Guest ExplodingMonkey Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 Curious as to how much of a diffrence we will see between CM and CMx2 in terms of eye candy. Will it top this: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaska. Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 Hi mom. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonxa Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 No, I'd guess not. They are not trying to make a nifty looking AFV, they are striving to make a good wargame. The looks of the vehicles in CM is not my major gripe with graphics, they are pretty as they are. Infantry and terrain should get more of the attention. Remember that wargamers are not renowned for their powerfull gaming rigs! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarkus Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 Originally posted by Bonxa: [...] The looks of the vehicles in CM is not my major gripe with graphics, they are pretty as they are. Infantry and terrain should get more of the attention. [...]Agreed. Although these vehicles look extremely good indeed, only slight improvments on current CM 3D vehicles models would be quite enough IMO (like, say, dynamic running gears ). But more flexibility on terrain modelling and editing ? Now that would (should I say will ? ) rock. Sorry. It's been a while since I posted something useless and redundant on CMx2. I feel better now. Cheers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 Nice models and textures, but then again things in 3D Studio Max always look better than in the game This is what it is more or less likely to look like in the game: Still, quite nice looking. But not a major step up from what CMx1 is capable of (excepting the suspension system). Some extra pollies here and there... big deal... we could have done that years ago too if the hardware wouldn't have puked on it However, the terrain in BF2 is amazing even if limited in many ways. We agree about where to spend our energies... terrain first, infantry second, vehicles third. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromit Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 Hey Steve... watcha got in da pickinik basket?? Bones maybe? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denwad Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 yeah the terrain is pretty ok but the draw distance is **** 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GJK Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 You know, Selma Hayek looks real good too, but I wouldn't want to take her home. Wait, I did not just say that.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 What does that have to do with graphics GJK... wait don't answer that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GJK Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 Well, my point was that just because she looks good doesn't mean she plays good, but I think I might of picked a bad example there.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ExplodingMonkey Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 Thanks Steve for the feedback. I just see how "2001" T72 looks and I want to make sure CMx2 isn't headed down the same road. Wargames tend to get the shaft when it comes to graphics, and for me a big part of any game is immersion. The grogs in here may think CM is fine as is, but that's because they're used to pushing little squares from hex to hex. Not all of us in here are inclined to do the same. I agree that it should go terrain, troops, and AFVs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 Out of interest, will the running gear animate, will there be more than one camo skin per vehicle type, and will there be unique numbers on them? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simovitch Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 Am I missing something or is this a very revealing bone? where are the lobsters? or the Napoleanic cavalry? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Love Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 Mmmmm tasty pics. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juan_gigante Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 What is "Forgotten Hope", and from whence were these pictures found? Sirocco asks a good question, and I second his asking. I think that simovitch is right and this may have been an under-the-radar bone. Certainly it says to me that AFVs will be involved. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Love Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 "Forgotten Hope" is a very sexy Unreal Tourny mod. Or was that Red Orchestra baby? It's either the Operation Flashpoint mod or Unreal Tourny mod.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juan_gigante Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 Unreal Tournament with tanks!?! I must have!!1!1!11! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ExplodingMonkey Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 It's not an UT mod. It's a BF1942 mod that I don't play (but I do like to follow it's development). They do a damn fine job pushing that graphics engine to it's limits, and it's my hope that CMx2 will meet or surpass that level of graphic representation. From Steve's indication... "But not a major step up from what CMx1 is capable of (excepting the suspension system). Some extra pollies here and there... big deal... we could have done that years ago too if the hardware wouldn't have puked on it" ...it will surpass those screens. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 Tanks are easy to make look good. Let's see some comparable infantry, because that's where CM is lacking at the moment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ExplodingMonkey Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 I'm not interested in tanks specifically, I just wanted to get a feel for how much more detailed and immersive the entire CMx2 package will be. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 As RMC and others have said, making pretty tanks is fairly easy from a development standpoint. It can be pretty hard on the VRAM, video card, and processor though, which is why our models are the way they are. One time we figured out that to do a suspension system, even a primative one, would take more polies than the entire tank it was attached to. Improved infantry models for CMx2... already done. In fact, we think our first batch looks better than the ones in games like BF2 and some of the WWII RTS games yet to come out. They apparently spent their poly and texture budget on the buildings. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yeknodathon Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Improved infantry models for CMx2... already done.Oh, that is interesting. Erm, I'll just sit here and wait... I can be very patient. Infantry bone, infantry bone, infantry bone... purrrrleaaaaaaase? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Nothing to show yet Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellfish Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 How many polys, on average, were the CMX1 tank models? Most of the games and sims I play average 3000-5000, with 9000 or more being pretty rare, but not unheard of. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Hmmm... I don't remember, but I want to say the CMBO ones were around 500 and the basic textures were usually 256x256. We pretty much doubled that for CMBB and went a bit higher for CMAK. I can't check because the program I used to make/edit them is long since defunct (only works on MacOS 8.6 or earlier). If anybody is wondering why... think of how many polies are needed for the ground mesh, the trees, the walls, buildings, roads, water, bases for trees, doodads, wheat fields, etc. etc. etc. Truly massive. 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.