CMx2 Graphics [Archive] - Battlefront Forum

Tarkus

07-22-2005, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by Bonxa:
[...] The looks of the vehicles in CM is not my major gripe with graphics, they are pretty as they are. Infantry and terrain should get more of the attention.
[...]Agreed. Although these vehicles look extremely good indeed, only slight improvments on current CM 3D vehicles models would be quite enough IMO (like, say, dynamic running gears ). But more flexibility on terrain modelling and editing ? Now that would (should I say will ? smile.gif ) rock.

Sorry. It's been a while since I posted something useless and redundant on CMx2. I feel better now. http://www.airsoftcanada.com/images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif

Cheers

Battlefront.com

07-22-2005, 11:31 AM

Nice models and textures, but then again things in 3D Studio Max always look better than in the game :D This is what it is more or less likely to look like in the game:

http://forgottenhope.bf1942files.com/images/news/128%20-%20PIII_Ingame2.jpg

Still, quite nice looking. But not a major step up from what CMx1 is capable of (excepting the suspension system). Some extra pollies here and there... big deal... we could have done that years ago too if the hardware wouldn't have puked on it :D However, the terrain in BF2 is amazing even if limited in many ways.

We agree about where to spend our energies... terrain first, infantry second, vehicles third.

Steve

Gromit

07-22-2005, 12:33 PM

Hey Steve... watcha got in da pickinik basket??

Bones maybe? :D

Denwad

07-22-2005, 03:31 PM

yeah the terrain is pretty ok but the draw distance is **** :(

GJK

07-22-2005, 04:37 PM

You know, Selma Hayek looks real good too, but I wouldn't want to take her home.

Wait, I did not just say that....

Pzman

07-22-2005, 04:52 PM

What does that have to do with graphics GJK... wait don't answer that. :rolleyes:

GJK

07-22-2005, 05:07 PM

Well, my point was that just because she looks good doesn't mean she plays good, but I think I might of picked a bad example there.... :D

ExplodingMonkey

07-25-2005, 05:06 AM

Thanks Steve for the feedback.

I just see how "2001" T72 looks and I want to make sure CMx2 isn't headed down the same road.

Wargames tend to get the shaft when it comes to graphics, and for me a big part of any game is immersion.

The grogs in here may think CM is fine as is, but that's because they're used to pushing little squares from hex to hex. Not all of us in here are inclined to do the same. :D

I agree that it should go terrain, troops, and AFVs.

Sirocco

07-25-2005, 06:56 AM

Out of interest, will the running gear animate, will there be more than one camo skin per vehicle type, and will there be unique numbers on them?

simovitch

07-25-2005, 01:21 PM

Am I missing something or is this a very revealing bone? where are the lobsters? or the Napoleanic cavalry?

Dr.Love

07-25-2005, 02:01 PM

Mmmmm tasty pics.

juan_gigante

07-25-2005, 02:13 PM

What is "Forgotten Hope", and from whence were these pictures found? Sirocco asks a good question, and I second his asking. I think that simovitch is right and this may have been an under-the-radar bone. Certainly it says to me that AFVs will be involved.

Dr.Love

07-25-2005, 02:16 PM

"Forgotten Hope" is a very sexy Unreal Tourny mod. Or was that Red Orchestra baby? It's either the Operation Flashpoint mod or Unreal Tourny mod....

juan_gigante

07-25-2005, 02:20 PM

Unreal Tournament with tanks!?! I must have!!1!1!11!

ExplodingMonkey

07-25-2005, 06:19 PM

It's not an UT mod. It's a BF1942 mod that I don't play (but I do like to follow it's development).

They do a damn fine job pushing that graphics engine to it's limits, and it's my hope that CMx2 will meet or surpass that level of graphic representation. From Steve's indication...

"But not a major step up from what CMx1 is capable of (excepting the suspension system). Some extra pollies here and there... big deal... we could have done that years ago too if the hardware wouldn't have puked on it"

...it will surpass those screens.

RMC

07-25-2005, 08:59 PM

Tanks are easy to make look good. Let's see some comparable infantry, because that's where CM is lacking at the moment.

ExplodingMonkey

07-25-2005, 11:16 PM

I'm not interested in tanks specifically, I just wanted to get a feel for how much more detailed and immersive the entire CMx2 package will be. ;)

Battlefront.com

07-25-2005, 11:54 PM

As RMC and others have said, making pretty tanks is fairly easy from a development standpoint. It can be pretty hard on the VRAM, video card, and processor though, which is why our models are the way they are. One time we figured out that to do a suspension system, even a primative one, would take more polies than the entire tank it was attached to.

Improved infantry models for CMx2... already done. In fact, we think our first batch looks better than the ones in games like BF2 and some of the WWII RTS games yet to come out. They apparently spent their poly and texture budget on the buildings.

Steve

Yeknodathon

07-26-2005, 12:23 AM

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Improved infantry models for CMx2... already done.Oh, that is interesting.

Erm, I'll just sit here and wait... I can be very patient.

Infantry bone, infantry bone, infantry bone... purrrrleaaaaaaase?

Battlefront.com

07-26-2005, 01:17 AM

Nothing to show yet :D

Steve

hellfish

07-26-2005, 01:37 AM

How many polys, on average, were the CMX1 tank models? Most of the games and sims I play average 3000-5000, with 9000 or more being pretty rare, but not unheard of.

Battlefront.com

07-26-2005, 02:12 AM

Hmmm... I don't remember, but I want to say the CMBO ones were around 500 and the basic textures were usually 256x256. We pretty much doubled that for CMBB and went a bit higher for CMAK. I can't check because the program I used to make/edit them is long since defunct (only works on MacOS 8.6 or earlier).

If anybody is wondering why... think of how many polies are needed for the ground mesh, the trees, the walls, buildings, roads, water, bases for trees, doodads, wheat fields, etc. etc. etc. Truly massive.

Steve

eichenbaum

07-26-2005, 03:23 AM

Originally posted by juan_gigante:
Unreal Tournament with tanks!?! I must have!!1!1!11! Unreal is initially a FPS engine. Example of a war-game created with the Unreal technology:

http://www.menofvalorgame.com

http://www.menofvalorgame.com/us/screens/pc/images/PC16.jpg

Maybe BFC can afford it now to get some really cool shader scripts for Charles his engine?

Sirocco

07-26-2005, 07:03 AM

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
One time we figured out that to do a suspension system, even a primative one, would take more polies than the entire tank it was attached to.Panzer Elite had a good suspension system, as I recall. I don't know how they achieved it, though.

Battlefront.com

07-26-2005, 10:28 AM

Panzer Elite had a good suspension system, as I recall. I don't know how they achieved it, though.By not having dozens of Human figures running around in a 2k long map, which can be dense forest, along with 2 dozen AFVs.... that's how :D

When you boil things down to the most simple of notions, the computer hardware/software doesn't care what is displayed. All it cares about is how many polies it has to push around and how many different ways they can be moved. If a computer can comfortably handle 100,000 polies at one time, that means you can have a 90,000 poly tank and 10,000 polies left over for fairly limited environment. Or you can have a 10,000 poly tank and keep the sum total of everything else under 90,000 combined. Everything will be happy. But put two 90,000 poly tanks in a 10,000 poly environment... framerate goes right into the crapper.

So the more polies you put on to detail a vehicle, like suspension, the less of something else you can afford to do. For us we had to plan on at least a dozen vehicles and a fair amount of infantry being seen together in a pretty expansive environment. If a 1000 poly tank needed 1000 polies for a believable suspension, then that would have meant only a 1/2 dozen vehicles and all the rest. That's the kind of decisions that we developers have to make. And let me tell you... it sucks :D

Steve

[ July 26, 2005, 07:37 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

Michael Dorosh

07-26-2005, 10:55 AM

Panzer Commander had the same deal; moving suspension and even track marks behind the vehicle (which disappeared quickly) - but no infantry, few vehicle types, and huge blocks of woods that were impassable.

