David Aitken Posted June 3, 2001 Share Posted June 3, 2001 Those of use who have been Combat Mission fans since the Beta Demo will know the Riesberg scenario like the back of our hands. We are well acquainted with the little pond that sits at the corner of the village, and have passed it many times with our attacking Americans, or planted a machinegun in the buildings next to it as the Germans. Some of us may have wondered why it was in such a strange position, and why a road seems to disappear into it. Well, Allied scientists have been thinking the same thing. They have heard local legends about the Riesberg Pond, and since the capture of the village (you did win as the Americans, didn't you?), they have been running tests on this unassuming water hole. The first thing that was established was that the pond appears to be extremely deep. A detachment of troops was in the process of exploring the depths when all their questions were suddenly answered in a shocking way. The Riesberg Pond is home to... The Giant Man-Eating Hamstertruppen Of The Deep! This post is brought to you by Peng Thread Publications Ltd. and too much time on my hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted June 3, 2001 Share Posted June 3, 2001 Hi Kitty! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverendo Posted June 3, 2001 Share Posted June 3, 2001 Brilliant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smack Posted June 3, 2001 Share Posted June 3, 2001 HAHAHAHAHAHA That is bloody amazing! hahahahah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted June 3, 2001 Share Posted June 3, 2001 Pretty cool! Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco QNS Posted June 3, 2001 Share Posted June 3, 2001 Hey, it is the aquatic cousin of "Maus", isn´t?; a terrible question rounds my head. "Maus" is the urban cousin; is this the countryside one?; or THERE IS ANOTHER ONE OF THEM?!!! Time to call Superman. And tell him to bring the perfect-giant-mousetrap! ((To Revere. : check your mail adress; it´s giving me problems)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juju Posted June 3, 2001 Share Posted June 3, 2001 Awesome! BTW, what's that water mod you got there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iskander Posted June 3, 2001 Share Posted June 3, 2001 You, sir, are a wonder! Thanks for the lazy Sunday afternoon laugh! Hmmm... I didn't know we had a publishing company, too. I thought acquisitions had stopped with that ambulance company.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted June 3, 2001 Author Share Posted June 3, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Juju wrote: BTW, what's that water mod you got there?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I just did it myself this afternoon. Saturation -50, Lightness +25. I think water is usually light, because it reflects the sky. Grey if it's cloudy, blue if it's clear, or even silver. Black at night (unless there are a lot of moonlit clouds about). BTS's colour was maybe a day/night compromise, but it just never seemed remotely like water to me. Unforunately my modification isn't reflective, that's just an effect in the picture. I can send you the files if you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted June 3, 2001 Share Posted June 3, 2001 My dear kind sir, that surely isn't the CM that you on is it? I don't see one mod at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted June 3, 2001 Author Share Posted June 3, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Maximus wrote: I don't see one mod at all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is correct, Sir. Up until today I was using slightly darkened trees and tree bases, because I reckoned they were too light. Today I tried reducing the saturation, because I looked at some photos and decided that trees aren't very bright. The whole battlefield ended up looking incredibly drab, so I went back to BTS's originals, and realised that the darkening I had done had also intensified the colour slightly, and the originals were probably realistic after all. I spend a lot of time trying to perceive the CM battlefield as I would in reality, and I have come to the conclusion that no amount of modifying will make CM in its current incarnation much more visually realistic. I think that our perception of a scene pivots not around the bulk of what we see, but on the details, which give us information about scale and the way things interact with each other. For example, a picture of a road going past a treeline is brought together by an embankment bordering the road, or a fence or wall bordering the trees. Roads in CM look unrealistic because they are flat strips across the terrain, when in reality a road has some kind of immediate border - embankment, ditch, brush, or somesuch - which is not modelled in CM, and would not necessarily be worth modelling in terms of gameplay. Modifications certainly make individual objects look nicer, but they don't make the overall scene more convincing, and that's all that really concerns me. As I have explained above, I adjusted the water colour to be what I perceive as more realistic. The only other modification I have is my own soldier faces, because the originals annoyed me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juju Posted June 3, 2001 Share Posted June 3, 2001 David, I'd like to check the water files, so by all means send them along! Thanks. While we're at it, could ya give us a close up of the faces your using? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted June 4, 2001 Author Share Posted June 4, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Juju wrote: could ya give us a close up of the faces your using?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> These are available from my website: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalin's Organ Posted June 4, 2001 Share Posted June 4, 2001 Imagine how may rolls of masking tape you'd need to wrap tht little sucker!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpkr Posted June 4, 2001 Share Posted June 4, 2001 HEY! What are you trying to pull here? Everyone knows that hamsters don't have long tails . . . oh no . . . its . . its . . . its an uberratzensturmschultzentruppenthingie!+ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellros Posted June 4, 2001 Share Posted June 4, 2001 I think it's a Gerbiljager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted June 4, 2001 Share Posted June 4, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: That is correct, Sir. Up until today I was using slightly darkened trees and tree bases, because I reckoned they were too light. Today I tried reducing the saturation, because I looked at some photos and decided that trees aren't very bright. The whole battlefield ended up looking incredibly drab, so I went back to BTS's originals, and realised that the darkening I had done had also intensified the colour slightly, and the originals were probably realistic after all. I spend a lot of time trying to perceive the CM battlefield as I would in reality, and I have come to the conclusion that no amount of modifying will make CM in its current incarnation much more visually realistic. I think that our perception of a scene pivots not around the bulk of what we see, but on the details, which give us information about scale and the way things interact with each other. For example, a picture of a road going past a treeline is brought together by an embankment bordering the road, or a fence or wall bordering the trees. Roads in CM look unrealistic because they are flat strips across the terrain, when in reality a road has some kind of immediate border - embankment, ditch, brush, or somesuch - which is not modelled in CM, and would not necessarily be worth modelling in terms of gameplay. Modifications certainly make individual objects look nicer, but they don't make the overall scene more convincing, and that's all that really concerns me. As I have explained above, I adjusted the water colour to be what I perceive as more realistic. The only other modification I have is my own soldier faces, because the originals annoyed me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmmm, somehow I'm not buying it. Just because CM doesn't model ditches and fence rows, you don't use mods. That's like saying "This house doesn't have a fireplace, so therefore it can't have heat." I'm sorry David, but if you have never tried mods, then how do you know that it doesn't change the perception. I guarantee you that just changing the terrain files really changes the perception. Granted that it still won't give you ditches and stuff, but really. Whether you chose to use mods or not, but IMHO you're argument is a bit hypocritical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted June 4, 2001 Author Share Posted June 4, 2001 Calm down Max, I'm just voicing my personal preferences! I reckon the bitmaps are realistic enough – maybe not optimal, but elegantly sufficient. I don't reckon, for example, the brightness is unrealistic. I don't examine my units closely enough on a regular basis to want high resolution textures. The kind of improvements in realism I would care about are not currently supported by the game's engine – but I'm certainly not holding my breath until we get more eye candy, it's just my take on the subject. If you want to make an analogy, I would say that the house's wallpaper could be improved, but I think some plants would make the atmosphere far more attractive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMcGuire Posted June 4, 2001 Share Posted June 4, 2001 I think the point that water's apparent color is related to reflected sky color is a pretty good insight. One of those things that's obvious in retrospect, but I don't recall hearing anyone mention it in the various mod discussions. It then occurs to me that this would be a very cool and very easy thing to add to CM: a series of water bitmaps which are paired with the sky texture bitmaps. At night the water would be very, very dark, almost black, maybe with bright highlights. In overcast conditions, it would be gray and rough, with no highlights. You get the idea. I think there might be a lot of bang for the buck in this one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geier Posted June 4, 2001 Share Posted June 4, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus: Hmmm, somehow I'm not buying it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Uuuh? You are objecting to someone NOT using mods (preferably yours)? I've heard about self-centered people but you just might take the prize. FYI I don't use any mods either, eye-candy I can live without and either way it is the results that count. I even have bases on most of the time. How you can even begin to be bothered about what someone else sees when playing CM is waaay beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted June 4, 2001 Share Posted June 4, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Geier: Uuuh? You are objecting to someone NOT using mods (preferably yours)? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, not mine or anybody else's for that matter. It's just that people always want more eye candy, and if they say they don't, they're lying. And then they say, as Aitken did, that because CM doesn't model ditches and stuff (read eye candy) that he doesn't use mods at all. Well which is it? You want eye candy or you don't. You want certain eye candy, but then you won't even improve what there is when imporvemnts are available. Just seems hypocrital to me. It's like saying my truck is a rust bucket, but I won't paint it until I get some new rims. So in this case, Aitken says he won't mod until CM models ditchs. Doesn't quite make sense. I mean, just listen to everybody who uses mods, they all say that it makes it a new game everytime. In my game, just about everything is modded. I want the most realistic looking battlefield I can get. That's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverendo Posted June 4, 2001 Share Posted June 4, 2001 Paco, you are right. My profile e-mail is the one I had when I registered, a long time ago. I cannot update my profile, since I have already registered an account with my current e-mail (the password for which eludes me for the moment). Try the e-mail below reverendo@mac.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Galanti Posted June 4, 2001 Share Posted June 4, 2001 I guess the question is whether modding the terrain adds to the 'realisim' of the game. I'm kind of with David here. I've tried a lot of the mods, and they definitly give CM a different look, but, at least to me (which this is all obviously based on each persons opinion) they don't make it look all that much more 'real' then the orginal art does... Ben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Leader Posted June 4, 2001 Share Posted June 4, 2001 Last night I had to re-install CM (I was afraid that some files had become corrupt) and loaded it up mod-free for the first time since the day I got the CD. It was shocking. I am not going to shake my fist for one way or the other, but the ease on my eyes when I got that subdued grass mod was well worth it. And why does the original snow look so... pissy? I spent much of the evening last night picking and choosing which mods to add. I started with Magua's buildings, but then went to Panzertruupens. Very low-key and nice. Look at Davids picture again. Notice the jarring diefferences in color. Glaring brights, it is hard for me to enjoy looking at, but mine, with nice fall colors, subdued grass, buildings with bullet-holes and cracks, a red sky at dawn, flames tracing through the smoking husks of tanks. It looks pretty. Does it improve gameplay? No. Those are my own tanks smoking, but at least I get to enjoy SOMETHING about their destruction. Mods are good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted June 5, 2001 Share Posted June 5, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus: No, not mine or anybody else's for that matter. It's just that people always want more eye candy, and if they say they don't, they're lying. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So you are calling me a liar? You need to check what you typed before you hit 'Add Reply', sir. -dalem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts