LOS issues resolved in CMN?

[moneymaxx]

Most LOS mechanisms are not straight number crunching but go through extensive lists of previously excluded regions, shifting the problem more to a logic crunching exercise.

Isn´t that done because on a traditional CPU something like ray-tracing would be too slow? I had the idea about CUDA because I found this on the Nvidia website:

"Line of Sight

This sample is an implementation of a simple line-of-sight algorithm: Given a height map and a ray originating at some observation point, it computes all the points along the ray that are visible from the observation point. The implementation is based on the parallel scan primitive provided by the CUDPP library (http://www.gpgpu.org/developer/cudpp/)."

I admit I do not know how fast this is compared to traditional calculations.

[Sequoia]

Wow, all this posting from Steve must mean he doesn't have much work to do on CM:Afghanistan and the NATO module and we're very close to release!

[Sgt Joch]

The problem and the reason the two "camps" can't find any common ground is that the difference is a philosophical one, not an objective one-better-than-the-other situation.

The CMx2 knockers believe that infantry bunching up and lack of realistic infantry manouevres and formations means a graphical representation that is unrealistic, and therefore combat that is unrealistic. This is true in some situations unfortunately.

I believe CMSF infantry modelling is much better, but I find it is much easier to be happy with the results if you see that there is much more of the CMx1 infantry model with all its neccesary abstractions in CMSF than the CMx1 devotees really understand.

My view is that CMSF infantry is still not really explicitly simulated, instead of a single point, a squad spreads out into an area more or less representing where a real squad would go. The combat calculations are far more "design for effect" than anything, with some abstracted cover from terrain still in there, HE effects modelled for effect rather than realism. When a HE shell landed right between your three-man squad tile in CMBO and not all of them died, you understand that it is just a fudge. CMSF is the same.

Of course individual bullets still kill individual men, and individual men fire individual weapons, and sometimes individuals end up in places that get them killed unreasonably. Some people have a big problem with this and believe there is some kind of fundamental scale mish-mosh of part 1:1 and part abstraction. I think it is all abstraction to an extent, I use my imagination just as much playing CMSF as I ever did in CMx1, and I think of CMSF infantry as being pretty much what the community asked for CMBB infantry to become: for every soldier to be represented, every weapon to be shown, individual morale states instead of whole squads routing off the map (this is a big one!), animations of guys mounting up on half-tracks etc.

Really all this does is make for a much more interesting tactical environment. CM games are all just chess after all IMO. CMSF just has more squares and more pieces to play with. I don't think we will ever see BFC prduce that perfect 1:1 modelling that Thomm mentions above, but I don't think they really need to.

The 1:1 infantry model in CMSF does not model real life. No commercial sim on the market now or in the foreseeable future could model real life. There is still a certain level of abstraction in CMSF, just as in every other sim which has ever been made. Anyone who plays the game on a regular basis will see this.

Infantry units bunch up a bit too much, but the HE effects were toned down to account for this. Regarding combat, I dont think anyone has shown that the overall effects are worse than what we saw in CMx1. I still play both CMBB and CMSF and did not see any evidence of this. In fact, in most situations, combat works better in CMSF because of the finer LOS/LOF calculations, relative spotting, separate morale/suppression calculations, etc.

The pathfinding in urban battle works infinitely better, since infantry in CMx1 did not physically exist in the 3d world. You could order a CMx1 infantry unit to go through a town in a straight line and they would simply walk though walls and ooze their way to the other side. In CMSF, you actually have to look for a real world path: alley way, door, window or "blast" one open for yourself.

Once you start to analyze it logically, 1:1 modeling was the unavoidable next step in the evolution of CM and in its own way, as groundbreaking as the 3d modeling of armor units in CMx1.

Is it perfect? of course not, but it is an evolution from the legacy CM engine and will only improve in the future.

Having said all that, I agree that CMBO, CMBB, CMAK, CMSF are all fine games. They all have their qualities and faults and are all enjoyable.

[Redwolf]

Isn´t that done because on a traditional CPU something like ray-tracing would be too slow? I had the idea about CUDA because I found this on the Nvidia website:

"Line of Sight

This sample is an implementation of a simple line-of-sight algorithm: Given a height map and a ray originating at some observation point, it computes all the points along the ray that are visible from the observation point. The implementation is based on the parallel scan primitive provided by the CUDPP library (http://www.gpgpu.org/developer/cudpp/)."

I admit I do not know how fast this is compared to traditional calculations.

This isn't used as such in wargames. The difference is that in a e.g. first person shooter you only care about player versus non-player entities. In a wargame you care about every unit on one side against every unit on the other side, which means it N:M instead of 1:M, or quadratic. You can't brute-force that anymore.

To solve this wargames uses extensive optimizations to skip LOS checks, and those are not straight floating point like that ray against a terrain.

CMx1 also gave the additional complication of treatings woods, brush and the like like fog, plus having fog in the first place, further complicating the issue. If CM:SF didn't have this this will have to be re-introduced for Normandy (because of the importance of vegetation for LOS in summer in Normandy).

[Battlefront.com]

Hoolaman,

The problem and the reason the two "camps" can't find any common ground is that the difference is a philosophical one, not an objective one-better-than-the-other situation.

Yes and no. True that there is a philosophical difference at the heart of things. The "we like what we have, we don't want it to change" camp will forever be at war with the group that believes "we liked what we had, but it's time to move onto something better" no matter what.

When CMBO came out we had some Steel Panthers and Close Combat fans fall into both camps. Those who wanted to play Steel Panthers or Close Combat forever opposed CMBO before it was ever out. Then they opposed it even more when it was out. Others felt that Steel Panthers or Close Combat gave them a good ride and now they were looking for something new and different. Some embraced CMx1 with half a heart at first, while others never looked back.

Which gets back to the point about innovation vs. stagnation. We never have, nor ever will, spend our lives in a stagnant state just to please an ever dwindling group of sycophants who keep telling us that "change is bad". We did CMx1 to break other people's molds, we did CMx2 to break our own mold since nobody else seemed willing/able to break it.

Having said that, CMx2 will likely never undergo such a HUGE jump as we saw between CMAK and CM:SF. How can we? We can go from abstracted infantry to 1:1 infantry, but we can't go from 1:1 infantry to something else because we've already arrived at the final conceptual end state. Therefore, what you'll see from us in the years to come is a progressive refinement/improvement of the underlying game mechanics (like 1:1 infantry) and an expansion of more game-orientated features. For example, larger and larger maps, CoPlay, and other things from our list of hundreds of good ideas put forth in this Forum over the last 10 years.

If previous customers don't want to come along for the ride, that's fine with us. It's their time, their money, so they can do with it what they want to. Likewise, we can do with our time and our money what we want. And we want to keep innovating and moving wargaming along with technology. Each to their own.

Steve

[hoolaman]

Infantry units bunch up a bit too much, but the HE effects were toned down to account for this. Regarding combat, I dont think anyone has shown that the overall effects are worse than what we saw in CMx1.

I think we are in violent agreement.

Hoolaman,

If previous customers don't want to come along for the ride, that's fine with us. It's their time, their money, so they can do with it what they want to. Likewise, we can do with our time and our money what we want. And we want to keep innovating and moving wargaming along with technology. Each to their own.

Steve

Indeed, live and let live I say. That involves politely and calmly letting people wallow in negativity if that's what they want to do.

[Battlefront.com]

Hollaman,

Indeed, live and let live I say. That involves politely and calmly letting people wallow in negativity if that's what they want to do.

Yup, which is why this Forum is much better off since the handful of extremely negative people have retreated to their own little corner of the Internet. Except for the occasional reminder that they are still out there grinding their axes, I don't think about them any more. I certainly don't read anything they write. They are, without any malice, "irrelevant".

In my mind they are lumped in with the millions of other gamers that don't like Combat Mission for whatever reason. In other words, they are no different than the 10 year olds who want to see blood and guts spattering or 60 year olds who don't even know how to turn on a computer. They aren't factored into our development philosophy because they are unlikely to buy the products we make. The specific reasons as to why are also irrelevant.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Hollaman,

I think we are in violent agreement.

Well, I for one have never seen any proof that CMx2's infantry modeling is inferior to CMx1's modeling. I've seen evidence that CMx2's infantry modeling has areas in need of improvement, sure enough. But that is not the same thing as saying CMx1 is better in terms of more realistic outcomes. I don't think there is evidence to support that sort of position. At least after 3 years I've yet to see a case made that has stood up to more than a few kicks to the tires.

Steve

[hoolaman]

Actually Sgt Joch and I are both saying CMSF is better.

You are shadow boxing here I think Steve.

[Battlefront.com]

Obviously I need either more sleep or glasses

Steve

[Joe Shaw]

... or 60 year olds who don't even know how to turn on a computer ...

Watch it pal ... and get off my damned lawn.

Joe

[MarkEzra]

Watch it pal ... and get off my damned lawn.

Joe

Go get 'em, Joe.... I'd help but I've got this Colonoscopy scheduled and ..well you know..

[Battlefront.com]

Joe,

I'm not worried. Pretty soon you'll have glaucoma and won't notice me on your lawn. That's assuming you even know it's your lawn

Steve

[Joe Shaw]

Go get 'em, Joe.... I'd help but I've got this Colonoscopy scheduled and ..well you know..

I do know my friend ... you've got a fun evening ahead of you ...

And Steve ... byte me.

Joe

[rich12545]

Hey, I'm just getting around after my double hip operation. And now you're kicking sand in my face? Aaarrhhhhh.