CM Graphics - Room For Improvement

[Warmonger]

Hello group,

We are all very happy that there is a three D strategy wargame ! However, the graphics in CM 1 are when compared to other 3D games only average, I don't think they even use bumps.

Now that the engines for CM are written, perhaps they may take CM 2 to the next level. Write the program for a 64 meg video card, don't worry people will buy one ! Push the graphics to the limit.

Interested to hear whether the group agrees or disagrees with these points.

Thx,

Warmonger

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

Personally I find these graphics quite sufficient in quality, with the various "hi res" mods available they're even very good !

The base thing is that they are adapted to the game : soldiers faces do not blink eyes, but the game has whole battalions to manage, buildings have no rooms, nor interior furniture, but that's not necessary (or is it )

They perhaps could be better, but also don't forget that BTS don't have a bunch of graphists, and I *don't* want the rest of the game to be sacrificed to just eye-candy.

[Splinty]

I agree with Mr DIFOLCO, the real genius behind CM is the engine and all the complex calculations that go on behind the graphics (which are excellent IMO). Every shot is placed IAW the actuall weapons characteristics and performance,every impact is based on the range and the exact angle at which the shot strikes. All the damage that shot causes is based on the armor characistics of the target vehicle,it's an incredible simulation of WWII combat. I'd still play the game if it used pictures of tabletop counters.

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

Nicht Schiessen!!

[This message has been edited by Splinty (edited 10-30-2000).]

[Chupacabra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Warmonger:

Write the program for a 64 meg video card, don't worry people will buy one ! Push the graphics to the limit.

Interested to hear whether the group agrees or disagrees with these points.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Disagree. Wanna buy me a new desktop so I can actually use a 64mb video card? Alternatively, wanna design a laptop with AGP slots?

As for CMs graphics being behind those of other 3d games. How many polygons do you think, say, Q3 has to draw, on average? Now, take a battallion-sized battle. How many polygons do you think that is? Betcha anything it's more than Q3 has to deal with.

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

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Splinty:

I'd still play the game if it used pictures of tabletop counters.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Totally agree with Splinty.

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

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 10-30-2000).]

[Chupacabra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Splinty:

I'd still play the game if it used pictures of tabletop counters.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, that sounds like Lewis' game

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

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Splinty:

I agree with Mr DIFOLCO, the real genius behind CM is the engine and all the complex calculations that go on behind the graphics (which are excellent IMO)

...

. I'd still play the game if it used pictures of tabletop counters.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I too agree with myself .

What's stunning and magical with this game is how *all* things go well with each others, I mean the UGO/IGO system, the replay ,the combat rules, the graphics & sounds... This is very rare, I'd only encountered that once before, with a tabletop game, t'was Squad Leader. If you want to play CM with cardboard counters, play ASL !

[coralsaw]

This issue has been brought up many times before.

I agree with Splinty and the other guys. Even if the graphics were horrible, I'd still play the game.

Nevertheless, I don't think we have enough info to judge if the polygon engine of CM is the same quality as e.g. the Unreal Tournament one, or if the number of displayed polygons is different.

IMO, I see the likes of UT, Q3 and HL being better at dynamic light effects and (maybe) faster polygon rendering.

CM has great textures made by fans, and I also find the basic rendering engine virtually bug-free (no clipping problems etc). On the other hand, IMO (no flaming pls), it is probably not state-of-the-art.

It would be interesting to know who created the engine and if Steve or Charles have previous experiencve in the subject. Guys?

I appreciate that CM was developed out of personal passion and with a small budget, but maybe the engine should be outsourced to a specialised developer in future versions of CM. The talented chaps at BTS should concentrate on the modelling aspects of CM, methinks.

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

My squads are regular, must be the fibre in the musli...

[Samhain]

I would very much like to see grahics improvements across the board, so that CM2 will be visually competitive with other 3D titles and take full advantage of the latest graphics cards. The 3D graphics of CM are a major part of the appeal--although hardly the only one of course--and they can't be separated from the gameplay and entire CM experience. Clearly most gamers find graphics important (it's been hard to "sell" CM to my many gaming friends who are used to more cutting edge graphics--their loss!), and many CM players enjoy adding hi-res replacement mods, which says something.

