Gunny Bunny Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 We should first note the Nividia video cards now control over 50% of market share. Nividia now owns the company that made 3dfx and they have a Graphic Processing Unit ( GPU ). The GPU processes such things at Dynamic Lighting ( T&L ) so there is no drag on the CPU. I would suggest that CM2 takes advantage of T&L in a small way for the following effects: - flares - muzzle flashes, projectiles, impacts - fire - smoke Any other suggestions for T&L would be welcome. The hardware is available and being purchased by many of us. I would suggest that CM takes advantage of the opportunity to enhance their software. Regards, Gunny Bunny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Gunny Bunny wrote: > I would suggest that CM takes advantage of the opportunity to enhance their software. Still not worked out who actually makes the game, eh Gunny? While we're at it, can we have interpolated combo moves for the infantry? When they get into close combat we should be able to take control individually and use our martial arts skills to overcome the enemy. I suggest various moves such as punch, kick, flying kick, rolling dodge, throw and half-nelson. This would increase BTS's appeal to a much wider audience. BTS is a great game but CM should keep it up to date with computer technology. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crepitis Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 I agree with David,I have still to find a game that is compatable with my Logitech "Turret-Man"full size replica Panther turret,complete with working pedals,periscope,and "Force Feedback" technology.So come on BTS get your finger out and incorporate support for it in CM2,or youll just get left behind by people seeking the ultimate gaming experience! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gremlin Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Why the implied and very false assumption that any who appreciate quality graphics and full implementation of today's graphics hardware features somehow miss or don't appreciate the elements that make CM great? As CM has proven, 3D graphics and subtle, complex tactical wargaming go together hand in glove. CM wouldn't be what it is without 3D battlefields and units (though there are obviously other unique or important features.) Would you prefer a return to hex-based gaming with little unit counters? Why not continue to move forward instead of insulting those who would like to see games like CM progress on all fronts, including the visuals? CM would only be better with improved visuals, and not lessened in any way. If that were to have the additional effect of broadening its appeal and perhaps doing a little to prevent the near-death of computer wargaming, would that not be a good thing? ------------------ When men are inhuman, take care not to feel towards them as they do towards other humans. --Marcus Aurelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aka PanzerLeader Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Well, maybe BTS should do some kind of a poll on this board to see what kind of hardware everybody has. Then they could set higher system requirements for CM2, provided they don't lose too many people. And yeah, guys stop being so harsh on the people who suggest a graphical overhaul; you're just being insulting for no real reason(nobody offended you in the first place) and don't really make a point either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gremlin Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 One thing to keep in mind about the poll idea is that many players, it stands to reason, don't visit this board, or only lurk. Here's my poll answer: well before CM2 comes out, through my current rig and upgrades I'll have a 1GHz proc (minimum), likely 256MB memory, and a GeForce2 (minimum). Just for perspective, by the end of this year, 2 GHz procs are expected, and at least one, probably two, graphics chipset release cycles will have passed. Computers that meet the minimum specs to play CM are already outdated for many applications (professional or gaming). By the time CM2 comes out, it'll probably be like trying to play CM with a 486. ------------------ When men are inhuman, take care not to feel towards them as they do towards other humans. --Marcus Aurelius [This message has been edited by Gremlin (edited 01-25-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 The only reason Gunny is a junior member is because he started up alt.games.combat-mission in order to give himself free reign, and has a reputation for trying to exert his authority over there and drum up support for unfeasible graphical effects for this type of game. Gremlin wrote: > If that were to have the additional effect of broadening its appeal and perhaps doing a little to prevent the near-death of computer wargaming, would that not be a good thing? "doing a little"? Ha, good one. BTS has single-handedly both revived the wargame genre and pushed it into a new era. Of course, now it no longer looks like a war game, it looks like a 3D action game, so people ignore or forget what BTS has achieved and start suggesting that they'd be stupid not to try to compete with other action games. aka PanzerLeader wrote: > Well, maybe BTS should do some kind of a poll on this board to see what kind of hardware everybody has. Then they could set higher system requirements for CM2, provided they don't lose too many people. That's the kind of attitude that powerful, arrogant companies take. BTS cannot afford to alienate any of their customers, let alone "too many". And keep in mind that there are plenty of CM players who don't frequent the board. The graphics issue has been discussed many times before, and has most recently arisen in this thread: BTS - Is it time for a separate CM II forum? David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Originally posted by aka PanzerLeader: Well, maybe BTS should do some kind of a poll on this board to see what kind of hardware everybody has.B] BTS has already stated that the minimum for CM2 will be 16MB graphics, with 32MB recommended. I think David was being a bit harsh because the first post was purely a PC perspective. NVidia plays hardly a role (if indeed it plays any) in the Mac market. CMBO is developed on a Mac. So to focus the software on one hardware solution only that not only ignores a good chunk of your customers but also your development machine may not be a smart idea. There is little need to get all worked up about this either way. BTS have made a statement the last time somebody suggested that 64MB should be the minimum requirement. I have little desire to see that flamewar erupt again. ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gremlin Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 David, I'm fully cognizant of Combat Mission's importance for the genre. My point was that CM has helped turn the tide in favor of computer wargames--a near-dead genre compared to most others--at least a little ways. Anything to make future CM games better, including graphics, can only do good things for the genre, for BTS, and for us, the CM afficionados who'd like to see the continued growth of quality, innovative wargames. As for Gunny Bunny, I don't know him and haven't bothered with Usenet in years, so no comment there Regardless, if someone wants to drum up support for graphics improvements in future CM games, that's great. I want to see as many improvements of any and all kinds possible, provided what makes CM great in the first place isn't somehow neglected or damaged in the process, which I couldn't foresee happening. No one is suggesting that BTS alienate customers, rather serve them better by seeing what hardware they actually have instead of guesstimating (no offense meant). Two related points: you obviously can't please everyone--especially not grogs and BTS has apparently done quite well by making what they feel to be a superior game--not by kowtowing to fans, publishers, or anyone else, afaik. That's not to say they shouldn't make full use of fan input, obviously, but if someone has some antediluvian computer, that's no reason to gear future CM games towards it instead of making the best game possible. Besides, upgrading is a simple fact of life for any computer owner, particularly gamers. It may not be pleasant monetarily, but it's necessary to appreciate all that the latest software has to offer. And no, I'm not at all suggesting BTS adopt some quixotic attitude that neglects business realities by disregarding customers' desires. ------------------ When men are inhuman, take care not to feel towards them as they do towards other humans. --Marcus Aurelius [This message has been edited by Gremlin (edited 01-25-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Ok I am compelled to post. Moores law predicts that computer technology and CPU processor speed will double about every 18 months (depending on which version of Moores law you are interested in). And suggests that the price should be about half what is was 18 months ago. (? well doesn't really happen does it) Where am I going with this? I think CM is at the being of an 18 month production cycle. I don't really have any evidence of this but I would not expect CM to be finalized before sometime in summer 2002. So What? Well lets consider that what is the Fastest newest technology RIGHT now should be about one generation of technology old by then. I have been abused for this rhetoric before but I think it not unreasonable to suggest BTS consider a TOP of the line system right NOW to be the base standard to program to for a game that will come out until 18 months from now. This is a GREAT game its so good many folks here have posted about how they have bought new computers and upgraded old computers JUST to play CM. I believe stongly that it was Charles intention as stated in a previous interview I read some time ago that no one else was makeing statedgy based, ground based wargames that were taking advantage of all the latest video card graphics technology that other FPS and Flight sim games had been using for some time now. CM looks as good as it does because Charles has already incorporated smoke effects, transparent buildings and a FULL featured 3D environment to do battle in. That's a BIG deal to begin with. I do hope that we do get MORE eye candy, Dynamic