M1A1TC Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 I wander what will be on the "fix-it" list for the next patch. Why do very important fixes like AI pathfinding, adjustable waypoints or artillery smoke are being bypassed in favor of 3 monitor support? How many people actually use 3 monitors that play CMSF? All the other fixes are all fine and dandy, but they dont really improve the gameplay 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Time. Adding smoke may take weeks of coding, while adding the monitor support was not really anything. You assume something else got bumped, it didn't. Changing from 2 monitor support to three was just a little code. Rune 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVulture Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Originally posted by M1A1TC: I wander what will be on the "fix-it" list for the next patch. Why do very important fixes like AI pathfinding, adjustable waypoints or artillery smoke are being bypassed in favor of 3 monitor support? How many people actually use 3 monitors that play CMSF? All the other fixes are all fine and dandy, but they dont really improve the gameplay Mostly because AI pathfinding is insanely hard to do well in a complex environment, and the brain-in-a-jar could easily spend two weeks doing nothing but to make some minimal improvement that would affect 1% of the cases where it goes wrong (exaggeration for effect). Not sure why they took the trouble to add in 3 monitor support - I guess one of the BF.C guys got said system and it was the work of a minute to code the extra stuff in to make it work properly. And +1 vote for adjustable waypoints (with the traditional mantra of "just like in CMx1") 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlowMotion Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Since this 2 monitor support was brought up, it would be nice if map movement using mouse could be made to work in this case also. Now it works like it should horizontally only to one direction. If you try to pan or rotate by placing mouse pointer to the edge of screen where your second monitor is, usually mouse pointer just moves to this second monitor. Instead of panning/rotating. No idea how much work that would be. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 What next for v1.09? Water! Come on BFC, surely this can't be so hard to do? I mean even golf games have nice water effects. I've heard all sorts of excuses that just don't hold water (forgive the pun) - like it took x number of years and x number of programmers to do the water for "Bioshock". Well Bioshock features underwater glass-enclosed walkways cracking and shattering, with water streaming in under pressure etc. This obviously takes a lot more code than what CMx2 needs. All we need for CMx2 is a terrain tile that looks like water, using some sort of sine function for surface ripples like we already have for grain. Add maybe a splash or two for things entering and leaving the water and it's done. I don't accept that it can't be done - and I'm sure it will have to be added for the WWII version so I bet BFC know what needs to be done too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVulture Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 And what about water as cover - high velocity rounds break up pretty much immediately on hitting the surface for example. How do various HE rounds interact with water? With 1:1 representation and pretty accurate terrain, do you have to worry about how fast each soldier can move given the depth of water he is in (lets ignore currents for now). You know BFC are going to want to get things kinds of things done accurately, and there is a lot more work there than you might imagine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
76mm Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Originally posted by TheVulture: And what about water as cover - high velocity rounds break up pretty much immediately on hitting the surface for example. How do various HE rounds interact with water? With 1:1 representation and pretty accurate terrain, do you have to worry about how fast each soldier can move given the depth of water he is in (lets ignore currents for now). They could just start with deep, unfordable water, so you wouldn't have to worry about these issues unless they introduce frogmen. For this to be worthwhile, they'd also probably need to introduce a couple of types of bridges. And assault boats. And arty smoke. And SEAL frogmen WOULD be cool... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Originally posted by TheVulture: You know BFC are going to want to get things kinds of things done accurately, and there is a lot more work there than you might imagine. Excuses, excuses. They've already had something like 5 years to work on the new engine. I find it pretty lame that it wasn't in the original release to be honest. As has been said by the previous poster, just make it as simple as possible initially and build on it later. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 I want to float mines downriver to blow up bridges... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Originally posted by Cpl Steiner: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TheVulture: You know BFC are going to want to get things kinds of things done accurately, and there is a lot more work there than you might imagine. Excuses, excuses. They've already had something like 5 years to work on the new engine. I find it pretty lame that it wasn't in the original release to be honest. As has been said by the previous poster, just make it as simple as possible initially and build on it later. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Yes and the inability: to ford it to swim it (both vehicles and people) esp in the USMC module to bridge it ("where are my AVLB's"?) Why can't I blow bridges Why aren't there bridges with different load classifications Where are the ferries. Where are the broad slow flowing rivers. Where are the narrow, rapid flowing mountain streams Why doesn't the current cause drift Why don't bridging assets "Blow up and sink" when hit in the water Where is the ocean Where is the surf Why can't I use a few rows of these tiles to replicate an amphibious lodgement for the USMC Where are the LCAC's to use the water to the support the lodgement. Why doesn't the tide go in and out Why can't I have sea state 1 to 9 .... Ah yes its just a case of a single terrain tile, sure 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnO Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Lets not forget "Where is the fish" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Originally posted by Cpl Steiner: What next for v1.09? Water! Come on BFC, surely this can't be so hard to do?Why do people keep saying this? Do you have any idea? I'm not much of a programmer, but I can get an idea. Just adding a water tile would require: New AI, tac and strat, for every vehicle and leg unit, to deal with it. new behaviour for munitions on impact, including different explosion effects lighting, surface movement. It might be possible. It might be difficult. Perhaps BFC knows best the capabilities and limitations of their engine? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Originally posted by flamingknives: Why do people keep saying this? Do you have any idea? I'm not much of a programmer, but I can get an idea.I was a programmer for 15 years and am still programming now, albeit for course work rather than full-time employment, so I guess I do have some idea even if you don't. Originally posted by flamingknives: Just adding a water tile would require: New AI, tac and strat, for every vehicle and leg unit, to deal with it.No it wouldn't. If, as has been suggested, it was kept unfordable as a first step, the AI would treat it exactly like marsh. Originally posted by flamingknives: new behaviour for munitions on impact, including different explosion effects lighting, surface movement.Not difficult again. All you essentially require is a scalable water fountain effect for explosions and some sort of minimal ambient surface animation, for which there are probably numerous existing algorithms on the internet and in books from about a decade of games using water. Originally posted by flamingknives: It might be possible. It might be difficult. Perhaps BFC knows best the capabilities and limitations of their engine? I am sure they know the engine can handle it because they coded it to last them the next 5 years or more of game development and they are committed to a WWII European Theatre game based on it, which will have to have water. I'm not saying it's something they can just throw in but I really think people should stand back and ask themselves if the hoo-hah about how difficult it would be to do is really warranted. Games these days add water effects even when they don't need to, just to show off their code base. Oh and while on the subject of programming problems, BFC implemented a real-world night sky with real stellar constellations which, apart from looking nice, has absolutely no effect on gameplay. Was it really necessary to leave out water in CM:SF just for a pretty night sky? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 TBH, I don't see the big deal with water. Sure, I'd like it in one day but I must have played less than 10 CM1 games where it has had an effect on tactics, out of hundreds played. I'd prefer, say, a rough tile AFV's can't traverse, as that kind of thing channels one part of the CA arm while it doesn't do another, leading to more interesting tactical decisions. There's a ton of stuff I'd prefer in first. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 My estimate on the primary question of what's next after 1.08..and this is just a guess, mind you..I am going out on a limb to say there is a good chance that next will be 1.09..If I am wrong, I will ..I am not sure, but I will do something stupid. Seriously, M1 has some good points. Would like to see arty smoke and improved pathfinding, and whilst I am biased, I would like to see air assault type operations as well, requiring blackhawks on map, etc. I expect most of these to be added over time, and can live with things the way they are until then anyway. Still is a good game already. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 From here: Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Sometime this weekend I'll start up a thread about where we see the game heading from here out. That won't include many specifics, but it will include generalized direction. I've done this a few times in past months and I think it would be a good thing to do again. There are so many good ideas here that we could keep going for about 200 years Steve So stay tuned I guess. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melnibone Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Originally posted by Cpl Steiner: I was a programmer for 15 years and am still programming now, albeit for course work rather than full-time employment, so I guess I do have some idea even if you don't.Course work programming is harder than game programming for sure. I look forward to the Steiner water mod. Make sure you add plenty of options. Tidal bores would be top of my list. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 I might be missing something here, but if there is already something that works exactly like water already, then why the clamour for adding it? I'm not saying that it's difficult or easy. I don't know, because I have neither: a) implemented water in a 3D environment access to the CMX2 code. Without that information it's all fairly unsupported hypothesis. As you say, the engine will cover NWE, so it will have water. How much effort will it take to put water in? Is water the top priority at the moment? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt. Ryan Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Originally posted by JohnO: Lets not forget "Where is the fish" Have you checked behind the sofa? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Originally posted by flamingknives: Is water the top priority at the moment? Well as I said a couple of posts above Steve is going to publish something "over the weekend" which equals Monday here. So instead of running around like a bunch of headless chooks (sorry flamingknives just using your quote, this isn't direct specifically at you ) guessing and 2nd guessing, why not wait and find out in a day or so? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Originally posted by Melnibone: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cpl Steiner: I was a programmer for 15 years and am still programming now, albeit for course work rather than full-time employment, so I guess I do have some idea even if you don't.Course work programming is harder than game programming for sure. I look forward to the Steiner water mod. Make sure you add plenty of options. Tidal bores would be top of my list. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melnibone Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Originally posted by Cpl Steiner: Anyway, I know what I've worked on in the past - not just the odd bit of course work but full commercial systems worth hundreds of thousands of pounds. So what? I've worked on commercial systems worth millions of pounds. In the context of this game it means absolutely nothing. Equating the stars to water is similarly meaningless. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Originally posted by Cpl Steiner: What next for v1.09? Water!Water will, inevitably, be introduced in CMx2 at some point, and I am sure it will look and work great. But this is clearly too much for just a patch. Hopefully it will come for WW2, as you said yourself. A new burning vehicle effect, improved infantry self-preservation, more comfort in the editor, etc. appear to be more feasible candidate goals for the next patch. Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Originally posted by Melnibone: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cpl Steiner: Anyway, I know what I've worked on in the past - not just the odd bit of course work but full commercial systems worth hundreds of thousands of pounds. So what? I've worked on commercial systems worth millions of pounds. In the context of this game it means absolutely nothing. Equating the stars to water is similarly meaningless. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.