GFX HW gimmicks in CM2?

[Barleyman]

I wonder if BTS is going to use some of the more advanced toys available in DX7/DX8 and new gfx cards.

Immediately useful sound at least bump mapping which would help making the vehicles that much more convincing without going haywire with the poly count. That sounds like "free" roadwheels to me

Another very useful should be the TCL engine in new cards, why make the poor CPU set up all those polys while there's perfectly good HW in the GFX card designed to do exactly that. And it'd make it dead simple to add simple lighting too.

Just my 2 cents, but I reckon that the bump mapping at least would be used to a great effect by the boys'n'girls in mod community.

[Barleyman]

Nobody wants bump mapping? Sheesh.

[Gen-x87]

I am trying to figure out their 3d engine now.

IMHO it appears to be rather slow for what it needs to do.

Gen

[KMHPaladin]

Not everybody has a top-of-the-line graphics card. I play on a recent IBM TP A20p which has only a 16MB ATi Rage card, certainly not equipped for such things... I'd rather not see the team delayed trying to add such features for a relatively small sector of the population.

And if one of you tell me to "upgrade" my graphics card, I'm going to beat you senseless with my laptop case.

[Maastrictian]

I've got a good computer (don't hit me with that laptop case) but I just fail to understand what rotating widgets adds to the game. I'd rather get the thing sooner and with more units than have rotating wheels that I'm never going to see anyway.

[Barleyman]

Bump mapping doesn't give you rotating wheels, it gives you wheels that stick out without increasing the polygon count.

Basically you have a "height" map for each texture, so if you want to make those camo branches stick out, you can. Or, you want battle-worn StuG, just make that 57mm shell impact mark crater inside the vehicle surface.

If your card doesn't have bump mapping, no harm done, it's just rendered flat as it is now.

Transform & lighting would help quite a bit seeing that there are a _lot_ of polys in a big scenario but they're pretty simple ones..

Seeing what a Radeon or Evil Kyro II costs these days, I daresay people with 8MB cards are a small minority that can be safely ignored

[Madmatt]

Bump maping, T&L, Dynamic Lighting Sources and pretty much every other neato wizzbang hardware based graphic effect and technique will certainly be considered for when we rewrite the CM Engine (CMII) but not before.

Madmatt

[Berlichtingen]

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

Seeing what a Radeon or Evil Kyro II costs these days, I daresay people with 8MB cards are a small minority that can be safely ignored <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now I'm going to beat you oer the head with my laptop case

[Stacheldraht]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I've got a good computer (don't hit me with that laptop case) but I just fail to understand what rotating widgets adds to the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Compare CM to old-school 2D, top-down, hex and counter based wargames, and you'll see that graphics are vital to CM in terms of core gameplay mechanics. They're also very important for the emotional involvement they provide.

[Stacheldraht]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>the team delayed trying to add such features for a relatively small sector of the population.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

? Do you have figures for that assertion? What population? Current CM gamers, potential CM 2 purchasers?

Judging by numerous threads on this forum, not to mention typical system recommendations on many other games, and all the "what system specs do you play on" threads in other gaming forums, I would dare say that many gamers have up-to-date, reasonably powerful systems and like to see them put through their paces.

It would be incorrect for BTS to assume that nearly everyone who plays CM is trying to do it on an underpowered or outdated system.

[ 04-25-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

[SadBloke]

(a) flashy graphics and all the do-hickies will make someone who has absolutely no idea what the f*ck is going on play the game regardless - come on, admit it - a game that looks fantastic running on your computer gives you a sense of achievement

( im gettin a geforce 3 etc soon so include all the do-hickies you like

© of course, if God is cruel and decides i dont get my geforce, your not to include these do-hickies as i am running it on a P166.......

(d) Bump-Mapping needs to be supported by the 3D card your using... not all 3D cards do... and it would seem pointless to include something like that if (even a small percentage of users) arent able to experience it... it might be a little misleading - but its a cool feature none the less.... and agreed, better than using more polygons to destroy my dreams of HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE battles.

(p) please tell me your gonna give us more flexibility in the engine for placement of tiles? the jaggedy edges are poop

(z) I WANT TANK TRACKS AND SMOKE!!!!! and, if i get my uber PC i wanna be able to thrash it to bits by clicking the option that displays ALL units correctly.. not 3 units representing a squad!!

and i want visible planes... and i wanna be able to drive them.. and explosions better be reworked so they just look like they do on telly. and other stuff too.. but my head hurts.. i'll go put in the oven for a couple of minutes.. i'll be right back.

[Tiger]

The things you want would likely require an entire engine re-write, something that is planned after CM2 (or after the third game in the CM series, IIRC), not CMBB. CMBB will have a slightly enhanced version of the current CMBO engine and mechanics and graphics.

A company like BTS has to have and follow a road-map as far as design and release goes. Their are only 4 people working at BTS, not a whole production team like a big publisher would have (nor the suits and bean-counters either thank goodness!).

Starting fresh from the ground up with the new features would probably take 1.5 to 2 years to code, of course by which time other new features would already be out making even this new engine somewhat "old". So why don't they get started right now? Well they probably have in a limited fashion (i.e. the learning process), but I don't think BTS would survive as a company banking on their next game to be released in 2 years with a new engine, and nothing in between.

Very likely sales from the upcoming CMBB at the end of this year and into the next will put BTS in a position to be more financially viable for their next thing they wish to do to do on their roadmap to success and being able to do whatever makes them happy.

-Tiger

[JMcGuire]

I'll cheerfully ignore the issues related to current-versus-future CM engines and ignore laptop users (surely a small minority) for a moment.

If you're still running a crappy, older video card, take heart, nVidia just announced price cuts and lower intro prices for the almighty GeForce3. Even if you're a die-hard ATI (or god forbid, a 3DFX fan), ya gotta admit, a cheap GeForce is pretty attractive.

Story here, worth a read if this thread has been of interest to you:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/18508.html

Of course, if you're like me you already have a decent GeForce, but this is still good news -- it just means I'll get that GF3 that much sooner.

[Michael Emrys]

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

Originally posted by Barleyman:

[qb]Seeing what a Radeon or Evil Kyro II costs these days, I daresay people with 8MB cards are a small minority that can be safely ignored <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now I'm going to beat you oer the head with my laptop case[/QB]

Give him one for me too, Berli. I'm using a card with only 4 MB. I think it was chipped out of flint or something...

Michael

[KMHPaladin]

Okay, Maas, I do have a pretty nice computer - PIII 750, 192MB, 20GB HD, and 16MB VRAM. For a laptop, that's not bleeding edge, but it's close. Even for a desktop, it's not a half-bad set of specs. I realize that I'm lucky to have 16MB VRAM in a laptop, but hell, I paid the price... and of course, in 6 months a lot of laptops will feature the Geforce2go, so go figure .

Gettim', Berli!

Why yes, Stacheldraht, I happen to keep detailed information on the system specs of each and every user here. Would you like to see them? Seriously, obviously you don't have any figures either. For every person with a P4/Geforce2GTS there's a person with an iMac trying to run the game. Don't tell me that you think the majority of people out there have T&L or bump-mapping cards out there. I don't have a problem with them being included, because as was said previously, they don't affect someone whose card doesn't support them, but they do add significantly to development time, and that in my opinion is not worth it for only a segment of the population.

To JMcGuire, who obviously hasn't realized that laptops of today are not like the laptops of two years ago, .

[Thomm]

I suggest you check out this 10 page thread on contemporary computer graphics:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/015600.html

Lots of comments from BTS in there, too!

Enjoy,

Thomm

[Barleyman]

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

Bump maping, T&L, Dynamic Lighting Sources and pretty much every other neato wizzbang hardware based graphic effect and technique will certainly be considered for when we rewrite the CM Engine (CMII) but not before.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now hold on..

So what we'll get for Xmas (maybe) is CM:BB and not CM2:BB?

Technically new vehicles, new scenarios and ops (Kursk?!) but no new-new game/AI/gfx engines?

Tweaked for sure, but more like 1.1, not 2.0?

Erhm.. In that case, TCL might be possible for CMBB? After all, it's just a way of doing some math in HW instead of in SW, so you should be able to put that kind of applique code in without breaking too many things.

Dynamic lighting would certainly look very dramatic during night fights, while bump mapping only shows in close-in-views (that you'll see in game rags )

[Barleyman]

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

Very likely sales from the upcoming CMBB at the end of this year and into the next will put BTS in a position to be more financially viable for their next thing they wish to do to do on their roadmap to success and being able to do whatever makes them happy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Buy a villa from Rio and spend november-february there with the (young, nubile) maids feeding them grapes? Peeled, of course..

