Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualization?

 
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] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualization? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualization? - 7/9/2019 4:49:28 PM   
JOhnnyr

 

Posts: 129
Joined: 4/14/2011
Status: offline
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)

< Message edited by JOhnnyr -- 7/9/2019 7:56:42 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualiz... - 7/10/2019 1:22:55 PM   
LewisOwen

 

Posts: 17
Joined: 12/3/2017
Status: offline
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

< Message edited by LewisOwen -- 7/31/2019 9:23:30 PM >


_____________________________


"Nuclear weapons might be the currency of peace... but what a terrible price..."

-Stuart Brown



(in reply to JOhnnyr)
Post #: 2
RE: IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualiz... - 7/10/2019 2:09:33 PM   
Filitch


Posts: 365
Joined: 6/25/2016
From: St. Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to LewisOwen)
Post #: 3
RE: IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualiz... - 7/10/2019 3:03:45 PM   
stilesw


Posts: 1055
Joined: 6/26/2014
From: Hansville, WA, USA
Status: offline
Agree!

Bump, Bump.


_____________________________

“There is no limit to what a man can do so long as he does not care a straw who gets the credit for it.”

Charles Edward Montague, English novelist and essayist
~Disenchantment, ch. 15 (1922)

(in reply to LewisOwen)
Post #: 4
RE: IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualiz... - 7/10/2019 3:42:02 PM   
JOhnnyr

 

Posts: 129
Joined: 4/14/2011
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by JOhnnyr -- 7/10/2019 3:49:43 PM >

(in reply to Filitch)
Post #: 5
RE: IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualiz... - 7/10/2019 3:50:09 PM   
lumiere

 

Posts: 94
Joined: 3/19/2019
From: Japan
Status: offline
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!


_____________________________

The first casualty when war comes is truth.
US Senator Hiram W. Johnson (?)

(in reply to Filitch)
Post #: 6
RE: IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualiz... - 7/10/2019 3:58:15 PM   
JOhnnyr

 

Posts: 129
Joined: 4/14/2011
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by JOhnnyr -- 7/10/2019 3:59:48 PM >

(in reply to lumiere)
Post #: 7
RE: IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualiz... - 7/10/2019 5:06:17 PM   
LewisOwen

 

Posts: 17
Joined: 12/3/2017
Status: offline
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

< Message edited by LewisOwen -- 7/10/2019 9:45:29 PM >


_____________________________


"Nuclear weapons might be the currency of peace... but what a terrible price..."

-Stuart Brown



(in reply to JOhnnyr)
Post #: 8
RE: IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualiz... - 7/10/2019 5:29:19 PM   
LewisOwen

 

Posts: 17
Joined: 12/3/2017
Status: offline
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.


< Message edited by LewisOwen -- 7/10/2019 9:46:29 PM >


_____________________________


"Nuclear weapons might be the currency of peace... but what a terrible price..."

-Stuart Brown



(in reply to lumiere)
Post #: 9
RE: IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualiz... - 7/10/2019 9:42:07 PM   
lumiere

 

Posts: 94
Joined: 3/19/2019
From: Japan
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LewisOwen
Some excellent points. Amen.


Thanks!

_____________________________

The first casualty when war comes is truth.
US Senator Hiram W. Johnson (?)

(in reply to LewisOwen)
Post #: 10
RE: IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualiz... - 7/11/2019 12:03:58 AM   
kevinkins


Posts: 1835
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

“The study of history lies at the foundation of all sound military conclusions and practice.”
― Alfred Thayer Mahan


(in reply to lumiere)
Post #: 11
RE: IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualiz... - 7/11/2019 9:53:28 AM   
Andrea G


Posts: 305
Joined: 10/9/2017
From: Genoa, Italy
Status: offline

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!


_____________________________

"My name is Maurizio Cocciolone"
Italian pilot downed during Desert Storm
Start phrase of his interviw on the Iraqui TV

(in reply to LewisOwen)
Post #: 12
RE: IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualiz... - 7/11/2019 3:49:20 PM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1135
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to kevinkins)
Post #: 13
RE: IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualiz... - 7/13/2019 6:02:42 PM   
1nutworld

 

Posts: 157
Joined: 4/13/2014
Status: offline
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



_____________________________

USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) 1990-1994.

(in reply to SeaQueen)
Post #: 14
RE: IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualiz... - 7/17/2019 3:20:07 PM   
guanotwozero

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 12/27/2013
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to 1nutworld)
Post #: 15
RE: IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualiz... - 7/18/2019 12:17:11 AM   
Mini_Von


Posts: 129
Joined: 12/17/2013
Status: offline

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

_____________________________


(in reply to guanotwozero)
Post #: 16
RE: IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualiz... - 7/18/2019 3:07:00 AM   
magi

 

Posts: 1350
Joined: 2/1/2014
Status: offline

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...

(in reply to LewisOwen)
Post #: 17
RE: IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualiz... - 7/18/2019 4:16:24 PM   
Mini_Von


Posts: 129
Joined: 12/17/2013
Status: offline

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



_____________________________


(in reply to magi)
Post #: 18
RE: IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualiz... - 7/18/2019 9:36:23 PM   
guanotwozero

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 12/27/2013
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Mini_Von)
Post #: 19
RE: IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualiz... - 7/19/2019 5:37:46 PM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1135
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by SeaQueen -- 7/19/2019 5:38:40 PM >

(in reply to guanotwozero)
Post #: 20
RE: IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualiz... - 7/20/2019 3:05:30 PM   
guanotwozero

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 12/27/2013
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to SeaQueen)
Post #: 21
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> IS there a reason CV still doesn't have 3d visualization? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.152