RE: Who is happy with Command? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series



Message

RoryAndersonCDT -> RE: Who is happy with Command? (9/28/2013 10:08:41 PM)

I am 110% pleased wtih this game! One thing I've noticed is that people are simply unaware of the sandbox gameplay; the scenarios are great but nothing compares with your own imagination!

I'm going to be streaming some additional videos today:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3420399



adek670 -> RE: Who is happy with Command? (9/28/2013 10:30:14 PM)

cant imagine a two year dog-fight but hey, who knows.....

Quote from warfareSims.com "Relentless Realism",

I just think that the fact that you cant play it at the recommended specs at 1:1 means its not doing what it is designed to do.




RoryAndersonCDT -> RE: Who is happy with Command? (9/28/2013 10:33:54 PM)

I don't have a good computer but I was able to live stream a scenario with around 1500 units yesterday! Live streaming means my computer is using alot of effort elsewhere. I think what you are experiencing is a bug that will be fixed!

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3420399



adek670 -> RE: Who is happy with Command? (9/28/2013 10:35:14 PM)

yeah, loved your vid.. Watched it earlier.

Am interested in your specs.




RoryAndersonCDT -> RE: Who is happy with Command? (9/28/2013 10:36:17 PM)

I've got a i5 processor with 4 gb ram, nVidia 460 GTX.



RoryAndersonCDT -> RE: Who is happy with Command? (9/28/2013 10:42:12 PM)

I'm thinking of upgrading to help with livestreaming... But the game runs just fine if I don't try to stream live video to the internet while encoding it locally!



adek670 -> RE: Who is happy with Command? (9/28/2013 10:44:11 PM)

is the i5 much faster than the Q6600 quad CPU? running it a 3.00GHz with 8 gigs of ram and a SSD 2 x gtx 260s in sli - although I don think gpu capability is even tested by this game

Well... I will continue to watch your vids.. keep up the good work.. they are superb.


Reaper




adek670 -> RE: Who is happy with Command? (9/28/2013 10:48:14 PM)

Sunburn,

your reasons below are why I would like to play in 1:1

Because there are certain occasions where you really do want the camera to "come down" and literally hang just over the scene of the action.

Examples:

* Cluster bomb/warhead bursting over e.g. a group of vehicles, the bomblet cloud gradually spreading out and finally impacting, most of the vehicles being wiped out.

* Similarly, a Tornado/JP-233 run over a runway. (If you've added a custom image overlay, it's just like being there).

* Platoons of tanks and other vehicles exchanging fire, tracers and near-misses everywhere.

* A close-in dogfight between aircraft, with cannon tracers and IR missiles criss-crossing.

* Being surrounded by near-misses from enemy artillery, for example: http://www.warfaresims.com/WarSimsWP/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Splashes1.png

At these and other moments you don't really have time to notice the jagged coastline or the pixellated mountain range. You're too busy picking your jaw off the floor [:D]

< Message edited by Sunburn -- 9/27/2013 3:52:28 PM >



Dimitris -> RE: Who is happy with Command? (9/28/2013 10:55:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reaper

cant imagine a two year dog-fight but hey, who knows.....

Quote from warfareSims.com "Relentless Realism",

I just think that the fact that you cant play it at the recommended specs at 1:1 means its not doing what it is designed to do.


So... extrapolating this viewpoint, when the guys at CERN simulate e.g. a matter-antimatter collision, and they're running a hyper-detailed simulation on top of a super-computer and it still takes weeks to simulate a few micro-seconds of this cosmic interaction, does this mean their simulation is not realistic, because simulating one second takes longer than one second?

You can probably guess I do not subscribe to this view.

IMHO, Command does EXACTLY what it was designed to do. It conforms to the priorities that we, and those who grok the stuff we do, have set upon it.

When we speak about realism, we mean weapon DLZ parameters, radar scan vertical beamwidths and their effect on sidelobe jamming, a towed array's angular resolution as a function of its aperture width, and a virtual captain's/pilot's ability to make sense of all these and use them to his advantage. For us, that's where realism lies. If a sim takes shortcuts on fidelity so that you can have a smooth 30-60 FPS visual experience that's not realism for us.



mikmykWS -> RE: Who is happy with Command? (9/28/2013 11:00:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Baloogan

I am 110% pleased wtih this game! One thing I've noticed is that people are simply unaware of the sandbox gameplay; the scenarios are great but nothing compares with your own imagination!

I'm going to be streaming some additional videos today:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3420399


Thanks. We view it that way too!

Mike



MaB1708 -> RE: Who is happy with Command? (9/28/2013 11:00:49 PM)

quote:

Command does EXACTLY what it was designed to do. It conforms to the priorities that we, and those who grok the stuff we do, have set upon it.

When we speak about realism, we mean weapon DLZ parameters, radar scan vertical beamwidths and their effect on sidelobe jamming, and a towed array's angular resolution as a function of its aperture width. For us, that's where realism lies. If a sim takes shortcuts on fidelity so that you can have a smooth 30-60 FPS visual experience that's not realism for us.


And this is the best selling-point for characters like us. Thanks for your efforts so far, the result is really worth it so far and on an improving (tech glitches, features) glideslope.

M



mcoyote -> RE: Who is happy with Command? (9/28/2013 11:08:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reaper
* Being surrounded by near-misses from enemy artillery, for example: http://www.warfaresims.com/WarSimsWP/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Splashes1.png


Heya -- did you manage to remove the terrain textues altogether? Can't tell if you're zoomed in so far everything's blurred or if you really have a solid background. I'd really like to remove the background imagery.



thewood1 -> RE: Who is happy with Command? (9/28/2013 11:18:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MartinB

I was not talking about suggestions. To have them considered and if suitable implemented during the weeks and months - fine with me.
It is about issues or functionalities that do not work as designed. If some of them are found within hours of release by non-beta-testers within the tutorial missions even, for me that means insuffcient beta-testing or -testers.
It is not about what is tackled pre- or post-release, it is about identifying what has to be solved prior to release.

But all this does definitely sound unhappier then I am with COMMAND, as stated earlier from my side and others in this thread, its on its way, we trust the guys behind the projects and at the end, everything will be fine.

M



That is why I said features/issues...note the issues part. I have lead development teams and sometimes low-level issues are set aside to be fixed post-release.

I see many of the issues being talked about that are perception or fairly minor database issues. I know there are some bigger ones and things in the database that need to be fixed, but come on...10k database items and an engine built from scratch. If a couple of you guys are waiting for it to be perfect, I would suggest getting a refund now. It will never be perfect.



adek670 -> RE: Who is happy with Command? (9/28/2013 11:29:51 PM)

In which case, I would like a refund... it doesn't perform at the recommended specs as stated (and to compare this to CERN is a joke, even an insult) - so please provide me details on how I can gain this please.

Command doesn't do EXACTLY what it should given the requirements advertised below --- remember this:

Game Requirements
OS: Windows XP SP3 / Vista / 7 / 8
CPU: 1 GHz (Dual-core Pentium and above recommended)
RAM: 1 GB (2GB+ recommended)
Video/Graphics: DirectX 9.0c compatible video card with 16 MB RAM
Sound: Compatible sound card
Hard disk space: 10 GB Free
DVD-ROM: Yes, for boxed version
DirectX version: DirectX 9.0c (Suitable Direct-X version bundled with game)

Oh,

why both with all of this:

Because there are certain occasions where you really do want the camera to "come down" and literally hang just over the scene of the action.

Examples:

* Cluster bomb/warhead bursting over e.g. a group of vehicles, the bomblet cloud gradually spreading out and finally impacting, most of the vehicles being wiped out.

* Similarly, a Tornado/JP-233 run over a runway. (If you've added a custom image overlay, it's just like being there).

* Platoons of tanks and other vehicles exchanging fire, tracers and near-misses everywhere.

* A close-in dogfight between aircraft, with cannon tracers and IR missiles criss-crossing.

* Being surrounded by near-misses from enemy artillery, for example: http://www.warfaresims.com/WarSimsWP/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Splashes1.png

At these and other moments you don't really have time to notice the jagged coastline or the pixellated mountain range. You're too busy picking your jaw off the floor [:



Rosseau -> RE: Who is happy with Command? (9/28/2013 11:40:48 PM)

Has anyone seen the AI do a proper air-to-ground naval strike on "auto attack"? I have not played it enough yet to know for sure. Ship-to-ship is obviously easier as altitude/speed in not an issue. Thanks!



kaburke61 -> RE: Who is happy with Command? (9/28/2013 11:43:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Reaper

cant imagine a two year dog-fight but hey, who knows.....

Quote from warfareSims.com "Relentless Realism",

I just think that the fact that you cant play it at the recommended specs at 1:1 means its not doing what it is designed to do.




I think at this point, it's some can't most can (at least I can with a 2+ year old system no problem.) Either way, this is a responsive team, so it should be rectified quickly.



Maesphil74 -> RE: Who is happy with Command? (9/28/2013 11:44:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn


So... extrapolating this viewpoint, when the guys at CERN simulate e.g. a matter-antimatter collision, and they're running a hyper-detailed simulation on top of a super-computer and it still takes weeks to simulate a few micro-seconds of this cosmic interaction, does this mean their simulation is not realistic, because simulating one second takes longer than one second?

[8|]

Hilarious analogue.



thewood1 -> RE: Who is happy with Command? (9/28/2013 11:49:27 PM)

Actually it does perform, just not to your satisfaction and they have stated they are going do some optimization. So it works now,and they have committed to make it better. But if I were Matrix, I'd let you shelve it (your words) and give you your money back because 1:1 runs at 1:2. It does the same for me, but it is very playable, does basically what its advertised to do, and seems to have the commitment to get better. Not sure what more you can ask for, except your money back.



Banquet -> RE: Who is happy with Command? (9/29/2013 12:20:41 AM)

Very Happy with Command. It's one of those games that you can't stop thinking about. It's like a world in your computer, just begging your imagination to put it to work. One minute you're thinking about theater wide strategy and then suddenly you're pulled into it's world and find yourself watching individual combatants pitting their wits against each other. A fascinating experience!



hondo1375 -> RE: Who is happy with Command? (9/29/2013 12:34:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn
We are also looking at an option to run in 1:1 mode with 1-sec pulse length (a.k.a. "Harpoon mode") instead of the current 0.1 sec.


When I first read this I thought you guys must be some uber-obsessive types! Then I did a quick calculation, and worked out that a Sidewinder can travel around a 1km in a second at typical engagement altitudes. A pulse of 0.1s reduces that to 100m, so I can see how it makes a difference to fidelity, as you say, particularly to do with evasion and such.



adek670 -> RE: Who is happy with Command? (9/29/2013 1:52:43 AM)

This game, and it is a game -not the process by which we ascertain the 'god particle'- had so much hype. I got caught up in that, having been a fan of the harpoon series (thankfully at the end of the collection). What we have is an 80% solution. No doubt it will improve - the business model is written this way.....



thewood1 -> RE: Who is happy with Command? (9/29/2013 1:58:23 AM)

It might be 80% of the hype but it is not far off the 100% of the solution. It is very dependent on what you think the solution is and how that aligns with the developer's vision of the solution.



mikmykWS -> RE: Who is happy with Command? (9/29/2013 2:47:22 AM)

I think our beta team can attest to us being pretty reasonable though. We do try and come through on most requests that we think make sense for the game.

Our goal in developing this game was to get the game we always wanted.





baten52 -> RE: Who is happy with Command? (9/29/2013 3:34:38 AM)

Congratulations to all involved in this project and sim - simply great. Having said that, there are area's that need some attention and the scenario crashes is one. But this a genre setting game and I'll happily wait for the polishing that will make it a iconic sim.



mikmykWS -> RE: Who is happy with Command? (9/29/2013 4:05:55 AM)

Thanks baten. We're in process of working on an update/patch.



Meroka37 -> RE: Who is happy with Command? (9/29/2013 6:35:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

I think our beta team can attest to us being pretty reasonable though. We do try and come through on most requests that we think make sense for the game.

Our goal in developing this game was to get the game we always wanted.





As betatester I fully agree with Mike, I've seen in the last two months the dev. team supporting all around the clock the beta forum, solving questions, taking suggestions and implementing them, quite a lot bunch of builts in so little time, each one improving the previous, and it looks like after release the are working at same pace, I'm fully confident they will solve quickly any problem that prevents the game from being played smoothly, and will go on welcoming and adding to the simulation any suggestion is reasonable, they are already doing it...these days I'm testing new builds solving problems and adding features coming from this or beta forum...



MaB1708 -> RE: Who is happy with Command? (9/29/2013 8:55:11 AM)

quote:

If a couple of you guys are waiting for it to be perfect

Woody,
As you are referring to my post, when have I made an expectation like that? Or any of "us" ("you guys")? We guys are quite a colourfull bunch, so please don't throw me in a group membership here...
I believe you find out that my posts of the last days are more meant to be helpfull (for either the dev team or other users) than being a rant. There is nothing to rant about from my side other then the fact that easy-to-discover malfunctions and omissions had not been identified during beta. Everything else I am really happy with and bring a good will and patience for issues to be tackled for us.
Trying to get rid of "us" by asking to get the bucks back and do the Sir Robin, that is a definite misunderstanding of my intentions.
Besides: for no money will I give this sim back ;-)

You all have a great sunday.




chrismscotland -> RE: Who is happy with Command? (9/29/2013 11:49:20 AM)

Looking forward to playing it, downloading the paid for version just now.
Played the beta a little and while it wasn't perfect its very very good, I've spent countless hours over the years playing Harpoon and I can see I'll want to spend as much time playing this too.
Looking forward to playing with the scenario editor too, was a pain the the neck the Harpoon one not working on 64 bit!



wodin -> RE: Who is happy with Command? (9/29/2013 2:47:48 PM)

This sort of question is always best asked two or three months after release..I've seen many many games get praised to death in the first few weeks and then slowly things become apparent and it turns out not to be as great as everyone first thought..very few games are. All the comments at first praised the AI no end..but now people are picking it apart for instance.

If you love Harpoon I expect it to be a must buy..but as someone who doesn't normally do Naval warfare I'm not going to take the risk. Databases are cool..but we have the Internet for free..or I'd prefer some good books if I was into that sort of thing rather than a game.

I do think though this is the go to game for all modern naval warfare grogs.



ParachuteProne -> RE: Who is happy with Command? (9/29/2013 3:00:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: midnight_mangler

I was a member of the beta but did not get to play as much as I would have liked due to personal problems, but after a few days of playing V1.0 I realized that Command is everything I'd hoped it would be. I seriously feel like a kid in a giant sandpit filled with every single military toy I imagined as a boy and teenager. This game is going to keep me occupied for years. And I'm also looking forward to the new scenarios (hopefully more NATO and PACT because that was "my" era) which are bound to come.

Kudos to the devs. Who else has been overcome with fan boyish enthusiasm? Please tell me I'm not alone.


Very happy :)



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8125