Warmonger Posted October 31, 2000 Share Posted October 31, 2000 Guy w/Gun stated: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have a Geforce 32mb ddr. While its not the most powerful card anymore, it's still VERY good. Do i want better graphics? No. I think if there were better graphics, other things would suffer. Framerate, game speed, etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is a common misconception, in fact, the new Geforce 256 64 mgs with its' Graphic Processing Unit ( GPU ) on board takes the workload from the CPU and allows it to function without drag. I find it rather strange that people say they do not want better graphics ! If this were a fact why not stop at 4 mg cards or play 2 D wargames !? This argument is similiar to the to the Luddites - Here are the facts: A short time ago CM1 was written for a 4 meg video card, now 32 megs are the standard and a month or two more the new standard shall be 64 megs and six months later 128 megs.... Knowledge and hardware should continue to improve, so why shouldn't the CM program continue to evolve... it would be nonsensical if it did not...if it doesn't it shall be replaced by another software company...we all know that ! This is not to say they couldn't write software for 64 mgs and still allow a 16 mg card to be used, so don't panic ! Right now you can use CM 1 with a 4 mg card although 16 mgs is recommended. Anyone here who says they do not want CM to improve its graphics, may wish to reconsider there position ! Regards, Warmonger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turret Ring Posted October 31, 2000 Share Posted October 31, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Warmonger: Here are the facts: A short time ago CM1 was written for a 4 meg video card, now 32 megs are the standard and a month or two more the new standard shall be 64 megs and six months later 128 megs.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 32 Megs of video RAM is standard? Let's do a poll. All you folks who read this thread post in your video RAM stats. I've got 16megs of voodoo3 myself. ------------------ "Then we shall fight in the shade." (Greek general's comment upon being told that the Persian archers could blot-out the sun with their arrows.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted October 31, 2000 Share Posted October 31, 2000 Warmonger, to be honest I think you might have a slight misconception as to what is considered standard for the average computer user. Currently the standard for a new computer sold is indeed a 32mb card. Is this what the average computer user uses? No, Id say 16mb would more likely be the average and possable even 8. 64Mb cards wont be sold as standard in system for some time to come as standard (and by standard I mean what the average person will by from a computer store), Id guess mid to late next year. Just becuase they are available dosnt mean we should cater for them, becuase only the top 5% of gamers actually own them. Yes, we could design CM2 for those out there with 64mb (I think matt would be happy ), but what about the rest. CM is backwards compatable to lower vram cards, *but* it would be left up to CM to scale down the texture as it sees fit. The result from this (and I have tested in the past) are undesirable, though servicable. CM2 must cater for everyone, not just those riding the technology wave (and I am one of them). I am happy to say CM's graphics will be improved over time (in many ways! ), but we must also do this to keep in line with what the system the average computer user (and wargamer) has available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted October 31, 2000 Share Posted October 31, 2000 Oh and guys, please lets keep this discussion all in one thread and not start multiple threads on the one topic. [This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 10-30-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest *Captain Foobar* Posted October 31, 2000 Share Posted October 31, 2000 Gee Warmonger, you are doing quite a job of 'framing up' the argument. I am not a luddite, I do not have my head in the sand. I enjoy the hell out of the graphics in this game, but they are not the central focus of the game. Are you under the impression that players here would be disappointed to see graphical improvements without trading the realism away? DUH!!! What you are saying is extremely obvious. Good graphics are always welcomed, BUT, and listen, because you don't seem to be getting what people are telling you: The core of Combat Mission is the realistic simulation of tactical ww2 combat. This is a completely separate thing from the visual representation. Combat Mission would still be extremely accurate without even showing the movie to us. So, if you are right, than its great news! Bring on the lifelike CM graphics! But many people, myself included reserve the right to be skeptical. I hope you're right, but until it arrives, I am pleased as punch with CMBO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Rock Posted October 31, 2000 Share Posted October 31, 2000 16 meg Voodoo Banshee, PII 233, 64MB. CM runs fine on my machine, but the latest whizz-bang graphic heavy games coming out now won't. I don't even bother buying most new games these days. So - if the choice is between medium-spec graphic CM that runs versus a high-spec version I can't play, I'll vote Luddite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andrew Hedges Posted October 31, 2000 Share Posted October 31, 2000 When I bought my computer back in February, the standard graphics card for mid-level "value" computers (which I believe is what most people buy) at places like BestBuy was 8 meg of "integrated" AGP graphics. "Integrated," of course, is a clever way of saying that there is no AGP slot. This standard has probably risen since February, but I wouldn't imagine to 32 meg. Having said that, though, I do like nice graphics if they don't come at the expense of other, more important things. I wonder if BTS could keep everyone happy by shipping an additional disk with hi-res textures on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted October 31, 2000 Share Posted October 31, 2000 I am running a 32meg card. Have been for some time cause I loves the 3D!! I dig the graphics in CM and I am a long time twitcher, ever since Doom. If they improve the graphics in CM I'll be happy. If they don't I'll be happy. I just pray that the ability to modify the uniforms, tanks, vehicles, buildings and such always remains no matter how advanced the graphics become. For me that is a HUGE bonus with this awsome game. You get tired of one tank...you switch it for another. Viola! New graphics!! And the game play is untouched what more could a guy want? Mord Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted October 31, 2000 Share Posted October 31, 2000 "This standard has probably risen since February, but I wouldn't imagine to 32 meg." Acutally Andrew, you are right. When I said above the standard system ships with a 32mb card, I was mainly thinking of the standard gaming system. To be honest if you are talking a standard system someone would buy for home use, 8mb is indeed still the norm, with 16 being an option. 32mb cards are still considered purely a gaming or graphics card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mscano Posted October 31, 2000 Share Posted October 31, 2000 I've got a voodoo3 16mb card and the game runs fine (slows up a bit on big maps). I'm thinking of buying the geforce ddr, but was wondering if anyone had any problems running the game with it. I've got a 400mhz Pent.II with 128mb pc100 ram and was wondering if the geforce would make a difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted October 31, 2000 Share Posted October 31, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Turret Ring: 32 Megs of video RAM is standard? Let's do a poll. All you folks who read this thread post in your video RAM stats. I've got 16megs of voodoo3 myself. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 64M GeForce 2 GTS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted October 31, 2000 Share Posted October 31, 2000 12 MB Voodoo 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von shrad Posted October 31, 2000 Share Posted October 31, 2000 16 meg voodoo3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Clark Posted October 31, 2000 Share Posted October 31, 2000 16 mb v3 3000, 380 mhz amd K6-2, 80 mb ram. CM runs great. I'm sure the graphics will be improved in CM2... but it seems like insanity to target only 32 mb cards and higher in the next release. The target audience for CM is not necessarily a graphics intensive audience. Why make fans of wargames who have no need of Super Machines skip out on future releases of CM because they don't have the system to run it on??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted October 31, 2000 Share Posted October 31, 2000 Just so Ive made myself clear guys, CM2 will certainally not be targetting 32mb cards and above, and to be honest I doubt you will find many games that will for some time to come. We will be upping the quality of graphics from those in CM1, but we are doing so with those users with lower end systems also in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MantaRay Posted October 31, 2000 Share Posted October 31, 2000 I have had a 32MB TNT2 card for over a year, and as soon as I talk the wife into it, I will be getting a 64. As I have stated before, BTS could do a lot more with higher specs from us. As a group, we do have more money to spend on such items, and how many of you would actually refuse to upgrade to play the next CM offering? I am not saying that everyone here needs to go out and spend their life savings on new componets, but you also shouldnt expect game companies to wait for you. If you want to surf the internet...keep your current rig. If you want to be a gamer... Speed is life, if you want to ride the break then dont be surprised if ya get passed on the way. Ray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted October 31, 2000 Share Posted October 31, 2000 Although it is probably silly to jump into this, I thought I would give some insight into how graphics capability gets set in many games (I do not know for sure if this is how BTS did CM). Each game marketer has a target, or intended audience for a game. This is a demographic (demo) or psychographic or people who will likely purchase the game. To be a commercial success, this demo has to purchase the game at a high enough price point