Chupacabra, I think the point was that CM simply doesn't look as "advanced" as other 3D games, regardless of poly counts. Given its lighting, textures, etc., it's hard to argue otherwise in comparison to games like UT, Q3, SBK 2001, Ground Control, and many, many others. I don't mean to slight BTS in any way, as I deeply respect CM, but the graphics could certainly be improved for CM2.

As for poly counts, with scaling level of detail there are techniques to render numerous units on the screen at once: poly counts are reduced as units move away in the distance and/or as more units are present on screen. You can designate a target frame rate and let the engine dynamically scale polys based on that variable.

Anyway, I'd like to see dynamic lighting from tracer and heavy gun fire, deformable terrain, much higher poly counts on the soldiers, higher resolution 32-bit textures, bump mapping, you name it. I love CM for its wonderful depth, replayability, the hybrid turn system, etc., but the graphics are certainly part of the appeal.

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

I rode a tank, held a general's rank

When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank.

--Rolling Stones

[This message has been edited by Samhain (edited 10-30-2000).]

[Mord]

I like the graphics and I am an eye candy junky. But eye candy alone will never do it for me and that is where CM shines. The graphics are more than adequate. Would I like to see some better troop modeling? Sure but if it never happened I wouldn't lose any sleep. Graphics as graphics go can always be better, always be improved. But it's the marriage of the graphics and the gaming that blow me away. I have seen some cool stuff in games before but CM takes the cake. I am constantly suprised by all the little details of combat that it models so well. I am always going WOW and wishing there was someone right there at that moment that could enjoy the wild show that I'd just watched.

And another thing I like so much about the game is how customizable it is. I really get into being able to personalize a game and I think it's really cool that BTS gave us that option. I am not talking about modding as far as changing the code, just the little tweaks to the graphics and sound that add even more to the gaming experience. I hope that they never change this aspect. It's enough for me. I is happy.

Mord

[Kitty]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Warmonger:

Write the program for a 64 meg video card, don't worry people will buy one ! Push the graphics to the limit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, and by the time I can afford to do that the game will get updated again and I'll be left out once more. I'd love to buy neato stuff like 64MB video cards but not everyone can. =| "Push the graphics to a reasonable limit" might be a better slogan.

Kitty

[aka_tom_w]

If you have not checked out this video yet you should do so:

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/video/clasified.mpeg

OK I know it is a big 24 meg download, but if you must, leave it alone let downlaod all night, and wake up and watch int, IT is VERY well done and has plenty of animated combat eye candy "footage"

I think that CM2 Will be compared to Panzer Elite and Flash Point 1985, and I think it should have VERY high end graphics and plenty of eye candy, BUT never at the expensive of historical accruacy and fun playability. I do trust Steve and Charles to do this right and BTS won't let us down.

-tom w

[Chupacabra]

I don't think the question is going to be graphics vs. historical accuracy. It seems to me that Steve and Charles would have to be smoking an awful lot of crack to say "hey, let's get rid of all these books and program some kewl hovertanks!" And I don't expect that to happen anytime soon.

I think the question is between graphics and compatibility with older systems. Like it or not, there are a lot of wargamers who have systems that aren't what anyone would call cutting edge.

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

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[This message has been edited by Chupacabra (edited 10-30-2000).]

[Samhain]

The last point is true of gamers in general and is an inherent and nasty part of computer gaming (i.e., the dreaded upgrade cycle). But also, CM clearly appeals to many who wouldn't normally classify themselves as wargamers, myself included (though I think CM is one of the very best electronic games of the hundreds I've played over the last couple decades). BTS's audience is clearly wider than just hardcore grogs, though I don't think any of us expect the company to sacrifice its vision for mass appeal If mass appeal arises, it will be because of the vision, if there's any justice in this world.

Anyway, most games are scalable (resolution, texture depth, detail settings, lighting, etc.). The same could be implemented for CM2. That would let people with high-end systems benefit while not shutting out those with low-end rigs.

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

I rode a tank, held a general's rank

When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank.

--Rolling Stones

[Kingfish]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Write the program for a 64 meg video card, don't worry people will buy one ! Push the graphics to the limit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One thing that needs to be realized is how small a market there is for games like CM. It's tough enough to sell a wargame in todays enviroment, throw in the fact that it deals strictly with WW2, that isn't real time, and what you have is a product that attracts a very small segment of computer gamers (we are a weird breed, aren't we ).

It doesn't make sense to then "up the ante" to the point where you lose a sizeable portion of your customers. I would be left out if this game was coded for a 64 meg Video card, as I'm not about to fork over $200+ just to see every tracer.

[Chupacabra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Samhain:

Anyway, most games are scalable (resolution, texture depth, detail settings, lighting, etc.). The same could be implemented for CM2. That would let people with high-end systems benefit while not shutting out those with low-end rigs.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The trouble with scalable graphics is that it's occasionally possible to miss crucial details with the graphics scaled down. I remember this one incredibly frustrating moment in...Unreal? anyway, some FPS game, where a reflective floor was supposed to reflect a button you were supposed to shoot. Problems came if you turned off reflectivity...

This was more of a generic gripe than anything directed at BTS, since I somehow doubt we're going to have to solve red key, blue key puzzles in CM2

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

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[kmead]

For me, the graphics are just fine for what I need in a game of this type. I don't play any of the various and sundry fps's. The next generation of CM should aim a little higher than it does today, but keep in mind in one year although the hardware will be available but not neccessarily adopted. I currently run this on a Rev iMac 233/6mb graphics and a imac 400/8mb and it works just fine until I open a huge battle when I have start dumping the smoke and so on. I expect to upgrade to a dual processor G4 in the next year with a 32mb video card, which I am sure will be the last new machine for quite some time.

Not every wargamer is likely to have top line hardware, and I suspect they are less likely than most gamers. For me this game will be one of the only games I will be buying for myself this year, most of my software purchases are for my kids. I can't justify spending that much on myself and I just don't have the time to spend on multiple games with all my job and home responsibilities.

Yeah it would be nice to have more eyecandy, but what is there is enough to get the job done. I want a smooth running simulation of the action more than I want a smooth movie...

[USTanker]

Now maybe I'm the exception, but I find the graphics satisfactory. Bear in mind that Combat Mission is not a first person shooter or a puzzle solver type of game where graphics are critically important. It is a combat simulation. Whether the graphics were simple boxes and stick figures, the combat approximation would be the same. The fact that the graphics are as good as they are (and getting better thatnks to all you modders) are just icing on the cake for me. Games like TACOPS and Steel Panthers have been my forte for many years. The fact that I can now clearly decern intervisibiity lines and fields of fire are the meat to this game. If you insist on graphics over substance you may be missing the whole point IMHO.

[deanco]

I gotta chip in, this is one of my pet subjects.

CM sold out...two times. BTS musta thought they had good data when they printed the first run.. 'I think we're gonna sell this many copies'. They were wrong, and I'm happy as heck for 'em.

Question 1 is, who bought those extra games? Guys who wouldn't mind it if the game was cardboard counters? Or guys that liked the 3D aspect to heighten the realism and give more immersive gameplay than the counters? Well of course there are some of both but what's the percentage? Is it a significant part of the total sales?

Question 2 I guess would be if BTS is interested in selling to this expanded "gamey" market. Maybe they're not, in which case there is no real reason to improve the graphics, since there are those who would buy it if it was hexes and counters.

and Question 3 would be if the new "gamey" segment of the wargaming community is big enough to warrant "throwing a bone" to them by improving the graphics.