Sirocco

07-26-2005, 10:55 AM

I suppose there might be a solution with less detailed models at longer distances, but I can see the possible pitfalls of that.

If you can put more character into the vehicles with different camo patterns and unique vehicle numbers, that would mitigate it, too. ;)

RMC

07-26-2005, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by Sirocco:
I suppose there might be a solution with less detailed models at longer distances, but I can see the possible pitfalls of that.
Lots of 3d games do this. It would be nice if CMx2 included a Level of Detail dynamic too.

Battlefront.com

07-26-2005, 11:41 AM

LOD (Level of Detail) models are already in CMx1, as recently explained in another thread somewhere. No 3D game can run without it unless the visual range is about a small room's length and the models aren't completely insanely detailed *or* the graphics are utter simplistic crap :D So obviously CMx2 will use various LODs for sure.

Steve

Battlefront.com

07-26-2005, 01:11 PM

Charles just reminded me... for CMBO the poly limit we strived for was 300 per vehicle. Most had less, some had a little more. In CMBB we bumpped that up to 500, and in CMAK probably to 550. Compare this with a CMx2 soldier that has about 3000 polygons :D

Steve

hellfish

07-26-2005, 01:17 PM

Wow... 3000 polys? I think most OFP soldiers are about 1000 and at the extreme 3000. Impressive.

Now if only we had a screenshot...

Battlefront.com

07-26-2005, 01:22 PM

We'll have to see if they can remain at that resolution up close, but I think they probably can. All depends on how overall performance is once everything else gets in. The point of the numbers I presented was simply to show how things have changed from CMx1 to CMx2.

Steve

Michael Dorosh

07-26-2005, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
We'll have to see if they can remain at that resolution up close, but I think they probably can. All depends on how overall performance is once everything else gets in. The point of the numbers I presented was simply to show how things have changed from CMx1 to CMx2.

Steve And a screenshot now - with you later finding you have to decrease the poly count once the terrain and vehicles are in - would be hugely disappointing, eh. :( Some people aren't getting it.

Tell us, though, Steve - how accurate will the camo patterns be? :D

Frenchy

07-26-2005, 01:46 PM

I can see right now I am going to need a new computer rig!

Sergei

07-26-2005, 01:55 PM

Steve, tell us one thing - in CMBO, you couldn't alter the level of details in any way to better match your system's capacity. Thus, either it was slow as hell on your stone age rig or then you'd get no extra eyecandy for a superhighperformance system.

Is there going to be a "video setup"?

Battlefront.com

07-26-2005, 01:56 PM

Well, that's the rub we've been trying to avoid. We don't like to prelease information until we are sure it is going into the game as described. But it will be probably 6 more months before we are able to say for sure that our soldiers can retain 3000 polies or not. So it is either show you a "best guess" screenshot now, or keep telling you guys to hold your water for 6 months. I'd rather show a screenshot from someone else's game and claim it to be our own rather than put up with 6 months of constant complaining ;D

I'd say I'm about 90% certain that they can keep the guys at their current resolution. Rememeber, this is only for the up close and personal LOD... the medium, far, and very far LODs will be tons less.

Steve

[ July 26, 2005, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

Jack Carr

07-26-2005, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Frenchy:
I can see right now I am going to need a new computer rig! I think my next upgrade will be a powerful video card.

Pzman

07-26-2005, 02:08 PM

I just upgraded with a used card, and now based on Steve's comments, I'm wondering if it will be enough. :(

Battlefront.com

07-26-2005, 02:45 PM

The demo will tell you :D

Steve

Soddball

07-26-2005, 02:49 PM

ARGHARGHARHHGHAGRAHRGHARGHAGRHA!!!!!

Stop torturing us!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

Battlefront.com

07-26-2005, 03:02 PM

(pushing Soddoffball aside for a sec...)

The best thing to do is not second guess what the hardware requirements will be. We'll let you know as soon as we have a good fix on it, but pesonally I wouldn't do anything until the demo comes out. The reason is that the new and used hardware available at that time will be better and cheaper than the stuff available today. We'll also know which cards work best with the game and (hopefully) which ones suck.

OK, Soddball... you can come back in now :D

Steve

rleete

07-26-2005, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
(pushing Soddoffball aside for a sec...)

OK, Soddball... you can come back in now :D
Damn, talk about a tease!

Soddball

07-26-2005, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
(pushing Soddoffball aside for a sec...)

The best thing to do is not second guess what the hardware requirements will be. We'll let you know as soon as we have a good fix on it, but pesonally I wouldn't do anything until the demo comes out. The reason is that the new and used hardware available at that time will be better and cheaper than the stuff available today. We'll also know which cards work best with the game and (hopefully) which ones suck.

OK, Soddball... you can come back in now :D

Steve :mad: And after I went to all that effort to find you rubber road tracks for your weasel.

Jarmo

07-26-2005, 03:52 PM

Duh. I was thinking of buying a new ibook as a temporary solution. (While waiting for the intel transfer dust to settle.) But given the graphics is still 32 MB's after the upgrade, it's probably not a very safe bet.

von Paulus

07-26-2005, 04:26 PM

With 3000 polygons for a soldier I was wondering how realistic and detailed wounds should be ...
Can we expect to see as impressive injuries like in the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan or bullet hits like in Band of Brothers ?
Even something approaching that kind of animation would be very satisfying tongue.gif

If we have building damage like in Band of Brothers (especially the scene covering a battle in Holland), then I think the next CM would be THE BEST WWII game of the planet :D

Well, I was just wondering about that ... :D

Paulus

Sirocco

07-26-2005, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
LOD (Level of Detail) models are already in CMx1, as recently explained in another thread somewhere. No 3D game can run without it unless the visual range is about a small room's length and the models aren't completely insanely detailed *or* the graphics are utter simplistic crap :D So obviously CMx2 will use various LODs for sure.I was wondering whether it would be possible to have a more detailed running gear model close-up, but I suppose if you lose it above that kind of draw distance it's not worth the time and effort.

slysniper

07-26-2005, 04:44 PM

I have set my forty dollars aside for the cmx2,
I have also been planning on buying my next computer about the same time. That requires a little more money, but my present machine is starting to have problems meeting the needs of the other stuff out there. This game hitting the market still looks to be a year away. Holding off for another year from buying a new system and giving me no clue what I would likely need is not making me very happy.

ExplodingMonkey

07-26-2005, 06:45 PM

I'm picking up an Asus z70va "refresh" notebook in September, which will have the 128mb ATI x700 GPU. I'm pretty sure if it can play Doom 3 smoothly in high-detail (like the z70v could with the x600), then I'll be able to run CMx2 with minimal fuss.

I'm patient though. I'll wait on a closer to final shot in six months rather than a "feed-me-now" piccie that may mean nothing.

I'm just glad CMx2 seems like it's gonna deliver in the eye-candy zone. I always knew it would in every other category, now I don’t have to worry about the graphics. :D

Kwazydog

07-26-2005, 06:51 PM

Sirocco dont worry, we *should* be able to have detailed running gear with sus*****ion, etc. smile.gif

Something to keep in mind is that its amazing just how quickly you can remove details from a model as it moves away from screen yet have the human eye not be able too tell the differnce in game.

Dan

Bonxa

07-26-2005, 06:55 PM

What kind of suspension did they use in chariots now again?

;)

hellfish

07-26-2005, 08:08 PM

How many LODs do you think will be utilized for each model? In OFP, we average about four - the first LOD is full detail and the remaining three reduce their poly count by about 50% each LOD.

So first LOD may have 3000 polys, 2nd would have 1500, 3rd would have 750, 4th would have about 375. You can add more LODs as necessary, but this is pretty standard.

The thing that I've noticed that can really kill 3d engines are textures. Will CMx2 retain the BMP texture files, or just jpegs, tgas, or something else? What pixel size will they average?

Sirocco

07-26-2005, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by KwazyDog:
Sirocco dont worry, we *should* be able to have detailed running gear with sus*****ion, etc. smile.gif I look forward to seeing a Marder, with fully functioning crew, bouncing along cross country with detailed running gear and suspension. :cool:

Just don't let me down and cover some non-WW2 theatre. None of that modern nonsense. ;)

hellfish

07-26-2005, 10:17 PM

Hey now - nothing wrong with modern as long as we also have some WW2 settings as well. tongue.gif ;)

Battlefront.com

07-27-2005, 01:49 AM

I don't know what the LODs will be like in terms of reductions. But the furthest out LOD will likely be something like 4 or 6 polygons like in CMx1. When something takes up, literally, 2 pixels on screen any more than a few polygons is a complete and utter waste. I'm going to guess that detailed suspensions will go away on the third LOD out from the highest. Just a guess that is when we can get away with wiping it off the model without the eye detecting it. The most close and next to most clolse will likely both have working suspensions.

Steve

MeatEtr

07-27-2005, 03:01 AM

So, um, is CMx2 still on track to be released on my 30th b-day, Jan.15th 2006? It's gonna be the greatest b-day gift known to mankind. I can't wait, you guys are too good. :D

ParaBellum

07-27-2005, 06:35 AM

Ah, so many little bones in this thread!

But how many polygons will a space lobster have? Will it have animated legs? And will he be able to run with a HMG?

c3k

07-27-2005, 07:46 AM

Gents,

Many questions: with a detailed running gear animation, will the dynamic physics of the running be correctly modelled? Will the damping rates be "fudged"? How about track whip? Lash up? Will crew animations be included for adjusting the tensioner?

On the subject of wagons, will the various suspensions be modelled as well? Panji's versus four-wheeled? Scythe chariots? How will the leg movement animations of space lobsters change as their gait varies from walk to trot to gallop? Let's not even mention the dreaded space lobster leap of death...

Many grog areas of expertise will be revealed with detailed running gear animations.

Thanks,
Ken

Panzer76

07-27-2005, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by c3k:
How about track whip? Lash up? How about whip lash, will whip lash be modelled? And oh, insurance agents and ambulance chasers, how about those?

juan_gigante

07-27-2005, 03:51 PM

The whips will come in handy for CM:XXX.

Europa

07-27-2005, 04:29 PM

I can feel it in the wind. The signs are clearer than ever. Peng now has quit the weed and challanged everyone, the depot is saddly gone and the bones are becoming frequent. the time for a new era is close. CMx2 will be released before this years end, mark my words.

Impudent Warwick

07-27-2005, 05:19 PM

Hmm... how many polys for a flail tank?

M1A1TC

07-28-2005, 02:02 AM

Will there be blood effects/gore?

Soddball

07-28-2005, 03:40 AM

Originally posted by Europa:
I can feel it in the wind. The signs are clearer than ever. Peng now has quit the weed and challanged everyone, the depot is saddly gone and the bones are becoming frequent. the time for a new era is close. CMx2 will be released before this years end, mark my words. I doubt that. My suspicion is release won't occur until April/May of 2006.

Vanir Ausf B

07-28-2005, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:

Will there be blood effects/gore?Wondering if it will be kosher for vegetarians to play? :D

juan_gigante

07-28-2005, 06:27 PM

That depends, Vanir. Will I be able to order my ghoul soldiers to consume the flesh of my dead foes? Because if so, look out.

Jhereg

07-29-2005, 04:34 PM

I know I am like an Uber'Lurker but has BFC looked into the use of the AGEIA's NovodeX Physics SDK and their PhysX based hardware for poly acceleration?

Battlefront.com

07-29-2005, 06:24 PM

We haven't looked into anything specifically, but generally other people's code are a big headache to use. By the time you get it working, figure out its limitations, and deal with bugs/quirks... you'd have been better off doing it on your own. At least that is the case with limited development resources (i.e. one programmer smile.gif ). Larger development teams can make stuff like this work and work well if the libraries are solid and the company that made them fast and reliable with tech support issues.

Oh... and then there are the expenses from using other people's stuff! Sometimes the arrangements are absolutely unacceptable. I remember at Sierra having to beat one well know vendor up before we would do business with them. They simply wanted way too much of the pie for the value their code brought to our games.

Steve

Jhereg

07-29-2005, 07:19 PM

Steve, thank you for the reply. I understand how licensing etc can be a real PITA, not to mention you would not have control of the code. It would be cool to have a house or barn fall to pieces and realistically trap or not even hinder an AFV. The hardware looks to seriously be capable of upping the playable poly count. Are we talking the oft sniffled (by me smile.gif ) over, pioneer of 3D? This looks to be the next big hardware genre for the PC, even if they go the route of 3DFx. I will probably be an early adopter....I am a hardware addict Heh! I have bought all three games for myself, and as gifts for friends, as soon as they came out. I will certainly continue as you guys have spoiled me rotten these several years. Keep up the fantastic work!

Battlefront.com

07-29-2005, 09:20 PM

Thanks Jhereg! Yeah, it would be cool if we developers didn't have to continually reinvent the wheel everytime we made a game, but instead use well made modular pieces designed for specific functions (like physics). Sadly, that isn't the way it works yet. Someday!

Steve

aka_tom_w

07-29-2005, 09:51 PM

tom's instant web research response

hmm...

interesting :cool:

more here web page (http://www.ageia.com/novodex.html)

"Partner Quote

"We've been using the NovodeX Physics SDK with the Unreal Engine 3 for the past year and it has added some awesome effects. It's going to be exciting to see what NovodeX can do once the PhysX chip hits the market."

Tim Sweeney,
Founder and lead programmer, Epic Games"

and

"AGEIA Takes the Wraps off of its PhysX Chip

Posted by Tracy Erickson on Mar 8th (2005?)
Email this Article
Author: Tracy Erickson
Managing Editor and sleepless gamer.

Today, AGEIA took the wraps off of its new semiconductor, the PhysX physics processing unit (PPU). The AGEIA PhysX chip, will be the first dedicated physics semiconductor chip to be used in next-generation game platforms. By performing advanced physics simulations in real time, the PPU can respond to gamer actions as well as environments contributing to pervasive interactive reality. Physics will offer a host of advanced features including universal collision detection, rigid-body dynamics, soft-body dynamics, fluid dynamics, smart particle systems, clothing simulation, soft-body deformation with tearing, and brittle fracturing for destruction of objects in gaming environments.

“What is increasingly defining successful games is how well they emulate reality,” said Rob Enderle, principal analyst of the Enderle Group. “PhysX has the potential to create environments that are vastly more real and compelling to both existing gamers and those that have not yet discovered the amazing worlds created by leading developers.”

Both Epic Games and Ubisoft have signed on with AGEIA for next-generation game development that will include use of the PPU. "

I sure would like to see what they do or what they are selling

Its hard to know what its all about if you can't really see anything.

interesting none the less....

-tom w

[ July 29, 2005, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

undead reindeer cavalry

07-31-2005, 08:17 AM

i just talked with Steve and heard that the first CMx2 release is going to be titled "Winter War 1939", followed by "Winter war 1940" some 6 months later. advanced physics are needed to simulate realistic Finnish AT tactics. like the one in which a tank driggers a trap by pushing down a small branch, which causes 1-5 trees fall upon the tank. accroding to Steve there are very accurate calculations on what kind of damage individual falling trees cause on the tanks. it's all up to tree type, temperature etc, so that for example frozen pines are more likely to cause dents if they hit specific hull weakspots. on the other hand firs are more likely to cause facial scars for the TC if he's not buttoned up when the tank drives into the trap. he also said that there will be horses early war 1939, but that they'll be excluded from 1940 version because by then it's only realistic to expect that the Soviets have already eaten them.