Version 3.99 is downloadable - let me know what you think!

Real time World War II combat simulation
henjed

problem

Post by henjed » Sat Sep 24, 2005 11:39 am

I'm useless with computers, but I cannot "fit" the 3.99 on my machine - insists on me trying 256 colour rather than 16 bit... and it looks bloody awful in 256. I can run the "old "Firefight" just fine.

Does the new version take up more space/memory (whatever it's called)? Might I not be able to run the new "Firefight" even when I delete the old?

Mike H

zon

Post by zon » Sat Sep 24, 2005 2:41 pm

Sean O'Connor wrote:
What I mean is that shadows are achieved in FF through a serious of dots, like below...


Ahhh, I see what you mean. Unfortunately there is no Windows GDI function to do the nice shadows you have shown quickly and that's why I do the quicker checker board black pixel method.

In the new version that you can download now (3.99) I do the shadows properly for trees and houses but I achieve this by going through individual pixels, reading their colour then halving the brightness and then drawing a darker pixel on the screen. This is quite slow and is why the game pauses on "Drawing Objects" while it draws the background world.

Blame Bill Gates for not giving us a nice easy function to use!


Consider BG blamed!

Here's an example of a larger tank graphic. Perhaps it could be made a little smaller and retain some detail. A little bigger scale, but would it really take up too much room on the map?
Image

Also, on the issue of enemy visibility, I meant that in my view the game should show enemy sprites and/or info text info when your troops should clearly be able to see them based on proximity and terrain. It would also be nice to see some indicator, perhaps a target sprite, to show when you're targeting the enemy as opposed to terrain.

And until pathfinding is introduced, maybe the building-crushing option should be removed.

Just my three cents. Keep up the good work.

zon

rotate tool

Post by zon » Sat Sep 24, 2005 2:47 pm

Just tinkering a bit. I tried the rotate tool, which is fantastic. Otherwise, all those rotated images required by the game would be hell to make. Looks like the size of tank guns are restricted through. The GraphicsTurretPixelsForward= field in the data limits how far forward you can move the turret over the hull. Am I missing something?

Guest

Memory Problem

Post by Guest » Sat Sep 24, 2005 8:28 pm

Sean:

I'm having a memory problem as well. I'm forced to run 3.99 in 256 colour which looks horrible.

I am running windows 98 with about 600MB of internal memory. Even when I close all other programs, I get the memory problem. I'm on a Pentium III running at 450Mhz.

Is it time for me to take my PC to the dustbin???

Garnier1

recommendations

Post by Garnier1 » Sun Sep 25, 2005 2:43 am

Very nice! I like it a lot.

Of course, there are my "recommendations."
1. Use Pvt. instead of Pt. for the abbreviation. This just doesnt look right as is, and it isnt correct either.
2. I noticed right away that the individual's names were all repeated a lot in my force, I could help you here I think by providing a lot of names, at least for the British, and then some for the other nations as well.
3. I really wish you would do slightly bigger and better tank graphics, like the one Zon showed us. That would really make the game look a lot better. After all, with 5 guys in a tank, how is a tank not much longer than an infantryman?
4. Where did the name "Infantry Section" come from? I would use stuff like: Rifle Squad, Airborne Squad, Ranger Squad, HMG Squad(or Support MG squad).
5. I love all the new information you get, about elevation and specific unit info. That is something I've always loved about CC.

One thing i didnt like is that while writing this i left my game running, after telling the churchill to blitz for the objective, and i wont in 11 min. without giving anymore orders.

Remember I can provide you a lot of names most of all. I'm always willing to help if I can.

zon

Post by zon » Sun Sep 25, 2005 4:21 am

Sorry. Another screenshot...

Image

I tried adding a new explosion effect, but it seems the engine uses two or three instances of each part of the explosion sequence and moves them around a bit. I think the explosion effect would be nicer with a smooth sequence of the four or five images in the explosion files (would be nice to have even more steps in the sequence).

