Jump to content

1:1 Rep, CMx2 and PBEM file size: An analysis.


Recommended Posts


Please read the last several pages of the "1:1 Representation in CMx2" thread, specifically pages 7 through 9. There seems to be great consternation concerning the practicality of any future PBEM feature, due mainly to file size. (Apologies to Steve et al. if this misconstrues the tempest in a teapot going on.) Anyway, I decided to test various size file transfers.

First, I must admit that I am not a tech. What follows is the methodology I used to test the possible difficulties in a future PBEM file transfer.

I started with a Cat 5e cable and a Gigabit rated LAN. I realized that CMx2 doesn't exist; I have no idea how to code; any test would be difficult to create. Therefore, I immediately disconnected the Cat 5e cable. I cut it apart, retaining a central section 1' long. There were a lot of twisted wires inside the tube. Obviously, even to a non-tech, they were in the way. I pulled them out. What I had left was a clear path through the 1 foot length of approximately 1/4" diameter plastic tubing. (Blue in color if that makes a difference.)

Next, I needed something to simulate my infantry. I immediately siezed upon the fact that a pixel is the smallest and least detailed visual element of a computer screen. I realized at once that a grain of salt could simulate ANY pixel. So, using millions of grains of salt (and a funnel) I tested the throughput: the salt flowed through the Cat 5e cable. CONCLUSION: Minimally detailed pixel-sized soldiers will lead to a smooth PBEM transmission.

What if there were more detail? I grabbed several 1" soldiers (U.S. infantry, circa late 1800's and several Native American warriors - bows and arrows) as representational of a more detailed infantry model. To get the figures to pass through my Cat 5e, Gigabit rated, cable, I had to blow - QUITE HARD. CONCLUSION: CMx2, if using moderately realistic figures, will enable PBEM transmission - with some difficulty.

Well, CMx2 should have more detail than that! So, I grabbed two of my son's 6" Lord of the Rings Uruk Hui action figures. (Not dolls - action figures.) The only way to pass them through the line was to shove the heck out of them with a steel rod! CONCLUSION: CMx2, with highly detailed infantry, will require some external assistance for any PBEM functionality.

Finally, seeking a state of the art in 2007 level of detail, I used one of my son's 12" tall G.I. Joe figures. (Desert Storm, equipped with body armor and an M-4 rifle.) Aye. THAT was a job. But, in the end, I got it through. Note that he was not equipped with extra ammo pouches, back pack or any other equipment other than his rifle. CONCLUSION: If CMx2 is state of the art, any PBEM game will be limited to very small ammo loads for infantry.

Gentlemen, and BF.C, I will soon test various display sizes to find out the optimal scale for future battles in CMx2. I'll post my conclusions later.

Thank you,


(Edited because even a post this bad doesn't deserve typos.)

[ February 11, 2005, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: c3k ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...