a call for more variety in the WWII CMx2 game

[Sequoia]

Originally posted by thewood:

I am a little surprised at the comment that its takes 5 times as long for inputing models. I thought the main point of the new engine was to significantly reduce the time to put new models in, hence more frequent modules with new models.

I interpret that as it being easier for Charles to add new vehicles to the code and make engine changes, but Dan's work building and drawing 3-d models with many more polygons takes longer.

[Clavicula_Nox]

Originally posted by thewood:

I am a little surprised at the comment that its takes 5 times as long for inputing models. I thought the main point of the new engine was to significantly reduce the time to put new models in, hence more frequent modules with new models.

I don't see how a game engine can somehow reduce the amount of time it takes to make a 3D model, UV map it, then make the textures.

[Battlefront.com]

Oddball_E8

but what im worried about is that BFC will stick to only the panther, tiger and panzer 4 line... and trimming out any "minority" armor or vehicles...

Well, look at how much stuff we have in CM:SF. That should put your fears to rest because we're planning on including about that much stuff in the initial Normandy release.

Thewood,

I am a little surprised at the comment that its takes 5 times as long for inputing models. I thought the main point of the new engine was to significantly reduce the time to put new models in, hence more frequent modules with new models.

Not exactly. The main point of the new engine was to make pretty much everything easier to do, or in some cases possible to do. This covers pretty much everything such as TO&E, models, terrain, and (MOST importantly) game features. Overall we can get a lot more into the game in a shorter period of time, but that doesn't mean we can get a specific thing in faster than what we could do in CMx1. That's because CMx2 has more depth than CMx1, and depth means more stuff to do for any one individual element.

What Dan was speaking about is the difference in the "depth" of each CMx2 model compared to CMx1. Let me put it into perspective... with no prior 3D experience I built probably 30% of all the tank and gun models used in CMx1 games. That's probably around 100 models. I couldn't make a SIINGLE model for CMx2 because the amount of skill required for one is immense. And it is also time consuming on a per model basis.

For CMx1 we had vehicles that were roughly 500 polygons or so. There were no moving parts from the modeler's perspective. All we did was "color" some polygons a certain way and the code would understand what to do with those polies, like rotate or elevate for example. The code munged the models to make at least one LOD (reduced resolution). Because the model was so low res to start out with this was possible without it being noticeable.

For CMx2 the models are about 5,000 polygons to IIRC 10,000 polygons. Lots of moving parts, like suspensions, tracks, gun bits, hatches, etc. have to be made exactly correct so that they work right when animated. There is a TON of "coding" on the modeler's side so crew mount/dismount correctly, passengers have a seat, the seats are correctly assigned to the different soldier types (like Squad Leaders going to a particular spot), and tons of other stuff like assigning locations for specific bits of the vehicle (radio here, engine there, etc) for detailed damage modleing. Then the modeler has to map the textures onto the surfaces, which is extremely time consuming.

The net result is what you see in CM:SF vs. CMx1... fantastically detailed and seemingly realistic "live" vehicles with wagging antennas, suspension that conforms to terrain, etc. All of this stuff was literally impossible to hack into CMx1's engine and that's one reason why CMx2 was created, therefore the goal of CMx2 wasn't necessarily to make adding vehicle models easier rather it was to make them possible to do in anything other than a primitive way like CMx1 had.

Soldiers and animations are similar, but even more expanded in CMx2 than vehicles are compared to CMx1.

More work per vehicle/soldier than CMx1, but far better results.

Steve

[Kwazydog]

Originally posted by Oddball_E8:

thats, what, ten tank base models? add to that about the same in halftracks and vehicles and well probarbly be fine...

Oddball, that covers the tanks reasonably well. The list is probably a little more extensive than you are considering though when including Self-Propelled Artillery such as the Wespe/Hummel, Marder series, Priest, M10 and recon vehicles like the M8 and PSW 232, 234, etc. Even though some of these are based on chassis we will have already modeled the open nature of the vehicles will significantly increase the work needed. Also lets not forget about the good old kubelwagon, jeep, maybe a couple of trucks and a prime mover such as the skdfz 7 to move that 88mm around . Then there are the AT guns, AA artillery, howitzers, mortars, etc along with animations for loading and operating that will all take a noticably more time than when we previously visited Normandy.

i mean... the infantry comes down to 1 human body model with different skins and different weapons... so we all know that the infantry will be nicely represented (right?)

Unfortunately, no Different styles of uniforms require different models. For instance a Panzer crew will look different to a US soldier, who in turn looks different to regular German infantry, etc. Each of these require their own model and LODs, skinning, unwrapping, and so on. Also, keep in mind that small arms are 3D models now with seperate clips, workable tripods, ejecting shells, etc and not 2D BMPs of old, so they are also require an extra amount time over the previous method.

