Darkmath Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 People have various opinion about the CMBN graphics ; some says it's acceptbale, other found it as the same level as a modded CMX1... While surely the engine is of no matche with big market games , the last category somehow puzzles me ; I found the engine features a quite important amount of details, but something is still making the game not good enough for 2011 standards, but I can't tell what. So what do you think could be improved in CMBN graphics technically speaking? Is something moddable or not? IMHO, it may come from 2 elements : The low drawing distance of details and the background skybox. THe last one especially bugs me : It looks like the background has the same res as CMX1! I don't know if someone is currently working on some HD background, but do you think it would dramatically change dramatically? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MengJiao Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 While surely the engine is of no matche with big market games , the last category somehow puzzles me ; I found the engine features a quite important amount of details, but something is still making the game not good enough for 2011 standards, but I can't tell what. What other game (big market or no) has complete battalions on the battlefield covering 3-4 square kilometers or more? I don't think there are any. Given that there is nothing like them, the graphics are infinitely effective. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WineCape Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Due to Charles wearing a monocle while programming, the game looks the way it does now. Imagine if Charles had the millions (non-Zim dollars) in his pocket to afford bifocals, then the game would look like this: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agua Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 The redrawing of detail on distance LOD is about it, and my machine probably wouldn't run it if it didn't. I think the game looks more than "acceptable". It looks beautiful and atmospheric. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hukka Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 It would make a world of difference if the terrain would shade according to the height. Like it did in CMx1 (at least after some modding). It would also help to see the elevations more clearly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeps Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 I modded myself a new iMac and boy did it improve the graphics up to 2011 standards. Best mod ever (albeit a bit pricey). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClarkWGriswold Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 The only things that really bother me are the shimmery, strange looking shadows and the LOD pop-up. The former is only really bothersome at pretty high camera heights, and the latter only really bugs me when I notice the grass or flowers growing in a circle away from the camera, or roads that look like they suddenly change to big, flat polygons 100 meters ahead. Other than those two issues, I've got no real gripes. I think the game looks pretty damn good. The models are beautiful (though the soldiers' arms are kinda funky) and the skins look great, right out of the box. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nik mond Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Yes POV ray tracing the ground. Light declination. Seems odd to see a hill cast no shadow and the tree beside it cast a proper one. Good to spot dead ground and low body cover, subtle reverse slopes etc. The water, all vid cards are different but seems a little steel to me. On a positive note unit detail is amazing. well done. Objects are very adequate. Terrain good. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Except for the various pyrotechnics and the like I think the game looks fine. There is always going to be limits to what a small outfit can do and the scale of the game and the toolkit nature of it limit the graphics further. Sure a big AAA title RTS or FPS that limits the unit sizes and puts them on much smaller hand crafted maps looks better. But that would be unfair expectations to have of BFC and CM. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SelfLoadingRifle Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 The water, all vid cards are different but seems a little steel to me. I think the real problem here is where the water meets the land. There is always a 100% clear knife sharp dividing line. Something - reeds, bullrushes, ferns, mud - is needed to blur this up. SLR 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookeylou Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 I think the real problem here is where the water meets the land. There is always a 100% clear knife sharp dividing line. Something - reeds, bullrushes, ferns, mud - is needed to blur this up. SLR lord have mercy, got to stop reading this thread. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankster65 Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 The graphics are second to none with respect to the many other tactical 3D wargames out there in the market. Wait...there are no other games like this in the market. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVulture Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Seems odd to see a hill cast no shadow and the tree beside it cast a proper one. Not that odd really. An object casting a shadow on terrain is relatively uncomplicated, particularly when you can make implicit assumptions about the terrain (like it not having vertical surfaces or overhangs, and is on a regular grid). Terrain casting shadows on itself is a somewhat different kettle of fish. It can be done, but it isn't computationally cheap, and even games that have a lot more processing time to throw at complex shadowing often show up strange artefacts of objects not being shadowed properly. Ray tracing does quite shadowing easily, but isn't remotely practical to apply to this sort of problem. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 People have various opinion about the CMBN graphics ; some says it's acceptbale, other found it as the same level as a modded CMX1... This cracks me...nothing towards you, man...I just mean that people would say it...the graphics are way beyond acceptable...and the whole thing about it looking like a modded CMX1 is absolute crap...even the guys saying that KNOW they are lying through their teeth...It's deliberate shot taking. They'll say anything that will hold up the preconceptions they had before the game was even finished...makes them look better than being proved wrong...LOL I saw one moron...somewhere else on the internet, whining about how he missed BORG spotting and how much better it was (yeah, because EVERY player wasn't bitching about BORG spotting in CMX1)...Basically, a good portion of these kinda guys adopt the opposite of whatever position BFC is on...So, instead of giving credit where credit is due they say stupid thing like it looks like CMX1 modded up...and then they fondle themselves until Mom brings a plate of grill cheese sandwiches to their basement lair. Stuff I love: the various types of grasses and ground tiles...the layers and depth and textures you can add to a map are just beautiful. It can really make for some real world scenery. The vehicle models...just incredible...you