God, the Borg and the art of relative spotting.

[jim crowley]

Lack of time has limited my access to the proliferation of posts within the several and diverse “bone” threads that have sprung up recently. So it is quite likely that some, maybe all, of this has already been covered. If so, apologies.

My understanding is that Relative Spotting will be centred on the idea that you, as the player, can only see (the enemy) through the “eyes” of one selected friendly unit at a time. And you will then only see what that unit sees.

So, when you select a platoon HQ, will you just see what that HQ sees, by itself, or will you see what its subordinate units see as well (but only if they are in C&C?) ?

And would that apply up the chain, through Company and the Battalion HQs?

In addition will Relative spotting be limited to enemy units or is there a possibility that it could be extended to terrain as well?

It strikes me that there is nothing more “God-like” than flying around the battlefield with no restriction, potentially examining every nook and cranny, every patch of soft ground, steep slope and hidey hole. Anywhere; even places your units could not possibly see.

If realism is the goal being striven for, surely some brake needs to be applied to this free access to terrain information which is just as important, in many instances, as the spotting of enemy units.

Perhaps the use of the LoS tool – if it still exists in CMx2 – could be restricted in some way. Or its ability to “see” beyond obstacles, removed. How many times have I used it to measure distances to locations that are out of sight or tracked the possible route of a tank platoon through difficult terrain, checking for rocky or boggy ground and so on? All very unrealistic.

Maybe when no unit is selected and, presumably, no enemy units are shown on the map (?), the terrain would only register the sort of features that the operational maps of the time would show. Towns, rivers, forests, roads etc. But when a unit is selected you also get to see the detailed terrain within its LoS as well as possible enemy activity.

Just my thoughts.

[Holien]

Stop thinking and send me a PBEM turn!!!

While it is still there to send.

H

[jim crowley]

On its way shortly.

[DrD]

My opinion is that LOS tools, seeing all terrain, etc. is unrealsitic BUT is needed to balance the unrealistic graphics. not that they aren't good, but never will the approach real life, if only becasue they are not 3-D and are confined to a relatively small monitor.

I just got back from lunch, when I was outside I could look around, and I instantly know what was in my LOS and what wasn't. I had a great feel for the distances, and had alot of info out of my peripheral vision. (although I did almost get hit by a car.)

So if we start to limit LOS tools, terrain viewing, etc. we will not be more realistic, but less realistic. We will find ourselves asking questions like "can I see beyond that rise or not," questions I don't imagine RL commanders ask very often.

Now when we have true , holographic, virtual reality graphics that will be different.

[JonS]

Originally posted by DrD:

needed to balance the unrealistic graphics.

Yes, although I expect the finer grained and shaded terrain will go a long way to correcting that.

More problematic might be the trees, and other 'transparent' terrain. IRL trees can be seen through, and the CMx1 engine does model this in a basic way. The problem is that the CMx1 graphics don't. This was the main reason I never really got into "Iron Man Rules" - if I had a unit in or near trees, and tired to see what they could see with the trees turned on, as often as not I could only see a few metres to the nearest tree sprite, a tree sprite that wasn't really threre as ar as the engine was concerned. OTOH, if I turned the trees off I got an equally unrepresentative perspective because distant treelines magically disappeared completely.

Perhaps a 'turn off terrain elements within 50m of this unit' command might be useful as a partial solution to that particular problem.

CMx@ may model individual trees - but that will cause other problems.

[jim crowley]

DrD

I wasn't suggesting dispensing with the LoS tool, merely restricting its use.

So if we start to limit LOS tools, terrain viewing, etc. we will not be more realistic, but less realistic. We will find ourselves asking questions like "can I see beyond that rise or not," questions I don't imagine RL commanders ask very often. Sure, have the use of the LoS tool up to the point that you start to lose LoS, but not beyond that. Currently you can extend the line to measure distances to terrain and targets that your unit cannot see, highlighting obstacles etc.

You would still need a LoS tool even if you had photo-realistic graphics because looking at a computer screen will never match vision in real life, as you point out.

As to holographic graphics; well I think they may be a way off yet

[DrD]

Originally posted by jim crowley:

DrD

I wasn't suggesting dispensing with the LoS tool, merely restricting its use.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> So if we start to limit LOS tools, terrain viewing, etc. we will not be more realistic, but less realistic. We will find ourselves asking questions like "can I see beyond that rise or not," questions I don't imagine RL commanders ask very often.

