CM article - Graphics

[GriffinCheng+]

Urgh, you make me have the urge to re-install this good olddies again! I cannot remember if SyW has any shadows after all.

Correct me if I am wrong. Some 3d titles trick you for getting better frame rates by : 1) blurring far objects and reducing their number of polygons or 2) using "fog" -- render the objects if only they are within view. I remember another title called "Shadow Company" employs the latter technics and they produce some amazing effects. Oh another one : "Jane's F-15" with its infmaous "breathing terrian". I don't know SyW uses any "tricks".

Anyway, both are not good for CM, either.

Griffin.

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

By the way, I remember that 'Syndicate Wars' used dynamic lighting YEARS ago. BUT they had the advantage that their polygon meshes were fine enough to employ methods (A) and/or ( mentioned previously.

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

"When you find your PBEM opportents too hard to beat, there is always the AI."

"Can't get enough Tank?"

[This message has been edited by GriffinCheng+ (edited 01-31-2001).]

[Guest Rollstoy]

Originally posted by GriffinCheng+:

Urgh, you make me have the urge to re-install this good olddies again! I cannot remember if SyW has any shadows after all.

...

I don't know SyW uses any "tricks".

Don't remember about the shadows! Maybe as parts of the sprites?!

No tricks necessary in SyW because of the ISOMETRIC view which kept the number of polys constantly low since only a well defined portion of the world was displayed at any time.

About the 'dynamic lighting maps', I have to investigate ...

Regards, Thomm

[Guest Rollstoy]

Dear Griffin!!!

Originally posted by GriffinCheng+:

From my understand, yes, there is one. GeForce 2GTS uses Transformation and Lighting (TnL) which "accelerates" the effect (light map) you mention. However, it can only handle 1 single light source. Check out Tom's Hardware (www.tomshardware.coom) and Gefore GTS guide in Sharky's Extreme site (www.sharkyextreme.com).

Your post has been extremely useful, since "I can see clearly now". I went over to www.nvidia.com and updated my knowledge about cutting edge graphics hardware. However, you mistook "Per-Pixel-Shading" with "Hardware Lighting Acceleration", with the latter being the traditional vertex based method, but with hardware accelerated calculations.

For those still interested, I suggest downloading these most informative documents from NVidia:

On Per-Pixel Shading:

http://www.nvidia.com/Pages.nsf/Lookup/Nsr2/$file/Nsr.pdf

Transformation and Lighting:

http://www.nvidia.com/Products/Images.nsf/Lookup/Transform_and_Lighting/$file/Transform_and_Lighting.pdf

So now my conclusions:

Vertex Based lighting might be realistic even in software mode, IF the vertex brightness is calculated during the turn resolution phase.

I doubt that this can be realised in Combat Mission, because I presume that only vehicle orientations and positions are stored in the movie file and the corresponding polygons are calculated 'on the fly' while watching the movie, depending on the necessary Level-of-Detail.

Maybe this problem could be overcome by 'compressing' the lighting information in some way in the movie file, i.e. only re-calculate as soon as the vehicle turns or is lit by something (---> the infamous 'complete rewrite').

This, however, does not solve the problem that the terrain mesh is too coarse to simulate point light sources properly.

Adaptive Mesh Refinement would be a theoretical solution. But lets forget about this for the next years!

Dynamic Light Maps could overcome the problem, but they appear to be much too costly since they imply to software-render a bitmap with brightness information for the lit polygon in real-time. Not going to happen.

Per-Pixel-Shading would of course overcome this problem, but only in theory and tech demos, certainly not in Combat Mission. Furthermore, it would require the latest graphics hardware, which is not good.

Well, that does not leave too many options now, does it. I am curious what BTS will come up with.

Also, be aware that there does not seem to be a way to accelerate the (dynamic) drawing of SHADOWS at the time being, so you have to rely on software solutions (pre-calculated light maps do not count here).

Well, that's it. I think that pre-calculated vertex-lighting with compressed data storage is the way to go, but this methods has limits as indicated.

Hope this helps ...

Regards, Thomm

Last but not least a example of Cube Environment Mapping from DelphiGL (note that this is of course totally irrelevant for CM!)

[Guest Big Time Software]

Thomm wrote:

Well, that does not leave too many options now, does it.

True, but don't say it too loudly or Gunny Bunny will think we scooped your brain out and mashed it with our nasty boots

I am curious what BTS will come up with.

Nothing I said we are going to try and get in some limited special effects, but there will be no real treatment of light in CM2. I just isn't possible to do.

What we can do is something you mentioned earlier (or was it Griffin?). We are most likely going to move to 32bit color and this gives us a lot more flexibility with transparancies. This can allow us to play around with special effects more than we can now. No, it won't really be a lighting model, but they will look much better (in theory of course ).

Steve

[Bruno Weiss]

Dah, I get no respect. I proffered that BTS was moving to a 32bit VRAM environment back a few threads.

Ofcourse it will look better, I can't wait to see it. Geeze, I'm impressed with what I see now just using the mods with FSAA.

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

"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)

[Major Tom]

This isn't over yet?!? GB hasn't posted a reply for days, why keep this thread going?

[Guest Rollstoy]

Dear Bruno!

Are you sure that you do not mistake 32 Bit Color Depth with 32 MegaByte VRAM???!?!

...

Last thing I would like to know: if you apply a light map to a polygon, can you specify an offset to the origin of the polygon?! This way you could 'sweep' a light map across the polygon as a light source passes over it. Or do you have to paint a new light map as soon as you change the position of the light? Just something I have not figured out yet.

Regards and thanks for turning this into a most informative thread,

Thomm

[Guest Rollstoy]

Originally posted by Major Tom:

This isn't over yet?!? GB hasn't posted a reply for days, why keep this thread going?

Why do you bump it to the top if you do not like it??????

[GriffinCheng+]

Hey, don't you see that we have successfully rendered (pun intended) this GB (GameBoy?) guy out of the picture?

Thomm, I did not take Computer Graphics courses during my university studies. Shame. I think I can vagely understand what you are saying.

As for SyW, they don't need as much view options and aspects as CMBO so SyW may play more interesting eye candies.

Back to the topic: the question is not what current GeFroce GPU (according to Tom's Hardware, actually it is more powerful than current Pentium 3 CPU) can do, but rather how many CM players can benefit from it and whether the effort would be well deserved.

Griffin.

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

"When you find your PBEM opportents too hard to beat, there is always the AI."

"Can't get enough Tank?"

[Gunny Bunny]

Did somebody mention bumps ??

I am not sure how much programing is needed to add the ability for bumps. Let's pick best case scenario that it would not take much coding and that anybody can add them to mods in the .bmp files.

This would be a nice feature. BTS could just allow mod makers to add the bump graphic design work themselves, to such items as walls, buildings, tanks etc.. This would stop the perfectly smooth/sheen items that do not look realistic.

This would not bog down BTS graphics designers just let CM fans do the work. There are so many who enjoy doing mods.

There may be some snags to my scenario, but perhaps without any potty-mouth we can work our way through it.

If you are interested in seeing what these effects look like and how they could enhance the graphics of the game go here:

http://www.nvidia.com/Powerof3D.nsf

be sure to download the .exe file associated with each picture, prepare to have your mind blown. You shall see what high end graphics can really be like rather than mediocre.

In regard to the comment(s) that customers do not have the hardware to drive T&L and other effects as I mentioned in my original post NIVIDIA video cards have a GPU that does the work for the effects of T&L and takes the strain off the cpu.

Currently, Nividia has a 50% marketshare and it is growing. Eventually, CM will have T&L it is just a matter of time. My suggestion would be to start now as time and resources allow and complete it as soon as possible. ( soon is a relative term )

Best regards,

Gunny Bunny

[aka_tom_w]

Did Somebody say EYE CANDY????

Check this out

for all you PC geeks with fast computers and high end video cards take a look and see what REAL Myst looks like

here's their web site for the Demo

http://www.avault.com/pcrl/demo_temp.asp?game=realmyst

WOW

-tom w

[Chupacabra]

Heh, actually, Myst is a great example of a gorgeous game with crap gameplay. Stunning graphics, but good lord, the boredom.

I'd rather CM do things the other way around, personally. If CM's graphics get better, wonderful. There's certainly room for improvement. But not at the expense of gameplay.

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

Soy super bien soy super super bien soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super

[Maximus]

Gunny Bunny,

I guessed you missed the rather colorful post about you on page 6 of this thread.

Unless you have some divine knowledge about software design or past wargaming experience, then I believe your "so-called" expertise is falling under deaf ears.

[Guest Rollstoy]

Gunny Bunny,

and what exactly would you use the bump maps on?!?!?

The FEW games I have seen, which employ it, do so only on, say, 10 polygons. It is a special effect, very expensive.

You are invited to change the .bmp files to look like bump mapped textures. All you need is Photoshop and talent. The result will be exactly the same. Trust me.

Of course, if you ask for ripples on water ...

But else, WHAT FOR. Please make suggestions.

Regards, Thomm

[Gremlin]

Bump mapping would be cool for the Zimmerit applications on Tigers and whatnot. When well implemented (Evolva and Giants are two good examples), it does look cool, but I can't think of many textures on CM units that would benefit from it. Scenery could though: rough terrain, etc.

Personally, I'd most like to see graphics improvements that have a direct bearing on unit interactions, like muzzle flashes at night, as someone mentioned above. Graphics improvements that increase emotional/sensory immersion and involvement would be nice, but not as significant, all told.

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

New to Combat Mission?

Visit CM Boot Camp at Combat Missions for tips.

[This message has been edited by Gremlin (edited 01-31-2001).]

[Gremlin]

Btw, if you want eye candy (apparently to be wedded to a serious sim), check out the upcoming World Sports Cars:

http://www.simracingnews.com/screenshots.php?id=6

Insane visuals.

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

New to Combat Mission?

Visit CM Boot Camp at Combat Missions for tips.

[This message has been edited by Gremlin (edited 01-31-2001).]

[Gunny Bunny]

Originally posted by Gremlin:

Btw, if you want eye candy (apparently to be wedded to a serious sim), check out the upcoming World Sports Cars:

http://www.simracingnews.com/screenshots.php?id=6

Insane visuals.

WOW...I had to look twice to determine if it was a real car or not !!

Imagine having armour look that realistic !

What types of programming ( graphics ) have they used that is different from CM to make them look that real ??

Thx,

GB

[The Commissar]

Gunny Bunny,

AFAIK, bump mapping CANNOT be done by the fans. Bump mapping must take place on the actual MODEL of the object in question.

IE: To apply the Zimmirit paint to a tank, as someone mentioned, BTS would have to do this on the tank model itself. Too much hassle for them, I think.

This is all AFAIK, so if someone knows more, the stage is yours

Oh, and Gunny Bunny, I suggest you give up on trying to make BTS addopt new technology. It ain't happening, pal. Just drop it. However, if you want to participate in graphic discussions without constantly saying "BTS should do/what does BTS need to do to do this", Im sure nobody would mind much.

Cheers!

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

"...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..."

- Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back"

[Guest Big Time Software]

Thomm wrote:

and what exactly would you use the bump maps on?!?!?

Very little.

The FEW games I have seen, which employ it, do so only on, say, 10 polygons. It is a special effect, very expensive.

Correct. It comes at the expense of VRAM for starters. So if you want that Panther to have a nice bump mapped texture you would have to double the VRAM usage for that one vehicle. And since even 64MB cards have their limitations, someone is going to have to make a choice. If bump mapped stuff is going to be used a lot, then the overall resolution of the graphics will suffer and/or the frame rate will drop.

We do not see bump mapping as worth the development time. Artwork is not the issue. Programming and technical support is.

Gunny Bunny, how good of you to actually try and have a conversation about this. It is a refreshing change:

Imagine having armour look that realistic !

You forget that before CM was released people thought a tiny 2D isometric piece of "panzer candy" was the cat's meow.

What types of programming ( graphics ) have they used that is different from CM to make them look that real ??

More like what type of computer would it take to run Combat Mission with models that expensive in terms of polygons and textures? The answer is... nothing that anybody has at home now, or likely for the next 2 years.