can practically taste the detail and textures. The fighting animations, reloading, firing, guys taking hits...new death animations and fallen casualties...lots of variety. Multiple textures for unis, faces, weapons etc. The new independent buildings and damage textures. That cathedral! All those types of bridges. We have yet to scrape the surface of what all this new stuff is gonna reveal...think of some of the imagination that went into CMX1 and CMSF maps that had less options...we are gonna witness some truly awesome map building. Lots more I can't think of right now.... What could be improved? Some way to scale the draw distance...there should be some kinda slide or something where we could set it to whatever we wanted...huge machines could draw way way out and those with older ones, could set it for way way close...something to give us control over that popping up of vegetation. More animations...but we could always use those...though I will say CMBN added quite a lot of new moves over CMSF and I am enjoying them. More flavor objects...for me they are one of the most important aspects of turning a cool map into a work of art...the little details are what really makes the scenery. Damage decals for vehicles. Leaving the dead where they fall on vehicles or at least near by. Fire and a scorched earth tile. A debris tile that overlays on everything...like how brush does. Separate explosion graphics for the ground...something more dark and dirt oriented than the bright flash we have for everything. Sound triggers on the map for more ambiance...(I remember Matt talking about this during CMSF development but it got nixed, I think). Mord. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinnart Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 I like the graphics fine, but look forward to them being even more realistic in Cmx3. What we have now is SO much nicer than in Cmx1 by miles. Would like to see some bigger 3D looking rocks though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockinHarry Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 I just compare to CMX1 series, as there is no other game to compare with having similar features. Graphics in CMBN is gorgeous, well...maybe with the exception of foxholes and trenches. eheh I love ARMA2 (i44 normandy mod) and Steel Fury Charkov 1942 graphics as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medlinke Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 The only thing that makes me a bit irritated is that I have to click on a specific area of a battlefield to see the units in that area. For example...on the Brecourt Manor scenario if I sent a feint to one side of the field while moving the main force to another, I cannot see both forces at the same time in a camera angle where they should both clearly be visible. To me, this is kind of irritating. Aside from that...I think the graphics are well enough. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoolaman Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 With a light fog and the camera down in the trenches the game looks magnificent. Worse: In this game, as in Shock Force, the terrain LODs don't match well and you get a very noticeable LOD border. Also the terrain simplifying LODs where roads lose their ditches and bocage loses its base seems to pop up very early for me. I don't like the way the grass doodads draw in a circle radiating out form the camera. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guachi Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Due to Charles wearing a monocle while programming, the game looks the way it does now. Imagine if Charles had the millions (non-Zim dollars) in his pocket to afford bifocals, then the game would look like this: The Arabic is backwards on the signs and they used the wrong word for "Exit", anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bridger15 Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 What other game (big market or no) has complete battalions on the battlefield covering 3-4 square kilometers or more? I don't think there are any. Given that there is nothing like them, the graphics are infinitely effective. Supreme Commander had many many more units on a much bigger (and more detailed) map in a much bigger and more detailed engine. It also had a much better camera system. If I could zoom out and then zoom in on my mouse it would be much easier to move around the map. Is there a slider or some kind of button I could use to move the camera faster so it doesn't take me 12 seconds to move from one side of the map to the other? Also, the closer I get to a ? icon the smaller it gets. This often results in the icon being buried in a hedge/bocage when i get close enough to give orders. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Is there a slider or some kind of button I could use to move the camera faster so it doesn't take me 12 seconds to move from one side of the map to the other? ctrl + left click. Mord. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MG TOW Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 The only thing that bugs me is that all the troops are wearing the boots of the little chinaman in the Hangover. Size four and a half. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 I don't need cutting edge graphics to immerse myself in the game or even to suspend disbelief momentarily while watching a turn replay. But that's just me. What gets me drawn into the game is the way everything comes together. There are some imperfections in the way graphics handle collisions, but I do not expect or demand perfection in this area. Much more important to me that the portrayal feels and looks right overall. The terrain is more than adequately portrayed and the vehicle textures are superb...even interiors are depicted (WTF? I first said to myself when I saw that - I was bowled over.) Watch a German spahwagen moving towards you and you can even see the driver through his viewing slit and he is a 3D model which you can look past to see into the interior...talk about attention to detail. So yes, I'm far more happy than "bothered" by the game graphics. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steiner14 Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 I'm sure, it would be absolutely no problem for Charles, to call vertex shader and all the fancy graphic functions. But then gamers would probably need a 2kW power supply for the roll call of a company. Minimum specs for CMx3: $11,300 for hardware $4,750 USD/year electricity bill 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LemuelG Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 The graphics are second to none with respect to the many other tactical 3D wargames out there in the market. Wait...there are no other games like this in the market. <achem> Achtung Panzer. Despite having an awful name and being fatally flawed (IMO, the whole thing becomes farcical the moment the opponent AI starts doing it's thing, and there's no MP - but the underlying engine is very sound), it fully deserves comparison with CMBN. Particularly in terms of the lighting and shading deployed, it is far easier in AP to get a feel for the lay of the land. Otherwise there is little to separate them graphically, units in both games are exquisite. Frankly, I think if CM:BN took a few hints from AP it would be a better game, even the best have room to improve. 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.