USERS GUIDE: To mod or not to mod, that is the question...

[Maximus]

OK, this is just a little guide for those people--newbies, veterans, and the like, in regards to applying mods to the game.

First rule: Make sure you copy the files into the BMP folder (PC) or use the Mac Mod Converter to convert them to Graphic 13 format.

CM only pulls graphic files from the Bmp folder, nothing else. Some people say that the game will display older images if they run out of VRAM. Not true. It can't! The game may sample down the resolution of the graphic but it won't change it. In other words, if you have a Hi-Res Tiger installed, the game will only display those textures. It won't go back and display the original stock textures. Why? because you have overwritten them when you installed the mod.

Secondly, some people seem to confuse the difference between hi-res mods and running the game in a high desk-top resolution. The desk-top resolution is set via Windows or MacOS. The only benefit in running CM in higher desktop resolutions is that the images are sharper. They have less jagged edges in them. Running the game in one of these extremely hi-reses does *nothing* to improve the detail in the textures. This only improves the images edges. Hi-res mods improve the details within the textures because they are twice the size of the original texture. This allows the mod author to paint in a higher level of detail because he has twice the pixels to work with. Such as Marco Bergman's Shermans and Stuarts. (BTW, the Chaffee and the Cromwells are on the way soon.)

Of course these larger files require more VRAM to run, but it becomes a choice over quality over quantity. IMHO, I'll take quality over quantity anyday. Besides with all the critism that CM takes because its graphics aren't up to par with games such as QuakeIII, Half-Life, etc, I would imagine that anybody in their right mind would want to improve the look of the game if there was anyway possible.

But if you have at least a 32MB video card, you should have no problem running hi-res mods.

A trick to improve performance with things like hi-res grass is to shrink the grass tiles back down to their low-res counterparts. What I do is to download the hi-res sets and then down-size them by 50%. Run the sharpen filter over them a bit which brings back the detail a little better. So take a 512x512 grass tile which weighs in at like 769K, shrink them down to 256x256 and the file becomes 193K and then run the sharpen filter over it and you can't tell the difference.

EDIT NOTE:

I've shrank them down to 128x128 and you lose too much detail. I've tried to bring it back, but it looks bad in-game. But at 256x256, they maintain the detail.

[This message has been edited by Maximus (edited 01-18-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Maximus (edited 01-18-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Maximus (edited 01-18-2001).]

[Greg Scurlock]

Maximus, just how does one do this down sizing you mention in your last paragraph?

[Mr. Clark]

Greg, Use a graphics program (such as Paint Shop Pro) and use the RESIZE, or even better RESAMPLE option on the BMP.

Great suggestion Max! Gonna give it a whirl!

[David Aitken]

Maximus wrote:

> Of course these larger files require more VRAM to run, but it becomes a choice over quality over quantity. IMHO, I'll take quality over quantity anyday.

But I'm playing at only 2048x1536 resolution, and high res mods cut down my framerate down to around 143 FPS! This kind of degradation is unacceptable. PLEASE FIX!!!! Or do somefink!!

[Maximus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

Maximus wrote:

> Of course these larger files require more VRAM to run, but it becomes a choice over quality over quantity. IMHO, I'll take quality over quantity anyday.

But I'm playing at only 2048x1536 resolution, and high res mods cut down my framerate down to around 143 FPS! This kind of degradation is unacceptable. PLEASE FIX!!!! Or do somefink!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

143 FPS, what are you kidding????? That is an awesome framerate! I hope that was meant as sarcasm, because if it wasn't you've got your priorities all screwed up.

[Michael Dorosh]

Okay, I have another stupid question - when doing my mods I was always freaked out about keeping the files sizes the same so as not to create a problem.

Forgive my ignorance, but what you are saying is that the "high-res" bitmaps are twice the size of the combat mission .bmp files they are meant to replace - and that the computer will automatically take any size .bmp assigned to a particular file number, and "fit it in"? I will have to try that at home (still at work)

Thanks for tip.

[Maximus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Greg Scurlock:

Maximus, just how does one do this down sizing you mention in your last paragraph?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I use PhotoImpact 4.2. There is an option under 'Format' called 'Dimensions'. It allows you to rescale any picture to any dimension you want. If you've got a huge picture of like 2048x1536 you can scale it down by 50% or use a standard preset size of 1024x768 and a few seconds later the program has shrunk it down to 1024x768. I do this often to hi-res pictures I get off of the NASA site where their pictures are sometimes in the range of 3,xxx x 2,xxx and I shrink them down to 1024x768, not only does it make them smaller but it makes a 3MB .jpg into a 147K .jpg I then convert them to .bmps for desktop background use.

In fact, when I run the sharpen filter over them (grass tiles), they looked more detailed than the hi-res tiles.

[Maximus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Okay, I have another stupid question - when doing my mods I was always freaked out about keeping the files sizes the same so as not to create a problem.

Forgive my ignorance, but what you are saying is that the "high-res" bitmaps are twice the size of the combat mission .bmp files they are meant to replace - and that the computer will automatically take any size .bmp assigned to a particular file number, and "fit it in"? I will have to try that at home (still at work)

Thanks for tip.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct, except for the interface graphics I believe, ie. the face portrait, those have to be their original size. But the textures for anything in the 3D view can be any size. For example the top of the Sherman 76 turret is currently being quadrupled in size by Marco Bergman for greater detail for his next release of the Sherman II/M4A1, & HVSS/76 turret.

For example the hull top to most CM tanks is 128x256. A normal hi-res version is 256x512. This allows the author to paint in the details better because they have double the amount of pixels to work with.

[This message has been edited by Maximus (edited 01-18-2001).]

[Michael Dorosh]

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

For example the hull top to most CM tanks is 128x256. A normal hi-res version is 256x512. This allows the author to paint in the details better because they have double the amount of pixels to work with.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thus, the only real problem to worry about is the hi- res stuff working on a lower end machine with a slow processor. Great, thanks very much for taking the time to explain, that helps a lot. I think this forum was a terrific idea - I've learned a lot from you guys.

[Maximus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Thus, the only real problem to worry about is the hi- res stuff working on a lower end machine with a slow processor.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct, but it has more to do with VRAM on your video card, but of course the faster the CPU/FSB/Motherboard the faster it can get the graphics to the card for processing.

[This message has been edited by Maximus (edited 01-18-2001).]

[WolfLord]

"But I'm playing at only 2048x1536 resolution, and high res mods cut down my framerate down to around 143 FPS! This kind of degradation is unacceptable. PLEASE FIX!!!! Or do somefink!!"

Hehe...good one. You were joking correct?...as that FPS result at that rez is an impossibility (under the current DX) unless you are running some sort of ungodly SGI system.

[Guest Der Unbekannte Jäger]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

But I'm playing at only 2048x1536 resolution, and high res mods cut down my framerate down to around 143 FPS! This kind of degradation is unacceptable. PLEASE FIX!!!! Or do somefink!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm slightly impressive. Except you forgot FSAA. Its a must.

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

"The world is wide, and I will not waste my life in friction when it could be turned into momentum."

[David Aitken]

I remember the good old days when I played at 800x600. Then I got an ATI Nexus, and I'm not happy at anything less than 1600x1200, even though the frame rate suffers on larger maps. The highest resolution just seems different to me – it has a silky look about it that the others lack, even 1280x960. It's also the highest my monitor can cope with, @ 60Hz. Next stop, a 21" monitor and a Radeon or a GeForce or something. But it'll probably have a new computer attached, so it'll have to wait until I'm rich, which will be.... umm, get back to me on that one.