with a low enough cost of production and design for a profit to be made -- so the demo has to be big enough to make a profit. (A side note: small game companies like BTS fail because they do not take heed of these numbers, making ultimate games that never reach market. Big game companies like Hasbro produce bombs because they let the market aspects and numbers take over from the quality of the games). Part of this demographic target is meshed up in machines. How big of a machine, what type of machine, what standards does the machine use, how picky the audience is that uses that machine, and so forth. Most companies, and BTS is likely no exception, generate statistical research on this subject and develop an "average machine" and a "machine range" of capability. They then decide were they draw the line in terms of game quality. Draw the line to low, and the game is terrible looking. Draw the line to high, and no one can get it to work on their system (only the largest FPS type games drive video card sales to any extent). There is also a predictive element. What type of computers will people have tomorrow? (average PC user buys a new PC every 36 months, average Mac user every 48 months). Should we design for the next version of Direct-X which may or may not be on the market, is the most recent Voodoo acceleration worth it, or is it a lot of hog wash. In the long run, the next game will not be designed based on outliers like us (using the Internet for discussion groups means you are usually on the higher end of computer sophistication, at least according to current research) but based on a range of users. I would love tanks to have photorealistic bit maps and be made of thousands of polygons, and there to be a larger variety of buildings and vehicle "skins", but CM1 was likely targeted to people with 4-8mb of video RAM and a 200mhz machine, very modest by today's standards, and CM2 will likely to be targeted also to modest machines. That does not mean anyone is a luddite, as has been suggested, but that marketing is an issue in this game, and if you target both for the Grogs and for the people with 128mb video ram real-time photorealistic render stations, no one will buy the game. Let me put it another way. My work station that I use for video editing is also my CM machine. It has 3 video monitors and an NTSC monitor (passed through a firewire VTR). Usually I keep two monitors hooked up to it. I like to spread games out, so I would like a multiple monitor view option for the game, allowing me to see several sides of the battle at once. How many people with 32 or 64mb cards have two monitors? Should Charles spend two months coding multiple monitor support for me when only 1 person in a hundred has that? What if it became mandatory to play the game? What happens to BTS sales when you need two video cards and 2x 19inch monitors to play? And before I get branded a luddite, I want a much larger selection of buildings, skins for vehicles, more polygons on woods, and stuff like that, but it wont do me anygood until Foobar, and Pascal, and Chupacabra, and Admiral, and CavScout, and Chemg, and the 800 other people who I have played or hope to play in the future can play the game too. No fun to be the only guy able to play CM. It is only fun when you have friends to wail on one who can wail on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted October 31, 2000 Share Posted October 31, 2000 You can get A GeForce 2 MX 32MB card for less than $100. Come on people, join the new century. 32 MB is not a high-end card. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted October 31, 2000 Share Posted October 31, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Warmonger: Knowledge and hardware should continue to improve, so why shouldn't the CM program continue to evolve... it would be nonsensical if it did not...if it doesn't it shall be replaced by another software company...we all know that ! Regards, Warmonger<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> First of all, why is it that all newbies always bring up the above bolded comment? In answer to that query, I must refer you to the Battlefront.com Manifesto which simply states, that BTS is not the very least worried about such an occurance. -------------------------------- As for my graphics card.... My computer came with an 8MB Intel i740 AGP card. It was OK, but shortly thereafter I purchased a 32MB Diamond Viper TNT2 Ultra V770. My CPU at the moment is a Celeron 433 w/128 MB. Yes, CM runs pretty good, but I do still get slowdowns on the large maps, but I run a lot of HI-RES MODS. Hell, I've hi-res'ed all of the uniforms myself. I'm seriously thinking about a CPU/motherboard upgrade within the next few months up to a AMD board and AMD Duron 700MHz for just a couple hundred bucks or so. ------------------ "Rule#3: You must be a member of my Meta Campaign to take part.(doh!)" - Rob/1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted October 31, 2000 Share Posted October 31, 2000 Hi Guys, Purely for simplicities sake and to keep this discussion going in one thread, Im going to lock this one up. Please feel free to copy and paste any thoughts you posted here over there. Thanks to all for keeping it polite too Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts