Berlin CMRT Map

[NPye]

19 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

Gorgeous! V2 looks very much improved compared to previous version which is/was great already. For the icing on the cake I´d yet add some dirt layers on the paved roads and maybe on some other ground textures as well. Pity that normal maps for ground textures aren´t supported. Bits of applying "exposure" on various ground textures might help accommodating a bit. When is V2 ready?

MM maybe we have to be careful for the roads not to look repetitive, but yep would be an improvement...Cheers

[NPye]

On 11/5/2022 at 5:46 PM, Lucky_Strike said:

Now you have the Blender file you can try new things with this one. I did wonder about options like an open topped one, filled with rubble as part of a barricade, not sure what the interior of the tram would do, it might need work so that it's texturised. Also thought about having one flipped on its side, but the underside is not that good. You should be able to make extra versions, just remember to have unique textures to get them predictably appearing in game.

I don't think the tram has any inners or detail underneath... would be good though. Cheers

[NPye]

On 11/9/2022 at 1:58 AM, Lucky_Strike said:

Will have to take a peek at them. Definitely need something a bit more scattered and less neat than the stock ones. Since bricks are a pretty simple shape - each brick can be made of 12 triangle texels on six faces - they won't add much to the graphics load. I'm thinking of a roughly tile sized scattering as a flavor object, few dozen bricks and perhaps a few odd shaped bits of other masonry. Couple of different textures for variety could give a nice scattered debris effect around the larger piled up rubble, kinda soften the edges as it were. Probably use a particle system to speed up the making in Blender. 

Mate that would be awesome, how hard would a large clump of rubble be with bricks etc to scale? And one thing really missing an industrial chimney about 80 ft tall red brick???? 

[RockinHarry]

22 minutes ago, NPye said:

Mate that would be awesome, how hard would a large clump of rubble be with bricks etc to scale? And one thing really missing an industrial chimney about 80 ft tall red brick???? 

Not that hard I´d say. Making and applying textures could be the real challenge maybe.

Re chimneys I think @The Steppenwulf tried on that already.

 

[The Steppenwulf]

16 minutes ago, RockinHarry said:

Not that hard I´d say. Making and applying textures could be the real challenge maybe.

Re chimneys I think @The Steppenwulf tried on that already.

 

This sort of object is one of the easiest to create from scratch. But the thing is that there are so many free models out there online that it's easier to import one into Blender and convert the file.

The problem with any objects in CM is that they don't offer any ballistics cover, due to not having cracked the meta data in the files. This means many objects, that you'd expect to offer hard cover in game, aren't suitable to warrant getting in game. IOW, given the effort expended, IMHO, it's no much worth looking pretty, if it confers no actual tactical advantage.   

Edited November 10, 2022 by The Steppenwulf

[NPye]

9 minutes ago, The Steppenwulf said:

The problem with any objects in CM is that they don't offer any ballistics cover, due to not having cracked the meta data in the files. This means many, that you'd expect to offer hard cover, aren't suited to import. Given the effort, IMHO, It's no good looking pretty, if it confers no actual tactical advantage.   

I know what ya mean but I design the maps in such a way that there are areas on the map that will never be fought over, so yep purely aesthetic but wow looks cool and adds to the overall immersion. You could argue all flavour objects are in this category as far as I know they dont hold any defense advantage, and tanks and infantry can just walk through them....But without the game wouldn't be as immersive.

Edited November 10, 2022 by NPye

[The Steppenwulf]

If it's only you playing the map then sure, fill your boots soldier!

But for other players, playing someone else's map, this probably won't be the case. I personally would find it less immersive and wholly unrealistic. Consider also that they offer no block to los as well as no cover. That's not immersive to me it's map breaking!

Small flavour objects that would not really present as hard cover or block los in real life are different though. Consider that there are actually very few stock flavour objects that are large, I suspect that's for this very reason. If BF was to use large objects they would have to ensure that they presented as hard cover and blocked los. They haven't because they don't and to do so would be an epic fail for immersion.

That all said, there ARE lots of ideas for objects that are wonderful and would make the game prettier for sure, it's just worth bearing in mind the consequences of these shortcomings for gameplay with larger objects.

Hope that helps! All the best!

Edited November 10, 2022 by The Steppenwulf

[RockinHarry]

4 minutes ago, The Steppenwulf said:

If it's only you playing the map then sure, fill your boots soldier!

But for other players, playing someone else's map, this probably won't be the case. I personally would find it less immersive and wholly unrealistic. Consider also that they offer no block to los as well as no cover. That's not immersive to me it's map breaking!

Small flavour objects that would not really present as hard cover or block los in real life are different though. Consider that there are actually very few stock flavour objects that are large, I suspect that's for this very reason. If BF was to use large objects they would have to ensure that they presented as hard cover and blocked los. They haven't because they don't and to do so would be an epic fail for immersion.

That all said, there ARE lots of ideas for objects that are wonderful and would make the game prettier for sure, it's just worth bearing in mind the consequences of these shortcomings.

Hope that helps! All the best!

Think both approaches are valid, but me personally prefers stuff that is also good for some in game effects like cover, obstacle and LOS obstructions etc. Would be great if one could have both though. For beeing obstacles of any kind I´ve figured out most flavors already. For LOS obstructions I´d have a closer look at haystack and sheds META since these block LOS quite effectively. META Unkn1 and Unkn2 triplets could be likely candidates.

For beeing hard cover I still have doubts that any flavor object offers some. Not even large fountain seems providing cover, although it´s great vehicle movement blocking object. That´s the stuff to look for in pillboxes and trenches META since these are the more "simple" type cover objects. Off course vehicle type object is not flavor type and some the stuff is likely be hard coded and thus inaccessible (to modding). Currently I´m investigating wooden shelter META data and have bits of success already. More to come very soon I hope.

 

[Artkin]

Flavor objects do indeed provide cover.

I found this out in 5 seconds in cmbs. I placed 100-200 concrete barriers down and my troops crouched behind them, and also had a ridiculous kill/death ratio when shooting at troops in the open

Edited November 11, 2022 by Artkin

[Lucky_Strike]

4 hours ago, NPye said:

Not Really nice ones, my wishlist includes large piles of rubble, with planks of wood and metal in them and roof tiles .... also a smaller scale like a few scaled bricks that would be easy to spread across roads etc....?????

The latter was what I was thinking as a flavour object, scattering of brick'n'rubble over a few square meters. Not sure how one would tackle doing gert big piles of rubble. We can't deform ground tiles to include any 3D objects. Doodads wouldn't really work as they are constantly in motion when viewed from close up. Flavor objects are quite difficult to make into ground tile-like objects as they don't really conform to the underlying ground shape very well, and are not going to be treated as ground by anything clambering over them, that is there may be some odd looking effects.

For large piles of rubble we need something 3D that can be placed on the ground to create the impression of a covering of loose rubble and debris, whilst remaining static and traversable ... thinking ... still thinking ... yet more thinking ... this is a tough one. Hedges could be completely remodelled to represent a much flatter, wider shape, they create some restrictions to movement, mostly conform the ground undulations, come in a lot of shapes. A random smattering across one of your slopes of rubble ground texture might look quite convincing. An experiment is called for!

[Lucky_Strike]

4 hours ago, NPye said:

Ya trouble is I now want to use them on older maps more messin about...I need to get this mod done. lol Cheers

 Always the way - rods for our own backs and all that ...

[Lucky_Strike]

4 hours ago, NPye said:

MM maybe we have to be careful for the roads not to look repetitive, but yep would be an improvement...Cheers

Yes there's a fine balance when adding ground textures. Sometimes the repeat patterns become very intrusive.

[Lucky_Strike]

4 hours ago, NPye said:

I don't think the tram has any inners or detail underneath... would be good though. Cheers

Yeah the underside is pretty poor, I did have to take a look

I think the inside is just a reflection of the outside, but what I'm not uncertain of is if it actually has an inside surface. Objects where we see both sides need to have structure (mesh / material / texture) on both sides so that they exist from the game's point of view otherwise strange things can happen to them in game, odd transparency or other weirdness. If the lid is taken off the tram car then we need to make sure that the inside is meshed and has a material. A rough, simple box would probably be enough, nothing complex. Then it could contain some rubble (another box) or piles of other heavy objects like girders or hedgehogs, all made as part of the model.

[Lucky_Strike]

4 hours ago, NPye said:

Mate that would be awesome, how hard would a large clump of rubble be with bricks etc to scale? And one thing really missing an industrial chimney about 80 ft tall red brick???? 

First one not to difficult, see my other comment, second harder, see my other comment. Chimney ... don't know. Isn't there one in the Stalingrad mod? Someone was making a mineret somewhere ... not sure what happened to that. I'm not really the one to ask about buildings ...

[Lucky_Strike]

4 hours ago, The Steppenwulf said:

This sort of object is one of the easiest to create from scratch. But the thing is that there are so many free models out there online that it's easier to import one into Blender and convert the file.

The problem with any objects in CM is that they don't offer any ballistics cover, due to not having cracked the meta data in the files. This means many objects, that you'd expect to offer hard cover in game, aren't suitable to warrant getting in game. IOW, given the effort expended, IMHO, it's no much worth looking pretty, if it confers no actual tactical advantage.   

Yes, like @The Steppenwulf said.

Our only real hope would be finding a suitable donor structure that could be remodelled, but I can't think of one ...

[NPye]

36 minutes ago, Lucky_Strike said:

For large piles of rubble we need something 3D that can be placed on the ground to create the impression of a covering of loose rubble and debris, whilst remaining static and traversable ... thinking ... still thinking ... yet more thinking ... this is a tough one. Hedges could be completely remodelled to represent a much flatter, wider shape, they create some restrictions to movement, mostly conform the ground undulations, come in a lot of shapes. A random smattering across one of your slopes of rubble ground texture might look quite convincing. An experiment is called for!

That's it bud...just raising the ground and place a 2d bmp over isn't really doing the job IMHO...we need it to be 3d..u is da man....go for it bud. 

[NPye]

22 minutes ago, Lucky_Strike said:

First one not to difficult, see my other comment, second harder, see my other comment. Chimney ... don't know. Isn't there one in the Stalingrad mod? Someone was making a mineret somewhere ... not sure what happened to that. I'm not really the one to ask about buildings ...

Nope sadly lacking in Stalingrad.

[NPye]

Offf subject a bit but I added the patrol destroyer from Aquilas collection, Juno Beach, What ya think Mark, Harry...Stupid or ok??? I know its off period but with the fog on and kept distant it adds something maybe....

 

PS Why do my Canadians have some British troop uniforms in their squads??? I haven't modded the Canadians/ Always been like this.

Edited November 11, 2022 by NPye

[Lucky_Strike]

8 minutes ago, NPye said:

Offf subject a bit but I added the patrol destroyer from Aquilas collection, Juno Beach, What ya think Mark, Harry...Stupid or ok??? I know its off period but with the fog on and kept distant it adds something maybe....

 

PS Why do my Canadians have some British troop uniforms in their squads??? I haven't modded the Canadians/ Always been like this.

Is it a missile destroyer, can't tell from your image. What's the original look like. Alternatively we just find a model of a WW2 destroyer and swap it in ... it's nice to have a backdrop, but at the end of the day it's not essential.

[Lucky_Strike]

4 hours ago, The Steppenwulf said:

But for other players, playing someone else's map, this probably won't be the case. I personally would find it less immersive and wholly unrealistic. Consider also that they offer no block to los as well as no cover. That's not immersive to me it's map breaking!

Well, hmm, there's always bits of maps that are just never used, it's in the nature of the game to have a centre of play then some peripheral stuff going on and then dead zones. So having a backdrop of distant objects that are not as far off as the horizon but in dead zones isn't going to break anything in terms of game play IMHO. I totally agree that something in the centre or periphery should function correctly, or as near to correct as we can force it to. In the case of a tall chimney, if it's in the play area, it would be nice if it could function as a tall observation structure - like a church tower can. But if damaged it may be off limits for this purpose, in which case it should offer some cover and/or concealment. Outside of the play area casting a shadow is about all it would need to do, it would have to be explicitly off limits - damaged and hollow.

4 hours ago, NPye said:

I know what ya mean but I design the maps in such a way that there are areas on the map that will never be fought over, so yep purely aesthetic but wow looks cool and adds to the overall immersion. You could argue all flavour objects are in this category as far as I know they dont hold any defense advantage, and tanks and infantry can just walk through them....But without the game wouldn't be as immersive.

If it's being used in a corner of the map that's never going to see any footfall - all maps have those it's usually where dishevelled tank crews end up hiding ... then a flavour object could easily do the job. However I have a wondering mind - I may have an idea that would perhaps work in both use cases - another experiment is called for, and possibly a human sacrifice to create another me ...

