C'Rogers Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 1. Improved the graphics to the level we have now. 2. Used 1:1 squad graphics as we have now. 3. Ditched the idea of RT play for WEGO only 4. Raised the world resolution to 1m x 1m grid. 5. Fractioned the 1 minute WEGO turn down to 20 or even 10 seconds. Certainly the lower turn length would have helped cut down on the wait for turn calculations, but could make the overall time to complete a game enormous if Steve's calculation times are correct I think this all boils down to the the turn calculations. We can all say we don't care about the graphics or real time, but as I believe Steve has said those aren't critical issues to the game in terms of calculations. I think people just use them as an excuse. People (including Steve) wanted the engine to do certain things. Like have an incredibly detailed spotting system (if still buggy). Problem is there needs to be trade offs for anything. Computers may be more advanced than during CMx1 but apparently not enough to get the new features and the same resolution. We can go around in circles and say "such and such feature that I don't like is ruining the game". It is much harder to say "such and such feature I do like is ruining the game". Which goes back to the crux of the original point, was it worth it to go to 1 to 1? Personally I don't think so, but I think there are arguments for it that aren't immediately apparent.. Really I think there are three ways to explain the game. 1) The game is doing the best job it can to simulate very difficult things. 2) The game is is doing the best it can but there are still considerable workarounds/improvements that can be made. 3) 1 to 1 can be done, but BFC lacks the resources/brains to do it. I doubt the third, the question then is how far can they run with the current engine. Seeing the improvements they have made sense initial release I still think a long way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 I have a long, carefully argued post to contribute to this thread, but unfortunately, repeated attempts to post it last night failed (server maintenance at BFC?), and I inadvertently deleted it when I left it as a word processed file on my Desktop and trashed it during cleanup. I need to get some file recovery software so that I can resurrect several hours of work. Meanwhile, I ask your patience! Regards, John Kettler [ November 25, 2007, 12:08 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlapHappy Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 Agreed that graphics/model detail has little to do with the issue (except in real-time). If I understand correctly, the original CM could have sported better graphics, but they were keying in on a relatively modest computer setup for minimum requirements (even by 1999-2000 standards). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 SlapHappy, Correct! CMBO was designed to run onb a 200 MHz PC with NO video card! Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkEzra Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 Hi John: I'll be interested to read your "long, carefully argued post" Hope you'll be able piece it back together. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 Originally posted by John Kettler: SlapHappy, Correct! CMBO was designed to run onb a 200 MHz PC with NO video card! Regards, John Kettler Wow John, that took you hours to type and recover? I have to say I was looking for more. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 Here is a screenshot to pass the time waiting for 1.05. The target MG is in a trench, behind a building and behind a tall wall. Nevertheless, the LOF check obviously gave green light to the firing MG. Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunwinglow Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 So this is abstraction in action. I don't get it then.... But the sky looks nice! Is that the Plough (Great Bear) rising over the mosque? Tim 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted November 26, 2007 Share Posted November 26, 2007 Originally posted by John Kettler: SlapHappy, Correct! CMBO was designed to run onb a 200 MHz PC with NO video card! Regards, John Kettler Originally posted by Big Time Software - September 02 1999: The 133 w/3D card is BARE BONES MINIMUM. Frame rate will be rock bottom, turn crunching will be dog slow, and sound will probably be minimal channels (unless the system happens to have a good card). But it should still be playable (we'll figure this out in Beta). Truth is, we don't know yet. Slowest system we have is a 166 w/card. It worked OK on it. A 200MHz system with a 3D card would be the recommended system. Of course, a 400MHz with a good 3D card would be ideal. Anything over that isn't overkill, but close to it. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlapHappy Posted November 26, 2007 Share Posted November 26, 2007 Originally posted by Rollstoy: Here is a screenshot to pass the time waiting for 1.05. The target MG is in a trench, behind a building and behind a tall wall. Nevertheless, the LOF check obviously gave green light to the firing MG. Best regards, Thomm Sarge. Sarge! I can't obtain the target! That's OK Corporal! Just aim for that bloody great red diamond floating in the sky! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted November 26, 2007 Share Posted November 26, 2007 By the way ... what about the tracers that are basically reflected back to the shooter? This is not exactly my idea of a ricochet! Is it realistic that bullets will fly back at you if you shoot at a wall at a right angle? Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted November 26, 2007 Share Posted November 26, 2007 Originally posted by Rollstoy: By the way ... what about the tracers that are basically reflected back to the shooter? This is not exactly my idea of a ricochet! Is it realistic that bullets will fly back at you if you shoot at a wall at a right angle? Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 15, 2008 Author Share Posted January 15, 2008 Originally posted by C'Rogers: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />1. Improved the graphics to the level we have now. 2. Used 1:1 squad graphics as we have now. 3. Ditched the idea of RT play for WEGO only 4. Raised the world resolution to 1m x 1m grid. 5. Fractioned the 1 minute WEGO turn down to 20 or even 10 seconds. Certainly the lower turn length would have helped cut down on the wait for turn calculations, but could make the overall time to complete a game enormous if Steve's calculation times are correct I think this all boils down to the the turn calculations. We can all say we don't care about the graphics or real time, but as I believe Steve has said those aren't critical issues to the game in terms of calculations. I think people just use them as an excuse. People (including Steve) wanted the engine to do certain things. Like have an incredibly detailed spotting system (if still buggy). Problem is there needs to be trade offs for anything. Computers may be more advanced than during CMx1 but apparently not enough to get the new features and the same resolution. We can go around in circles and say "such and such feature that I don't like is ruining the game". It is much harder to say "such and such feature I do like is ruining the game". Which goes back to the crux of the original point, was it worth it to go to 1 to 1? Personally I don't think so, but I think there are arguments for it that aren't immediately apparent.. Really I think there are three ways to explain the game. 1) The game is doing the best job it can to simulate very difficult things. 2) The game is is doing the best it can but there are still considerable workarounds/improvements that can be made. 3) 1 to 1 can be done, but BFC lacks the resources/brains to do it. I doubt the third, the question then is how far can they run with the current engine. Seeing the improvements they have made sense initial release I still think a long way. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 WOW! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 Yup, we surprised even ourselves We thought what we call "Traditional LOS" (found in CMx1 and just about all other games) would have to stay around a lot longer than it did. If the computing power had not been found to make Enhanced LOS work, I know we could have got the old LOS system to a better state than v1.05. How much better? I don't really know. We were finding ourselves butting up against the point of diminishing returns probably sooner than gamers would have liked. Fortunately none of us had to experience that Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 Steve, ELOS sounds great, and I'm pretty sure my PC can handle it. However, isn't there a moral argument to say that you shouldn't patch a game in such a way that it raises the minimum system specs? Anyone with minimum specs now may find the patched version is beyond their PC's capabilities. Could have "interesting" legal implications. The simplest solution would be to have the game use normal LOS or Enhanced LOS according to an option setting. When I was a developer we never took features out. We just overlayed them all, with configuration settings to allow people to choose which one to use. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sivodsi Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 Yes, are there any indications as to the minimum specs of 1.06 vs 1.05 and before? I should be alright, but being an altruistic sort of guy I would hope that others are not put out - hey, that would diminish the pool of players available for MP! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 Don't worry too much! Even if you cannot play the monster scenarios out there any longer* (in RT), the benefits will far outweigh this loss. Plus (and correct me if I am wrong) in WeGo this will only mean that the crunch times are longer, right? Best regards, Thomm *) I did not try them, but I see no indication for this in regular scenarios; in fact I put visual quality at 'Best' some time ago and simply left it there - on a business laptop, no less! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 Originally posted by Rollstoy: Don't worry too much! Even if you cannot play the monster scenarios out there any longer* (in RT), the benefits will far outweigh this loss. Plus (and correct me if I am wrong) in WeGo this will only mean that the crunch times are longer, right? Best regards, Thomm *) I did not try them, but I see no indication for this in regular scenarios; in fact I put visual quality at 'Best' some time ago and simply left it there - on a business laptop, no less! Crunch time? You seen any blue bars recently? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 Originally posted by Other Means: Crunch time? You seen any blue bars recently? Guess how many times I played WeGo so far! Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 Adam1, Overhead cover can be done with either system, it's just more "finicky" with a Traditional LOS system. The main reason for not having placable overhead cover is simply because we didn't feel it was a higher priority to include vs. the myriad of other stuff on the Wish List. For WW2 it is mandatory, though, since there was a lot of static, positional warfare. I've been discussing this in another thread (forget which!). Cpl Steiner, Yeah, the age old problem of improving a game post release and perhaps negatively affecting some existing customers. It's never an easy call to make, especially when we feel that probably 98% will be able to run v1.06 without significant performance decrease. However, *if* that happens we will most likely attempt to have an Option for Traditional or Enhanced LOS. We all have to keep in mind that people can make scenarios that will bring even the fastest systems to a crawl, so it's sometimes difficult to figure out what the average person should be able to do. I remember Rune making scenarios that took 15 minutes for my computer to crunch, then I would get 1-2fps during movie playback. My system was well within the targeted specs. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Kruger Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 Excellent post, Michael. You've summed up my feelings exactly! I definitely think CM has gone the wrong way. J Kruger 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 Adam1, I found the other thread where fortifications are being discussed: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=003613&p=2 Steve 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.