Zaffod Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 By the way, is there a web site or discussion area that regularly talks about CM2 and its development?? or has that really even started yet... Is Summer 01 still the ETA??? Zaf' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tss Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 fubar628 wrote: WYSIWYG = what you see is what you get. Of course, that is usually false advertisement and the acronym should be WYSISRSTWYGIIIAGDATPOFTMIR (what you see is something remotely similar to what you get, if it is a good day and the phase of the moon is right). I myself prefer "YAFIYGI" (you asked for it, you get it). - Tommi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 Zaffod wrote: > Is Summer 01 still the ETA??? Yup, and if you drop Charles an e-mail, he'll send you a copy of the beta and an inflatable Jagdtiger with compliments of BTS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 Originally posted by David Aitken: It would be a heck of a lot of work for little point to represent damage, and even then it would be inaccurate, misleading and very often exaggerated. And the CMBO engine isn't "inaccurate and misleading"? I think you'll find it handles most things in an abstract manner. With more computing power the CM series will become ever more powerful, with a more accurate representation of the battlefield, and that will include a more accurate visual representation, which some may describe as "eye candy". And I wouldn't expect BTS to include such things unless the code was stable. ------------------ "He belongs to a race which has coloured the map red, and all he wants are the green fields of England..." - Joe Illingworth, Yorkshire Post War Correspondent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 Sirocco wrote: > And the CMBO engine isn't "inaccurate and misleading"? I think you'll find it handles most things in an abstract manner. Not misleading. The game engine is accurate, but the graphics engine is abstracted. > With more computing power the CM series will become ever more powerful, with a more accurate representation of the battlefield, and that will include a more accurate visual representation, which some may describe as "eye candy". Did I not say at least twice, that I would expect BTS to model damage once it was possible to do it accurately? The only kind of eye candy I am opposed to is that which does not have an accurate basis, or is superfluous or gratuitous. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 I am with David on this one. If CM cannot exactly and precisely re-create ever detail to perfection, then it should not try to show anything at all. Personally, I am hoping that for CM2 BTS goes in the other direction. They have already stated that the graphics do not necessarily show *exactly* what is going on in the engine, so I think it is misleading eye-candy that they show tanks and terrain even now. It would be much better if instead of a picture of a Sherman they just had some text saying "somehwere within a few pixels of this point is a vaguely tank shaped thingie with a gun on it". That way, people would not be so mislead over the currently inaccurate and less than absolutely perfect representation currently shown. Just yesterday one of my Shermans was killed and I noticed the gun droop down. Now, can I be absolutely sure that it drooped down by 10 degrees, and not 12 or 8? Is that picture of sufficient accuracy for me to make tactical decisions based on it? If not, they shouldn't show the gun dropping at all! That kind of gratuitious eye candy is exactly why CM is not as good a game as it could have been. Same thing with this silly idea of showing varied damage to vehicles. If I cannot tell for certain exactly what type of weapon, what impact angle, and what direction the shot came from in all cases, then there should not be any more damage indicators or differing BMPs. I am thinking of going back to purely text based gaming. The original Zork was clearly the epitomy of game design and execution. All this eye candy crap just gets in the way of the true experience. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa Khann Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 To Jeff: LOL!!! Nail head. Hammer. Bullseye. Papa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 Considering there are already provisions for changing the 3D model of all units to reflect kills (don't bring up the dead bodies AGAIN, please), I would not mind seeing a little enhancement in that area. I think at this point, though, I have no overwhelming desire for seeing damage in the exact spot that it struck the tank. I do like the ideas about using damage "panels" depending on where the tank was hit and showing thrown tracks, open hatches, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 Originally posted by David Aitken: This would be purely eye candy and serve no practical purpose. One word: Immersiveness. Which is the single thing about CM that makes it superior to every other tactical wargame with a similar level of detail. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 I am hoping to see some eye cany in the next edition of CM along with whatever goodies is on the slate. I like to be immersed in the game enviornment Im playing in.. I dont see how having some quality destruction effects can be abd thing as some are suggesting. ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader.......out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 As I have said many times before, in my opinion BTS should not spend any time adding features to the game which are not historical or accurate, except where they are necessary for playability. A "damage" texture for tanks is simply innacurate and misleading. It reminds me of Quake – when someone is killed, their texture changes not to reflect the wound which killed them, but instead is a grotesque bloodied corpse. This reflects how it is necessary to produce one catch-all texture, because producing textures which would look right in various different circumstances would be a lot of work, and simply not worth the effort to say "this is dead". BTS has programmed visual cues into the 3D engine for this purpose – a tank will drop its barrel or a vehicle will sit at an angle. This is relatively straightforward. Actually changing the appearance is a different kettle of fish, and making it look credible the majority of the time is a whole lot more work on top of this. The whole thing strikes me as totally over the top to represent a dead vehicle which, as such, you are unlikely to pay much more attention to. If it was knocked out without explosion or fire, it will just have a hole in it somewhere. If it burned or exploded, this is already represented in the game. Unless any additions are accurate and informative, I don't see the point in BTS spending a minute (let alone the many hours necessary) to implement them. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Stars Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 thank you Jeff Heideman.....my thoughts exactly..... come on people, us posting this stuff is mostly "wish list" anyway, so what is the harm in discussing it? I know a lot of grogs are only turned on by statistics and dead on representation of the ongoing events but lighten up......the last syllable in "WarGame" is still "Game." as much as the calculations involved with CM impress me, I don't think I would be all that interested in the game if it didn't have nifty graphics of big tanks blowing stuff up. I am not saying that i want the game to be reduced to brainless explosions with vehicles and men that behave in a uttlerly unrealistic fashion. I am just saying that eye candy is not as pointless as some people make it out to be. I like the idea of Damaged/Knocked out BMPs. I think it might be too much to ask for individual hull and turret sides to show damage,since that sounds like a programming headache for what you are getting. But the knocked out BMP is a good idea since when your view is zoomed out, unless you have your Bases turned on it can be hard to seperate healthy tanks from wiped out ones. A nice blackend hull to go with your tank brew up would be mighty fine. I also threw in an idea before of mud covered tanks on damp conditions, like winter camoed tanks in winter scenarios......I am not asking Kwazydog to paint all these damaged/mud covered panels......just give the option and the MODers will soon comply....... ------------------ "Life is pain. Anyone saying otherwise is selling something." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: I am thinking of going back to purely text based gaming. Good idea! Think of all that extra time to compute penetration data! Who needs 3D, 2D even! Let's go back to monochrome text! ------------------ "He belongs to a race which has coloured the map red, and all he wants are the green fields of England..." - Joe Illingworth, Yorkshire Post War Correspondent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 Originally posted by Sirocco: Good idea! Think of all that extra time to compute penetration data! Who needs 3D, 2D even! Let's go back to monochrome text! I certainly hope the rest of us are not holding him back! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karch Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 I'm sorry guys, but I'm confused... I thought the only country to use BMPs were the Soviets and this was AFTER WWII. Are you all asking for damaged post war Armored Personnel Carriers to be strewn around the games? I'm sorry but I think I would get too confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts