3D view: Which approach do you prefer?

[Dimitris]

As some of you know, we have been looking into potential improvements for the 3D view component of CMO. Our research indicates two main avenues of implementation, and we want to solicit your feedback in order to make a better-informed choice for our direction.

---------------------

1) The "integrated 3D-view" approach. In this paradigm the 3D-view is an integral part of the main user interface; units are presented as dots or icons at the "high level" (usually tilted 3D) map, and take their 3D-object form only when the view zooms up-close to them.

Examples: Homeworld, Eugen's "Wargame: EU/ALB/RD" series and WARNO, Regiments, Modern Naval Combat, many RTS titles (e.g. Ashes of the Singularity) etc.

Pros: For many players this increases immersion, since it gives an immediate feeling of controlling "real" people and hardware rather than abstract map symbols. It also makes more efficient use of screen space (no need to dedicate separate area for 3D view).

Cons: The player is effectively forced to choose between seeing pretty 3D graphics up close OR being able to effectively command & control his units on the higher-level view; zooming back and forth often becomes necessary. Many games try to straddle this divide by offering "intermediate" zoom views where some 3D content is available while offering the command functionality; this often works well, but does mean sacrificing on both aspects (visual detail is much worse than up-close, and C2 capability is degraded compared to high-level map).

----------------------

2) The "standalone 3D-view" approach. In this case the 3D-view is clearly separate from the (usually 2D) map UI and takes up different portions of the screen. In some cases the 3D view is entirely optional and can be removed/disabled to free up screen space. Often there exists an inherent linkage between them (e.g. user selects a unit on the main map and the 3D view snaps to the same unit), but the user is also able to zoom/pan on each of these viewports indepedently.

Examples: Jane's Fleet Command, Global Conflict Blue 2, Cold Waters, CMO in its current linkage with Tacview.

Pros: This setup offers greater flexibility in combining the rich C2 functionality of a traditional map with the aesthetic & immersion benefits of a 3D view, e.g. controlling a huge battle while concurrently zooming in on a specific unit of interest. If the 3D-view window is an indepedent/detachable part of the UI (as for example currently in CMO) then it can be moved around and have its position and dimensions tailored to the user's preferences, or even parked on a separate monitor if available.

Cons: The more observable disconnect between abstract map symbols "over here" and more "real"-looking 3D objects "over there" degrades the immersion for some players. The two viewports often have to compete for screen space, and in a single-monitor setup (ie. the most common one) this can be a real challenge, usually solved with the remedy of making one viewport the larger one and the other the "auxiliary" smaller one (and giving the option of swapping them at will). The parallel rendering of the 2D and 3D views is frequently more demanding on system resources.

-----------------------

For most games on the market, the decision to adopt a specific approach to 3D-view is fundamental to their UI design and thus something that has to be set in stone quite early in the development timeline. We are in a slightly different position as we have an already established and functional product; this gives us a bit more flexibility but the constraints of each approach nevertheless apply to us as well.

We are open to your thoughts. And if you have an additional approach in mind, feel free to share it.

[keerigan]

tacview like otherwise you would have to make each 3d model for each vehicle in the huge db so
or a SC2 like camera like with tacview style plane and boat but with seen differences
but i think the tacview ver is the most doable
cuz airplane don't dogfight or do they in the game ?

[FrangibleCover]

I'd say independent 3D myself, I'm not really bothered about having a 3D viewer so independent allows me to ignore it unless I want to use it as a visualiser. I'm also concerned that an Eugen-style zoom system would make Command a bit tough to play at the intermediate zoom levels, where you're zoomed out enough to see your entire area of interest but not zoomed out enough to have normal top down control.

[Nikel]

I only use 2D.

So, as long as is optional and not consuming resources, any of them. Do I have to choose? Then 2).

[Edelweiss51]

Option 1 would be cool if there was a setting of how much you need to zoom for the 3D units to appear, or a hotkey to toggle between 3D and 2D.

Personally i'd rather have option 2, as it currently is, but that's because i have two monitors and i can afford to fit a whole new window with 3D view, therefore i feel option 1 offers better accesibility.

[leftwinglow]

Undoubtedly option 1. Both the more immersive and more modern approach. It should help bring in many new players too, who are intimidated by the 2D only approach / want eye candy.

In my experience the popout 3D is quite cumbersome in the Windows 11 window management system, though with a 2nd monitor this would not be a concern.

[ndeco]

I like it the way it is. CMANO/CMO 's charm is that it looks the way it looks. Clean and tons of data. There are plenty of alternatives who provide 3D graphics, but i can understand the approach from a commercial standpoint. As long as it is optional, or even an expansion, i dont mind. I dont need it.

[tylerblakebrandon]

I am not a fan of option one. I feel like I risk missing things happening around the map being zoomed in. I also find the transition from 2D to 3D.

Having come from playing Fleet Command as a kid I always preferred that setup and at first, I missed in when I came to Command.

But TBH I honestly don't miss it anymore and I haven't used TacView. It wouldn't keep me from playing but it would be superfluous for me. Just my $0.02

[c3k]

Option 2.

Having a separated 3D screen, that is optional to use, allows greater customer flexibility. I use a multi-monitor setup. I will put TacView off to a side screen when playing. I get greater 2D map space - where all the decisions are made and situational awareness is gained - AND the ability to closely watch an engagement unfold.

Con? Having to integrate and install a third-party software to play the game. (<- admittedly, this is not a high bar, but it is an extra step that may prove daunting to some initial gamers.)

[headbreaker_ger]

I would prefer option 2 but e.g. a full tacview advanced support, not his tacview light....

sry to say that but tacview has a lot features but we simply can not use them.

That's the reason why I personally never use the 3d view and why I can not recommend to by tacview advanced for command. I already owned tacview, because I use it for DCS.

The only time I use 3d view is in my streams if the viewer ask for it or I want to show something.

[JFS737]

Definitely option 2, gives the player more choice of how and if they wish to use 3d.

Thanks!

[pgatcomb]

Part of me wonders if this came from a video I made recently.

But more honestly, I was originally attracted to Command: Modern Operations from the Harpoon series that inspired one of the games you mentioned, Fleet Command. One of the things that I used to do in that game (and in Dangerous Waters) was just play with the editor and simulate all sorts of silly and absurd naval encounters just to ‘enjoy the show’. I still do the same for DCS since I love spectacle.

When it comes to TacView, it’s a glorious tool that I never quite got to work well enough to encourage me to use it more. One of the great things about the PE versions over the CE version is that they export everything either in real time through a server, or simply export the entire engagement to watch later on as a file, similar to the Falcon VTR files, something that was fun to do as it captured every bit of the excitement and you could step through it carefully afterwards replaying your favorite ‘huh’ moment when an S-400 failed to hit a C-130 flying in a straight line. In the CE version, Tacview pops up and does its thing for a little while and it always kind of felt like flying a drone Cessna 172 instead of operating the controls yourself, if that makes sense.

To answer the question, however, as much as I love the concept of C: MO being a 3D game, it is vastly easier to direct units using the 2D top-down view with the original controls. Many of the games mentioned operate at smaller scales and going from watching a Titan II leave the silo to caching the terrain for my target in an atoll in the Pacific would be a technical and computer-demanding sort of operation that would be logistically challenging to click your way through.

A separate 3D view is ideal for my at-home setup since I have multiple monitors and that’s how I would use it. Rendering in two places at once is graphically expensive as well, but it would work better for me because I have the screen estate and the computer to back it up. I wouldn’t lose any situational awareness, and I would still be able to ‘enjoy the show’.

If option #1 was carefully designed to handle C: MO’s scope and ‘looked great’, I would be all over it. We could call it simply Command: Operations. But in the way things are done now, I would prefer option #2 overall for selfish and simplicity reasons.

If the system was designed like Dangerous Waters or Fleet Command where you could easily work from 2D/3D with the appropriate picture-in-picture, I’d love that even more since I wouldn’t lose any functionality. One personal request would be to make a ‘free camera’ in either option so we could take in the terrain of the target region better for attack planning purposes and position myself for the ‘best view’ during engagements.

We’ll get sound upgrades too, right?

And finally, I think about the videos I make for Command and how it 'sells' the game. Option #1 would attract a totally new crowd and would lead to a series of videos where we could just reenact battles without a lot of player interference, something that would elevate the game significantly to a new crowd. Once you bring in RTMP as well, players would be all over it. Option #2 doesn't work at all for videos as the beautiful screen would have to be popped into a little corner PIP style or just ignored to make room for the rest of the interface.

TL;dr Option #1 if it's like Fleet Command/Dangerous waters, Option #2 If we're keeping the rest as is.

[thewood1]

#2

[FrangibleCover]

...in a single-monitor setup (ie. the most common one)...

This is actually interesting, anecdotally most of the Command players I know have at least two monitors and I've been in the habit of using a popped-out message log on a side monitor for years. While I'm sure that most computer users still only use one monitor, I wonder if the Command community (technically minded, plays computer games, possibly wealthier than average) might have more multi-monitor set ups than not.

[fitzpatv]

I only use one laptop monitor and have never felt the need for Tacview.

On balance, I would prefer Option 2, as it would be purely optional. While it would be nice to see realistic representations of ships and aircraft instead of standardised symbols, the current graphics work well enough for my purposes.

My fear is that the kind of change proposed might not work very well and detract from playability - and we've had a lot of disruptive change to the game recently as it is. Hopefully, testing will be up to the job should you proceed with this.

[thewood1]

...in a single-monitor setup (ie. the most common one)...

This is actually interesting, anecdotally most of the Command players I know have at least two monitors and I've been in the habit of using a popped-out message log on a side monitor for years. While I'm sure that most computer users still only use one monitor, I wonder if the Command community (technically minded, plays computer games, possibly wealthier than average) might have more multi-monitor set ups than not.

I have been playing Command since back when it was called Red Pill. I have never even consider using two monitors with it. I have two, but use the second to multitask while playing. I also travel a lot which generally precludes two monitors in most instances. My two friends who play also play on laptops and are limited to one monitor.

My main concern for option 1 is limiting the board range of PC specs CMO can run effectively on today. In fact, I have only tried Tacview a few times and it was effecting the performance of the overall game at high acceleration. Never really saw the trade off as worth it.

[schweggy]

In my opinion it would depend on the level of detail / complexity of the 3-D modeling whether option 1 would be suitable or option 2.

I play Cold Waters from time to time. It's more of an option #1 setup. It works because the modeling is pretty good. It's 2-D game play suffers a bit in that there's little detail in the maps. Info on contacts is deciphered with controls / stations / sensors but little is transmitted via the 2-D map interface.

If CMO retains the current 2-D and mapping level of detail option #2 would probably be preferable. Most significantly because it's what CMO has always been and a switch to 3-D would probably be off-putting to seasoned (old school) users.

YMMV

[Dide]

The important thing is that beyond versions 1 and 2 we can continue to use the 2d that exists now. Thanks!

[mikerohan]

I only use 2D.

So, as long as is optional and not consuming resources, any of them. Do I have to choose? Then 2).

This!

[Dannyp19]

I only use 2D.

So, as long as is optional and not consuming resources, any of them. Do I have to choose? Then 2).

This!

Same here.