Sure, have the use of the LoS tool up to the point that you start to lose LoS, but not beyond that. Currently you can extend the line to measure distances to terrain and targets that your unit cannot see, highlighting obstacles etc.

You would still need a LoS tool even if you had photo-realistic graphics because looking at a computer screen will never match vision in real life, as you point out.

As to holographic graphics; well I think they may be a way off yet </font>

In the interest of brevity I was perhaps a bit too generic in my answer.

Yes, you should not be able to extend the tool to where you can't see, EXCEPT, one of the reasons you are allowed to do this is to make it more clear where your LOS is blocked and what is blocking it. So perhaps it should extend 30 meters out of LOS and that's it.

Measuring distances is not too gamey because in RL it's pretty easy, due to depth perception, to judge distance. Even areas out of LOS have shadows, or small obstacles sticking up like trees, utility poles, etc that make it pretty easy to estimate distance.

Using the LOS for terrain is also needed, it can be very hard to tell rocky from rough from mud, etc. In RL, of course, you look at ground and say "hey, looks bad, maybe I'll go around."

Finally, you did say something to the effect that IF there is an LOS tool in cmx2, and on other threads it has been suggested that maybe there should not be, and my generic response was primarily to this concept.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by DrD:

So perhaps it should extend 30 meters out of LOS and that's it.

Rather than not be able to extend it, why not simply turn off the information content of the black portion? That is, you could extend it anywhere on the map, but if the end point were out of LOS, you would get no range information or information about what kind of terrain was at that point. I bring this up because it might be easier to program that way.

Michael

[jim crowley]

Michael

Probably the simplest solution, as you say.

Either way, the illicit information is kept from the player and the cause of realism is advanced at least a notch.

[Battlefront.com]

Good ideas guys.

Indeed, one of the difficult things for us to balance is the fact that even with the greater realism of the CMx2 maps, there are still technical limiations that go far beyond our control. For example, the crappy pixel resolution of monitors. 72dpi is many times too little. I've mentioned before that IBM apparently has 300dpi monitors, but for whatever reason they aren't in the consumer market. Probably because the video hardware needed to power such monsters is a long ways off. But I digress...

No matter how good the world is modeled in a 3D game, distance and details will never be accurately represented so long as the monitor resolution is so poor. Details in the distance, subtle movements, depth perception, peripheral vision, etc. are all things that are never going to be as good in a virtual world as they would be in the real one. So, we need to have SOME things available to the player to compensate for abilities that are artificially hindered by the virtual environment.

The LOS tool is one of the most important tools. The CMx2 tool will remain pretty much as it was in CMx2, but we are already planning on having more features tied into it and other elements to give you the kind of situational information that is lacking (or could be done better) in CMx1. Mind you, I am not talking about unrealistic stuff, rather things that you really should be able to figure out on your own but really can't because of the graphical limiations.

I do like the idea of blocking out info gained when the LOS tool moves through something that blocks it. This should be tied into "Advanced Fog of War" options, leaving it as it is in CMx1 for other levels.

Thanks,

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

You're welcome!

Michael

[jim crowley]

It's nice to be able to contribute something positive.

[Michael Emrys]

And it's also nice to be acknowledged.

Michael

[JonS]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DrD:

So perhaps it should extend 30 meters out of LOS and that's it.

Rather than not be able to extend it, why not simply turn off the information content of the black portion?</font>

[dalem]

Guys-

One of the most important issues to me is the increased granularity of terrain (it's in a tie with Area Fire for "most citical for Dale"). I've seen some references to "1m resolution" and the like but I must have missed that thread. Which threads contain the terrain bones for me to go drool over?

Thanks!

-dale

[Battlefront.com]

I haven't said much about the terrain modeling yet, other than it will be (we think) resolved down to 1m x 1m resolution. At least that is the way it is coded and functioning right now. We'll see how this impacts other systems and bump it upwards if we find that the CPU can't hack it.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Jon: Yeah, something like that sounds okay to me. Figuring range in CMx1 was not that big a problem for me. If I needed to, I could always count off the tiles. If there are not to be tiles in CMx2, then yes, something more will be needed. Of course, there is the possibility of a grid. One, say, in 100m graduations that you could key on or off would be nice.

Michael

[JonS]

yeah sure, that would work too. Still, a couple of different ways to acheive the same task is always nice from a UI POV.

jon

[Mace]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I haven't said much about the terrain modeling yet, other than it will be (we think) resolved down to 1m x 1m resolution. At least that is the way it is coded and functioning right now. We'll see how this impacts other systems and bump it upwards if we find that the CPU can't hack it.

I'd prefer a point based system rather than tile, but I'd be quite be quite happy to see the 1x1m system adopted as long as there's no set limitation to altitudes as there are now.

Mace

[Wartgamer]

The present system uses a tile of X^2 dimensions (is it X=20m?). Units positions must then be expressed as being in such and such a tile and at X1 and Y1 of that tile.

So lets say a byte describes a tile. That means there could be 256 tiles? That isn't right so maybe 2 bytes describe a tile?

In any case, if there is 1m^2 terrain resolution and in a 500 by 500 meter game you have 250,000 tiles, you would need 2^18 or so to describe those 'tiles'. Rounded up its a 3 byte 'address'.

So any soldier in the game modeled 1:1 will need a 3 byte address to describe his tile position? Will he need a further sub coord also to describe his position within the tile? Or is the soldier going to be centered in that'tile'?

Vehicles can actually be in two tiles at once? A king Tiger certainly can. It may actually be quite a few? Can I run over soldiers 1:1? Is there any point in having the resolution smaller than the actually largest physical units in the game? The King Tiger may be the largest lets say. The smallest 'square' tile that captures this unit would be 8m x 8m?

[ March 05, 2005, 10:01 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[Mace]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

Is there any point in having the resolution smaller than the actually largest physical units in the game?

You'd need to model to the smallest element, in this case the individual soldier, so IMHO 1m x 1m would be more applicable than 8m x 8m tiles.

Mace

[Wartgamer]

Actually you want to model to the smallest terrain feature I believe. Something like 1 m^2 can make rooms in a building to be modeled with multiple tiles. 8m by 8m is too course.

The new terrain model will feature states on the terrain. This means that whatever resolution is used, the state of that terrain is for the whole tile. Houses may actually be modeled like units. Something like the way bunkers are like tanks in the present system. So the house, like a unit, would need a database is my thought. It would need a position within a tile just like a tank or any unit would. So would walls if they are to be modeled as destructible terrain features.

Non-dynamic terrain features like the elevation would not be state changed.

But even if its a 1m^2 resolution, is there still some subpositioning within the 1m^2? The problem is modeling motion. If the soldier is within one tile, and is moving is it a discrete jump to the next tile?

A man laying down would actually extend into two 1m^2 tiles typically.

[ March 05, 2005, 11:35 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[Wartgamer]

I guess the 'house' idea can be extended to any dynamic terrain feature. So a clump of trees gets a position within a tile. The whole tile does not have a state, just the clump of trees. The trees may get set on fire (state change), blown away and replaced with a smaller clump, etc.

Having a map modeled this way just starts CLOGing some more I suppose. But for large maps, having too fine a resolution will also CLOG up the system.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I haven't said much about the terrain modeling yet, other than it will be (we think) resolved down to 1m x 1m resolution. At least that is the way it is coded and functioning right now. We'll see how this impacts other systems and bump it upwards if we find that the CPU can't hack it.

Steve

Mmmmmmm, 1mx1m would solve a whole bunch of issues I would think. I hope that's doable.

-dale

[jim crowley]

Originally posted by JonS:

Given that the LOS tool sims a bunch of stuff that isn't/can't be simmed with current monitors, that might mean losing too much info. For example, the map and LOS tool combined are our 1:50 thou topo map. Turning off the ground info sounds ok, but turning of the range doesn't. I mean: how far is it to the far edge of the map/village/woods over there behind the ridge? Why, I'll just look at my topo map and read it off (= use the LOS tool). Perhaps rounding the range to the nearest 50m (or some figure based on the total size of the map - smaller maps more accurate, while on the largest maps you might only get +/- 100m) makes more sense?

Jon [/QB]