Jump to content

A prime example of why gamers are whiners


Recommended Posts

Originally posted by Micheal Wittman:

As far as large pbem files, what's the beef as

gmail gives 20mgs file size incoming and outgoing.

But we all know that or maybe I'm missing something?

E-mail size is not a problem... since Internet improves each year very fast... and 20Mb attachments or even 100Mb attachments are frequent for me.

The lack of WEGO over TCP/IP for those of us with really fast speeds, is a big fault.

And my main complaint isn't about graphics or performance... my main complaint is about the design of the game that ignores WEGO completely... since we now have loosed the cool blue bar that uses 100% of the CPU the enough amount of time to make a great TAC-AI... that blue bar is now replaced by a pure realtime representation, loading the CPU with the same stupid graphical load than in pure real time play...

Realtime sucks... our WEGO is only a realtime-autopause... but this game has lost any benefit of a really true WEGO design.

Seriously... this new game, is a much worse design for true wargaming. And the Real Time market is over saturated with much cooler products that appeal much more to the realtime players. The time will speak by itself. Mark my words...

[ July 31, 2007, 05:03 AM: Message edited by: Cid250 ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally posted by Cid250:

The lack of WEGO over TCP/IP for those of us with really fast speeds, is a big fault.

And my main complaint isn't about graphics or performance... my main complaint is about the design of the game that ignores WEGO completely... since we now have loosed the cool blue bar that uses 100% of the CPU the enough amount of time to make a great TAC-AI... that blue bar is now replaced by a pure realtime representation, loading the CPU with the same stupid graphical load than in pure real time play...

Realtime sucks... our WEGO is only a realtime-autopause... but this game has lost any benefit of a really true WEGO design.

[/QB]

Let me see if I get this straight. You're saying that since CMSF is real time, that it doesn't have the CPU power to handle a good Tac-AI like the CMx1 games had?

If that's what you're saying then I think you you're way off base. It only took a few seconds at most for the TacAI to compute in the CMx1 engine. It took a minute or more for the turn outcome to be computed, maybe that's what your thinking of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Pak40:

Let me see if I get this straight. You're saying that since CMSF is real time, that it doesn't have the CPU power to handle a good Tac-AI like the CMx1 games had?

If that's what you're saying then I think you you're way off base. It only took a few seconds at most for the TacAI to compute in the CMx1 engine. It took a minute or more for the turn outcome to be computed, maybe that's what your thinking of.

The point being made is that the old CMx1 system did the TacAI and turn resolution in one run, taking as much time as it needed, and then did the graphics at a seperate time when it needed to do no other calculations.

The CM:SF system has the CPU doing the tacAI, turn resolution and graphics processing all at the same time. Since a certain amount of processor time is required for graphics, there is a fixed number of CPU cycles to spend on tacAI and turn resolution. (Where before it took as long as it took).

Presumably BF wouldn't have gone down this route if they felt that it was going to cramp the AI too much with not having enough CPU time: rather I suspect they figured there was more than enough CPU time to do the tacAI and turn resolution in real time, and leftover processing would be put to use on the graphics. Or some such thing.

I assume the thinking of Cid250 is that if we went back to precomputed turns we could gain the ability to do much more computationally intensive indepth AI planning which would take considerably more than 1 minute to crunch. Whether this is true or not I have no idea - it isn't always the case that throwing more CPU cycles at a problem gives you better results - it may just given you somewhat different pathalogical behaviour...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We have a multi-page thread complaining about the file size of PBEM turns. Yet we were told, by the PBEM fans, to include it no matter how big the file size was. That was the product of one of the most long, drawn out, emotional, vicious, ridiculous events on this Forum in its nearly 10 year history.

Yet no PBEM guy has yet mention that the extra file swap is gone.

Hmmmmmmmm.... me thinks you guys are a glass half empty crowd :D

Steve

Why are BF blaming the customer for an obviously shoddy and unready game?

This forum always amazes me, and no doubt will continue to. I'm sorry i'm not bowing down and blindly buying your game, but thats your fault, not mine.

Amazing......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by TheVulture:

The point being made is that the old CMx1 system did the TacAI and turn resolution in one run, taking as much time as it needed, and then did the graphics at a seperate time when it needed to do no other calculations.

Yes, but my point is that the old CMx1 system took only a few seconds for it's TacAI resolution and these were done on older machines. IE, not much computing power was needed for TacAI.

Originally posted by TheVulture:

The CM:SF system has the CPU doing the tacAI, turn resolution and graphics processing all at the same time. Since a certain amount of processor time is required for graphics, there is a fixed number of CPU cycles to spend on tacAI and turn resolution. (Where before it took as long as it took).

I have to disagree. The GPU does most of the graphics processing just like it did in CMx1. Therefore the CPU is only doing the TacAI at the same time as the turn resolution which is just a small load in addition to what it did in CMx1. Obviously they two are able to coexist without slowing down the machine. My two year old laptop has no problem cranking out the turns in the demo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We have a multi-page thread complaining about the file size of PBEM turns. Yet we were told, by the PBEM fans, to include it no matter how big the file size was. That was the product of one of the most long, drawn out, emotional, vicious, ridiculous events on this Forum in its nearly 10 year history.

Yet no PBEM guy has yet mention that the extra file swap is gone.

Hmmmmmmmm.... me thinks you guys are a glass half empty crowd :D

Steve

Well, if you are finally getting that brand new Ferrari and notices that the V8 engine is only running on 3 cylinders, you don't send a polite mail to Maranello praising the new rear view mirrors?

I'm confident that a number of patches will get all cylinders running as the otherwise spectacular car deserves it. To bad it's yellow too as real Ferraris are red. At the other hand, we'll get the red one in the second game of the series. Let's hope it gets a V12 too...

/Mazex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We have a multi-page thread complaining about the file size of PBEM turns. Yet we were told, by the PBEM fans, to include it no matter how big the file size was. That was the product of one of the most long, drawn out, emotional, vicious, ridiculous events on this Forum in its nearly 10 year history.

Yet no PBEM guy has yet mention that the extra file swap is gone.

Hmmmmmmmm.... me thinks you guys are a glass half empty crowd :D

Steve

brilliant post, get it off your chest mate ... must be annoying smile.gif

personnaly i think it great that BF post as from a customer point of view:

1. its great to be listen too re feedback

2. its great to hear the justification / train of thought for certain mods.

All to often end users just assume developers are a bunch of clowns that dont understand the consumers needs.

You guys have proved time and time again with the CM series that you move in the correct direction. Oustanding games.

Scott.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Steiner14:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We have a multi-page thread complaining about the file size of PBEM turns. Yet we were told, by the PBEM fans, to include it no matter how big the file size was. That was the product of one of the most long, drawn out, emotional, vicious, ridiculous events on this Forum in its nearly 10 year history.

Yet no PBEM guy has yet mention that the extra file swap is gone.

I was wondering, too. But then i discovered, the PBEM players are still waiting to finish downloading their first turn... ;) </font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...