CM article - Graphics

[Bruno Weiss]

Polar wrote:

Ummmm... Harley only survived because it descided to be more like Honda. There was a time when Harley Davidson didn't really care if a bike managed to get all it's parts attached before they shipped it.

I wouldn't know Polar, that wasn't anywhere near the point of what I said. What I said was, why would one wander into a Harley Davidson shop (you can insert any company name, local bar, football stadium home field side of the stands), and think that attempting to tell them they should be like someone else that you happen to think nifty (or presume your idea was somehow overlooked by everyone else that you happen to think nifty), is just naturally going to be well received based upon little more than the fact that you happened to think of it.

The logical answer to that question is that potentially that person needs to re-evaluate their idea as to its overall acceptability, or find another motorcycle, bar, football stadium, etc., to hang out at, or maybe just needs a shot of lithium in the butt.

If your left foot is out, when the rest of the band's right foot is out, it is a little illogical to conclude that it is the band who is out of step. With me now?

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

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 01-29-2001).]

[Slapdragon]

What I liken it more to is someone wandering into the editorial offices of Word magazine and telling the editors that the magazine needs slicker graphics in the form of pornographic videos running on the page using an imbedded VCR.

First, Word is not about to run a porno movie no matter what -- different philosophy. Nest -- it could run a video using a flexible transfer LCD as a page (kind of thick, but it could be a centerfold) and it could install an I-Link access that allows anyone with a digital VTR (around 3000 dollars US) to play the included tape, and this would be state of the art, but who will pay for a 10,000 dollar US magazine?

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

Shadow Casting is orders of magnitude more complicated than Dynamic Shading of polygons. If Dynamic Lighting is introduced it certainly has to be a dumbed down version. Shadow casting is certainly out of the question! There are no shadows in Quake III, either.

It would be interesting to hear the opinion of experts on the topic. How could the two major light sources in the game, namely fires and explosions, be rendered.

For example, one could make a decent effect by lighting the terrain tiles alone. Forget the vehicles for the moment. Say, there is a building and it is on fire. Superimpose a "flickering" lighting map on the base polygons, maybe extending to adjacent tiles. Or use vertex lighting, which fades out outside of the burning tile. Use the same procedure when an explosion occurs on the tile, if only for a second or so. No need to calculate orientations since they are fixed (buildings). Determine which building faces are affected. Flat shade building walls with constant brightness (approximation), depending on angle of incident of light. Leave walls on opposite side unaffected. Apply similar algorithm to trees.

In an object orientated environment it should be "fairly" easy to teach each object how to react to a light source. Maybe a simple algorithm, which does not affect vehicles, could be found. As for vehicles, maybe a simple switch would be sufficient: If the viewer is on the same side of the vehicle as the explosion, highlight the whole vehicle. If the explosion is behind the vehicle, don't.

Of course, on zoomed-in stills, all simplified methods will look weird, but in the movies maybe not so.

Regards, Thomm

I would like to suggest you look at Operation FlashPoint

http://www.bistudio.com/

http://www.gamecenter.com/Pc/Previews/Of/

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/

if you have not seen this movie yet check it out: (if it is from the REAL game, then this REAL game ROCKS in EVERY way with regards to eye candy and dynamic lighting effects that some people here want!)

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

It is in developement now, and it is appears to be MUCH more than just another FPS.

Their demo video of the game play, if it is to be believed, shows FULL Dynamic Lighting effects and renders more polygons than CM in a true 3D environment.

All we are saying is check out the competition. Thanks possibly to CM's huge success and obvious profitability, I imagine we will see other 3D wargames coming out in the next 6-18 months hoping to cash in.

Operation Flashpoint will maybe one of them and it think it might actually be compteting with the release of CM2.

PLEASE, please look at what other developers are bragging about now before you tell us dynamic lightling on a 3D battlefield is not technically possible. It is hard to believe that it is being done now AND being done WELL on the Sony PS2 but our own (not exactly state of the art) consumer level home computers cannot render D/L and a higher polygon count than we see in CMBO now?

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-29-2001).]