lightings effects and more optimal use of GPU video card technology, in the future. I truly believe Steve and Charles want to play their own game with all the latest eye candy just like "some" of the rest of us. I am also VERY confident that cool new graphics effects and eye candy will NEVER compromise any of the historical accuracy or stratedgy game play features we have come to expect from BTS. In fact I expect that any new additional GPU video card technology that they adopt (like dynamic lighting) will ONLY compliment an already OUTSTANDING game engine. (maybe in some new way, I have NO idea how this could work, this new graphics card technology, could be used and exploited to find a solution to the problem of borg-like Absoloute spotting, just thinking out loud). Of course I would encourage them to push the code as far as possible to take adavantage of all of the latest video card technology that is currently state of the art today, so that it will be one generation old by the time they release their next Master piece! Thanks for the Rant. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-25-2001).] [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-25-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Originally posted by Gunny Bunny: We should first note the Nividia video cards now control over 50% of market share. ... The GPU processes such things at Dynamic Lighting ( T&L ) so there is no drag on the CPU.From what I understand, a very large part of the Nvidia video cards in use today feature the TNT or TNT2 GPU. These do not support T&L... Note that this is what's in use, the TNT2 is also being installed in computers sold now and in the near future. Don't count on a majority of computers having T&L capability within the next few years. Cheers Olle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gremlin Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 From the sound of it, on-board T&L stand quite likely to become a commonplace feature, particularly given Nvidia's market dominance now, how cheap GeForce-based cards have become, and the fact that more and more games are/soon will be taking advantage of the feature. The more people are exposed to its application, the more they'll want it--it makes a large difference. ------------------ When men are inhuman, take care not to feel towards them as they do towards other humans. --Marcus Aurelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 I'd rather see improved routines for headquarters units, expanded lists of vehicles, multiple choices for different graphics displays of units (ie different markings on vehicles and insignia on men at the player's discretion), more complex victory conditions, a true campaign game, improved building sets (ie a steeple you can actually move into, more variety in what the buildings look like, multi-hex large buildings, factories, rowhouses), improved engineer functions (ie Flail tanks, the ability for infantry to mousehole) etc., etc., "Improved" graphics would be last on my personal priorities or wants list. The meat of the game is in the play. If I was overly concerned with visuals I'd go back to Muzzle Velocity (cute civvie chicks) or Close Combat (like playing on a perpendicular oil painting). But then again, I came up through the ranks - anyone remember the display for Avalon Hill's "Under Fire"? That was the state of the art in computer wargaming. Let's not get restless, people. Make the game a winner first, then make it look pretty. And for what it's worth, I think it looks quite pretty now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MajorH Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 > NVidia plays hardly a role (if indeed it plays any) in the Mac market. That may be changing. Steve Jobs announced in his keynote speech at the recent MacWord expo that NVidia would be supplying the graphics cards for new Macs this year. ------------------ Best regards, Major H majorh@mac.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Originally posted by MajorH: > NVidia plays hardly a role (if indeed it plays any) in the Mac market. That may be changing. Steve Jobs announced in his keynote speech at the recent MacWord expo that NVidia would be supplying the graphics cards for new Macs this year. Was just gonna point that out Major ...... Regards, John Waters ------------------ "We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field". Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa Khann Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 David A. wrote: <hr> Gunny Bunny wrote: > I would suggest that CM takes advantage of the opportunity to enhance their software. Still not worked out who actually makes the game, eh Gunny? While we're at it, can we have interpolated combo moves for the infantry? When they get into close combat we should be able to take control individually and use our martial arts skills to overcome the enemy. I suggest various moves such as punch, kick, flying kick, rolling dodge, throw and half-nelson. This would increase BTS's appeal to a much wider audience. BTS is a great game but CM should keep it up to date with computer technology. David <hr> Jeez, all the guy asked for was a few minor improvements in the graphic engine. Give him a break. Personally, I've got lots of mods installed to make the game look and sound better than it does out of the box. I suppose you think that means I'd prefer to play from a first person perspective inside a tank? With arcade style controls? Papa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mayer Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Well, wargame or action game, graphics play a huge role in how we play the game. Does anyone think that Combat Mission would be as well-known, or as well-regarded, if it wasn't 3D, and didn't look so nice? We can ignore the non-wargamers who look at it and sneer; for anyone with a proper appreciation of the history of computer wargames, CM looks fabulous. Given that a large part of the enjoyment of playing this game comes from the visuals--from the great mods, the terrain vistas, the "feel" of the battle that the graphics convey--it seems pretty cut and dried that improving the graphics and improving graphic performance (so more folks can use more detailed, higher-res views) is a Good Thing. Of course, you have to balance what's possible technically with what's desirable commercially. And yes, it's *probable* (not certain, though, as many wargamers are high-tech types who love their toys ) that CM's audience is positioned somewhat behind the Quake crowd on the technology curve. And of course there's the Mac/PC divide. Still, BTS would be remiss if they didn't carefully consider all of their options, including things like T&L support, DirectX 8 support, and the like. The point isn't to turn CM into what it's not, simply to enhance what is the best tactical wargame out there. Higher-resolution textures, better lighting effects, bumb mapping, and the like are not crucial to the game, but I venture most of us would love the results as long as they didn't come at the expense of actually being able to play the game. And indeed, by the time CM2 rolls around, much less CM II, the installed base of computers owned by gamers who want to play CM will probably be quite a bit more capable than it was when CMBO was released. That's the nature of the business. BTS can't, of course, target super high-end systems, or they'll cut their throats. But they also can't afford to stagnate, and target what would be considered rather low-end specs today--doing that will result in a dated product. And we can't say, "oh, we're wargamers, we don't care what a game looks like." That's bunk. We do care. And many of us play other games besides CM. We can't help but see graphic improvements all around us. CM does NOT have to keep up with the Jones, true, but it should stay in the same ball park at least, if BTS wants to keep getting the kudos from the mainstream press and keep selling games via the Internet at a level that encourages further development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Dynamic lighting would be a lot more than just eye candy. It would have a big impact on how night engagements are fought. Having said that, it is irrelevant as BTS has stated it will not be in CM2. I'm still holding out for 32-bit color. ------------------ You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gremlin Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 The mention of bump mapping got me thinking: imagine the Zimmerit on tanks.... ------------------ When men are inhuman, take care not to feel towards them as they do towards other humans. --Marcus Aurelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tailz Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: And for what it's worth, I think it looks quite pretty now. Yes, it looks 'pretty' now... due in large part to the efforts of the fan based modmakers... I did a windoze reinstall and reinstalled the original CM.. patched it to get my PBEM's out, but hadn't got around to installing my mods again.... (No offence to Steve and Charles, but...)... BLECH!!! The Hi-Rez stuff went back on ASAP... Graphics ARE important (particularly at the scale/camera views CMBO uses), if they weren't, BTS might as well use the 'tabletop' miniature look of the Campaign Series from Talonsoft. As soon as they permitted the player to drop to ground level/1st person view, they committed (IMHO) themselves to presenting a better than average eye candy extravaganza... (perhaps moreso because of the movie replays... you have so many ways to watch this game, good graphics and representation are an integral part of the system.) CMBO has been elevated by the efforts of the modmakers, (remember when we were told leaves and tree branches weren't possible in vehicle graphics?)