More $$ lets you hire more helping hands for gfx/coding/logistics/business sides.. A good logistics guy probably brings in as much revenue as the rest of the team together, but you need to have the end product to shift it..

And like Doom vs Doom II sales show, the real money lies in store shelves, not on-line sales.. At the very least CM should be sold via mail order ventures..

[Barleyman]

As for geforce cards, you get nice 64MB card for $149 from videologic with KyroII chipset.

Check out Tom's Guide.

Real joke is, of course, that it's faster than Geforce 2 GTS without any gee-whizz TCL engine! Shows you the difference between brute-force big-buck approach and smart technology..

[deanco]

Wo ho ho!! Go get 'em, Barleyman! Evidently, what WAS a tiny minority that could be safely ignored, is now a FORCE TO BE RECKONED WITH, and becoming more and more vociferous with each passing day! I'm talking about the "we want the best graphics possible with our wargame, thank you" crowd, of course...

Go get 'em!

[Firefly]

It's quite a simple procedure folks.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

1. Buy nice spanking new Geforce card.

b. Install card.

XI. Spend 5 hours trying to get Windoze to recognize said card

28. Ring Hercules tech. support to be told that spanking new Geforce card is not campatible with your motherboard.

f. Return card to supplier.

vi. Spend three days arguing by email with supplier that their returns exclusion policy applies only to software and that a graphics card is hardware.

ii) Buy Riva TNT card from reputable shop.

c. Install said card.

10. Spend 5 hours trying to get Windoze to recognise TNT card that you double checked was compatible with you motherboard.

x) Realise, silly you, that you should have adjusted your BIOS settings.

12) Beat idiot who suggested you do this over head with laptop case.

[ 04-26-2001: Message edited by: Firefly ]

[Stacheldraht]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>1. Buy nice spanking new Geforce card.

b. Install card.

XI. Spend 5 hours trying to get Windoze to recognize said card<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, at least that's not indicative of every upgrade:

For me it was 1) Buy nice spanking new GeForce2 card

2) Install card

3) Install drivers

4) Enjoy beautiful, fast graphics that improved my gaming experience immediately

Upgrading is not inherently some arduous chore. I don't at all mean to be flippant about your experience, but am just making a general point.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>there. I don't have a problem with them being included, because as was said previously, they don't affect someone whose card doesn't support them, but they do add significantly to development time, and that in my opinion is not worth it for only a segment of the population.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How charitable I think of it this way, fwiw: CM is one of the best games ever made, and I can't wait for CM. Nonetheless, when you have a chance for greatness, why not take it? Rushing out a game just to have it done by autumn or to please one segment of CM players seems opposed to BTS's purported design/publishing philosophy. Why not make the best game possible, within reason (i.e., obviously no one wants to wait three years or whatever), which includes much improved graphics?

Those would improve the game experience for anyone with a decent machine (CM's graphics were dated when it came out, so by now, most players should hopefully be able to support something more, which in fairness, BTS has said they'll do, though all the details aren't clear), and also help sell the game. I know many people who saw the CM home page after I mentioned CM to them, or even tried the demo, and thought the graphics were pathetic, frankly. Now, it's too bad they're going to judge a book by its cover, but visuals have nearly always been important in games. Gamers, game developers, the gaming press, game publishers, and hardware manufacturers wouldn't all be so interested in them if that weren't the case. Admittedly, part of that is just about marketing hype and selling new hardware, but a lot of it is because while good graphics don't make the game, they can dramatically improve it.

[Olle Petersson]

As for how wizbang updated hardware gamers generally have, and that everything next-to-cutting-edge is dirt cheap, I think there are a couple of things to consider:

- This is an international hobby.

As soon as we leave north America all costs involved usually go up. (Except for buying pirate software, which is cheapest in Asia.)

Hardware cost is typically 50-100% more in Sweden than in USA, compared in monetary currency. If you go to eastern Europe those prices are easily doubled once more.

(There are reports that some companies are in the process of buying thousands of used PCs (average PII/300) here in Sweden, to sell in the Balkans at > $500 each.)

Internet connection, a requirement for visiting this and other BBSs, usually come with a per-minute cost that varies depending on where you are. How many of you would spend hours weekly on this board with a 10 cents per minute fee? This is the typical rate in a couple of countries.