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-29-2001).]

[deanco]

Or this one, Real War :

http://www.zdnet.com/gamespot/stories/news/0,10870,2677613,00.html

A short quote from gamespot : "The game was first developed for the US military by Virginia-based OC Incorporated, a defense contractor for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It was designed to teach the coordination of operations across the four branches of the military - the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. The original game, named Joint Force Employment, is currently in use at several military academies including West Point, US Joint Forces Staff College, and Air University."

The graphics are certainly quite colorful and pleasing to the eye, and I think I see individual soldiers in one of the screens. The view seems to be locked in the 3/4 isometric position. Anyway, this is just an example of the possible 'competition' CM2 may face.

Don't get me wrong, just because of the aforementioned credentials doesn't mean that Real War won't suck doggy doodoo. However, if it has better graphics and explosions than CM while still trying to remain faithful to the actual unit capabilities, it will definately vie with CM2 for my gaming dollar.

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

DeanCo--

CM interface mods: http://mapage.cybercable.fr/deanco/

so many games...so little time

[Slapdragon]

To put all this in perspective, 9 years ago during the Clinton innaguration I directed a set of shows for Democratic Television (this is not a political discussion by the way, I am a republican -- it was just a job, no need to start Clinton bashing) and we built an intro for the show that included 3 letters in a dynamic lighting environment falling into place, followed by a slide in of a phrase of text. Took 36 hours to render it. Last night I rendered the same 3D image on my Powermac in a few minutes. This item though uses only 25 polygons with full shadows, polygon textures, and lighting.

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK, back from a weekend of R&R. One question for you Gunny Bunny before I answer your questions:

How old are you?

I have a strong opinion that it is under 16, and that would make a lot of sense. I would even excuse your behavior a little bit because we were all young and asinine at one point in our lives...

I think this is a well balanced response to the graphics question. Let's look at the truth now:

Truth? Truth according to you only. Some people, much more learned than you are, used to think that the Sun revolved around the Earth. So let's drop the all attitude as it only makes you look rather dim.

1) BTS graphics are average compared to software as a whole;

Agreed. But since most games are apples to oranges to CM it is irrelevant. I have seen PS2 games that blow away every single PC game ever made, but I don't see why that matters so much.

2) BTS graphics are great compared to just military software;

Agreed. Now you are comparing apples to apples, and can actually make a point. However, some people hate 3D and only want 2D overhead and/or hex based games. So even this "Truth" is subjective.

3) BTS is NOT responsive to requests from customers for improved graphics.

Hehe... boy, is this off the mark or what? Have you even read posts from us about what we are planning on doing in the future? People keep posting links but it appears you haven't read them. Or if you have, you haven't understood them. Either way, you do not have a leg to stand on. The evidence to counter your claim is here in abundance. And there will be more in this very post if you are still too lazy to read what we have written before.

Take Dymanic Lighting ( T&L ) for example. If it takes a rewrite then best to do it now, or it should only become more painful later;

Man, I am really glad you don't get to call the production shots for any game developer out there. What you are suggesting is just silly enough to put us out of business. Others have weighed in with enough commentary on this train of thought so I will move along.

I find it rather laughable that the Party-Soldiers first come on this thread defending the graphics quality to the death and by the end of page two they are coming around to a more balanced point of view, BTS has their brainwashing technique down pat

Questioning Gunny Bunny = Brain Washed BTS Fan

Or is it:

Listening to Endless Annoying Demanding Whining Groundless Blather = Plenty of Annoyed Mature People Who See GB For What He Is

Damn close call. Hmm... I'll have to think about this some.

There is plenty of room for graphics improvement in CM.

True, although there is plenty more room for improvement of your attitude and narrow vision.

Here are my two (2) suggestions;

You seem to confuse the word "suggestion" with "demand", but I guess it is to be expected.

1) Put dynamic lighting for the effects noted earlier ie: muzzle flashes, fire, smoke etc.

