SlapHappy Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 Usually when people make a statement regarding graphics in CMSF, they are referring to the model fidelities or sometimes the textures. Texture modelling has enjoyed a rather remarkable success since BFC released the tools for such some time back in an earlier update. What has always made 3-D wargames interesting for me are the animations. You take a game like Second Manassas. Graphic resolution and model quality is really quite low by today's standards. However, the animations are wonderful. Then there is a game like TOW, which has good model quality, but so-so texturing, especially on infantry models. But the thing I like the least in TOW graphics is the movement animations for infantry. They just don't "feel" right to me for some reason. Overall, CMSF has really nice movement animations, but I wish there was some more variation. By the time we get to Normandy, it would be nice to have individual soldiers low-running with their rifles in their off-hand, while others in the same squad are performing a different animation at the same time. Some better "jumping" animations would be a pleasant addition as well. The current low-wall jump animation is OK, but not one of the better in the whole game. Mix it up a little. The more variation and randomness applied in this area really breathes life into the game, IMO. It helps keep the "robot" feel down and makes the pixeltruppen seem more alive. I know this is strictly "eye-candy" stuff, but once the game mechanics stuff is sufficiently battened down, extra polish like this can make the game even more satisfying from a vicarious standpoint. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flanker15 Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 Moar death animations!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zukkov Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 How 'bout a chaplain reciting the last rites to the dying... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cid250 Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 By the time we get to Normandy, it would be nice to have individual soldiers low-running with their rifles in their off-hand, while others in the same squad are performing a different animation at the same time. That's really one that i want to see. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 CMSF has an extremely powerful engine for animations, and is able to handle WAY more than you see. Where we are lacking, at the moment, are the resources to actually create such animations. It's an unfortunate bottleneck that prevents us from utilizing the full power of the underlying code. If you know anyone who is skilled in this area and interested to help, contact us. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meach Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 Sometimes I wish God was a CMSF fan. If he could lend some programming help I would go to church. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 Oh, God sure is a CM fan. He has provided BFC with all the source material for their games. (Stay tuned for Space Lobsters of Doom...) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meach Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 Ah so he is a production advisor instead of programming. Good effort, God. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cid250 Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 By the time we get to Normandy, it would be nice to have individual soldiers low-running with their rifles in their off-hand. Better with images: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 The pic above well illustrates how the German infantryman was trained to hold his rifle in his right hand (see http://www.dererstezug.com/HandletheRifle.htm for more elucidation), whereas the US Army infantryman was trained to hold his rifle in both hands. I think the "individual soldiers low-running with their rifles in their off-hand" phenomenon would be more common among American infantrymen. Speaking of animations, relative to this statement (quoted from the above-linked article)... The first and foremost reaction of the Gruppe which comes under fire is to go prone -- it is NOT for the riflemen to fire wildly from the shoulder at targets they have no hope of hitting. ...I would like to see the German infantry in CMx2-WW2 act accordingly: upon coming under fire, they go prone (rather than tending to come to a halt standing and return fire reflexively, as infantry do in CMSF). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlapHappy Posted February 9, 2009 Author Share Posted February 9, 2009 Better with images: A classic pic, thank you for helping me better illustrate my point. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlapHappy Posted February 9, 2009 Author Share Posted February 9, 2009 The pic above well illustrates how the German infantryman was trained to hold his rifle in his right hand (see http://www.dererstezug.com/HandletheRifle.htm for more elucidation), whereas the US Army infantryman was trained to hold his rifle in both hands. I think the "individual soldiers low-running with their rifles in their off-hand" phenomenon would be more common among American infantrymen. Speaking of animations, relative to this statement (quoted from the above-linked article)... ...I would like to see the German infantry in CMx2-WW2 act accordingly: upon coming under fire, they go prone (rather than tending to come to a halt standing and return fire reflexively, as infantry do in CMSF). Thanks...Cid250's picture clears that up for me..... About that squad training issue....that's just the kind of doctrinal separation I would like to see between the combatants in the Normandy game. It's these little differences that will make the infantry groups seem not so much like rubber-stamp copies of each other. Even though the animation workload might be somewhat steep, the payoff is priceless in game feel and authenticity. It's a shame that BFC doesn't have a dedicated guy to flesh these little details out and incorporate them into the game. It seems like animations are a bit of a bugaboo when developing game code. It's understandable that something that requires a lot of man-hours could be neglected when it doesn't directly impact the game play - but man, the details really do it for me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzermartin Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 It would be interesting to go a bit deeper in doctrine and simulate different infantry behaviour in game. Hopefully there will be some suprises stored for us with the Normandy game. It would be a bit of a let down to just have a WW2 mod of CMSF. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlapHappy Posted February 9, 2009 Author Share Posted February 9, 2009 Does anyone have this type of detailed info about US GI's? British and Commonwealth? Soviet? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzermartin Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Dietrich's link is quite interesting. I wonder if we will see this emphasis on the MG-34/42 in CM's german squads. And how this will contrast with the garrand armed american ones. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Does anyone have this type of detailed info about US GI's? British and Commonwealth? Soviet? Insight into certain aspects of Allied tactics (and what the Germans thought about them) can be gleaned from the following links: http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/battalion-commander/index.html http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/firepower/index.html http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/tankinfteam/index.html http://www.dererstezug.com/WhatTheGermansThought.htm Dietrich's link is quite interesting. I wonder if we will see this emphasis on the MG-34/42 in CM's german squads. And how this will contrast with the garrand armed american ones. As far as (to use a specific example) having a German squad go prone upon coming under fire and limiting their firing to their MG34/42 unless confronted by a fairly close-range threat, AFAIK it would be a matter more of coding than of different animations, since the animations would not need be any different than those already available. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gpig Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 I'm a fan of how the animations are working in game currently. They look pretty damn good. As an animator myself, it's always fun to imagine how some new and interesting animations could add a layer of immersion. Headquarters teams on the radio. Team leaders yelling (hands up to mouth), pointing out targets, waving troops forward. Mortar teams. Men kicking in doors. Hand to hand combat (rifle butts, bayonets, two men on the ground locked in a "death wrestle," ala SPR.) Men looking skyward as the JABOs streak over. Full out sprinting versus quick runs. You know, the sprint for cover like your life depended on it? One hand holding his rifle, the other keeping his helmet on. Jogging, versus crouch running/walking. Stalking. Death animations. Nothing gory. But realistic in it's implications. The immersion can only get better. It's already excellent. I'd love to be able to help out in some capacity. My life is pretty busy these days but I'll do what I can to try and help (or find help). Gpig p.s. Keep up the great work, BFC. Happy 10th! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 SlapHappy, It's a shame that BFC doesn't have a dedicated guy to flesh these little details out and incorporate them into the game. You and us both It seems like animations are a bit of a bugaboo when developing game code. It's understandable that something that requires a lot of man-hours could be neglected when it doesn't directly impact the game play - but man, the details really do it for me. Yup, animations are something that people really love when they see them... but it doesn't make or break it for them in terms of the experience as a whole. It also doesn't make or break the decision to purchase a game or not. If we had gobs of money lying around so that we do everything we wanted concurrently we'd definitely have a couple of people down at a motion capture studio for a week or so. But the reality is we don't have the resources the tens of millions other 3D games have to invest. Then again, we also don't have to sell a hundreds of thousands of games to pay for it. Which is good, because there aren't hundreds of thousands of you guys interested in wargaming, so it all balances out The truth is that none of the CM games, including CM:SF, could have been made without the help of some fantastic volunteers putting in thousands of hours of time for free. Unfortunately for us, we've never found an experienced animator who is willing to do work for us at a reasonable rate of pay, not to mention free. So we get what we get when we can get it, while the rest remains on a long wishlist of things we would love to put in if we could. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Gpig, I'd love to be able to help out in some capacity. My life is pretty busy these days but I'll do what I can to try and help (or find help). Stop being busy, learn the ins and outs of Character Studio, then get busy again. Seems pretty simple to me It would be so much easier if the guys you know weren't such a bunch of highly paid and overworked busy bodies! Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gpig Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Heh heh. Yeah. We're usually busy (and the pay's not bad, to be sure.) But up here in Vancouver, there's been quite a few layoffs of late in the animation industry. Perhaps the timing is just right . . . I'll ask around some. Gpig 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cid250 Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 It would be interesting to go a bit deeper in doctrine and simulate different infantry behaviour in game. Hopefully there will be some suprises stored for us with the Normandy game. It would be a bit of a let down to just have a WW2 mod of CMSF. A good example of this at the squad/gruppe level is... Germans considered their LMG as the main weapon in firefights... while their bolt rifles act as "support" of the LMG providing security. At long ranges they even avoid to use their rifles (taking cover in the fire action), because the LMG is a smaller single target with much higer rate of fire. If the LMG crew is dead... any other soldier in the squad takes this main weapon with an immediate change of position when it's possible. US doctrine used the semi auto rifles to lead their firefights, while their BAR was the "support" weapon of the squad. German gruppe usually was leaded in terrain recon by the NCO gruppenführer (squad leader), he usually goes forward with only one or two guys to find the correct spot to move the LMG forward, and he take an active part in aiding to the LMG crew with range setting, selection of targets, and spoting with his binocs (as side note they provide close combat security with their MP40 in desesperate situations)... so the german NCO squad leader takes a bit of more risk in the combat. German squads had also a role for the second in command or Truppführer, that was usually in charge of the riflemen and checking the sides and rear to provide security in support of the LMG main action. US squad has more firepower distributed in more men with their semi-auto rifle, so those riflemen were the main element of fire in combat, keeping the BAR as a support weapon for the advance and combat of the full squad. The NCO squad leader, takes much less risks in combat since he doesn't need to do recon to move the BAR first into good position because it is the "support" weapon. He can send a patrol of 2 or 3 men with garands instead to do the recon for the full squad, providing security with the BAR for their moves and maneouvers. This description is only "approximate", there are much better accounts on the official training doctrines of each army. So take this post only as an example. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cid250 Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Umm... more detailed account about US squad: The 12-man squad itself was divided into 3 distinct parts - a 2-man scout team, a 4-man support team including the BAR, a 5-man assault team, and the squad leader. The system was supposed to work like this: the squad leader advances with the scout team to locate the enemy, then direct the fire of the support team on their positions before joining the assault team in order to lead them in to wipe them out. This seemingly simple system placed a lot of faith in the GI and that indisputably fabulous weapon, the M1 Garand. From: http://www.dererstezug.com/TacticalPhilosophies.htm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Not to be a rank grog, but since we're getting so specific... To say that the typical Gruppenführer was an NCO is a tad misleading. The Heer had in effect four ranks of private: (in ascending order) Schütze/Grenadier, Oberschütze/Obergrenadier, Gefreiter, and Obergefreiter. The next rank up from Obergefreiter was Unteroffizer -- the typical Gruppenführer rank (though men of rank as low as Schütze could be found leading squads according to circumstance) -- but this was equivalent to corporal; the following ranks were Unterfeldwebel and Feldwebel. The Germans only considered men of Feldwebel rank and up (to Hauptfeldwebel) to be NCOs; men below that rank were private soldiers. All the same, thanks for the input, Cid250. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cid250 Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Gruppenführer is not a rank... is a task!: NCO squad leader isn't a US rank either, but means the role or possition in charge The german manuals speak also about Zugführer when they explain the roles of the Platoon comander, because a platoon commander doesn't need to have the same rank in every platoon of the Heer... it depends!... casualities, etc... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theFightingSeabee Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Hell, if you just need someone to put on some black tights with a few ping pong balls glued to my elbows and knees, I'd do it. :D 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.