems), I'm not sure what else BTS will add to make the game system for CM2 that much different from CMBO. Obviously there will be a lot of work on the 3D models/textures (which is quite time-consuming). In fact just this work alone will probably take the 12 - 18 months to get CM2 out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace Posted August 3, 2000 Share Posted August 3, 2000 IMHO, I think improved graphics is just chrome - I'm more interested in the game play and the correct modelling of warfare on the Eastern Front! Mace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juardis Posted August 3, 2000 Share Posted August 3, 2000 I don't think there needs to be a tradeoff between improved AI or improved graphics. That is why I suggested that BTS hire another person to work on one or the other. I too am not that concerned about the graphics in CM1. I think they're fine now, especially with MadMatts hi-res mods. But if they weren't fine now, then fewer "mainstream" wargamers would buy the game. Extrapolate that out to 24 months, plus or minus. To reach those same "mainstream" wargamers they're gonna have to advance the graphics (that's assuming of course they want the "mainstream" wargamers). I'm more concerned with additional building types (e.g., factories), additional vertical distance (mountains in Italy for example), more polygons for soldiers, more trees, more eye candy in general. Afterall, the graphics are there to represent the underlying mathematics, and the math seems fine to me. Also, we're not talking CM2 in 6 months (or so I've been led to believe), but maybe more like 18 months. In 18 months, more of what I described is not unreasonable for the hardware that will be available at that time. I'm thinking though that to get to that point in 18 months another programmer/artist needs to be hired. Otherwise, compromises might have to be made (like CM2 in 18 months w/out improved graphics, or CM2 in 30 months w/ improved graphics). ------------------ Jeff Abbott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tobe Posted August 3, 2000 Share Posted August 3, 2000 I think updated graphics with REAL lighting effects would be a great addition, and a smart move for Battlefront. If this game stayed exactly the same, but had graphics closer to something like Ground Control it would be attractive to a MUCH larger audience (more than just us WW2 geeks and wargamers ) IMHO. True, gameplay is more important, but given the success of this game I think some better graphics can probably be affored. I would personally love to see a night time battle with mortars lighting up the whole area for an instant, and explosions illuminating the battleground. I'd love to see tanks laying tracks on some terrain, and kicking up a little dust behind them. Those details can really help a great game like this feel even more immersive. Just my $0.02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rune Posted August 3, 2000 Share Posted August 3, 2000 Copied my answer from another thread where I answered this before: The only way to do it right would be to use T&L. Now, many wargamers have T&L in their video cards? I do...but I am one of the few... trust me when I say this has been discussed at lenght for CM1. As for the graphics....CM can push more triangles then Quake III. Remember every tank and human figure and etc etc is chewing on the memory. The graphics aren't as good as quake 3 is a common complaint I see. Hmm...according to more then one source who programs, they could only do a very limited outdoor since the number of triangles pushed...now you have a map 2k by 4k, hundreds of units, etc. Guys, it pushed the hardware that was meant to be the low end. Will CM2 raise the ante? Yep...but you better believe you will have to have a faster computer and faster video card. Will Charles want to do T&L, or is it worth his time? Charles would have to answer that. I am sure Charles/Steve can chip in and correct any mistakes factually. Rune Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eboli Posted August 3, 2000 Share Posted August 3, 2000 The way I understand it, which may be wrong, better graphics would only slow down planning and playback... which are independent of the AI, which happens while the turn is compiled. Theoretically, they could re-write all of the graphics routines without ever touching the AI code. Besides, the turns already compile quicker than I expected, considering the complexity of the physics model. Does anyone know if they licensed a 3d engine or rolled their own? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HankWWIIOnline Posted August 3, 2000 Share Posted August 3, 2000 Easy solution: Bring in the real lighting effects, but give the option to turn them off for people who don't have the horsepower. ------------------ College Football approaches... www.getfanatical.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disaster@work Posted August 3, 2000 Author Share Posted August 3, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Schrullenhaft: Obviously not impossible [to program in a better lighting routine], but I believe it will make turn execution slower and increase the memory/CPU requirements significantly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes it would be taxing to the lower end systems and lead to longer compile times. There's no getting around that except to enable users to turn certain options off. This requires a hard look at their target machine. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> ...Obviously there will be a lot of work on the 3D models/textures (which is quite time-consuming). In fact just this work alone will probably take the 12 - 18 months to get CM2 out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, maybe 12-18 worker months. That's a long time, IMO. They can always contract or hire more modellers / texture artists or even buy models from libraries. There are tons of really fine WWII models out there. Some of them wouldn't be all that expensive. The real custom work would be in the character animating which does need improvement. It's fine 50 metres above ground. Once again, you can hire someone to do that. All dependent on if they made enough money and want to grow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phred Posted August 4, 2000 Share Posted August 4, 2000 I don't know that much about Charley's technology, but I assume that "adding" lighting is a task that would range from difficult to impossible. However, hazarding a guess based on what I know about 3d engines I've worked with, lighting would generally be done during the scenario building phase. At that point, static lightmaps would be generated for the map based on a point light source. Dynamic lights (explosions, etc.) would be generated at run time, and would add some amount to the processing time, but not significantly. However, say goodbye to those instant map generation routines! Lighting on units would be fairly simple, as modern processors (and esp. modern 3d cards) can handle gouraud shading rather easily. However, I'd rather see more variety in units and gameplay features than improved graphics. I still marvel at how cool the game looks and I hope that BTS is able to expose their model building path at some point so we can get improvements in this dept. from the dedicated fanbase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest olebooya Posted August 4, 2000 Share Posted August 4, 2000 Froma wargaming standpoint.....CM graphics are light years ahead of any other REAL wargame. Comparing it against shooters or RPG's isn't fair. CM has a lot more going on behind the scenes than those do. I have to agree.. Id rather have the detail in the guts of the game than fancy it up with prety sights. The tradeoff seems fair- 20 Panthers rolling across the stepps of eastern Europe witha company of infantry in support with current lighting, or 1 panther and a squad of infantry, but you can see the shadows of every tracer round fired....easy choice give me the size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts