Thomm Posted June 22, 2001 Share Posted June 22, 2001 Dear BTS, and Charles in particular, I want to make two graphical suggestions for CM2, which are motivated by the fact that everybody seems to prefer close-up screenshots of units: Give the soldiers an additional level of detail that adds some distinct facial features like the nose or chin.Consider a flexible tesselation engine for tires, gun barrels, external fuel tanks and round commanders cupolas. This tesselation engine should provide additional polygons for curved objects which are viewed from a short distance. This would improve the look of vehicle close-ups, which seem to be so popular. Thank you for your precious attention! Regards, Thomm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted June 22, 2001 Share Posted June 22, 2001 That sounds like it would make the game look more "polished". Good ideas -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted June 22, 2001 Share Posted June 22, 2001 Heer Heer well said old chap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfamily33 Posted June 22, 2001 Share Posted June 22, 2001 I'll offer 2 cents based on the CM2 Sneak Pics on CMHQ: 1) Change the Russian's helmet so they look more realistic - providing the additional cover to the ears and upper neck. 2) I like the DeanCo interface. However, it may be somewhat too busy. I don't see the need for a graphical image of the terrain type a unit is in. The narrative text is just fine for me. Less is more IMO ith regards to the dashboard! Overall, looking real nice! Any pics of partisans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted June 22, 2001 Share Posted June 22, 2001 Yeah I think that the pict in the unit profile is going a little to far... I think people can tell what type of terrain they are in just by reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted June 22, 2001 Share Posted June 22, 2001 Actualy I like the terrain graphic in the new interface. Regards, John Waters [ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted June 22, 2001 Share Posted June 22, 2001 If it were currently practical for BTS to smooth out rounded objects like wheels, I'm quite sure he'd do it. We can probably expect such things in the engine rewrite after CM2. As for soldier faces, about the only modified textures I use are soldier faces, because I really don't like the originals. A good texture map makes all the difference. I wouldn't say there's much point in modelling chins or whatever. Sure, people like close-up views, but people don't play with extremely close-up views, and more often that not they will view their soldiers from behind anyway. At the moment it's not practical to expect the level of figure realism you would find in first-person-perspective games. BTS would probably have saved themselves a lot of trouble by not allowing us to zoom in so far and criticise what we see in minute magnification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted June 22, 2001 Author Share Posted June 22, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: As for soldier faces, about the only modified textures I use are soldier faces, because I really don't like the originals. A good texture map makes all the difference!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry, David, but the screenshots on your CM page prove the opposite to me, although they display mostly 'uncritical' frontal views. The sphere-like faces just do not cut it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>At the moment it's not practical to expect the level of figure realism you would find in first-person-perspective games.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I do not ask for the impossible. For example, I do not care about the bodies of the soldiers, which are just fine. But the faces are something the observer focuses on so I think they deserve some more attention. And I do not see the problem: level-of-detail is implemented; why not give the one squad in the foreground or the single tank commander/driver some more polygons for his face ... the textures would remain the same, and if implementing 300 vehicles is not a problem how difficult can it be to design a proper face abstraction ... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>BTS would probably have saved themselves a lot of trouble by not allowing us to zoom in so far and criticise what we see in minute magnification..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I fully agree with this! As for the rounded objects: I see that this is very difficult, but ... not impossible Regards, Thomm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schrullenhaft Posted June 22, 2001 Share Posted June 22, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But the faces are something the observer focuses on so I think they deserve some more attention. And I do not see the problem: level-of-detail is implemented; why not give the one squad in the foreground or the single tank commander/driver some more polygons for his face ... the textures would remain the same, and if implementing 300 vehicles is not a problem how difficult can it be to design a proper face abstraction ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Varying levels of foreground detail isn't really a part of the current engine or something that could be incorporated into it without a lot of hacking around (which could reduce overall performance of the 3D engine). It's something that works well for FPS's, but CM utilizes the same textures and polygons for all of the views except the overhead ones (another set). While I don't think it will be slotted for incorporation into the next engine (CMII), it is possible (though we're laying a lot of expectations on the next engine). While it would be nice to have some more polygons for faces, I don't see it as a necessity. The quality of the face textures (which is hard to get right) makes a bigger initial impression in my opinion (but I don't play at level 1 all the time either). It would also be nice if there were more variation in the uniform & helmet polygons too. But due to the number of infantry units in most battles this could push the poly-count up pretty high for these features alone. The tesselation engine may also be a bit hard to incorporate since it takes a bit additional floating point horsepower to compute the curves. And with all the possible viewpoints of a large number of objects this could slow down the scrolling of the battlefield even further. If it became a choice between applying floating point to a tesselation engine for rounded objects and calculating dynamic LOS ("being able to hide behind AFVs, etc.) I would choose the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted June 23, 2001 Share Posted June 23, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzerman: Yeah I think that the pict in the unit profile is going a little to far... I think people can tell what type of terrain they are in just by reading.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I third this. Absolutely. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted June 23, 2001 Share Posted June 23, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Schrullenhaft: If it became a choice between applying floating point to a tesselation engine for rounded objects and calculating dynamic LOS ("being able to hide behind AFVs, etc.) I would choose the latter.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Makes sense to me. A more significant application of limited resources. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted June 23, 2001 Author Share Posted June 23, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Schrullenhaft: Varying levels of foreground detail isn't really a part of the current engine or something that could be incorporated into it without a lot of hacking around ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If you mean changing texture detail ... I did not ask for that!! I am talking polygons here, not texture sizes! If you indeed mean geometric detail, then I can assure you that CM indeed uses varying levels of detail (four?) already! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The tesselation engine may also be a bit hard to incorporate since it takes a bit additional floating point horsepower to compute the curves. And with all the possible viewpoints of a large number of objects this could slow down the scrolling of the battlefield even further. If it became a choice between applying floating point to a tesselation engine for rounded objects and calculating dynamic LOS ("being able to hide behind AFVs, etc.) I would choose the latter.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hmmm. Where do you get this from? I am sure that putting a few more polygons on the one tank or squad in the foreground does not slow down anything. Furthermore, a fictitious tesselation engine would have nothing to do with the LOS calculation, which is done during the turn-resolution phase. KwazyDog, where are you??!? Regards, Thomm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted June 23, 2001 Share Posted June 23, 2001 IMHO, what it comes down to, is where the developement time is spent. If I had to choose between another vehicle into the game and noses for infantry, I'd choose the vehicle. I'm sure someone else would make a different choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terence Posted June 23, 2001 Share Posted June 23, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: If I had to choose between another vehicle into the game and noses for infantry, I'd choose the vehicle. .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You might too, if it was your nose!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted June 23, 2001 Share Posted June 23, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terence: You might too, if it was your nose!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> On the other hand, if you were the vehicle... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schrullenhaft Posted June 23, 2001 Share Posted June 23, 2001 From Rollstoy: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I am sure that putting a few more polygons on the one tank or squad in the foreground does not slow down anything. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually it would. Scrolling around the map would involve recalculating the "foreground" all the time. Thus if you scroll around the battlefield at a level 1 or 2 there would have to be a lot of recalcs to display the foreground items, which could change quite often. This is primarily in regards to the tesselation engine. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you mean changing texture detail ... I did not ask for that!! I am talking polygons here, not texture sizes! If you indeed mean geometric detail, then I can assure you that CM indeed uses varying levels of detail (four?) already!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I guess this depends on how much extra detail you're expecting in the closeups. Depending o what you want improved there would have to be more textures than are currently on the models. This would be especially true of the AFVs (if you wanted more detail from them other than the tesselation calcs). Admittedly you originally only asked for a few changes to the face, which could probably be accomplished (leaving everything else the same however). But with a more realistic face, may come an expectation of more realistic limbs, hands and field gear with the attendant increase in polys and the textures to properly map on them. I'm guessing that the engine does currently limit the display of geometric detail at higher levels (which makes sense). This reduction in displayed 3D data (and texture detail) is most likely done for perspective purposes. I'm not sure how much performance is wringed out of whatever data may be dropped from the display (a lot of the mathematics and logic structures for 3D is far beyond me). However I don't think it drops as much geometric detail as you may be assuming (though I'm assuming this too...). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Furthermore, a fictitious tesselation engine would have nothing to do with the LOS calculation, which is done during the turn-resolution phase.