This show that in many countries you'll need more money to get the same stuff. At the same time the average salaries are generally lower, so the actual cost in work hours is even worse.

This leads to the fact that gamers around the world usually have less computer power than any internet survey will show, since the gamers with the least potent hardware statistically spend least time on the net. They're also the ones with least average skill in the English language, another prerequisit to enjoy most BBSs.

Having said all that, it's time to recognice that most (if not all) CM customers have some access to internet, since that's how you get to know how to order CM in the first place. This in turn leads to the conclusion that the CM gamer with the least living standards is better off than the worst of those generic computer gamers, but still not good.

What's the average hardware standards of those CM gamers world wide that do not frequent this message board?

Surely there needs to be a lower limit in hardware performance in CM2, and more so in CMII. The question is how many of the current CM players that should be left cold just because they can't afford to upgrade their hardware as fast as it develops...

Upkeep of PC hardware to decent standards costs $1,000-1,500 per year here in Sweden.

If you want to keep close to the top add another $500-1,000. Add to that the cost of an internet connection and software...

Cheers

Olle

[Stacheldraht]

I don't believe anyone is arguing that people be excluded from enjoying CM, but rather more people should be included and catered to, insofar as it's reasonable and possible. That's why many people have mentioned scalable graphics. Most games come with options that allow you to alter the resolution, texture detail, etc. to suit your machine. That way, those with weaker machines can run the game, and those with more powerful machines can run it, too, while also getting more enjoyment from more vivid, detailed visuals.

[Ron]

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

Wo ho ho!! Go get 'em, Barleyman! Evidently, what WAS a tiny minority that could be safely ignored, is now a FORCE TO BE RECKONED WITH, and becoming more and more vociferous with each passing day! I'm talking about the "we want the best graphics possible with our wargame, thank you" crowd, of course...

Go get 'em!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well some of us could care less about the latest gee-whiz gimmicks, it's the gameplay that counts. Yes the graphics are tied to that but not to the extent bandied about here. I want the best possible graphics as well but not at the expense of substance, and that's what it really comes down to because BTS isn't a large team, their resources are limited. Time spent on bump maping, T&L, dynamic lighting etc. is probably time not spent on core gameplay issues. I'm not arrogant enough to claim I'm speaking for anyone other than myself, and perhaps a few other like-minded individuals, but reading the Battlefront Manifesto, BTS clearly sees the long-term importance of substance over the latest *cool* graphical features.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Stacheldraht wrote:

Those would improve the game experience for anyone with a decent machine (CM's graphics were dated when it came out, so by now, most players should hopefully be able to support something more, which in fairness, BTS has said they'll do, though all the details aren't clear), and also help sell the game. I know many people who saw the CM home page after I mentioned CM to them, or even tried the demo, and thought the graphics were pathetic, frankly. Now, it's too bad they're going to judge a book by its cover, but visuals have nearly always been important in games. Gamers, game developers, the gaming press, game publishers, and hardware manufacturers wouldn't all be so interested in them if that weren't the case. Admittedly, part of that is just about marketing hype and selling new hardware, but a lot of it is because while good graphics don't make the game, they can dramatically improve it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

*CM's graphics were dated when it came out* - well they will be dated in the years to come but you can bet your bottom dollar I will still be playing it while you will have *moved* on.

...I will quote a few passages from the above link in case you weren't aware...

Battlefront.com’s goal is to create and distribute serious, compelling, strategy and military history software in order to serve the needs of the thousands of wargamers who have nearly been abandoned by The Industry. Are you the sort of person who prefers reading Stephen Ambrose to John Grisham? Would you rather see Saving Private Ryan or Cross of Iron twice rather than Titanic even once? Do you find yourself glued to documentary programs on the History Channel while everyone else is watching Ally McBeal?...

We can do this because we don’t have to to sell hundreds of thousands of units each and every 6 months just to stay in business. Therefore, we don’t have to produce games that appeal to the lowest common denominator. Battlefront.com is about enjoyable, intelligent gaming, not Hollywood budgets, hype, and mass-market insanity...

We will only offer games and other products that wargamers want, not what some bean-counter at the local superstore thinks will sell the quickest. Substance over Hype. This is what Battlefront.com is all about. So long as you support us, we will be here for you....

Compelling thoughts no?

Ron

Edit: ooops

[ 04-26-2001: Message edited by: Ron ]