 

[NPye]

56 minutes ago, Lucky_Strike said:

Outside of the play area casting a shadow is about all it would need to do, it would have to be explicitly off limits - damaged and hollow.

5 hours ago, NPye said:

Thats what I mean... 

[NPye]

57 minutes ago, Lucky_Strike said:

If it's being used in a corner of the map that's never going to see any footfall - all maps have those it's usually where dishevelled tank crews end up hiding ... then a flavour object could easily do the job. However I have a wondering mind - I may have an idea that would perhaps work in both use cases - another experiment is called for, and possibly a human sacrifice to create another me ...

 

LMAO go bud go...

[RockinHarry]

4 hours ago, Artkin said:

Flavor objects do indeed provide cover.

I found this out in 5 seconds in cmbs. I placed 100-200 concrete barriers down and my troops crouched behind them, and also had a ridiculous kill/death ratio when shooting at troops in the open

Thanks, that´s interesting. Pity I´ve pushed BS Demo off my HD again. But I see concrete barriers in unpacked BRZ folders which I kept for evaluations and maybe "stealing" one object or another. What FO category is concrete barriers placed in in 2D map editor? Is it a category we have in WW2 titles as well or a unique BS one?

Otherwise I´d say it really depends on "how" you make your test setup and perceive things. My (WW2) pixeltroopers do place "behind" FO only when one is in the way and a situation requires them to stop and do react on things. From my observations it´s a random thing and no "cover" evaluations are to be made for anything. That at least counts for WW2 titles FOs.  So that´s my perception on FOs providing "cover".

[RockinHarry]

3 hours ago, Lucky_Strike said:

The latter was what I was thinking as a flavour object, scattering of brick'n'rubble over a few square meters. Not sure how one would tackle doing gert big piles of rubble. We can't deform ground tiles to include any 3D objects.

Doodads wouldn't really work as they are constantly in motion when viewed from close up. Flavor objects are quite difficult to make into ground tile-like objects as they don't really conform to the underlying ground shape very well, and are not going to be treated as ground by anything clambering over them, that is there may be some odd looking effects.

yeah, a pity. The larger FO get the more difficult their placement. See past placement issues for @Aquila-SmartWargames ruin models as I mentioned here: (mole hill placement)

Would be cool if BFC adds a function to roughen up an individual 8x8m AS ground mesh in 2D or 2D editor. Something like artillery does when ploughing the CM landscapes. So adding slight variations in Z height for individual 1m ground mesh nodes. Apparently this feature is part of the game engine already, but I´d like it editable in one way or another. A "roughen" button in 2D editor or direct access to individual nodes in 3D one. IIRC CMX1 had something like that but had bits of a different, tile based purpose.

4 hours ago, Lucky_Strike said:

For large piles of rubble we need something 3D that can be placed on the ground to create the impression of a covering of loose rubble and debris, whilst remaining static and traversable ... thinking ... still thinking ... yet more thinking ... this is a tough one. Hedges could be completely remodelled to represent a much flatter, wider shape, they create some restrictions to movement, mostly conform the ground undulations, come in a lot of shapes. A random smattering across one of your slopes of rubble ground texture might look quite convincing. An experiment is called for!

Thus far I´m fairly fine with just increasing contrast and tweak colors on rubble tiles, then added to particularly prepared ditch locked AS. (using different type and rotation foot paths adds further 3D ground mesh shaping on top of it) Spiced up with random (or not quite that random) standard size junk FO can look quite good most the times. I´d wished for more varity though. Also of sizes we find in rocks category. Off course lots of work when placing stuff that goes in the hundreds... or thousands even.

 

[RockinHarry]

4 hours ago, Lucky_Strike said:

Yes there's a fine balance when adding ground textures. Sometimes the repeat patterns become very intrusive.

worth a try maybe. Think I saw dirty paved roads already. Got to take a look at GAJ and FGM again.

For straight road sections it needs beeing considered that they can be placed in one direction and reversed as well (North-South, South-North ect). That might break bits of the repeat pattern but IDK.

Edit: for looks I´d only consider human eye level and not anything birds eye. One can´t get it right when viewed from any angles and heights anyway.

Edited November 11, 2022 by RockinHarry