... so while CM2 may improve the underlying game engine, the graphics side of the game should be enhanced also. We now return to your regularly scheduled thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gremlin Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 What I don't get is the reverse snobbism that almost seems to look down disdainfully on the graphics in CM as if they were some horribly base concession to the non-wargaming public. Heaven forbid a game look good and play well. The simple fact is that the 3D graphics are an integral part of CM, and the game would neither look nor play the same way without them. It simply wouldn't be CM. If TacAI and AP penetration modelling can be improved in patches and later in future CM games, so should the graphics. That said, I'm aware that good graphics require special skills and time, and those both equal money. Provided there's a budget for it, why not invest in the best graphics possible? They'd be a good investment and make future CM games that much better. Plus, if any game is worth shelling for a hardware upgrade, it would be CM ------------------ When men are inhuman, take care not to feel towards them as they do towards other humans. --Marcus Aurelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 CM Graphics - Room For Improvement This is a definitive thread on the subject of graphics. Best to read it instead of rerunning the debate here. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 This is the first thread I've seen where everyone actually made good points that don't conflict with each other. All I am saying is that with so many mod artists out there, I would prefer, all things being equal, for development time on game play take priority over graphics. Of course graphics were the big draw for me - I wouldn't spend entire evenings trying to improve the realism of the Canadian graphics if I didn't. But I am far more satisfied with the graphics than I am the game play and if it is true that only "x" hours of development can go into one or the other (a big assumption on my part since I do not work for BTS), I am simply saying I'd rather see a flail tank at the expense of 30 identical buildings on the map, rather than the other way around where I don't get to flail minefields, but every building is different. Naturally, like the rest of you, down deep I want IT ALL. Given time, with our support, BTS will give it to us. Ten (15?) years ago when I was playing Under Fire and thinking it was the cat's ass, I could only dream of playing it in 3D. I had no idea it would ever come to pass. Now we are all dreaming of all kinds of stuff. Eventually it will come to pass too - every single man modelled on the screen, 2096 seperate faces, 512 different voices for all the different leaders, 9000 seperate terrain tiles, plus a fully interactive insanely researched map of Europe down to the square metre. But we've got a ways to go yet. Personally, I am satisfied with how far we've already come. Let's stop and enjoy it for a little while. I'll give you another example - for my money F-19 Stealth Fighter was a superior product to F-117, both by Microprose. Why? It was more fun. M1 Tank Platoon was superior to M1 Tank Platoon II. More fun, again. Easier to play, and the crude graphics had their onw charm and personality. Hell, it even made one use their imagination a bit. Nothign wrong with that. Red Baron I was superior to Red Baron 2. Why? What is the common thread? Superior graphics don't guarantee a better game, I'm sorry. I don't think any of you are suggesting they do - but look at the track record of sequels who sold themselves on improved graphics. ------------------ <A HREF="http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm http://members.home.net/canuckmain/ http://highlanders.freehosting.net/" TARGET=_blank>http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm http://members.home.net/canuckmain/ http://highlanders.freehosting.net/</A> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Michael Dorosh wrote: > 512 different voices for all the different leaders Surely you mean unique circumstancially-aware computer-generated speech? =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Commissar Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 All you nay-sayers, consider this: Right now (Jan, 2001) I am about to purchase a Thunderbird 1Ghz processor w/ mother board for $250. I will also buy a new GeForce 2 pretty soon for about the same price (maybe less). Now, lets hop 18 months in to the future. That 1Ghz processor will cost less then $50. The GeForce 2 with its gigantic (for our time) 64MG RAM will also cost much much much less then it does now. If you cant afford an upgrade that will cost you less the $50, you shouldnt be playing CM! Buy yourself some food and re-furnish the cardboard box you live in! Don't believe me? Lets look at technology that was hot stuff a year ago (not a year and a half ago, just a year...barely). Pent 2 450Mhz - $82 Voodoo 2 (12MB) - $88 Now, these prices will go down further and further until you can buy these upgrades by begging for pennies on your street corner for the entire afternoon. I agree that looks dont make the game. They make the game a helluva lot more fun to play, however. I am not asking BTS to go head to head with publishing houses that make games which push out 10zillion polygons per second. I realize a development team of 4 guys cant do this. However, if CM ends up looking a "bit" better then it does now in 18 months, thats no go either. YES, this game is a wargame. That doesnt automatically mean it has to look like crap, now does it? ------------------ "...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..." - Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts