IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualization? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series



Message


JOhnnyr -> IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualization? (7/9/2019 4:49:28 PM)

I don't understand what the hold up is from taking a great game to probably one of the best games ever made, with the simple addition of a feature that is already developed and working. (Tacview)




LewisOwen -> RE: IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualization? (7/10/2019 1:22:55 PM)

I really don't get all the hype behind it [&:]

It's really disappointing to see the developers prioritize this kind of stuff over actual, game-changing features, that actually affect the game.
Long time coming features like:

Day/Night cycle and weather properly affecting air&naval ops

implementation of soft kills

rudimentary framework for CSAR/SAR ops

improved weather modelling

Intermittent sensor settings or advanced strike planner.

Even simpler things like:

higher res relief layer

range circles for aircraft

ability to target ref point (srsly this one can't be that hard)

SIGINT being able to detect COMMS

and improved game logic so that units are better at staying in formation (enhanced formation editor would be nice too)

I would choose any of the aforementioned features over the whole 3d visualization thing any day of the week. I can only hope that I'm not the only one with this opinion.

Cheers




Filitch -> RE: IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualization? (7/10/2019 2:09:33 PM)

Completely agree with LewisOwen. There are too many things in CMANO to implement, except 3D view. Most of noted above - will improve modeling result, make model more realistic, whereas 3D - mostly will not.




stilesw -> RE: IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualization? (7/10/2019 3:03:45 PM)

Agree!

Bump, Bump.




JOhnnyr -> RE: IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualization? (7/10/2019 3:42:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Filitch

Completely agree with LewisOwen. There are too many things in CMANO to implement, except 3D view. Most of noted above - will improve modeling result, make model more realistic, whereas 3D - mostly will not.


I mean, I agree as well, all of those things sounds great - my question is why doesn't CV have 3d view, when it's already done? It's not like there needs to be a ton of development work here, it's literally a completed and working feature, just not one they've opted to allow in the consumer version.

I'm not asking them to spend dev cycles on creating 3d view - that work has already been completed. I'm asking them to put it in the consumer version. I'm baffled as to why it isn't already done.




lumiere -> RE: IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualization? (7/10/2019 3:50:09 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.

Reasons:

(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.

Conclusion:
(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!




JOhnnyr -> RE: IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualization? (7/10/2019 3:58:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lumiere

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.

Reasons:

(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.

Conclusion:
(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.




LewisOwen -> RE: IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualization? (7/10/2019 5:06:17 PM)

quote:

Tacview would only stand to increase CMANO's success with a wider audience, which would benefit everyone.


Actually, I would argue that the opposite is true. If anything, it would only confuse potential buyers by presenting the game as something it's definitely not.

Too many people would be misled into thinking that it's somehow the main course of the (70$) game (I mean, the 3D part is usually the main part of the game; THE thing you're paying for, right?).

Those people would inevitably start to pressure the developers into spending more development time on this least important part of the game.
(do I need to say that that's horrible?)

The truth is, we end up in a situation where the feature that (in your opinion) was supposed to increase game's success and general exposure to a wider audience just cannot be advertised, and is best left for the already committed players to explore, almost as a "hidden" feature.

Cheers




LewisOwen -> RE: IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualization? (7/10/2019 5:29:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lumiere

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.

Reasons:

(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.

Conclusion:
(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!



Some excellent points. Amen.




lumiere -> RE: IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualization? (7/10/2019 9:42:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LewisOwen
Some excellent points. Amen.


Thanks! [:)]




kevinkins -> RE: IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualization? (7/11/2019 12:03:58 AM)

Tacview is available in the Pro version for a reason. And it is not a trivial reason. Care to discuss why mere mortals can't enjoy it? Or why it's even being advertised openingly in the first place and not top secret? The commercial version of Command is now a cash cow for Warfare Sims. In other words, the commercial version of Command is there to keep the lights on. Period.

Kevin




Andrea G -> RE: IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualization? (7/11/2019 9:53:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LewisOwen

I really don't get all the hype behind it [&:]

It's really disappointing to see the developers prioritize this kind of stuff over actual, game-changing features, that actually affect the game.
Long time coming features like:

Day/Night cycle and weather properly affecting air&naval ops

implementation of soft kills

rudimentary framework for CSAR/SAR ops

improved weather modelling

Intermittent sensor settings or advanced strike planner.

Even simpler things like:

higher res relief layer

range circles for aircraft

ability to target ref point (srsly this one can't be that hard)

ELINT being able to detect COMMS

and improved game logic so that units are better at staying in formation (enhanced formation editor would be nice too)

I would choose any of the aforementioned features over the whole 3d visualization thing any day of the week. I can only hope that I'm not the only one with this opinion.

Cheers


Hear, hear!




SeaQueen -> RE: IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualization? (7/11/2019 3:49:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kevinkins
Or why it's even being advertised openingly in the first place and not top secret?


There is nothing classified in any version of Command.




1nutworld -> RE: IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualization? (7/13/2019 6:02:42 PM)

JOhnnyr,

Here ya go mate!

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Janes-Fleet-Command-PC-1999-Box-Computer-Game/153549212337?epid=7624&hash=item23c03f0ab1:g:4wUAAOSw-V1cXMV6

3D for you

[:D]




guanotwozero -> RE: IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualization? (7/17/2019 3:20:07 PM)

I've evolved my view about this. Originally I shared the viewpoint that 3D would be a waste of time and effort; that developer man-hours would be better spent adding functionality (e.g. the long-sought mission planner ;)

However I recognise the importance of the Pro version, and agree that 3D may help in immersion and visualisation. I don't agree that every separate unit should be accurately modelled as this would be an enormous, thankless task. Better to have a limited number of generic models, e.g. all "modern fast jets" would use one model or a small number of variations. Same deal for generic destroyers, aircraft carriers, etc.

There should probably be be some effort to distinguish vessels from different sides and eras, e.g. "large cold-war subsonic bomber" would have different models for B-52s and Tu-95s. Reminiscent of, not accurate portrayal of. We'd still have the database images & descriptions.

To me the big benefit would not be accurate vessel modelling, but rather a better visualisation of the 3D world with hills and valleys - easier to understand radar masking and line-of-sight, and perhaps even submarine navigation in shallow waters.




Mini_Von -> RE: IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualization? (7/18/2019 12:17:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: guanotwozero

To me the big benefit would not be accurate vessel modelling, but rather a better visualisation of the 3D world with hills and valleys - easier to understand radar masking and line-of-sight, and perhaps even submarine navigation in shallow waters.


I think Tacview would be a helpful visualization tool. It's a great teaching/debriefing tool. Falcon BMS and the DCS community have used Tacview extensively for years.

I'm assuming the merging of CMANO and Tacview has already been done in the CMANO Pro Edition. My guess is that it might not be to difficult to add it to our personal edition. I am not a programmer or trying to disrespect Warfare Sims decisions. I am just a simple user who is voting for the integration of Tacview.

Thanks




magi -> RE: IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualization? (7/18/2019 3:07:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LewisOwen

I really don't get all the hype behind it [&:]

It's really disappointing to see the developers prioritize this kind of stuff over actual, game-changing features, that actually affect the game.
Long time coming features like:

Day/Night cycle and weather properly affecting air&naval ops

implementation of soft kills

rudimentary framework for CSAR/SAR ops

improved weather modelling

Intermittent sensor settings or advanced strike planner.

Even simpler things like:

higher res relief layer

range circles for aircraft

ability to target ref point (srsly this one can't be that hard)

ELINT being able to detect COMMS

and improved game logic so that units are better at staying in formation (enhanced formation editor would be nice too)

I would choose any of the aforementioned features over the whole 3d visualization thing any day of the week. I can only hope that I'm not the only one with this opinion.

Cheers


pretty good call.... i would add more realistic sub operations option..... 0h.. more better sounds would be nice....
3d viewing would add nothing to the game.... its just kiddy stuff...




Mini_Von -> RE: IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualization? (7/18/2019 4:16:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: magi
3d viewing would add nothing to the game.... its just kiddy stuff...


Lets start a war said magi one day
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x6FGI7gDfQ





guanotwozero -> RE: IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualization? (7/18/2019 9:36:23 PM)

Well, my inner kiddy is definitely curious. If it's in the Pro code already then I can't see any down side of adding it to the retail game - we can use it if we like, else not.

FWIW one of the "imprecise" aspects to the game is tyring to use terrain from the available map - I'm hoping Tacview might make that easier, e.g. setting up a BARCAP trap hiding behind a mountain ridge. That only works if they stay hidden 'til the last moment, hence visualising the altitude/LOS is pretty important.




SeaQueen -> RE: IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualization? (7/19/2019 5:37:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: guanotwozero
However I recognise the importance of the Pro version, and agree that 3D may help in immersion and visualisation. I don't agree that every separate unit should be accurately modelled as this would be an enormous, thankless task. Better to have a limited number of generic models, e.g. all "modern fast jets" would use one model or a small number of variations. Same deal for generic destroyers, aircraft carriers, etc.


The problem with this approach in the commercial world is that you'll end up with a million people on YouTube complaining about how, "Command's graphics SUCK!"

I also think there's a lot of misconceptions about the Pro version. The biggest difference between the commercial version and the pro version is data collection and the ability to edit the database. The TacView/SimDis capability is more useful for making videos after the fact to help explain what happened than any real time immersion. Unfortunately, in the absence of knowledge, imagination takes over and things become misconstrued.




guanotwozero -> RE: IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualization? (7/20/2019 3:05:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen
The problem with this approach in the commercial world is that you'll end up with a million people on YouTube complaining about how, "Command's graphics SUCK!"

I also think there's a lot of misconceptions about the Pro version. The biggest difference between the commercial version and the pro version is data collection and the ability to edit the database. The TacView/SimDis capability is more useful for making videos after the fact to help explain what happened than any real time immersion. Unfortunately, in the absence of knowledge, imagination takes over and things become misconstrued.


I see what you mean - it's really a retrospective analysis tool than a future planning one. I see Tacview is used with BMS falcon as an alternative to ACMI, which was a way of seeing what you did right/wrong after the event in far more context detail than a map-based breadcrumb trail.

However, I suggest that the same tech might be used to produce a 3D "snapshot" of an area, which could help planning by giving a better visualisation of the terrain. But sure, that's still very different from a 3D real-time display.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.0390625