3D view: Which approach do you prefer?

[gennyo]

Option 2, because I use old laptops with an anemic cpu and gpu and yes I won't change the platform in the forseeable future, I don't update my windows since 2016.

[Quark73]

Definitely option 2. In 500+ hours CMO I used Tacview 17 minutes. It's nice but also distracting.

[CV60]

Option 2. Speaking as a former SWO, I live in the "NTDS" world. 3D does not convey the information I need for decision making as readily as the 2D symbology.

[temkc5]

My vote is for option 2.

[ClaudeJ]

Wow! That will be yet another "tiny" step above and beyond.

I do prefer the option 1: The "integrated 3D-view" approach.

As it increases immersion AND is a more efficient use of screen space, the very reason you've mentioned.

I see no point in doing an "embedded TACview", especially as it comes with intense resource usage.

Cheers

[ultradave]

Option 2, the current setup. I use a laptop (high end one) and always will, but that makes screen space a premium. To me, Tacview is fun eye-candy, but doesn't help me play the game. I have it but I find I don't use it too much other than for the novelty. I like the option I have currently to either open it or just leave it off, or to run CMO windowed and have it on top with just a sliver of Tacview showing to pop it to the front. That works for me.

I do have an external monitor, but the only time I use it is for amateur radio work where for digital modes I have to have 3, sometimes 4 programs running simultaneously.

I *can* see the attraction of option 1, but I would want it so that I could just turn it off if I didn't want to use it, if that is possible for what you are thinking. Might be too much to ask to have our cake and eat it too and make the Option 1/Option 2 choice part of the game options? Different implementations, so might be too much.

Dave

[stilesw]

Option 2. Personally I think the option to "turn it off" is important. Additions such as TacView have a marginal importance to the overall operation of the Command simulation. Don't hurt the application by putting in too much "eye candy"

[SeaQueen]

I prefer the second option. I think it offers a greater awareness and understanding of what's actually happening in the game and better playability. Truth be told, even though I have 3D view, I rarely actually use it in the game because it's of such limited utility. From the perspective of game play and maintaining situational awareness in complex scenarios, the map view is clearly superior. The rest is just eye candy. Games like CMO are never going to appeal to people who are in it for cool 3D graphics. It's a more broad perspective game, that forces one to understand and employ tactics which depend on many different units all performing their roles in a coordinated and integrated manor. That makes it very different from other games, and doesn't really lend itself to 3D gameplay. I doubt it would appeal to a greater audience, or improve people's understanding of what's happening, we moved away from map symbols and towards a 3D view. That depends on having a substantial understand of the science and engineering of weapons or sensors. Once people realize that they still don't really understand how to take out an SA-21 site in 3D any better than they did in 2D, they'll lose interest. 3D views offer the illusion of undestanding.

A more abstracted view also makes it more realistic. These are the kinds of battles which in real life are fought by manipulating tracks on a radar screen over distances of hundreds or thousands of miles. You rarely actually see the thing that kills you because it's either so far away or moves so fast. In that sense 3D view feels LESS real to me, whose view of warfare is shaped less by Hollywood and more by my presence on warships or in an air operations center. I often make overlays that might correspond to real maneuver templates or satellite imagery. I think the 3D view is far less flexible in that sense. It doesn't really serve my interests, which is complex, integrated, joint tactics in the contemporary era.

Actually... if you really want to tweak something... integrate and improve GMAP.

[audiopathik]

Personally I like to look at the 3D view while waiting for things to play out, a nice gimmick but nothing that adds a strategic value. Therefor I do like to be able to minimize it and don't think it should be a fixture in the at times already scarce screenspace.
Much rather I think the main map should be improved, it's what you are constantly interacting with. Whenever you zoom out and back in it needs to reload the according map tiles, maybe allow to define a 'core area' per scenario which tiles are permanently loaded, a smart cache or whatever else techniques there are for modern interactive maps. Names, towns, streets, rivers etc are not actual entities but only in the map pictures, which would be necessary for a serios ground warfare system. The various map and unit tools, waypoints, areas etc are also somewhat basic. Antialiasing to smoothen the pixelation of what's drawn onto the canvas.
Google Maps etc are a much more pleasent experience.

[BradOrbital]

Option 2

[Dimitris]

Google Maps etc are a much more pleasant experience.

I am _shocked_ that we are outdone by a key product of a trillion-dollar company

[orkuqui]

Option 2

[Monygham]

Option 2.

[mastertronical]

Op 2 please

[Galeocerdo]

Option 2; A graphically improved version of Tacview would be cool.

[adrians69]

Option 1 as you still have the option of viewing 2D or 3D without taking up screen space with an extra window

[bns130]

Option 2 is my preferred view. I’d rather maintain a more C2ISR system look and feel than delve into 3D eye candy. TacView does that well enough.

[Savatee1138A]

Option #2, definitely.

[Parel803]

Prefer option 2

[HalfLifeExpert]

I'd take Option #2 any day for a Command-esque game.

Option #1 works well for land-tactical combat like in WARNO, Wargame, and the upcoming Armored Brigade II because the distances are rather limited, whereas Naval and Air combat happen over a massively larger battlespace, where there's a whole lot of nothing in-between opposing forces. Exceptions of course are Flight and individual ship/sub simulators, but that comes at the penalty of far more limited battlespace/AI assets available. As capable as something like DCS or Cold Waters is, they just don't have the platform and battlespace variety that Command has. Even the promising upcoming "Sea Power: Naval Combat in the Missile Age" will be limited compared to Command in this respect.

I've never had the desire to spend the money on TacView advanced because I don't really feel it adds anything to my gameplay experience, especially with the inherent limitations in number of 3D models vs number of DB entries.

Part of the reason I am fanatically devoted to NATO/NTDS symbols over Stylized is that it hurts the immersion for me for a wide variety of platforms, like airplanes, to be visually shown with the same aircraft layout (generic airliner pattern).

I feel that 3D view, however it may be implemented in the future for Command, will be a hog on computing resources for rather limited benefit, and possibly a negative, given a certain percentage of map space that it would be obscuring. Given the nature of Command, I personally don't see it as more than eye-candy, though I accept that others see it differently.

Whatever may be implemented in the future related to Option #2 (the clear favorite it seems), I'd simply like to have the option to not use it so that I can free up CPU power for the meat of the game.