JOhnnyr -> RE: IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualization? (7/10/2019 3:58:15 PM)
Let me say too...
Note: This is one anonymous Command player's personal opinion: This is not developer's policy at all. Sorry for pointless/incorrect opinion.
If you felt any offence or do not like me, please just click "Block this guy" button, and ignore.
Everytime when I see "3D view/animation for Command" (like Professional Edition they say) demand, I doubt such feature is needed for (at least) normal version of Command.
They say that"it's shame that Command, the greatest wargame, lacks 3D view" and it will enhances Command to 250+ percent, but IMHO this will weak Command to 50 percent or less.
(1) It's simply impossible to model every units in CWDB/DB3000, even if everyone take time to death,
at the expense of valuable time to play or discuss game tactics/stragety.
They may say "generic" image for minor units, but what's the difference between this one and stylized unit icon?
I'm completly satisfied with .jpg DB images. Even though this does not covers the all,
but finding and trimming images is not difficult even for me (who lacks 3D-modeling technique).
(2) Increases System Requirement. My PC is no high-spec, so I will always turn off 3D view option.
What to do in larger scenario? (which most units are not 3D modeled)
(3) Increases devs' workload too.
The more they pay attention to improve "Exterior" 3D view, the less to "interior" Bug-fix, detailed game model (as LewisOwen says), ete.
I really like devs' current quick responce to these issues.
(4) I could easily imagine that DB3000 database thread (already one of the hottest thread in this forum), or 3D-view dedicated thread will be
choked up with messages claiming "Unit XXX model should (not) have YYY in 19ZZs" (most are about color skin or accessory, which does not affects the game at all). They conceal more important requests for game.
(5) Some of them says 3D models would be mod made by volunteer creator with 3D-modeling technique:
I doubt this would reduce the dev's burden.Who should I contact for request? how much extend does devs have responsibility for respective mods?
I'm interested in, what they learened from the dev's famous "No-DB editor" policy in this complex game.
(6) They say Command can use Tacview. I'll show great respect to Tacview author, but the name "Tac" view - this says it. 3D View player are really interested in viewing things in tactical perspective (1-2 unit involving dogfight/bombing), but not at all in the strategic perspective (50+ unit involving complex strike mission, ASW campaign, ete.).
BTW when I were to create scenario, to hide out the most fatal CPU maneuver, I would make "Diversionary actions", or circus show for 3D View player (more units/explosions). Consider "Dance of the Vampires" in Red Storm Rising as an good example.
(1) I have neither money to buy platstic model (no interest, no assemble technique either even if purchased),
nor problem of playing one of the most complehensive wargame rule,
with simple paper aircrafts written just his name "F-15J #908" (I have to indicate remaining fuel/weapons, though).
(2) If you want to get situation awareness, please get accustomed to User Interface or NTDS symbol, and fly your AEW/recon aircraft.
I think it's a good experience for I, or normal version Command user "armchair general", to compensate lack of (brutal, bloodsheeding, and distressful) visual image report from frontline, by imagination.
(3) And as always: if you want to dance with beautiful/cute units, please play (for example) DCS world or Cold Waters.
or watch in-action footage in youtube. It is good news that there is "Play video" Lua function.
Thanks for reading!
You are arguing against a feature that is already completed, and is no detriment to you if it's allowed in the consumer version. Turn it off if you don't want it.
Tacview would only stand to increase CMANO's success with a wider audience, which would benefit everyone. The more copies they sell, the more features they can work into the budget. it's a win-win.