Also noticed that tracers overshoot the target. In other words, tracers keep going across the map, past the target and explosion effects.

Andy Brown
Posts: 262
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 9:30 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

More 3.99 Feedback

Post by Andy Brown » Sun Sep 25, 2005 5:56 am

Naming each soldier is cute but I was wondering if it was worth the effort? Perhaps if campaign squads were carried over from game to game? Some sort of combat history for each man might be worthwhile, so that I know Sgt X is still with me after 20 battles or whatever?

There is still no distinction between heavy weapon HE and AP rounds. It's not too much of a gameplay problem but it's still a little disconcerting for serious wargamers.

More of everything (vehicles, bigger maps, terrain types etc) is obviously good. 20 units is fine, but so was 16 IMO. I wouldn't like to see many more but only because I tend to think of my force as a "company" rather than an unstructured collection of game assets.

I hear the calls for more than one objective but don't think that's necessary. One objective is enough for any company operation within Firefight's time frame. I usually find myself selecting intermediate objectives anyway. More mission types would be good, though.

One thing I've noticed is that, after a one-off game, I can look around the battlefield and examine my troop roster but that I can't do this after campaign games. This is important, IMO, and it would be useful and rewarding to be able to examine the enemy's roster after a battle as well.

I continue to applaud Firefight's spotting rules, although even I sometimes feel they're a bit overdone. I would probably support some sort of timed "general enemy presence" marker being placed in the vicinity of enemy "muzzle flashes" because, as a company commander, I may not be personally interested in locating every hidden target but, as a game player, it is often difficult to keep track of every enemy position without some sort of visual aid. As I also suspect this is the aspect of Firefight most likely to discourage new casual gamers, it is something I strongly feel needs to be looked at.

Regards,

Andy Brown

Quitch
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 8:56 am

Post by Quitch » Sun Sep 25, 2005 8:03 am

I would like a shout from infantry when a shell lands near them. Often I hear something land, know it's going to be followed by an artillery barrage, but by the time I find the crater it's often too late.

Andy Brown
Posts: 262
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 9:30 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: More 3.99 Feedback

Post by Andy Brown » Mon Sep 26, 2005 5:26 am

I would probably support some sort of timed "general enemy presence" marker being placed in the vicinity of enemy "muzzle flashes" because, as a company commander, I may not be personally interested in locating every hidden target but, as a game player, it is often difficult to keep track of every enemy position without some sort of visual aid.


Sorry, I need to make it clear here that, by "every enemy position", I'm talking about enemy squads and heavy weapons, not the location of individual enemy soldiers.

Andy

User avatar
Sean OConnor
Posts: 1299
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 7:47 am
Location: Cambridge, UK
Contact:

Re: rotate tool

Post by Sean OConnor » Mon Sep 26, 2005 11:53 am

zon wrote:Just tinkering a bit. I tried the rotate tool, which is fantastic. Otherwise, all those rotated images required by the game would be hell to make. Looks like the size of tank guns are restricted through. The GraphicsTurretPixelsForward= field in the data limits how far forward you can move the turret over the hull. Am I missing something?


Yes, the scale of the game is (for the graphics) 5 pixels = 1 metre. So, a Panther being 6.87m long should be 34 pixels long.

The turret graphics should be centered in the bitmap so that when the turret turns in the game it will turn about its center. You use the GraphicsTurretPixelsForward= if the turret on a tank isn't dead center in the hull.

User avatar
Sean OConnor
Posts: 1299
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 7:47 am
Location: Cambridge, UK
Contact:

Post by Sean OConnor » Mon Sep 26, 2005 11:55 am

And until pathfinding is introduced, maybe the building-crushing option should be removed.


The problem with that was that tanks would slide under houses and that looked a bit odd.

User avatar
Sean OConnor
Posts: 1299
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 7:47 am
Location: Cambridge, UK
Contact:

Re: Memory Problem

Post by Sean OConnor » Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:04 pm

Anonymous wrote:Sean:

I'm having a memory problem as well. I'm forced to run 3.99 in 256 colour which looks horrible.

I am running windows 98 with about 600MB of internal memory. Even when I close all other programs, I get the memory problem. I'm on a Pentium III running at 450Mhz.

Is it time for me to take my PC to the dustbin???


I thought this new version was a bit better at running on lower spec machines as it seemed much happier on my two computers, and one of them is a Pentium II 266 with 256Mb of RAM and that runs the game fine.

I'm not surprised that the game looks horrible at 256 colours as all the graphics have gone 24 bit and they can't get converted.

User avatar
Sean OConnor
Posts: 1299
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 7:47 am
Location: Cambridge, UK
Contact:

Re: recommendations

Post by Sean OConnor » Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:07 pm

Garnier1 wrote:Very nice! I like it a lot.

Of course, there are my "recommendations."
1. Use Pvt. instead of Pt. for the abbreviation. This just doesnt look right as is, and it isnt correct either.
2. I noticed right away that the individual's names were all repeated a lot in my force, I could help you here I think by providing a lot of names, at least for the British, and then some for the other nations as well.
3. I really wish you would do slightly bigger and better tank graphics, like the one Zon showed us. That would really make the game look a lot better. After all, with 5 guys in a tank, how is a tank not much longer than an infantryman?
4. Where did the name "Infantry Section" come from? I would use stuff like: Rifle Squad, Airborne Squad, Ranger Squad, HMG Squad(or Support MG squad).
5. I love all the new information you get, about elevation and specific unit info. That is something I've always loved about CC.

One thing i didnt like is that while writing this i left my game running, after telling the churchill to blitz for the objective, and i wont in 11 min. without giving anymore orders.

Remember I can provide you a lot of names most of all. I'm always willing to help if I can.


All the surnames are stored in text files in the folder "Data/Surnames/" so you can add to them and email me your updated .txt files. Thanks!

I want to keep the scale at 5 pixels = 1m so that the playing area is nice and large.

The demo version is meant to be very easy but I think there still is a problem about doing a tank rush. I may add a panzerschrek team to the German side on the demo so it's not quite so easy!

User avatar
Sean OConnor
Posts: 1299
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 7:47 am
Location: Cambridge, UK
Contact:

Post by Sean OConnor » Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:12 pm

zon wrote:I tried adding a new explosion effect, but it seems the engine uses two or three instances of each part of the explosion sequence and moves them around a bit. I think the explosion effect would be nicer with a smooth sequence of the four or five images in the explosion files (would be nice to have even more steps in the sequence).

Also noticed that tracers overshoot the target. In other words, tracers keep going across the map, past the target and explosion effects.


I've uploaded a new version (3.99a) at:

http://www.windowsgames.co.uk/download/FirefightSetup.exe

which improves the explosions a lot. There are now 4 different sizes of explosion in the explosion.bmp file each of which has 16 frames. I've put some very rough graphics in that .bmp file so if anyone has some better ones please email them to me!

I've corrected the bug where a tank shell line could appear to move past the explosion.

zon

Re: rotate tool

Post by zon » Mon Sep 26, 2005 4:46 pm

Sean O'Connor wrote:
zon wrote:Just tinkering a bit. I tried the rotate tool, which is fantastic. Otherwise, all those rotated images required by the game would be hell to make. Looks like the size of tank guns are restricted through. The GraphicsTurretPixelsForward= field in the data limits how far forward you can move the turret over the hull. Am I missing something?


Yes, the scale of the game is (for the graphics) 5 pixels = 1 metre. So, a Panther being 6.87m long should be 34 pixels long.

The turret graphics should be centered in the bitmap so that when the turret turns in the game it will turn about its center. You use the GraphicsTurretPixelsForward= if the turret on a tank isn't dead center in the hull.


If a modder wanted to increase the scale on his own, I guess he's out of luck because of the limits on the image size and the central hotpoint for the turret. No way around it I guess.

Post Reply