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

I remember the good old days when I played at 800x600. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My first computer was a CoCo 2 by Radio Shack - the monitor showed 32 characters across by I think 16 down or something like that. Not sure what the pixelation was - I had to save programs on a cassette tape. Can you imagine downloading CM from cassette tapes?

After that I got a Tandy PC - I remember downloading software from a dozen floppy discs at a time - I think a 45 minute or 1 hour process. We've come a long way in a very short time. I'm only thirty years old.

[Maximus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

The highest resolution just seems different to me – it has a silky look about it that the others lack.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OKKKKK, Now I think we have too much information. A silky look? You *do* have your priorities all screwed up.

OK, let's look at it this way. If your playing a FPS game like Star Trek Voyager: Elite Forces and user mods came out that improved the look of the Borg, would you d/l them and use them? Even if it meant a slight drop in framerate?

I'm sorry David Aitken, but refusing to use hi-res mods for fear of lose of framerate while running in 1600x1200 just does not bring sympathy upon you. Hypothetically, what if the stock CM textures *were* hi-res? Would you still be afraid to use them? I think you are afraid of the word hi-res no matter how big or small the texture may be.

Let's go back to your quote of "the highest resolution has a silky look". So you like sharp graphics. So why not use hi-res mods to make it super-silky? I'm sorry but your argument is a bit hypocritical. "I run in the highest res, but I don't want to use hi-res mods" Doesn't make sense. Like I said in my initial post, raising the desktop resolution does nothing to improve the textural detail of the units. All it does is to reduce the jagged edges.

Question. Have you even tried hi-res mods?

Also, if you never get down and examine your units, you are missing the BEST part of CM. After all its a 3D game! The best part of the game is getting down on the ground and looking at the works of art on the battlefield.

[Juju]

Tried your rescaling suggestion for the grass, Max. Not that the high-res grass is too taxing on my machine, but rather because my treebases are.

Works very well. It's indeed really hardly noticable when you're in-game. It does look a bit ugly when making a screenshots in viewlevel one, though.

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

I prefer an enemy who's willing to die for his country. That way both him and me have the same aim in mind.

[David Aitken]

Michael Dorosh wrote:

> My first computer was a CoCo 2 by Radio Shack - the monitor showed 32 characters across by I think 16 down or something like that.

Hell, I was only talking about last year. =) My first computer was a Sinclair ZX Spectrum which took five minutes to load up a game. I often think that the main distinction between the present and a decade or two ago is the sophistication of computers.

Maximus wrote:

> refusing to use hi-res mods for fear of lose of framerate while running in 1600x1200 just does not bring sympathy upon you.

I'm not refusing to do anything, I'm just explaining why I haven't yet decided to install texture mods. =)

> So why not use hi-res mods to make it super-silky?

Because your ability to see the mods depends on your screen resolution. Sure, even at 640x480, if you zoom in, the mods look great. But I spend most of my time, yes, in view 4. I do zoom in on complex action, but I relish the ability to sit back and see what is going on across the entire battlefield. I regard low res as like lace curtains or something – the view is still the same, but you can't make out the detail.

I'll give you the example which sticks in my mind. Playing Last Defence in the beta demo as the Americans, sitting down at ground level (view 1 or 2) looking up the road at the advancing Germans, a halftrack would be a mass of pixels which, if moving, would swim around. Since I got my graphics card, that halftrack is now clear, and moves instead of 'swimming'. In other words, high res lets you pick out detail in the distance, which frankly is one of the most important battlefield practices.

Not an argument for high resolutions or anything, just thoughts concerning my point of view.

David

[Ales Dvorak]

Hamlet?

[Maximus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

> So why not use hi-res mods to make it super-silky?

Because your ability to see the mods depends on your screen resolution. Sure, even at 640x480, if you zoom in, the mods look great. But I spend most of my time, yes, in view 4. I do zoom in on complex action, but I relish the ability to sit back and see what is going on across the entire battlefield.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, point taken. Yes it is beneficial to use View #4 to see the entire situation and hi-res mods aren't seen at those view levels.

However, I don't understand the deal about "Because your ability to see the mods depends on your screen resolution."--Huh? Wha?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'll give you the example which sticks in my mind. Playing Last Defence in the beta demo as the Americans, sitting down at ground level (view 1 or 2) looking up the road at the advancing Germans, a halftrack would be a mass of pixels which, if moving, would swim around. Since I got my graphics card, that halftrack is now clear, and moves instead of 'swimming'. In other words, high res lets you pick out detail in the distance, which frankly is one of the most important battlefield practices.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me get this straight, you have to set your resolution that high to clear up the images? If so, then that's your problem. What kind of video card do you have? A Voodoo 1? If not, then it sounds like you are running CM in software mode.

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

"Live by the sword, live a good LOOONG life!"-Minsc, BGII

"Boo points, I punch."--Minsc, BGII

[This message has been edited by Maximus (edited 01-18-2001).]

[aikidorat]

just a minor correction for the mac mod portion of the first post:

winter mods are placed in Graphics 13. Mods for original textures (non-winter) are placed in Graphics 1-13 depending on their identification numbers. MCM3 includes a texture map to show the user where each mod is being placed.

as for Vram and textures, not sure why but the gridded grass textures will not work with <16 megs of Vram. Even though these textures are in the resource files, they do not appear with the grids. Not sure if CM uses the CD rom in lieu of the gridded grass, or just doesnt show the grid for whatever reason.

dave

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

History is made at night

[Maximus]

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

just a minor correction for the mac mod portion of the first post:

winter mods are placed in Graphics 13. Mods for original textures (non-winter) are placed in Graphics 1-13 depending on their identification numbers. MCM3 includes a texture map to show the user where each mod is being placed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whoops sorry, I was not sure how the Mac system worked.

[Lordfluffers]

Somebody please tell me, Im running a VOodoo 3500, should I upgrade to a GeForce2MX or whatever ATI equivelent or should I hold out 6 months for a much better card. ALl my Hi Res mods are really slowing CM down. Please... HELP ME!!!!!!!! ARRGGGHHHH I DONT KNOW WHAT TO DO!!!!!!!

[Maximus]

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

Somebody please tell me, Im running a VOodoo 3500, should I upgrade to a GeForce2MX or whatever ATI equivelent or should I hold out 6 months for a much better card. ALl my Hi Res mods are really slowing CM down. Please... HELP ME!!!!!!!! ARRGGGHHHH I DONT KNOW WHAT TO DO!!!!!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well you could try standing on your head and try stacking marbles. That always worked for me.

[This message has been edited by Maximus (edited 01-19-2001).]

[David Aitken]

Maximus wrote:

> Let me get this straight, you have to set your resolution that high to clear up the images? If so, then that's your problem. What kind of video card do you have? A Voodoo 1? If not, then it sounds like you are running CM in software mode.

As I've said above, I use an ATI Nexus (RAGE 128 32Mb). What I'm talking about is a totally different issue from texture rendering. Unless you have FSAA, an object in the distance occupying a small number of pixels will appear to "swim". Give it more pixels and it becomes much clearer what it is and what it's doing. Sure, you can zoom in to check this, but then you narrow your field of view.

A halftrack in the distance could be occupying an area of 10 pixels by 5 pixels in 640x480, whereas to make that 20 pixels by 10, you need to go all the way up to 1280x960. This is why I play at maximum resolution. I don't just want an overall view of the battlefield – that is pretty useless in CM, as everything is tiny – I want to be able to see the units and what they're doing.

David

[David Aitken]

Lordfluffers wrote:

> should I upgrade to a GeForce2MX or whatever ATI equivelent or should I hold out 6 months for a much better card.

Never wait more than a month for new computer technology. There will always be something new to wait for, and you'll spend your life hanging around. Get the best hardware you can afford, unless you know that something better will be out in a few weeks.