No dynamic lighting for CM2. Even if the hardware out there could support full DL (which is doubtfull), the amount of time needed to rewrite the game engine would delay CM2 to an extent that the vast majority of people would have a BIG problem with. So if our choices are:

1. Do not put in DL and have to listen to a handfull of ungreatfull whiners who do nothing more than demand special interest attention.

2. Have the vast bulk of paid CM1 customers yell at us for caving in to a couple of teenagers with loud mouths and rotten attitudes, not to mention no clue about what they are talking about.

Hmmm... jeeze, seems like a pretty easy choice to me!

2) Make CM2 64 meg Vram.

Actually, we were toying with the idea of mandating a Cray super computer backend with a fully decked out SGI system as the frontend. Why pussyfoot around with cruddy 64MB graphic cards stuck to PCees of Junk?

Stop focusing so much on people that have out of date computers.

I think the majority of people would tell us to stop focusing so much on people that are obviously not worthy of our attention. And here is a hint -> they aren't the ones demanding 64MB min-system requirements.

If they want to have out of date computers that is their business, but should the rest of us suffer because of it ?!

Sorry, I didn't know you were suffering, I thought we were with your constant bashing of us. Simple fact that you are missing here is that we cater to only you then there will be no more CM at all. We will go out of business. Sorry chum, that is the reality Hardware Bigots never seem to understand. You are a minority. A loud and very often unreasonable minority, but lacking the purchasing power to keep us in business all the same.

Do yourself a favor and just don't buy Combat Mission 2. Save up your money for whatever has DL and supports nothing less than a 64MB card. We obviously can't make you happy.

Last word of advice -> leave the game development stuff to the professionals. No matter how hard you wet your pants for the next greatest graphics thingy that comes down the pike, we still know more about it that you do.

Now... that said... there will be graphical improvements to CM2. This has been the plan all along, even before we finished CM1. Ironically, some of them are even ones that GB has been bitching about. More info on this as we get further into development.

Steve

P.S. Hopefully this answer will be taken in the spirit it was intended. Bitchers and insulters do get reasoned responses from us, but there is no reason why we need to kiss their assess while doing so.

[BIG DD]

rotflmho......some body got there ass burnt....how to rip em a new one steve.....and the customer isnt always right!

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

MAKE IT SHORT AND SWEET THEN GET THE F#$K OUT

[Gremlin]

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

New to Combat Mission?

Visit CM Boot Camp at Combat Missions for tips.

[This message has been edited by Gremlin (edited 01-29-2001).]

[PeterNZer]

Quick Note:

Real War is nothing to measure CM by since it uses pre-rendered scenes ala Fallout, Diablo, etc etc

Flashpoint seems to use the clever technique of low detail far off, high detail up close. With CMs birds-eye view this could look rather funny. Without this technique they couldn't possibly display the high detail they do.

PeterNZ

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

"Patriotism is the virtue of the viscious" - Oscar Wilde

"Don't F*CK with Johnny Cash!" - Chupacabra

[Slapdragon]

But it is very important that, as Manny Davis said, "A custard head be allowed to yammer."

From BTS's point of view, even if all of us know it is horse****, one guy constantly posting that CM is crap graphics wise is bound to effect the thinking of people who just do not know anything about graphics and are lurkers on this board (many more lurkers read than ever post here). Just a case of propaganda winning out over truth. Steve just stuck it to the kid with a big healthy dose of truth, and hopefully lurkers will read and understand what he said so they do not go to Usenet and say , "err -- CM has terrible graphics, at least that is what I heard."

[Guest Big Time Software]

Now for some general thoughts about the importance of graphics for CM...

It is VERY true that graphics are critical for CM's appeal. While there are a few that say "I'd buy it even if it looked like the pre-Alpha, so long as the game part was as good as it is now" they are probably just as few in number as the people making graphics their #1 area of interest for CM improvements. So we don't listen to either group However, the "I'll take less" group winds up the clear winner because we won't sacrifice the game for the graphics, yet the graphics will get better and better in any case.

I have said this before and I will say it again. Hardware Bigots (i.e. people that have today's latest hardware and want developers to EXCLUSIVELY cater to what they have) never, ever, in the history of computing understood the fact that they are a minority. The bleeding edge users are even a minority within a minority. If a developer caters to this crowd they instantly rule out a HUGE quantity of sales. Ironically, catering to the highend requires more resources to do this, so the developer is pursuing a wonderfully inept business strategy that will ultimately lead to fiscal disaster. And here is the funny thing...

The more developers cater to the high end, and then fail to make the kind of money necessary to keep making such games, the less and less of that genre of games are made since it gets branded as a "money loser". Flight sims are a perfect example. Once the darling of the industry, they are pretty much down for the count. Catering to Hardware Bigots is one of the key elements for their downfall.

There are a few exceptions to this rule. But precious few. And I argue that even the few that DO somehow "have it all" in fact aren't nearly as "advanced" as people like Gunny Bunny want them to be. Quake III needed a much better system than Quake II and better than Quake I. But it ALWAYS allowed itself to tap into the vast majority of gamers, which of course use average level systems. Since ID has more money than God, and they have a fan base that measures in the millions, they can afford to put in the fancy doo-dads they want to (note! not all that are available!!). And since Quake is pretty much all about graphics, this is a self rewarding business model to pursue.

It would be nice if we could do this, but let's get real. CM is all about the game first, graphics second. Although graphics are clearly important, they the game is clearly responsible for CM's success. Read the reviews of CM. Even when the reviewer noted that "CM's graphics are not cutting edge" we STILL received 5 star ratings. Now... check out how many 1-3 star games get reviews like "graphics were great, game sucked ass".

The point is clear. What makes CM popular is the game. Graphics are only important to the degree that they improve/enhance the game. Graphics never will overshadow the game or CM will by definition fail to be successfull.

All said... graphical improvements are necessary to keep CM "fresh" and looking better with each release. But any notion that graphics should be the FIRST thing on our list ignores all the facts and lessons from previous game development experience. In short, we have our priorities correct. Anybody that wishes to think we aren't up can kindly go play Quake IV and leave us alone. We know what we are doing and know best how to do it. And because of that, CM2 will be warmly received by gamers and reviewers alike. We are not worried, and niether should you the customer

Steve

[Bruno Weiss]

Nice flying Steve. Hehe, enjoyed that gun camera footage. You can always tell when it's a novice pilot getting hit on the camera footage from the telltale signs. Belly tank still strapped on, or the landing gear is down, or the aircraft is flying in a straight and level position, and then you see the chunks of metal tearing off the fuselage followed by that awful burst of flame and smoke. If the pilot was real lucky, you'd see the canopy open or if not you'd see the wing fold up and she'd reel over into that death spiral.

Anyone see a chute?

Perfect example of what I've said all along. BTS "is" going to improve the graphics incrementally, not take a wild swing to the fringe one way, and potentially suffer the game or delay it, nor are they stubbornly refusing to do anything and remain on the fringe in the other direction. Seems like a reasonable and compromising, if not perfectly acceptable and rational response to me. What's more I didn't have to read it in some cotton pickin commercial advertisement, the big Kahunna just told me himself. That's about as unique and different as it gets.

I think the BTS Manifesto should have a test at the end of it to see whether or not the reader comprehends it, and unless you score a 90 or better you can't logon to the forum.

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

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 01-29-2001).]

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

Hehe, enjoyed that gun camera footage. You can always tell when it's a novice pilot getting hit on the camera footage from the telltale signs. Belly tank still strapped on, or the landing gear is down, or the aircraft is flying in a straight and level position, and then you see the chunks of metal tearing off the fuselage followed by that awful burst of flame and smoke. If the pilot was real lucky, you'd see the canopy open or if not you'd see the wing fold up and she'd reel over into that death spiral.

Anyone see a chute?

Landed somewhere in Usenet I think. Maybe alt.tv.barneythedinosaur

[Guest Big Time Software]

PeterNZ wrote:

Real War is nothing to measure CM by since it uses pre-rendered scenes ala Fallout, Diablo, etc etc

Oooo... thanks for the reminder! Folks... we have see this "Game A does X so CM obviously can too" argument since Day One. Every single time, and I mean EVERY time, we really looked into it we found that Game A might be doing X, but not Y and Z like CM. And that means they had the horsepower to do X while CM does not. In other words, Apples to Oranges.

There has not been a case yet that has stood up to critical comparison. While feature X might be desirable, and do able within certain limitations, that does not mean we can just plug it in without affecting SOMETHING that is already in there OR making CM a bleeding edge only game. Either way, it isn't doable.

Flashpoint seems to use the clever technique of low detail far off, high detail up close. With CMs birds-eye view this could look rather funny. Without this technique they couldn't possibly display the high detail they do.

Not quite correct. We use (IIRC) 4 different levels of detail for CM's models. If we didn't, EVERYBODY would be bitching about framerates. How do I know? Well, at one point a decent sized CM battle only got under 10 FPS on a good day for a system that majority of people had at the time of CM's release. That was until we started optimizing the graphics using tricks like this (there are others).

But your point is still correct. The great flexibility of CM's view options, the variability of terrain, variety and quantity of units, as well as the combat itself, mean that we have to be VERY smart about what and how things are put in. "Gee, wouldn't that be cool!" is only the starting point for deciding this. And is often the case, it generally doesn't hold up too well by the time you get to the practicality issues.

Hitler used to sit in his bunker pushing whole Armies around and issued them all sorts of great orders that would make things much better for Germany. But there is something called reality. While we won't REALLY need to put a PPK to our heads if we don't treat reality with respect, we certainly will wind up in the same spot -> out of business

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 01-29-2001).]

[Wilhammer]

A game for Gunny Bunny;

http://www.gamersinn.com/library/arcade/?874

Bunny Blast!

If you can't (or won't) get this DOS classic to run, of equal consideration is this java game on the Web;

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view.php?id=1070

Awesome Graphics and a situation that should remind him of this board membership general response to his non-competent posting.

Enjoy!

I did.

Elmer Fudd

[This message has been edited by Wilhammer (edited 01-29-2001).]

[Guest Rollstoy]

Pretty emotional stuff here ...

Unfortunately the problems with Dynamic Texturing and Lightning will remain the same for the next 5 (or so) years because of the complexity of the task.

A pity that everybody prefers to attack each other to discussing possible simplifications or algorithms that can overcome the problem.

You have too many polygons --> you use Level-of-Detail methods, view frustum culling, oct-trees, .... But what about shadowing and lighting? Where are the ideas?

Regards, Thomm

[Bruno Weiss]

Rollstoy wrote:

A pity that everybody prefers to attack each other

Actually I'd say a more accurate statement would be; "Its a pity those who believe they have some idea or suggestion can't express it without demanding, insulting, and attacking." I believe most of the rest were counter-attacking and/or taking up defensive positions, and a very few were providing cover fire or smoke for the initial thrust, which is what one might expect in response to demands, insults, and attacks, on a company wargaming BBS. Just a Forward Observation ofcourse.

The notion of discussing it is fine I believe, if a couple of common sense comprehensions would prevail. First, it's the BTS BBS, which means there's apt to be a large percentage of people here who think highly of BTS. So it doesn't play well when someone waltzes in and declares that the praises for the home team hurt their ears. Secondly, it always helps no matter where one is at, to refrain from name calling and conjuring up conspiracy theories when one's ideas don't result in a stampede of acceptance.

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

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 01-29-2001).]

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

Pretty emotional stuff here ...

Unfortunately the problems with Dynamic Texturing and Lightning will remain the same for the next 5 (or so) years because of the complexity of the task.

A pity that everybody prefers to attack each other to discussing possible simplifications or algorithms that can overcome the problem.

You have too many polygons --> you use Level-of-Detail methods, view frustum culling, oct-trees, .... But what about shadowing and lighting? Where are the ideas?

Regards, Thomm

Thomm,

Read the post were we tried to move GB into a more realistic discussion, the look at his record of posts (I have them in detail listed here).

This is not a person to be talked with as an adult. If he wanted to discuss texture mapping and ray trace algs then I was his boy -- but he preferred an attack of an idiot.

Idiocy begets idiocy.

[deanco]

Originally posted by PeterNZer:

Quick Note:

Real War is nothing to measure CM by since it uses pre-rendered scenes ala Fallout, Diablo, etc etc

Once it comes out, I will compare Real War to CM by 4 criteria: Fun Factor, Realism (because it claims to be a military simulator), Graphics, and Sound. It's a little bit early to start comparing since we know very little about it. However we DO know that it is a port of a simulator used by the armed forces, so I guess that would put it smack dab in the CM category.

I don't care if you can't zoom down like in CM, nor do I expect every future wargame to have a true 3D engine. I want my games to be fun, have immersive gameplay, and have good graphics and sound (and in the case of Real War, be realistic, since that is what it purports to be). If Real War manages to do that, it will STILL compete with CM2 for my gaming dollar. Clear now?

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

DeanCo--

CM interface mods: http://mapage.cybercable.fr/deanco/

so many games...so little time

[Terence]

Originally posted by deanco:

Once it comes out, I will compare Real War to CM by 4 criteria: Fun Factor, Realism (because it claims to be a military simulator), Graphics, and Sound.

By those criteria, how does Steel Beasts stack up?

[lassner.1]

Having seen so many respectable members off the CM community post in rely to Gunny Bunny's (unending) complaints, I feel I should comment as well.

As a lifelong dedicated wargamer who owns a high end computer I feel that the Gunny Bunny creature's remarks are designed to be inflammatory. They are also ludicrous. Anyone who has wargamed for any length of time knows that CM is really a major step forward in wargaming. Maybe the graphics could be better, but they are really quite satisfactory at this point. Moreover, the continual availability of free high quality mods completely changes the look of the game. The current mods that I have installed make the game look like a photograph at times.

In short GB’s constant protestations about the supposed sub-standard graphics in CM are unwarranted. CM is both a great game and eye-candy.

[Lorak]

Originally posted by Terence:

By those criteria, how does Steel Beasts stack up?

Terence,

While I haven't bought Steel Beasts yet ( I just don't have the time for it right now)

I would say the fun factor is great

Realism is great.

Game play is great.

Graphics are not "FPS up to date"

But the game Like Cm is a compleate package. You really get so engrossed in the game that you don't notice.

If you haven't already, you owe it to yourself to download and try the demo. It really is a lot of fun.

Lorak

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

"Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; but make it hot by striking."--William Butler Yeats

Cesspool

Combatmissionclub

Lorak's FTX

and for Kitty's sake

=^..^=

[Gunny Bunny]

Here is an interesting occurence in the AI I am experiencing:

It is dark with 25 meters of visibility. My choice was made by the AI and it selected three mortar carriers. This is a low point game, so allot of armour points went into these.

The problem is you need at least 100 meters minimum to fire them. So I am really in a jam.

My opponent has all usable armour.

My infantry are fighting like pigs, but it is hard.

I think in future I am only going to play game in which I manually choose my forces, otherwise the game becomes a little strange if the AI is cruel -

I find it rather interesting that people believe I think CM is a bad program... I have only offered constructive criticism.

Regards,

Gunny Bunny

[BIG DD]

is that what u call it?

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

MAKE IT SHORT AND SWEET THEN GET THE F#$K OUT

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by Gunny Bunny:

Here is an interesting occurence in the AI I am experiencing:

It is dark with 25 meters of visibility. My choice was made by the AI and it selected three mortar carriers. This is a low point game, so allot of armour points went into these.

The problem is you need at least 100 meters minimum to fire them. So I am really in a jam.

My opponent has all usable armour.

My infantry are fighting like pigs, but it is hard.

I think in future I am only going to play game in which I manually choose my forces, otherwise the game becomes a little strange if the AI is cruel -

I find it rather interesting that people believe I think CM is a bad program... I have only offered constructive criticism.

Regards,

Gunny Bunny

Boy, that is common. I get three mortar carriers all the time in low point games. Happened hundreds of times...