Elevation step changes in CM2.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Currently there is a choice of 2.5m or 5m elevation changes in CM. This works very well and the programming, in order to smooth out changes in elevation between tiles, is of the same high standard as the rest of CM.

However, it has always been my view that the most moderate change of 2.5m, over the distance of just one 20m tile, is still quite server. Put three or four such elevation changes side by side and it produces a very steep hillside. Of course, what we all do is to change elevation every four or five tiles so as to produce a more moderate hill. The problem here is the “stepped” nature of the hillside/terrain that results.

For CM2 I would like to see a more gentle elevation option of 1.25m per tile. This would produce a more naturally undulating landscape without the violent step changes in height produced by the 2.5m elevation changes. This is particularly relevant for CM2.

I have never been to Russia or the Ukraine but have seen detailed studies of the landscape. The best study I have come across is one produced by the US DoD in the 1980s. I spent a couple of days studying a copy. It is a very large format book with 1:25,000 and 1:50,000 topographical maps and photos of the western regions of the then Soviet Union. Marked on the topographical maps are black dots with arrows extending from them. Next to each such mark is a small number, which corresponds to a photo taken from the location represented by the dot, facing in the direction of the arrow. A very clever and effective system for illustrating a landscape.

From the above book, and others, it is clear that much of Russia and the Ukraine, including the wooded areas, is gently undulating broken only by the odd steep sided gully. Remembering that it is certainly not flat. If one imagined a CM2 battlefield 2km by 2km in size then using all or most of the twenty different elevation settings, at 1.25m per elevation change, it would be possible to produce a “very” realistic landscape. Over such an area I would use 10-15 of the elevation settings to reproduce the undulating nature of the ground and 5 or so to model steep sided gullies.

The maps in CMBO are stunning as things are, but for me the addition of a 1.25m elevation setting would be a big plus for CM2. Maybe instead of the 5m elevation option, which I never use anyway.

All the best,

Kip.

[Stephen Smith]

It is interesting that you bring this up. I am currently creating a map directly from a topo map of a portion of West Germany, and have found that even with 5m increments, the elevation change is too small! It is not mountainous terrain, but I am finding myself cutting elevation differences in half (i.e. each elevation line, actually 10 m apart, is being modelled as 5 m apart) in order to simply fit the elevation difference on the map.

the only way to do both of what we want would be to have smaller elevation differences (as you want) but a wider range (as I am finding is needed).

steve

[TheDesertFox]

at 1.25m per elevation change, it would be possible to produce a “very” realistic landscape. Over such an area I would use 10-15 of the elevation settings to reproduce the undulating nature of the ground and 5 or so to model steep sided gullies.

That would be a nice feature, no question, but we IMHO furthermore really need the possibility to model 100 metres height difference with these smooth elevation settings. I dunno if this would be possible to be coded but it would add a lot to the flavour of the game.

Helge

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

Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate!

- The DesertFox -

Email: TheDesertFox@gmx.net

WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

[BattlingBigBob]

No technical reason why not (other than the fact that the programming is hard). In fact, I'd like to be able specify any arbitrary height (allow for less than a meter difference) and use a Bezier (or any other suitable spline type) curve to give a nice rolling hills effect. (BTW, this is what we do at work to determine line of sight over terrain.)

[Aacooper]

For CM2 elevations, I would like to see more than 25 levels, as well. The other ideas people mentioned would be very useful, too, to reduce the terraced look of some maps.

BTW, kipanderson, where did you get that Dod book of Russian maps? What's it titled? That would be an invaluable resource for making scenarios.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Steve, Yes, I sympathies with you. I have done a number of CM maps from topographical maps of the Ardennes and have found one has to curtail the elevation range. I always use the 2.5m setting and using the full twenty odd steps I find I still end up with a very hilly map even if not quite as hilly as the real thing.

Helge, I agree that it would be great if one could have a differential of 100m in elevation over the map and smoothness at the same time. For CM3, which I believe will have a new engine, this may well happen but CM2 is just a tweak of the current engine so I suppose that is outside its range. It will be interesting to see if someone from BTS joins this discussion and what they say.