Those cars probably have 3-4 times the polygon count of even our most "expensive" AFVs. Maybe even more. So how can they get away with it? Easy... compared to CM:

1. The terrain is grossly simplified (those trees lining the track are just one big billboard)

2. There is a top number of cars on the track at once (I bet medium to large sized battles haev more vehicles)

3. They don't have other "units" in general play (remember that EVERY unit in CM is made out of a hefty number of polygons)

4. They most likely don't have to deal with massive amounts of smoke/fire at one time (this is very common in CM, especially with a lot of vehicles)

5. And most importantly... I bet the require top end hardware for this thing to look even half as good as those screenshots (as explained before, we do this we die)

Again, this is why it is not at all productive to mix and match apples to oranges. You appear to have a problem with this, but reality is a bitch sometimes.

Any 3D artist worth a damned could make an AFV look better by adding polygons. In fact, there are some places where you can purchase such 3D models that look even BETTER than the real thing. But a hour's time to render it really doesn't work well for a game, does it?

So we are right back to where we started from. There are a lot of things that other games can do that we simply can not do in Combat Mission. Not because we are lazy or "sensitive", but because it is not possible either because the hardware simply can't handle it or the bulk of our audience's systems can't.

Show me a game with all the whizzbang stuff AND a detailed outdoor environment, 300-400 units on average, camera angles that can be positioned high as well as low, and lots of "real time" action, which can run on a reasonably advanced computer system, and I will eat my hat. And if it is actually a fun game, and not just mindless eyecandy action, I will even buy it. But until that day comes, people need to understand that one size does not fit all, and therefore trying to shoehorn CM into some other type of game genre will quite simply NOT work.

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

The Commisar wrote:

AFAIK, bump mapping CANNOT be done by the fans. Bump mapping must take place on the actual MODEL of the object in question.

Correct, so far as I know. We would not only have to code in the basic support, but I am nearly positive that we would have to customize the models to take advantage of bump mapping. Far too much effort for far too little reward.

Also... if we do have to make additional surfaces for bump mapping to work... up goes the polygon count, down goes the framerate.

Very little in this world is for free.

Steve

[Bruno Weiss]

Dear Rollstoy wrote:

Are you sure that you do not mistake 32 Bit Color Depth with 32 MegaByte VRAM???!?!

Not sure, maybe I mistook what Steve wrote more than likely. What I found under a search not long ago was a BTS quote saying they were going to go to a 32 VRAM from a 16 VRAM. Not being a technocrat that was good enough for me. Meant they were going to improve the looks of things, which was all I was interested in.

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

"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)

[Gremlin]

Regarding racing games, most of them keep the number of cars on screen at one time down to a minimum and use billboards and very simple polygonal structures trackside. Usually ultra-detailed textures are relied on more for the illusion of reality. To help keep frame rates up, an old "trick" is to reduce the detail level in cars as they recede in the distance. Grand Prix 3 actually switches the cars from polygonal models to bitmaps as they move into the distance. You likely wouldn't know it if you weren't looking for it.

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

New to Combat Mission?

Visit CM Boot Camp at Combat Missions for tips.

[Diceman]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Gunny Bunny... if you want to think that people 2-3 times as old as you, who have been playing COMPUTER games before you were born, don't know what they are talking about... go right ahead. You will always come off looking like the child that you are. I also don't mind you criticizing BTS (me) either, because I have been making games since you were crying for your naptime in Kindergarten. So long as you keep it up you shall always be an irrelevant, non-issue in terms of CM's continuing evolution. And you won't be thought of any better for it either.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 01-30-2001).]

Can I make this my new signature?

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

Pair-O-Dice

"Once a Diceman, Always a Diceman."

[Compassion]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Just ban is rear Steve. He runs to Uslessnet to blather inanities and accuse BTS of terrible deads in a forum they do not read

Do too... MOst of the readership of the usenet group started here. IT's not a bad goup and some good discussions happen when bunny's not around... so please don't ban him here!

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by Compassion:

so please don't ban him here!

Pray tell - is that compassion or naked self-interest?

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.