Progress

[GoodGuy]

Not sure about that. Just kidding !!![;)]

[Arjuna]

Hi all,

I am just finishing off the last of the documentation. Should complete this by the end of the week. We still have a few bugs to squash after that. Most are very minor things but there is one significant bug, namely an out of sync bug that effectively kills multiplayer. So this must be fixed. Paul has been working on this for over a month now and has narrowed it down but alas still has not got it licked. I will join the hunt for it once I finish the manuals.

[wodin]

oh pooh.....double poof....I reckon a end of April early June date...damn bugs..

[Arjuna]

Good news. Paul has found and fixed the most likely cause of the out of sync bug. He has been running multiplayer games for a day now without them going out of sync. I will work up a new build on Monday and get the beta testers to thoroughly test it. Looking good. [:)]

Many thanks Paul. [&o]

[killroyishere]

I really hope someday you can do some isometric models with this engine like Panzer General II did as the flat cardboardlike units just don't really do it for me. I've looked over several sceenshots of this game and your others and it looks like in many of them like someone just emptied a sack of cardboard units all over the map and it just looks a mess.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: killroyishere

I really hope someday you can do some isometric models with this engine like Panzer General II did as the flat cardboardlike units just don't really do it for me. I've looked over several sceenshots of this game and your others and it looks like in many of them like someone just emptied a sack of cardboard units all over the map and it just looks a mess.

Just curious about your comment above... [:)]

As you are no doubt aware, there's some fairly serious "wargaming" that goes on among the world's military establishments. As regards those exercises, is it your understanding that the symbology of warfare, above squad/vehicle level, consists of 3D icons of men and tanks?

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Good news. Paul has found and fixed the most likely cause of the out of sync bug. He has been running multiplayer games for a day now without them going out of sync. I will work up a new build on Monday and get the beta testers to thoroughly test it. Looking good. [:)]

Many thanks Paul. [&o]

Sounds like the delay was well-considered. [8D]

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

ORIGINAL: killroyishere

I really hope someday you can do some isometric models with this engine like Panzer General II did as the flat cardboardlike units just don't really do it for me. I've looked over several sceenshots of this game and your others and it looks like in many of them like someone just emptied a sack of cardboard units all over the map and it just looks a mess.

I can understand that, especially for someone who may not have grown up on cardboard counters [:)] I admit to having a bias for the old-school look. More significantly, though, for me at least, the 2D units make it much easier for me to focus on capabilities and planning--I generally find 3D units and fancier isometric views, though often aesthetically pleasing, to detract from the "wargame" aspect of the simulation. That's merely a personal preference, YMMV.

I will say that one day I'd love to be able to toggle on and off a true 3D rendering of the terrain, however...heh.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: TheWombat

I admit to having a bias for the old-school look. More significantly, though, for me at least, the 2D units make it much easier for me to focus on capabilities and planning--I generally find 3D units and fancier isometric views, though often aesthetically pleasing, to detract from the "wargame" aspect of the simulation. That's merely a personal preference, YMMV.

I find the value of conventional military iconography to extend well beyond aesthetics. Those hieroglyphs are how I interpret the operational and strategic aspects of warfare. They are varied, complex, and impart those who can "read" them with an immense amount of information that goes well beyond that which is typically supplied by 3-dimensional artwork.

Check this out: http://social.consimworld.com/profiles/ ... ton-oh-aar

[Arjuna]

killroyishere,

I accept your preference for 3D icons. However, they really need a 3D map to go with them or at least suedo 3D terrain. I too would eventually like to provide an optional 3D map and 3D icons. But we'll probably retain the option to use 2D icons on a 2D map. Both have their pluses and minuses. The 3D perspective makes it easier to get a feel for the lay of the land, while the 2D perspective is usually a lot clearer and the 2D icons allow us to display a huge amount of data readily.

To provide 3D mapping requires a rewrite of the map classes and the map drawing. Specifically we need to overhaul the map classes to use standard GIS data formats. Then we'll be able to import and export terrain and elevation data much more readily than we can at present. This will facilitate map making and hence scenario generation. But this is a very big job and we're only a very small outfit. So we have to prioritise our feature list and focus on just a few features per title. I'm not sure when we will get to this feature. We will be reviewing options once BFTB is released. This will involve eliciting the views of our customers. So your feedback and those of others is appreciated.

[ewilkie]

my first effort at a post - comment to Arjuna ref 3D map

A 3D map might be useful as a training aid to develope the ability to visualize the terrain based on a 2D contour map.. Surely the 2D contour map is more historically correct.

One of the better improvements you could make, for me at least, would be to provide contour lines. I'm pretty sure this is how elevation is depicted on real military field maps - at least it used to be done this way. Your current use of color to denote elevation, and at fairly large intervals, makes visualization difficult and also detracts from the feeling of realism.

Until you had the resources to provide a more robust solution, couldn't you add an overlay of contour lines that would be otherwise transparant and would lie between your other layers and the units? It would need to zoom in and out with the other layers. You wouldn't be limited to the contour interval as you are now and I suppose with more than one contour layer could give the option of different contour intervals - or no contours at all like you do with grid. Seems like you wouldn't have to change much of anything since this would just be an additional graphic. Then colors could be used solely to represent vegetation, water, sand, etc.

Of course I don't know if this would work for you - just wanted to throw in my $0.02.

I find your software fascinating, have the Reich and Agean versions, and am lookjing forward to the Bulge.

[Arjuna]

ewilkie,

Welcome lurker...finally lured you out, hey? [;)]

We can't do proper transparencies with the current MFC graphics. That's why people switched to DX graphics, but this wasn't out when we started designing the engine. MS have released an enhanced 2D graphics suite for MFC under System 7. So going that way is an option but would mean those without System 7 would miss out. Always choices![8|]

[wodin]

This is a game that really doesnt need 3d tanks etc....cos to me it would look like someone had thrown aload of matchbox tanks on a map...Also I never got into seeing say one tank for a squadron...rather see a counter....

The comment above obviously is by someone who never played the game....in no way at all are those counters in some kind of chaotic order on that map. They all form up and attack in formation etc etc.,...its not chaos...

SOME games really dont require fancy graphics and some games fancy graphics look totally different to someone elses idea of fancy graphics. For the style of this game it does have very good graphics indeed....

You dont have to use nato symbols though if that gets a little tough...sometimes I do sometimes I dont...their just symbols to learn

FINALLY Arjuna....please dont start redesigning the whole look of the game to give it 3d graphics....I'd rather see the East Front game released with lots more additions...for instance Russian human wave attacks there by although the Russians are numericaly superior they suffer more casualties in the attack etc etc.

Maybe after the East Front game go looking into a 3d engine....though I know it depends on resouces...if I win the lottery you'll be OK. If I win over 15 million you get 1 million...anything under I;d give you a cheque in the tens of thousands...thats how much I want you to carry on

[Lieste]

I feel the new map classes should have a relatively high priority - the extension of the map-drawing to include 3d seems far less important a reason than to enhance the ease of use of map-maker and quality of the maps (there are some significant artifacts produced by the high contour intervals near lower/flatter portions of valleys - What should be a flat floodplain can often unexpectedly have ravine like properties due to the difficulty of handling sub-contour elevations when the minimum value is only fractionally below the next contour.

[ETF]

ORIGINAL: killroyishere

I really hope someday you can do some isometric models with this engine like Panzer General II did as the flat cardboardlike units just don't really do it for me. I've looked over several sceenshots of this game and your others and it looks like in many of them like someone just emptied a sack of cardboard units all over the map and it just looks a mess.

Nah I like the units the way they are. PZ Gen reminds me of toy soliders [;)]

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

Um, yeah, I agree--that's kinda what I said, though less clearly perhaps than you [:)] It's precisely because, after a lifetime of using 2D symbology (the hieroglyphs in your terms, which I think is a great word to use here), they instantly convey information far beyond their literal "meanings" I think.

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

ORIGINAL: TheWombat

I admit to having a bias for the old-school look. More significantly, though, for me at least, the 2D units make it much easier for me to focus on capabilities and planning--I generally find 3D units and fancier isometric views, though often aesthetically pleasing, to detract from the "wargame" aspect of the simulation. That's merely a personal preference, YMMV.

I find the value of conventional military iconography to extend well beyond aesthetics. Those hieroglyphs are how I interpret the operational and strategic aspects of warfare. They are varied, complex, and impart those who can "read" them with an immense amount of information that goes well beyond that which is typically supplied by 3-dimensional artwork.

Check this out: http://social.consimworld.com/profiles/ ... ton-oh-aar

[wodin]

I agree....improve the maps to make easy when it comes to the map maker etc....but as for aesthetics I wouldnt worry about 3d at the moment....in a wargame its all about being able to quickly assimilate the info you see on the screen...thats why I found CotA far easier to play than HTTR...the layout and quick access to get the info you need makes the game more enjoyable....looking at the game RUSE I dont think that looks great...I think that looks odd...giant tanks representing a few tanks...I'd rather see counters...though I can't stand games that each unit doesnt represent a battalion or division etc, but something more abstract like I believe the PG games...I want each and every vehcile and soldier to be counted in that counter like this game does....fancy 3d graphics are redundant in games at this level....not so much the map but definately the units...

IMAGINATION is where its at in wargaming.....

[Deathtreader]

ORIGINAL: wodin

I agree....improve the maps to make easy when it comes to the map maker etc....but as for aesthetics I wouldnt worry about 3d at the moment....in a wargame its all about being able to quickly assimilate the info you see on the screen...thats why I found CotA far easier to play than HTTR...the layout and quick access to get the info you need makes the game more enjoyable....looking at the game RUSE I dont think that looks great...I think that looks odd...giant tanks representing a few tanks...I'd rather see counters...though I can't stand games that each unit doesnt represent a battalion or division etc, but something more abstract like I believe the PG games...I want each and every vehcile and soldier to be counted in that counter like this game does....fancy 3d graphics are redundant in games at this level....not so much the map but definately the units...

IMAGINATION is where its at in wargaming.....

Hear, hear!!

Rob.

[Llyranor]

Personally, I find the current 2D unit and map, coupled with a slick-looking interface, very appealing. Be careful re: 3D, it'll be an uphill battle. Unless you invest heavily into them (at which point the question of whether it is worth spending the resources on comes to mind - when you could invest it in awesome features like online co-op instead!), they will look primitive compared to contemporary games, and gamers who place high value to shiny graphics will still dismiss it for what it is.

[ewilkie]

Too bad about the transparencies and no contours.

In fact, it would be nice if the maps could be scanned from copies of the actual field maps used during the war. Then I suppose you would have a slightly different map for the Axis and the Allies. Since the maps would be different, that means maps are not always accurate - so they would have to be modified in real time as more intel was acquired...

over the top maybe, but more intriguing than 3D units!