It all boils down to, "Gee, we sold X thousand copies to people who think the 3D part and the eye candy is one of CM's biggest selling points!" (after the killer gameplay, of course...CM is first and foremost a great game) Maybe we shold try to sell to these guys again for CM2!" I can only hope that this is what's going through BTS' minds right now.

DeanCo--

[David Aitken]

Kingfish makes a very good point.

I will add that the soul of the kind of games you might compare CM with – Unreal, for example – is the graphics. The graphics are everything – the actual game is pretty basic. The graphics are the selling point, what attracts interest.

The soul of CM is anything but the graphics – it is the underlying engine, all the painstaking thought and research and work that has gone into the simulation. The graphics are simple placeholders – change or simplify the graphics and the game is no less impressive. Take graphics away from Unreal and you have very little left.

In my opinion, Combat Mission should tag along with graphical developments, but it should not try to compete with the latest and fanciest games. Graphics certainly have a role to play in the simulation, but they should follow, not lead – and they should never threaten to alienate any of the fan base, for both ethical and commercial reasons.

David

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

Somewhere between a joke and a conspiracy

[russellmz]

im glad BTS keeps the graphics basic so more gamers can play while allowing mods to be applied to improve the look it u so chose.(this from a man who has a 600Mhz 'puter)

don't forget the game was started way back when 4mb vid cards were the most bad-ssed on the market.

next time, the graphics will get a major uplift while still allowing a large number of gamers to play. that way my puter wont be totally useless for CM 3-4 hopefully.

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

"They had their chance- they have not lead!" - GW Bush

"They had mechanical pencils- they have not...lead?" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by deanco:

It all boils down to, "Gee, we sold X thousand copies to people who think the 3D part and the eye candy is one of CM's biggest selling points!" (after the killer gameplay, of course...CM is first and foremost a great game) Maybe we shold try to sell to these guys again for CM2!" I can only hope that this is what's going through BTS' minds right now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can only hope, and am actually quite sure that this is exactly not what is going through their minds. Because if it was the next step would be that there is no point in catering to those who care about gameplay (every FPS clone coming out proves that there are gazillions of those), and then there would be no point in keeping to the original vision of the Battlefront.com manifesto. Abandoning that vision for increased sales would be the death of the idea, and Steve and Charles could then as well go and sell BTS to Microschrott or Hasbro. Because once you move away from gameplay being the core to 'how do I please the crowds', hovertanks, blood & gore, and all sorts of arse are just lurking around the corner. It is a slippery sloe that will ensure killer graphics, huge sales, big bank accounts and an easy life for them. Look at Atomic. Somehow I don't feel that is going to happen to BTS. Would be a shame if it was.

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

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 10-30-2000).]

[Neutral Party]

I think that the graphics in CM are satisfactory. In principle, it would be nice to improve them with all features suggested above but I don't think this will be a major priority for BTS. The problems would be:

1. Game becomes unplayable for the majority of those likely to enjoy it.

2. Limited resources in terms of graphics coding.

3. Higher priorities such as historical research for Eastern Front OOBs/TO&Es, new vehicle modeling, improved AI etc,

I don't know about anyone else but I have never found myself saying during the course of a game - "damn I wish there was dynamic lighting". However I have found myself screaming "take the f*****g shot you stupid ****" and then having to go drink a very large Scotch.

Joe

[Grisha]

Personally, I think BTS have done an excellent job of creating a 3D environment that contains so many dynamic objects yet hasn't gotten my PC (PIII500 128Mb RAM w/Viper 700Ultra) to drop in FR. If they improve, all the power to them, but frankly it's great as it is right now

[Steve Clark]

I think of all of the many great selling points of CM and the one that stands out in my mind is that such a high quality AI/graphics game that can run very well on a fairly low-end PC (like the 233MMX is got). I can't do HiRes Mods much but that's ok. Like others have mentioned, this is a small enough market as it is. Don't do anything that would limit that even further. Look at the requirements of a 32mb video card - at least a 400MHz CPU. When CM2 comes out, the average desktop will probably be about a 500MHz, thus able to do 32mb video, but certainly not 64mb.