Senario Migration to CMx2

[Claw]

There has been a lot of discussion about features we'd like to see added, enhanced, removed, etc, but has the Migration of CM scenarios been discussed. A lot of folks have invested serious time creating excellent games. My thinks to you all!!

Is there a Scenerio Migration path planned?

[Melnibone]

CMAK to Space Lobsters....I forsee migration "issues".

[J Ruddy]

I thought Steve addressed this a few weeks back but I can't find the thread.

I think the short answer was no.

[Barrold]

With file formats likely to be 3000% incompatible because of a completely different engine, my completely unofficial and uninformed WAG would be not only no but fork no.

BDH

[Michael Dorosh]

Would be nice to import map data at the very least - I realize the new maps will be of a different scale, but even a rough import of major terrain features and elevations would be a start, which could then be finetuned in the "new" editor. Though I suspect scultping 20 metre tiles down to 8 metre tiles would probably be much more work than simply starting from scratch.

[Sergei]

It'd be nice if they'd allow the importation of heightmaps.

But somehow, I suspect Steve will be just as lukewarm to all these suggestions as he's been before. I mean, it'd only make scenario making a bit easier, but as 99% of players just play Quick Battles against the AI, it is more worthwhile to model stellar charts. :mad:

[J Ruddy]

I could be wrong, but I bet the Star Chart modelling is a licensed product from another developer. Much like I bet they aren't writing a new engine, but have licensed an engine from one of the big 4 (5?) engine designers. In fact I'd wager that the Star Chart modelling is part of the leased engine.

Of course I could be wrong, in which case I am in total awe and for once am dumbfounded...

[Dook]

Originally posted by J Ruddy:

...I bet they aren't writing a new engine, but have licensed an engine from one of the big 4 (5?) engine designers. ...

Do you really think BFC would need to spend years just to adapt a licensed engine to their own needs? More importantly, which engine would they license? I don't know of any that use the same game mechanics or that would be even remotely adaptable.

[Pvt. Ryan]

Originally posted by Barrold:

my completely unofficial and uninformed WAG would be not only no but fork no.

That wasn't very knife.

[MikeyD]

Is 'scenario migration' an obscure technical term of some sort, or are you just talking an updated version of "Chance Encounter" redone for the new engine? I can't imagine CM1 scenario stats would be extractable for use in CMx2. It'd be like using Model T parts in your Hummer. Hell, stats and maps couldn't even be shared between CMBO, BB, and AK!

At the very least I really really hope BFC recreates a proper "Chance Encounter" scenario for the CMx2 CD, as close to the CMBO scenario as possible. That scenario has been very useful for comparing changes in as the game engine has progressed.

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by Dook:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by J Ruddy:

...I bet they aren't writing a new engine, but have licensed an engine from one of the big 4 (5?) engine designers. ...

Do you really think BFC would need to spend years just to adapt a licensed engine to their own needs? More importantly, which engine would they license? I don't know of any that use the same game mechanics or that would be even remotely adaptable. </font>

[J Ruddy]

... not that I think Charles can't make a good graphics engine, I bet he could make a killer 3d engine, I just think it might be more economical to license one instead of bearing the cost of engineering one from scratch...?

[Schrullenhaft]

Because "adapting" someone else's graphic engine may be more work than it is worth. While it would seem a time-saving endeavor to license another graphic engine, that assumption can fall apart as soon as you attempt to customize the engine for your particular needs. Some engines may be optimized to the point that it is hard reconfiguring them for your particular needs or just plain hard to code with. On top of this the licensing costs can be prohibitive, requiring sales numbers that may be pretty hard to reach for most small/independent developers without having your title picked up by a large distributor (and the subsequent hassles and loss of control and revenue involved with that).

As others have pointed out few of the licensable engines on the market draw the same size environment with the same potential number of units/actors. Such limitations can cause a huge number of headaches. Today's graphical environments are quite optimized for what they do and trying to reconfigure them beyond their scope may prove futile.

Charles (aka the "Brain in a Jar™") is quite an amazing programmer as the CM series can attest to. I wouldn't be surprised if some data or code is licensed, but I would tend to doubt that a whole engine has been licensed.

[Michael Dorosh]

You wouldn't need to place every star in the universe individually would you? I mean, couldn't you just use standard graphics images of a cloudless night sky, with the stars in their relative positions, and then rotate this graphic around the in-game sky based on time of year and time of 'day'? With cloudiness randomized? I mean, the stars are not going to be involved in any calculations or in game mechanics. Unless there is a mechanism to make them brighter/fainter at dawn/dusk.

[Sergei]

Dorosh, don't you know that the stars seen in Johannesburg are different from those seen in Calgary? Also, it depends on the time of year.

Now, since at least ONE star's position is supposedly modelled correctly, why not all of them? Or the Moon's, at the very least (so the degree of moonlight is correct).

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

You wouldn't need to place every star in the universe individually would you? I mean, couldn't you just use standard graphics images of a cloudless night sky, with the stars in their relative positions, and then rotate this graphic around the in-game sky based on time of year and time of 'day'? With cloudiness randomized? I mean, the stars are not going to be involved in any calculations or in game mechanics. Unless there is a mechanism to make them brighter/fainter at dawn/dusk.

