Dust Cloud's Kicked up by fast moveing tanks..

[zee]

I am really sorry if this has come up before, but i havent seen it discussed. but Ive seen in all the incredible detail this game has ,but fail to see Dust behind a tank when its moving across a dry field. will this be in the full game? or mabye is it modable? since the particle effect and dust cloud from the cannons are posible it shouldent be impossible to add to the engine would it?

i just think it would be pretty neat to see a bunch of tanks movieing across a huge russian plain at full speed and kicking up a buncha dust behind um to add to the realism

[WWB]

Dust effects, from both tanks and artillery (probably more significant--big barrages were effective smoke screens) are a bit too much for modern graphics hardware to handle. Unless you wanted to go back to having polygon counts from the CMBO alpha stages . . .

WWB

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

Dust effects, from both tanks and artillery (probably more significant--big barrages were effective smoke screens) are a bit too much for modern graphics hardware to handle. Unless you wanted to go back to having polygon counts from the CMBO alpha stages . . .

WWB

That isn't true at least as to the artillery -- look at the new effects from a collapsing building . . .

Or a current smoke screen . . .

Both are modeled fairly well, and don't overtask the CPU.

Steve

[zee]

umm so your saying a Geforce 4 cant handle alittle smoke? lol i have alot of games that have Very realistic smoke and particle effect. one being IL2-Sturmovik, Various First person shooters. i dont think smoke or dust will be much of a problem even for a outdated Gfx card.

[leakyD]

...but to have smoke and dust ALL over the battlefield? Enough to portray realistic battelfield conditions?

That would seem to take a LOT of graphic power.

I'd love to see it.

Maybe by the time the rewrite is done, we'll have 10 ghz machines and 512mb vid cards. Whee!

[karch]

Originally posted by zee:

umm so your saying a Geforce 4 cant handle alittle smoke? lol i have alot of games that have Very realistic smoke and particle effect. one being IL2-Sturmovik, Various First person shooters. i dont think smoke or dust will be much of a problem even for a outdated Gfx card.

That is true, but they don't have the number of potential smoke ... er... generating items. A FPS showing smoke from firing guns from, say 16 players running around is much simpler to display than the potential dust "objects" from 32 fast moving tanks and 120 artillery shells that burst that turn. That is a lot more smoke/dust than in the types of games you are mentioning. CM tends do reduce those types of details, including poly count on men/vehicles and all round rotating wheels on tanks because of the scale of the game. In games where you may only have 5-20+ models to worry about, CM may have to deal with 30-100. If they made models and included all the detail other games do, no computer could run it.

At least that's the way I understand the issues.

[zee]

True but really all i wana see is Smoke kicked up behind a moveing tank.. and the smoke dosent have to linger there in a dust cloud but just show the effect of a moveing tank moveing across a open field and kicking up dust or snow.

If any of you have IL-2 sturmovik, and you wathc the ground units move you see what im talking about the dust that kicks up behind them. it isent that graphically complicated or dosent look like it anyway.

[Eric Young]

Hey, it ain't that hard to have partical smoke everywhere all the time and my gforce 2 handles it well.

E

[Chad Harrison]

Perhaps when the engine rewrite rolls around. You cant go to the desert without dust trails

Chad

[Priest]

I think what everyone is forgetting here is that when the current CM engine was made that the graphics cards of the age could not handle it, hence the engine was not setup to deal with it. Times have changed. But CMBB is based on the old engine, stuff like this will come with the next engine I am sure. I am totally psyched for it, it is the one piece of eye candy that I want. But I will wait for the desert front and the next engine. That way we can really kick up some dust plumes with our tanks!

[karch]

Originally posted by Chad Harrison:

Perhaps when the engine rewrite rolls around. You cant go to the desert without dust trails

Chad

I sure hope so! I'm not really trying to be argumentative. I also hope to see even higher poly counts on vehicles, fully modled moving suspension and other cool things. In 2-3 years, who knows, but we can wish.

[zee]

if the engine can't handle smoke then how is it handling the smoke from the barrels of tanks firing ? in the demo my tanks were fireing random all the time and the puffs of smoke were going like crazy and it dident effect the game play at all.

now if they can just change the color of the smoke and make it a tad bigger kicking up behind a tank, then it would work?

oh and hey Eric! cant wait for GIC demo Friday or saturday =)

[ September 05, 2002, 11:53 PM: Message edited by: zee ]

[Ryan Crierie]

This HAS to be put in......make a toggable

option for it....."Dust Clouds On/Off"

It doesn't have to be superdetailed or linger

long, just show a cloud of dust kicked up from

a tank's tracks......

[Priest]

Zee,

Not exactly the same thing with smoke from fires (which is static bmps, overlayed and slightly animated). Same thing with building going down and guns firing, it is an optical illusion. Works similiar to a cartoon, flash enough BMPs at you at once and it looks like motion. Particle effects (and I am not an expert) are not quite the same.

Let me give you an example based on theory (this is not the technical way CMBB or CMBO works but the idea is close I believe).

Okay smoke for fires and gun shots work something like this (my opinion):

1.) EXE CODE DETERMINES THAT A FIRE STARTS DUE TO A PLAYER ACTION OR AI ACTION.

2.) EXE DETERMINES AT WHAT LOCATION ON THE MAP THE FIRE ACTION TAKES PLACE ON.

3.) LOCATION FOUND, EXE DISPLAYS SMOKE EFFECTS.

4.) SUBROUTINE RUNS TO DETERMINE IF FIRE SPREADS.

5.) IF YES, INITIATE STEP ONE AGAIN.

For a gun blast it is similiar.

1.) EXE CODE DETERMINES IF FIRE GUN ACTION IS TAKING PLACE.

2.) DETERMINES LOCATION OF OBJECT PREFORMING THE ACTION.

3.) DETERMINES SET POINT OF FIRE FOR THE OBJECT (basically what I assume is a pre-coded identifier for the end of the barrel)

4.) DISPLAYS SMOKE GRAPHICS.

5.) EXE CODE RESETS THIS PARTICULAR SUBROUTINE FOR NEXT INSTANCE OF THE FIRE GUN ACTION.

Now the EXE has to run the above routines maybe once a turn for a given location for a given game in the case of fire. It only has to check if it spreads once, probably part of compiling the turn. As far as firing goes, well not many tanks are going to fire more than 5 or 6 times a turn so not many issues there either. Now depending how realistic you want your dust cloud you are going to have to run a truly bodacious routine to constantly change the display of the BMPs to follow along with the vehicle (remember there really is no true particle support yet). You are talking about serious processor cycles that are better spent on ballistic calculations.

I think we can all agree that ballistic calculations are better than dust clouds and power/life/health bars, a true sign of comprimise and cheesy play.

[Guest Mike]

Would dust be any more taxing of a CPU and/or Graphics card than, say, mist or fog is in CMBO??

That's the sort of model I would imagine it would follow, and I presume mist will be in CMBB??

[ September 06, 2002, 12:37 AM: Message edited by: Mike ]

[Kwazydog]

Hi Guys,

Just to cralify, we have never actually said that it is something we couldnt do We decided to focus on gameplay and simulation as a number one priority in CMBB, with graphics (a close) second. Thus, some things we would have like to have done, such as dust clouds, didnt make it in.

I bet most of you would rather the cover arc command in there instead though.

Dan

[ September 06, 2002, 12:41 AM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

[Priest]

Hey Dan,

Was I even close? hehe

[Kwazydog]

Priest, you were on the way there I think

I must admit, I even asked Charles this same question. Part of his conern with dust clouds is that it would indeed slow frame rate. Yes, modern cards can handle 3, 4 or even 8 tanks with dust behind them without much problem (as in say Operation Flashpoint). What if you have 30 such tanks though, along with 10 smokeing buildings and 8 fires or various types. You will indeed get a slow down. Transparency can cause quite a hit on graphics speed...just try out a couple of hundred rockets arriving within 10 seconds and youll see what I mean

Although CM's graphics engine isnt as current as some other games out there, it does do something *very* well. It displays a large maps (without 'fog' to hide distant objects like many other games), and it can simulate a battle on that map on a reasonable system at a reasonable speed. Yes, we could have put in all the funky graphics that we would all like to see, but we would probably have to limit maps too 500m x 500m and tanks to 3 a side just to make it playable. Not too much fun in our opinion though as it would really limit tactical scope in a wargame on the scale of CMBB

Dan

[ September 06, 2002, 12:57 AM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

[Priest]

haha thanks Dan!

Took a stab at it. Sometimes I am even right!

[MrSpkr]

Dan, what about for artillery? I notice your comments didn't address that particular idea.

Might we hope that, in lieu of the cheesy 'Expanding Shockwave Cone O' Death' graphic, we might see a little dust from artillery impact?

Steve

[Kwazydog]

MrSpkr, dusk is kicked up with artillery, particually with largers shells, though it doesnt last too long. Buildings do create a dust cloud that lasts for some time though, blocking ling of site.

Check out the bone thread Matt posted and you should find some shots I took of a town after I landed 3 SturmTiger rounds in it. It should give you an idea of dust from larger artillery rounds

Dan

[Kuma of Finland]

I add my thoughts here, too.

I think the dust raised by vehicles should be in. Not because it looks neat (okay, it looks neat and it would be great!) but because it gives sometimes opponent a hint that something's approaching in the distance. You might not see what's there (truck, ht or a tank) but you know something's there alright.

I believe this applies not only to desert but to large steppes of Russia. Think about how different battle Citadelle would be: fast advancing German tanks would be seen even when they'll behind a ridge. And their number would be counted somewhat, too (from one small dust trail to several ones or one huge one coming from several vehicles).

In large 6x4 km maps one should see even tanks going fast to your vulnerable flank -> send some ISU-152's to welcome them!

Note: I understand the limitations of the game engine and fully understand why dust wouldn't be in (just as multi-turret tanks aren't in either). I'll welcome CMBB in any case! :cool:

/kuma

[Dschugaschwili]

Originally posted by Kuma of Finland:

I think the dust raised by vehicles should be in. Not because it looks neat (okay, it looks neat and it would be great!) but because it gives sometimes opponent a hint that something's approaching in the distance. You might not see what's there (truck, ht or a tank) but you know something's there alright.

/kuma

I think this would lead to FOW problems. Smoke (at least in CMBO, haven't checked in CMBB) is not affected by LOS. So you see a smoke screen even if it's behind a hill and none of your units can actually see it. The dust clouds caused by the enemy's vehicles would have the same problem, thus giving away the positions of nearly all of them.

You will probably have to wait for the engine rewrite.

Dschugaschwili

[Vanir Ausf B]

Hardware T&L, folks. Hopefully the next CM will require it (no reason not to, I think). Offloading the calculations from the CPU on to the GPU will allow huge advances in the area of visible battlefield smoke and dust. It's gunna rock.