StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The graphics look lightyears ahead of the last screenies. My god...

Thats... amazing. It makes it's own earlier screenshots look bad. If enough people pre-order it, do you think it'll be done sooner?

Finally, more info on it. Looks great

Why must you tempt me so?!

Wow, those look really good. And I really really need to upgrade my computer to be able to run this baby. Looking forward to this SO much.

Thank the heavens, the blast waves look much better than the cheesy yellow rings they were before.


The terrain texture isn't very advanced but I bet they look very sharp when viewed from higher up like how the game will likely mostly be. That and it's just huge.

I'm glad games have started letting you zoom out to strategic level. It works really well in GC2, for instance.

Look at all the screenshots. They look so........ *orgasm*



I mean just look at this:

Link


Or the sheer sense of distance and scale on this one

To be honest, I'd rather the graphics were simple 'meh' so the game doesn't suffer from slowdown. Civ 4 was a great example - the graphics were excellent, but it meant that 50% of people couldn't play on huge maps.

It's gameplay and massive battles that I am interested in. This is my most anticipated game of the next year for sure.

I'm going to take the devils advocat position here a little - I really don't see why everybodies getting so worked up about the graphics. Techincally they don't seem particularly impressive (judging from the screenshots). I see no dynamic lighting, only basic shadow maps and pretty low res textures.

As an example:

Here is a screenshot of C&C Generals in pre-alpha development stage from 2002

Compare with this shot of Supreme Commander in pre-alpha (I guess pre-alpha because they talk about features they are thinking of adding)

Obviously, Supreme Commander out does Generals for scale of the simulation - but detail wise Generals has it beat (look at the units, buildings, trees, the texture resolution and effects).

I'm certainly not saying that Supreme Commanders graphics are bad - what will make them amazing is, as mentioned in the article, the scale they are supposedly going to allow. Unfortunately the Supreme Commander shots we've seen so far only hint at that, and we just get shots of a bunch of tanks romping about on some repeating grass textures with some muddy sprite explosions. Bear in mind ofcourse that the game is obviously still in rather heavy development - they might well add more graphical features along the way.

Whats exciting about Supreme Commander is that somebody is actually talking about innovating in the RTS genre that may actually be in a position where they have the freedom to really do that (i.e. they aren't owned by one of the huge publishing houses that just want a sure hit). The article talks about a few features that have been along time coming - the order planning feature sounds fantastic when coupled with the scale of the game (Red Alert 2 actually had something very like this, but it was completely out of place for that games rather frantic pace), and the idea of having a unit you can "program" to build your base so you needn't worry about it sounds promising too.

And if Supreme Commander is a hit gameplay wise you can bet EA/Ubisoft etc... will be along in a year or so to make a clone (or five) with all the features of Supreme Commander plus super high production values alowing for cutting edge graphics, sound etc...

Damn you! This game is still 12 months away!

Aaron Ash wrote:I'm going to take the devils advocat position here a little - I really don't see why everybodies getting so worked up about the graphics. Techincally they don't seem particularly impressive (judging from the screenshots). I see no dynamic lighting, only basic shadow maps and pretty low res textures

C&C Generals animation of the units was very poor.

The terrain was 100% static, only had short lived decales applied to it. The buildings look more pasted on there than anything else, The interactivity between the units and the the terrain was rather tiny. The units themselves where rather blocky, and the texturing wasnt that great. There where no smoke effects and the explosions looked pathetic(very small ultra short lived affairs).

But worse, the game ran horrible, even after patching, even on rigs vastly more powerful than what it was designed for it runs horribly.

Xon wrote:C&C Generals animation of the units was very poor.

The terrain was 100% static, only had short lived decales applied to it. The buildings look more pasted on there than anything else, The interactivity between the units and the the terrain was rather tiny. The units themselves where rather blocky, and the texturing wasnt that great. There where no smoke effects and the explosions looked pathetic(very small ultra short lived affairs).

But worse, the game ran horrible, even after patching, even on rigs vastly more powerful than what it was designed for it runs horribly.

All of which has what exactly to do with my comparison of its graphics to those of Supreme Commander?

Aaron Ash wrote:All of which has what exactly to do with my comparison of its graphics to those of Supreme Commander?

The graphics in C&C Generals where highly static and poor, even by the standards of the time.

Half-way decent explosions, smoke and fire effects (which the image you linekd to had rather good version) are some of the harder problems in realtime Computer graphics.

Highly static graphics allow for significant pre-rendering tricks but utterly hit interactivity.

Xon wrote:The graphics in C&C Generals where highly static and poor, even by the standards of the time.

I disagree, but that is not the topic we are discussing - and still has no bearing on a comparison between the graphics of the two games. I can only assume you mean to say that Supreme Commanders graphics will not be as "static" then?

Xon wrote:Half-way decent explosions, smoke and fire effects (which the image you linekd to had rather good version) are some of the harder problems in realtime Computer graphics.

Are you suggesting that Generals - and by extension other games that use similar rendering techniques are not "real time"? Care to elaborate on which specific rendering techniques you consider to be "tricks"?

Xon wrote:Highly static graphics allow for significant pre-rendering tricks but utterly hit interactivity.

You do realise that there is hardly a single element in that screenshot I posted of Supreme Commander that it renders in a significantly different way to Generals? The smoke is composed of sprites (look at the line cut-off lines where they intercept the ground) exactly as they are in Generals, the fireballs in the explosions use sprites for the smaller flames and animated geometry for the larger ones just as they are in Generals. In other shots there are a few graphical features it has that Generals does not - for example pixel shaded water, and normal mapping on the models; but these are hardly ground breaking techniques and have been employed for years.

Never mind the individual graphics, it's the overall presentation. If it delivers on those screen-shots then it'll be the best thing since Ground Control. A couple of them are just amazing, like the second one Shinova linked to.

You may also like the mobile tank factory, which is submersible and has battleship guns.

It's like they're reading our threads.

If you wanted unit designs for the most extreme RTS ever, you could do worse than infiltrating the HAB.

Aaron Ash wrote:I disagree, but that is not the topic we are discussing - and still has no bearing on a comparison between the graphics of the two games. I can only assume you mean to say that Supreme Commanders graphics will not be as "static" then?

The terrain and buildings are rendered are mapped onto a 3d mesh(in the case of the buildings onto what amounts to a cube). The detail is purely the result of the pre-rendered drawing. There is no change in detail as you rotate the view point or the like. It is a glorified background image.

You do realise that there is hardly a single element in that screenshot I posted of Supreme Commander that it renders in a significantly different way to Generals? The smoke is composed of sprites (look at the line cut-off lines where they intercept the ground) exactly as they are in Generals, the fireballs in the explosions use sprites for the smaller flames and animated geometry for the larger ones just as they are in Generals.

For Supreme Commander, they arent using 2D sprites billboarded for explosions.

The smoke is the result of 1D pixels, lots of them. Same with the fire effect. The result of the sharp cut-off is because the 1D pixels do not interact fully with the enviroment, as it is computationally too expensive. Slight variations to the basic shape are compuationally cheap without resulting in everything looking damn identical.

And the shadows sure as hell are a little more involved that simple static maps, given you can see the shadows accurately cast onto the ground when pieces rotate around.

Xon wrote:The terrain and buildings are rendered are mapped onto a 3d mesh(in the case of the buildings onto what amounts to a cube). The detail is purely the result of the pre-rendered drawing. There is no change in detail as you rotate the view point or the like. It is a glorified background image.

Yes - that is what is known as the textured polygon, I am very familiar with them, I work with them every day. Every 3D game made (aside from a handful that I can almost count on one hand) use textured polygons, they are an international standard for graphics - and Supreme Commander uses them too. The most recent big innovation for textured polygons is the use of normal maps to complement the textures - Supreme Commander does use these (although they don't seem to be turned on in the screenshot I linked), but it is hardly unique as they have been used in game for atleast a year now (Doom 3 was one of the first big name games to have them).

Xon wrote:For Supreme Commander, they arent using 2D sprites billboarded for explosions.

The smoke is the result of 1D pixels, lots of them. Same with the fire effect. The result of the sharp cut-off is because the 1D pixels do not interact fully with the enviroment, as it is computationally too expensive. Slight variations to the basic shape are compuationally cheap without resulting in everything looking damn identical.

Do you have a source for that? What you just described is a particle effect - they are not an alternative to sprites, they are the most common modern method of using sprites in games. And guess what? It's the same one Generals uses too. Each "1D" pixel as you describe it is used as a mapping point for a sprite, hence layering multiple sprites somewhat randomly ontop of each other to create a complex and dynamic effect each time.

Xon wrote:And the shadows sure as hell are a little more involved that simple static maps, given you can see the shadows accurately cast onto the ground when pieces rotate around.

They most certainly are shadow maps, and not particularly advanced ones as the objects do not self-shadow; A more advanced shadow map or shadow volumes (again, Doom 3 is an example of these) would allow things like tank turrets to cast shadows on their hull.

Errr, is there a reason why it's so wrong of us to be worked up over the graphics?

Yeeesh, this argument is so petty, come'on guys.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the point of this game is to have a shitload of decent-looking units on-screen at once, all firing powerful weapons. Therefore, each unit can look worse than some other games and the overall graphical "wow" factor will still be higher.

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but the point of this game is to have a shitload of decent-looking units on-screen at once, all firing powerful weapons. Therefore, each unit can look worse than some other games and the overall graphical "wow" factor will still be higher.

Exactly my thoughts - this is the sort of screenshot that make me really look forward to the game, this new batch of shots smaller scale battles are just a little "meh" in my opinion.

And my apologies if I am going on a little about graphics, it's just they are what I "do" so I tend to get a little carried away in discussions about them. No offense intended to anyone.