As Steve said, dont worry, we will get there! I just wanted to clarify in more detail some of the work the visuals for Normandy will require over previous versions of the game.

Dan

[ March 11, 2008, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

[Peter Cairns]

In terms of vehicles I think a big move forward since CMx1 isn't just having variants but being able to have a degree of random variation between different vehicles of the same type.

In terms of immersion I think I would prefer a half dozen M4's with different gear hanging off them, like Camo nets and tracks, than half a dozen different obscure vehicles.

One thing that might take a bit of time but I think would be worth the effort would be to have more variation in clothing.

One of the features that I associate with WW2 is that the average squad seemed to have far less standardisation in dress.

Part of this I think is that they were less well equipped and a lot scruffier due to the intensity of the conflict and the limitations of the time.

Peter.

[M1A1TC]

Found some color photos from 1940's that I really like

[Battlefront.com]

I agree with Peter... I'd rather have 5 Shermans with some unique character between them than to have some obscure type of Sherman and every Sherman looking identical to each other within the same type. Even when players don't consciously notice that vehicles in CM:SF have different external equipment, dings, antenna configurations, etc. subconsciously I think people do. We're definitely going to keep working on more stuff like this.

We would like to have more variety within a Squad, but we have to be careful about that. Even though video cards seem to have tons of VRAM to play with, the reality is that we are already choking fairly high level cards with sheer quantity of stuff. RAM too. So although we intend on expanding the diversity we have to keep our eyes on the hardware's capabilities OR downgrade the overall texture quality game-wide. The latter is not going to happen

M1TC,

Great pics! The last one is kinda funny. I mean, that sucker had so much armament on it that I really don't think dismounting the crew to engage the enemy with pistols is sound tactics

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Peter,

The pic of the US soldiers in camo is an abortion that was limited (IIRC) one unit and only for a couple of weeks. The unit was supposed to be going to the Pacific so it was issued the camo uniform and there wasn't time to re-outfit them before shipping them to England. So that's what they wore until they got replacements. There are various stories of the soldiers getting mistaken for Waffen SS since all SS units had camo and no other US units did. That and some of the SS uniforms were of a spot type, which to the untrained and nervous eye (at a distance, no doubt) would look the same.

Steve

[Webwing]

Steve: Let me put it into perspective... with no prior 3D experience I built probably 30% of all the tank and gun models used in CMx1 games. That's probably around 100 models. I couldn't make a SIINGLE model for CMx2 because the amount of skill required for one is immense. And it is also time consuming on a per model basis.

There is no doubt that the models are in a completely new category in CMx2 and the more I look into the work Dan has done the more I admire him. It kind of scares me actually.

Having said that I think the work you guys did in the CMx1 games was also awesome. Not because of the number of vehicles but because of the way you did them. To be able to do believable vehicles with such constraints requires a lot of skill as well.

Although you had no previous 3D experience Steve, you managed to do it because of your huge knowledge of WWII and of the vehicles and weapons of the period. You knew exactly what was essential to make a certain variant of a certain tank look authentic even with only limited amount of polygons. You knew exactly what to put in and what to leave out. The essence was there. Representing a complex object using only a few shapes is not something anyone can do.

It’s a bit like a caricature and a portrait. An artist can make a fast caricature of a person with a few strokes. You look at it and you smile, the essence of the person has been captured. But very few people can do it. Very few artists actually. A portrait is something more elaborate, that takes more time and it is a more sophisticated work no doubt. But both require skill and knowledge.

It reminds me of the story of a famous painter asked why he charged so much for a drawing it took him only minutes to do. “It took me a lifetime to learn.” , he answered.

-

[ March 11, 2008, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: Webwing ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Peter,

The pic of the US soldiers in camo is an abortion that was limited (IIRC) one unit and only for a couple of weeks. The unit was supposed to be going to the Pacific so it was issued the camo uniform and there wasn't time to re-outfit them before shipping them to England. So that's what they wore until they got replacements. There are various stories of the soldiers getting mistaken for Waffen SS since all SS units had camo and no other US units did. That and some of the SS uniforms were of a spot type, which to the untrained and nervous eye (at a distance, no doubt) would look the same.

Steve

"Abortion" is a pretty strong term since the uniforms were widely worn in the Pacific, and the pattern was still in use (on ponchos, tents, parachute material, helmet covers, etc.,) in Korea and even as late as the Vietnam era, no?

Interestingly, the US Army's own tests during World War II found that camouflage uniforms on soldiers in motion in deciduous foliage actually attracted the eye more than the olive drab uniforms.

British tank crews had to give up their black coveralls also, because the Germans were wearing black AFV uniforms, so the story goes.

[Mord]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

One thing that might take a bit of time but I think would be worth the effort would be to have more variation in clothing.

One of the features that I associate with WW2 is that the average squad seemed to have far less standardisation in dress.

LOL where the heck were ya when I brought that up?

LINKYWINKY

Actually I think it would be cool to just leave us slots to mix and match. I'm guessing we'll have them in WWII if they exist in CMSF. Leave the slots open to mod and each gamer can decide how much of a hit they are willing to take.

As for vehicles...I am right there with you guys on making one stand out from another...but man I wanna see me a Greyhound, M8 and Puma! And don't get me started on Marders and Wespes! I love all the off the wall looking vehicles.

Mord.

P.S. Steve, how's about the stuff from this thread? LINK

it fits in with this discussion as well; Damage textures and crew casualties.

[John Kettler]

I think that in honor of all Kingfish's hard work, we should have a 21 PD module to the Normandy game, featuring all those wild and wonderful Alkett conversions organized by Becker(?).

Regards,

John Kettler

[Battlefront.com]

Dorosh,

"Abortion" is a pretty strong term

DOH! Damned "spell a you go" spellchecker! It should have read aberration if I wasn't such an inherently terrible speller

Yes, the camouflage uniform, commonly called "duck hunter" due to its post war commercial popularity with hunters, was quite effective. It was duplicated by dozens of nations over the years, including the first camouflage uniform for The Netherlands. Also used by ROK, Brazil, Columbia, Turkey, and others in various guises.

It is true that camouflage uniforms offer best protection to detection when stationary. When in motion they are generally worse than single colored uniforms. It is for this reason Austria has stubbornly stuck to a mono-color uniform after abandoning camouflage in 1976 after nearly 20 years of use.

As for uniform confusion, there was a 1st hand story about a German Heer tanker who was captured by Canadian troops in Normandy. Some of his captors were in favor of killing him right away (i.e. murdering a POW) because they mistook him for SS, which of course the Canadians were none-too-happy about. They saw the black uniform and skulls on the lapel and wrongly thought that this was a SS uniform. While the ones in favor of killing him argued with those who favored honoring their obligations as captors, the German tanker escaped. IIRC he said something like "I don't know which side won the argument because I didn't want to stick around to find out"

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Dorosh,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"Abortion" is a pretty strong term

DOH! Damned "spell a you go" spellchecker! It should have read aberration if I wasn't such an inherently terrible speller </font>

[Peach Operations]

Well, look at how much stuff we have in CM:SF. That should put your fears to rest because we're planning on including about that much stuff in the initial Normandy release.

I have to say, I've never understood the "more variety" complaints myself, given all the stuff the Syrian side has in the game.

There are ways you could improve it, though most areas (MILAN ATGMs, for instance) appear to be getting addressed in the Marines module.

The only thing I could really think of -- and maybe this is planned, but I haven't heard of it -- are we going to see an IBCT line battalion in the editor in some future module? I know you can take a Stryker battalion and delete the Strykers, but that's not totally accurate, is it?

[Battlefront.com]

Webwing,

Although you had no previous 3D experience Steve, you managed to do it because of your huge knowledge of WWII and of the vehicles and weapons of the period. You knew exactly what was essential to make a certain variant of a certain tank look authentic even with only limited amount of polygons. You knew exactly what to put in and what to leave out. The essence was there. Representing a complex object using only a few shapes is not something anyone can do.

Thanks for the compliments and you are quite correct. We had a VERY good artist try to render some vehicles for us early on. It took him forever and they didn't look very good. He simply wasn't used to working with so few polies and didn't know the intimate details of the vehicles so he couldn't make good decisions about how to build the models. This was even after me explaining to him the basics of how hulls, suspensions, tracks, turrets, mantlets, etc. worked, fitted together, etc. That's the stuff I knew cold, therefore I was in a much better position to determine how to construct things and where to focus the details on.

But now... holy crap! I don't even think I could do the junk on the top of the Abrams, not to mention the whole vehicle! That's just way, way, WAY over my head technically speaking. That's why I'm so glad we have Dan doing this stuff instead of me

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Dorosh,

Ah, that makes more sense. I hadn't heard that angle before, incidentally - i.e. that they were supposed to go to the Pacific. Very interesting. The line that gets repeated (usually in poor quality magazines) is that the uniforms were issued specially for Normandy or something. Nice to get the real story from someone in the know.

Well, I'm "in the know" only until someone finds out a smoking gun document about why such a small number of camouflage uniforms wound up in Normandy AND why they quickly departed. It's a bunch of speculation at this point, though we camo geeks had a pretty drawn out discussion about this a number of years ago. I'll see if I can find some notes about the units involved and try to back up my comment about the unit originally being slated for the PTO. Memories being what they are, it's possible I have it wrong. Then again, the known documentation is scant so the hearsay stuff is pretty much all we have to go on.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Shadowgamer,

I don't know when we will get IBCTs into the game. Unfortunately, the TO&E stuff is significant enough that it's not as easy as it would appear to do. Plus, there are quite a lot of variations in IBCT TO&E due to units like Airborne and Rangers being thrown into the mix. However, I would like to see IBCTs get included at some point so I'm sure it will happen.

Steve

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

In I think 1940 or so some of my late mothers friends were equipped while in the army with cold weather gear before being deployed and all concluded that they would soon be in Norway.

The were soon disembarked spent almost all their time below decks before about a week later arriving in Africa. They never did get an explanation but concluded that as Britain didn't know how good or extensive Germany's spy network was they had been part of a disinformation campaign.

Probably not the explanation for Normandy camo, but I thought you'd like it.

On the uniform variety question, would it be less processor intensive if instead of variety for individuals a squad would be selected from a half dozen different four man teams so that out of a dozen men you could have a couple of dozen combinations.

Peter

[Battlefront.com]

Found some info on the US camo uniform used in Normandy. One guy, who was an editor for Militaria Magazine, maintains that they were shipped over to Europe before a discontinuation order came about. This was based on the premise that the test results showed that the uniform was inferior when in motion compared to solid colored uniforms. I find this theory highly questionable since the uniform was being issued in large numbers in the Pacific at the same time AND after (both Army and Marines).

From what I could gather at the time, it appears the bulk were worn by 2nd ID. The 2nd Infantry Division makes sense in that it was in the US until October of 1943, within the timeframe that the uniform was being issued. It is entirely possible that some soldiers were issued these uniforms and therefore took them to France "on their backs". That would explain the (probable) lack of issue to other units in England preparing for D-Day. 2nd ID was also landed D-Day + 1 (June 7th) and therefore is consistent with it being seen in Normandy and not after.

Unfortunately, I just put away my Stanton book so I can't look up the details of the unit and I don't have time to check online right now.

Anyway, that's what I have

Also note that there is another reason for having camouflage uniforms... solid color uniforms stand out like a sore thumb in IR devices. In fact, the Germans came up with a uniform at the end of the war to counteract IR even though they were the only ones actively using it at the time! Kinda like them coming up with counter measures for magnetic anti-tank mines even though they were the only ones employing them. The US military studied the uniforms and scientists behind them in great detail (i.e. "The Richardson Report").

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Peter,

On the uniform variety question, would it be less processor intensive if instead of variety for individuals a squad would be selected from a half dozen different four man teams so that out of a dozen men you could have a couple of dozen combinations.

No, it's pretty much the same. The hit comes from even ONE example being in a battle at a time. It doesn't matter how many iterations are going concurrently (all polies and texture hits being equal for each soldier type, of course). This also doesn't do anything for the modeling time that Dan already addressed since to have it we have to make it.

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Yes, I think Shelby Stanton talks about the camo tests in one of his books and may even have photos, but of course that does nothing to prove or disprove theories as to procurement policy. At any rate, that's where I gathered the little nugget which you're obviously familiar with vis a vis camo drawing the eye. At least that part everyone can agree on.

[Mord]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

It is true that camouflage uniforms offer best protection to detection when stationary. When in motion they are generally worse than single colored uniforms.

Steve

I can attest to this from my first time playing Paintball. It was in Arizona. The area was scrub brush and sand. All these dudes show up like they are getting ready to invade Iraq...wearing desert camo and all this fancy camo gear. I was wearing black jeans and a navy blue hooded sweat shirt. I was like crap I'm gonna get wasted here!

Turns out I was way harder to see when I got in the shadows and amongst the leaf litter...I didn't have any problem seeing them. And let me tell you there is no greater satisfaction than hearing a grown man scream like a little girl when you shoot him in the back of his bare neck! I swear I almost peed my pants I was laughing so hard.

Mord.

[flamingknives]

That's something that amuses me with the modern US gear:

"There are no blacks in Nature"

Which is more or less true, but shadows do a remarkably good impression.

[c3k]

Purple flares! I want purple flares in WWII. Why? Any grog knows that German infantry fired purple flares when attacked by tanks. It provided a great, immediate visual clue to everyone where the tanks were.

Cool uniforms and PURPLE flares. That's all I want.

Ken