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually the tesselation engine would be working while LOS checks during the planning phase were being performed. But the way an object (such as an AFV) is treated in the planning phase for LOS is something more of a data representation rather than a calculation. So in most respects you are correct, a majority (if not all) of the dynamic LOS checks would be performed during the turn calculation and the tesselation engine would only be executing during planning phases (any change of view in the 3D landscape involving an AFV/vehicle). [ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: Schrullenhaft ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwazydog Posted June 23, 2001 Share Posted June 23, 2001 Thomm, just a quick reply as Ive got to get back to modelling Firstly, I think Steve mentioned a while back that we may be going to put in a soldier of extra detail for close up shots. I am not 100% sure that is still the case as we certainally have our plates more than full, but I will remind the guys of the idea The second idea would be great, but I think it will probably have to wait until the rewrite (Charles has a lot to tackle as is ). We are adding more polygons into CM2 vehicles though, so you should see extra detail that you havnt before. I recently finished up the Panthers series for instance and managed to get detail in there such as the rounded inserts on the rear of the turret where the side armour meets the rear, the lip where the front armour plate meets the top, the ball MG, a reasonably detailed exhasust system, brackets for the side skirts and a quite detailed cupola Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfpack Posted June 23, 2001 Share Posted June 23, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KwazyDog: I recently finished up the Panthers series for instance and managed to get detail in there such as the rounded inserts on the rear of the turret where the side armour meets the rear, the lip where the front armour plate meets the top, the ball MG, a reasonably detailed exhasust system, brackets for the side skirts and a quite detailed cupola Dan<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So when do we get the shots of this new and improved Panther? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted June 23, 2001 Share Posted June 23, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Rollstoy wrote: Give the soldiers an additional level of detail that adds some distinct facial features like the nose or chin.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ah, if I hadn't misread this first time, I would have pointed out that soldiers in CM already have noses. These are triangular and also slightly lighter, regardless of the texture map. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Sorry, David, but the screenshots on your CM page prove the opposite to me, although they display mostly 'uncritical' frontal views. The sphere-like faces just do not cut it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It is obviously a matter of prefence. I noticed the same things that you are talking about during the beta demo, but improving the texture maps really made all the difference for me. I just see no point at all in increasing the detail for a game of this scale. As Schrullenhaft says, if BTS were to increase the detail of one part, it would make the rest of the model look incongruous. You have to increase detail in overall stages, not localised increments. For example, what I noticed more than that the soldiers didn't have chins, was that the British helmets look like bowls instead of having the characteristic rim. I might also point out that the kidney pouches should ideally have a polygon to themselves, as they are rather large – not to mention the backpacks. And the boots are silly and pointy. And the side-loading magazine on the Sten guns isn't modelled. You see? I could go on and on. To pick chins out of all the possible improvements seems a bit strange. If you increase the detail level of one thing, you have to do the rest as well, or the lack of detail will be even more noticeable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted June 23, 2001 Share Posted June 23, 2001 I would like BTS to model a sense of humor and good fun in more of the CM players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted June 23, 2001 Share Posted June 23, 2001 Recovered our eyesight, have we Dale? But not learned any lessons, apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted June 23, 2001 Share Posted June 23, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: Recovered our eyesight, have we Dale? But not learned any lessons, apparently.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What? "AAGGGHHH!!! My eyes again!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Crowley Posted June 23, 2001 Share Posted June 23, 2001 I,too, like the terrain graphic in the new interface; "a picture paints a thousand words" Visual data is generally more immediately effective than words and in this instance I think it works very well. I would also like to know what the symbol next to the radio (under the tankers' portrait) is. KwazyDog said he thought it represented the vehicle having a cupola, as opposed to being buttoned/unbuttoned. However that latter information does not show up elsewhere, unless that is what the "cautious" panel refers to :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwazydog Posted June 23, 2001 Share Posted June 23, 2001 Buttoned/Unbuttoned status is still there...it appears underneath the terrain graphic window if memory serves me correctly. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Crowley Posted June 23, 2001 Share Posted June 23, 2001 AHH. So "cautious" (underneath the terrain panel) does refer to the buttonned/unbuttoned state and not to the morale of the crew as such. "Cautious" just seems an odd way of describing buttoned - what will unbuttoned be? "Ready". I don't know - that does not really seem to fit right; still sounds like a morale thing. Just my thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts