RE: Question?

Matrix Games Forums

Distant Worlds: Shadows Final Teaser!

Distant Worlds: Legends gets Updated!

Recruiting Testers for Commander: the Great War on Mac!

Armageddon invasion starts in 2014

Command Rommels Panzers in Battle Academy!

Servers Update

The Deal goes Fourth!

Command Ops gets a Massive Update!

Lost Battles AAR: Smolensk 41

War in the East: Lost Battles is here!

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Question?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Panthers in the Fog >> RE: Question?

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Question? - 7/2/2012 12:24:29 AM

Steve McClaire

Posts: 2599
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

In order to mod the game will traditional modding programs such as 5CC tool etc work or will there be new editing tools included? I think I asked this before but will the graphics files be in TGA format or will they be in a format easily modable with Paint Shop Pro or other graphics software? Or will we need a special converter to turn the graphics into a usable format?

Many thanks!

There will be a map editor and some new modding tools post-release. Exact details are TBA, but 5CC support is a fairly safe bet. The tools will extract game graphics are still in a TGA format, as before.

(in reply to Gary Childress)

Post #: 31

RE: Question? - 7/2/2012 1:45:05 AM

Gary Childress

Posts: 4815
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: offline

Many thanks for the reply Steve. Sounds like exciting prospects ahead.

(in reply to Steve McClaire)

Post #: 32

RE: Question? - 7/24/2012 2:16:14 AM

davidss

Posts: 275
Joined: 12/10/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Steve McClaire

The internal�scale�of the game engine has been adjusted, so it is not just a visual change in the size of the vehicle graphics.� Where 30m used to be 150 pixels on the screen, it is now 240 pixels on the screen.� The data file would still say 50m, in the example you gave.

Hi,
What is the reason for this change?
If I understand correctly ... a map of 4800 pixels at 5 map pixels per meter equals 960 meters. If increased to 8 map pixels per meter ... then it equals 600 meters.
So, with the newer scale you are kind of zooming in ... but in doing so, also decreasing the distance a map is simulated (within the same pixel map size) compared to the previous scale.
On a 1600 x 900 screen, the maximum firing distance seen from a unit at screen's edge to the other screen border is about 320 meters with the TLD scale ... so I'm assuming that distance will be proportionally less using the new scale.
Is this correct, because being able to fire over long distances is an advantage CC has over other games.

david

< Message edited by davidss -- 7/24/2012 6:53:49 AM >

(in reply to Steve McClaire)

Post #: 33

RE: Question? - 7/24/2012 4:56:52 PM

Steve McClaire

Posts: 2599
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: davidss
What is the reason for this change?

If I understand correctly ... a map of 4800 pixels at 5 map pixels per meter equals 960 meters. If increased to 8 map pixels per meter ... then it equals 600 meters.

So, with the newer scale you are kind of zooming in ... but in doing so, also decreasing the distance a map is simulated (within the same pixel map size) compared to the previous scale.
On a 1600 x 900 screen, the maximum firing distance seen from a unit at screen's edge to the other screen border is about 320 meters with the TLD scale ... so I'm assuming that distance will be proportionally less using the new scale.
Is this correct, because being able to fire over long distances is an advantage CC has over other games.

The short answer is, yes, that is correct. There are basically two factors in changing the game scale:

1) It allows us to bring all the game elements (terrain, soldiers, vehicles) to basically the same scale.

2) It allows for higher resolution and thus more detail on the terrain graphics, game effects, etc.

You're correct that the net effect is to 'zoom in', and you will be able to see somewhat less of the battle area on the screen without scrolling. This is the trade off for increasing the resolution in the CC engine, which doesn't have any practical way to 'free-zoom' to any arbitrary distance / resolution. But overall, with the higher screen resolutions available today, you can still see more of the battle area than when the game was originally released, and hopefully it will look a lot better.

(in reply to davidss)

Post #: 34

RE: Question? - 7/25/2012 12:48:26 AM

davidss

Posts: 275
Joined: 12/10/2009
Status: offline

Thanks for your reply Steve,
Like most things in life a trade off is involved :)
have a good day :)

(in reply to Steve McClaire)

Post #: 35

RE: Question? - 7/25/2012 10:36:46 PM

davidss

Posts: 275
Joined: 12/10/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Steve McClaire

The short answer is, yes, that is correct. There are basically two factors in changing the game scale:

1) It allows us to bring all the game elements (terrain, soldiers, vehicles) to basically the same scale.

I can think of one significant benefit of having vehicles and terrain the same scale, but I don't know if it's possible with the current vehicle path finding model ... that being: roads drawn in the correct proportion compared to buildings, and the correct (real world) road width in relation to the map and correct road width between buildings.
Is this possible?

The CC5 road width (compared to buildings) is something I've never liked.

(in reply to Steve McClaire)

Post #: 36

RE: Question? - 7/26/2012 6:59:16 AM

davidss

Posts: 275
Joined: 12/10/2009
Status: offline

some thoughts about CC's new scale relative to the real world.
not sure is this is done correctly but ...
right now on my computer screen (with TLD), I have a 320 meter distance from a unit firing from one side of the screen across to the other side without scrolling.
If I use the same screen with the new CC scale, I'd have 200 meters.

Now to a real world comparison: using the ruler tool in google earth ... I've zoomed in on Pegasus Bridge until I measure 200 meters across the screen. The distance above ground in 124 feet. This may provide a way to see how real world distances compare to CC.
I'll post the screen capture with a TLD image of the Pegasus map inset. Keep in mind that the CC image of Pegasus is in the old TLD scale
There is a Cromwell tank displayed near Pegasus Bridge, so I've also used the GJS Cromwell inside TLD for a direct comparison of vehicle size. They look nearly identical in size.And so does the building above the Cromwell.

So it seems that when using the new CC scale ...
1. vehicles should be the same size as GJS vehicles
2. buildings near the same size as they are now in TLD (maybe slightly smaller)
3. roads probably the same size as GJS maps?
notice the bridge in CC, it was made to this width in the Ground Tactics mod so vehicles could get across ... so the width of this CC bridge is about as narrow as can be for vehicles to pass. It's width is slightly less than the other main roads of the CC map.
The google earth map shows the bridge to be wider than the CC version, but other roads in the image are not as wide as the bridge.

With the new CC scale, GJS vehicle size, and similar to GJS map roads ... it seems possible to accurately simulate real world map distances in a CC map ... combined with proportionally correct vehicle and buildings (terrain) sizes.
In my opinion, that would be a quite an accomplishment for a computer game.

A person making a CC map could zoom to 124 feet altitude in google earth, set north up, capture images of a battle field area ... then stitch the images together and use it for a background. Next draw over the background using it as a template and with historical photos and maps to correct for historical differences. When finished, you would have a near exact real world scale map of the battlefield.

< Message edited by davidss -- 7/26/2012 3:28:23 PM >

(in reply to davidss)

Post #: 37

RE: Question? - 7/26/2012 4:18:09 PM

Steve McClaire

Posts: 2599
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: davidss

I can think of one significant benefit of having vehicles and terrain the same scale, but I don't know if it's possible with the current vehicle path finding model ... that being: roads drawn in the correct proportion compared to buildings, and the correct (real world) road width in relation to the map and correct road width between buildings.
Is this possible?

The CC5 road width (compared to buildings) is something I've never liked.

You'll still probably need to fudge some spots where the road is wider than in reality so that it can line up better with CC's terrain grid. This doesn't always have to be done visually (by making the road on the BGM wider) though -- often you can get away with having the terrain coding different than the image along the edges of a road. You could even add a 'road shoulder' element to the terrain file, code it like a road, and then use that to border your actual paved / dirt road to make it less obvious. :)

As for drawing the maps to real scale, yes you can do that. But CC's terrain grid is still there, and the underlying terrain coding may still require some tweaks to the visual layout. Bridges are an especially difficult case, and really only work well if they are 1) quite wide or, 2) lined up well to the CC terrain grid. There's not much that can be done about that without completely changing the terrain representation in the game (short of letting vehicles hang off the bridge I guess).

Steve

< Message edited by Steve McClaire -- 7/26/2012 4:21:28 PM >

(in reply to davidss)

Post #: 38

RE: Question? - 7/26/2012 4:41:13 PM

davidss

Posts: 275
Joined: 12/10/2009
Status: offline

yes, I understand ... when bridges/roads are angled away from horizontal or vertical, vehicles seem to bounce back and forth off the edges. I guess that's a built in cc problem, but making it wider helps. Good idea too about having a different element for road shoulders (and side walks), but with the same code characteristics as road / paved.

With the new scale though, I think it would be easier to make real scale maps

attached is a google earth 124 ft altitude of a section of Bayeux and a CC version ... CC roads/buildings are a little bigger, but close. Like you say though some areas with curves or sharp angles might be a problem if done to real scale.

interesting stuff anyway ... and thanks

< Message edited by davidss -- 7/26/2012 6:09:21 PM >

(in reply to Steve McClaire)

Post #: 39

RE: Question? - 7/27/2012 6:39:19 AM

DeLorian

Posts: 2
Joined: 7/27/2012
Status: offline

Sorry for bad English.

There will be time accelerator (2x, 4x etc)?

Lack of possibility to rewind and accelerate time during the game was a strong shortcoming disadvantage and discomfort.

2 or 3 minutes awaiting enemy tanks surely will be better in 4x or 8x time speed.

This feature is present in Total War series, in Imperial Glory (in patch) and many other strategic game.

For me it is main change, that must be in next Close Combat.

(in reply to davidss)

Post #: 40

RE: Question? - 7/27/2012 5:46:02 PM

Steve McClaire

Posts: 2599
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline

DeLorian -- that's a good suggestion, thank you.

CC has always had 1:1 time as the maximum speed, but it certainly could support something faster. I'll add it to the potential features list, but I am not sure it will be able to be considered for Panthers in the Fog.

(in reply to DeLorian)

Post #: 41

RE: Question? - 7/30/2012 11:24:17 AM

DeLorian

Posts: 2
Joined: 7/27/2012
Status: offline

Sorry for bad English again...

Many years I hope that this feature will be added in series in patches, but no... Too bad.

Certainly no need accelerate time in combat, but in CC series in some battles many minutes we just awaiting for enemies attack and do nothing.

Sitting with couple of tea and staring in monitor too much hardcore for me.

It's just the biggest lacks of the game.

If next games include this feature (I think it is no too hard to add), it will be simply amazing.

< Message edited by DeLorian -- 7/30/2012 11:27:25 AM >

(in reply to Steve McClaire)

Post #: 42

RE: Question? - 8/30/2012 10:43:24 PM

CSO_Talorgan