The moon location and cycles would need to be correct and in theory the planets' positions could be modelled. (Model in telescopic sights and I could trash my copy of Starry Night!)

As for the Graphics engine - no doubt it is better to have the entire engine produced in house as you would have total control over engine bug fixes etc...

I am running on a huge assumption that Charles isn't a masochist. My understanding is that there are very good graphics engines available that are pay per unit shipped that can handle many hundreds of individual 3d entities. The game code is seperate to the visual representation of the action which is handled by the graphics engine.

Personally, I hope I am wrong because (as I understand it) Charles is a damned good programmer and I know he could create a kick-ass 3d engine if he put his mind to it.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Dorosh, don't you know that the stars seen in Johannesburg are different from those seen in Calgary? Also, it depends on the time of year.

Now, since at least ONE star's position is supposedly modelled correctly, why not all of them? Or the Moon's, at the very least (so the degree of moonlight is correct).

Huh? The first release is Finland 1939, so you wouldn't need star maps of both hemispheres. And even if you did, you use seperate bitmaps or jaypegs or whatever.

No?

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

Dorosh, don't you know that the stars seen in Johannesburg are different from those seen in Calgary? Also, it depends on the time of year.

Now, since at least ONE star's position is supposedly modelled correctly, why not all of them? Or the Moon's, at the very least (so the degree of moonlight is correct).

Huh? The first release is Finland 1939, so you wouldn't need star maps of both hemispheres. And even if you did, you use seperate bitmaps.

No? </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by J Ruddy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

Dorosh, don't you know that the stars seen in Johannesburg are different from those seen in Calgary? Also, it depends on the time of year.

Now, since at least ONE star's position is supposedly modelled correctly, why not all of them? Or the Moon's, at the very least (so the degree of moonlight is correct).

Huh? The first release is Finland 1939, so you wouldn't need star maps of both hemispheres. And even if you did, you use seperate bitmaps.

No? </font>

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by J Ruddy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

Dorosh, don't you know that the stars seen in Johannesburg are different from those seen in Calgary? Also, it depends on the time of year.

Now, since at least ONE star's position is supposedly modelled correctly, why not all of them? Or the Moon's, at the very least (so the degree of moonlight is correct).

Huh? The first release is Finland 1939, so you wouldn't need star maps of both hemispheres. And even if you did, you use seperate bitmaps.

No? </font>

[Battlefront.com]

No, there will be no scenario migration from CMx1. It would be a time consuming and messy project and we have no interest in doing it. If we suddenly had 2 weeks free to do anything we wanted, this wouldn't even be on the list. Not because it is a dumb idea, but because it doesn't add anything to the game that isn't already there. You might not like trying to recreate old scenarios, but you can. For ingame features either we code it or you can't do it. So our time is better spent on that stuff.

As for the start thing... since the grumblers like to bring that up as if it somehow shows that we have our priorities whacked... let me address this one now and never hear about it again (like that will every happen ).

In order to simulate the night sky, and its lighting effects, it was not possible to go with the old "toss a BMP up and call it good" system that CMx1 used. Well, we could have I supposed, but it wouldn't have looked nearly as good. So instead of smearing the night sky with a blurred texture, Charles coded points of light instead. They could have been randomly scattered, true enough, but it wasn't a big deal for him to take publically available start chart data and simply import it into the game system. I think it took him 2 days to do this. Maybe not even that. A file transfer filter, from CMx1 to CMx2, on the other hand would probably take more than a week.

Schrullenhaft has it right about other people's 3D engines. Reasons to not use:

1. Cost

2. Optimized in ways that probably are bad for CM's needs.

3. By the time you figure out how to change the engine, you could have written one yourself.

4. No matter what, the licensed engine won't be as good as what you could have baked up yourself. Provided you have the tallent to make one in the first place. Fortunately, we have Charles

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

One thing to keep in mind is that CMx1 scenarios, even if they are matching settings, will need to be completely overhauled anyway. It will be more akin to taking a ASL scenario and putting it into CMBO rather than taking a scenario from CMBO and putting it into CMAK. CMx1 and CMx2 have so little in common at this low level that whatever import tools we could in theory create, they wouldn't be all that helpful.

Steve

[MPK]

"You wouldn't need to place every star in the universe individually would you? I mean, couldn't you just use standard graphics images of a cloudless night sky, with the stars in their relative positions, and then rotate this graphic around the in-game sky based on time of year and time of 'day'? With cloudiness randomized? I mean, the stars are not going to be involved in any calculations or in game mechanics. Unless there is a mechanism to make them brighter/fainter at dawn/dusk."

Is CM evidence of Intelligent Design?

[lucero1148]

I'm sure in all the night scenario battle's I've played I've never bothered to look at the stars. And if it's raining or snowing there's nothing to look at anyway.

Patrick

[jeffsmith]

Originally posted by J Ruddy:

Snip I guess they could write everything from scratch - it just doesn't seem to make sense to me. Very few smallish Software companies start from the ground and work their way up. Snip

Welcome to the Talent & Wonder that is Battlefront