BattlingBigBob, specifying the elevation step change would be stunning, as would the use of a Bezier curve tool. When it comes to such big changes, once again, I would expect us to be talking about CM3 not CM2. But again, I am not sure and look forward to hearing what BTS have to say on the subject.

Aacooper, I agree that in the perfect world more elevation steps within a given game would be great, but from my point of view there “may” be a problem with this. I do not like the use of grids to show elevation differences on the maps as I like everything to look as “real” as possible. Given this, I use changes in colour to spot elevation differences. I use DD’s high-resolution grass and have tweaked it just a touch to increase the change in colour as elevation changes. My reservation about more elevation steps is that one would either have to decrease the change in colour for every change in elevation setting or make the lowest levels even “greener” and the higher elevations even “yellower”. The colours at the extremes would be becoming unrealistic. Twenty odd elevation settings in a given game, I think, works very well. However, no doubt in some later version of CM, maybe CM2, what you wish for will happen, it’s a logical extension of the system.

When it comes to your question about the book I cannot be of that much help. I spent two days studying the book in Edmonton library in the late 1980s; it is the only copy I have ever come across. I recommend ring Edmonton library, Alberta, and asking them about the book. Some one will know about it. A search of the Library of Congress or the British Library would also bear fruit; no doubt they are both on the net.

I have produced a 2000m by 2000m map using a range of just ten elevation settings, using the 2.5m step change, so as to get an idea of how such a map would look using a range of twenty 1.25m evaluation settings. We are talking undulating hills cut here and there by the odd dry riverbed or gully. Eight of the elevation settings were used to model the large, in area anyway, hills with the gullies always being two elevation settings, or more, below the levels of the surrounding hillsides. I am no artist and others could do better, but it does look like Russia/Ukraine to me. However, there is no denying that it would look much better, close up, if modelled in 1.25m step changes. This would also have the added benefit of increasing the colour range over a small change in height thus better showing the subtleties of the terrain. It would be great to be able to model ridges, of say, 400m in width but just 5-7.5m in height in 1.25m step changes.

I do not know how much coding is involved but having a 1.25m elevation step change option in CM2 would add greatly to the “eastern front look” of the game.

Hope it happens.

All the best,

Kip.

[BattlingBigBob]

The curved surfaces version probably would be a fair amount of work (probably CM3) but one with arbitrary height resolution and smoothing (both height and color) shouldn't be more than a few days programming (I've done it in that timeframe myself).

[Dschugaschwili]

I don't really know if reducing the height deltas to 1.25m would be enough. IIRC BTS is thinking about resizing the terrain tiles to 10x10m for CM2, so in that case the height steps would have to be even smaller if smoother slopes should be possible. Having 100 height levels would sound appropriate to me.

Dschugaschwili

[deanco]

Oh oh, ....aren't NURBS a Quake 3 technology?? Oh lordy...

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

DeanCo--

CM interface mods: http://mapage.cybercable.fr/deanco/

so many games...so little time

[Enfors]

Allowing more different elevation change levels (apart from the 2.5m and 5m) we have now is probably very easy to code. They already have the code that multiplies the height coordinate with the elevation change level (2.5m or 5m), so all they'd have to do is allow us to set that variable to several other different values.

Unless, ofcourse, the game's code is more complex than that, but that seems unlikely to me. But one can never be sure.

-Enfors-

[Bry Barnard]

I agree with the ideas stated above. Allow for a smaller contour granularity (ie 1 or 1.25m) to allow for smoother hills and allow more contour levels.

Looking at detailed maps of Normandy (eg Panzers in Normandy Then and Now) and current 1:100,000 maps of Normandy it is very easy to run out 'height' when trying to design a scenario for CMBO. I'd say allow a maximum height change of 500m for a map with current contour settings in CMBO.

I know CM2 will be Eastern Front based with generally flatter terrain but if you're going to use CM2 as a vehicle to (possibly) updating CMBO then why not include it?

I'd also like the maps to be bigger. The current size limits are just a little bit too small.

A real bonus would also be to allow an operation/campaign between linked maps, as in Steel Panthers, and not just played on the one map. That way you could map the whole of the Kursk salient, if you wanted, and fight a campaign over that. Might take ages but you could do it!! I bet ya, somebodies going to want to!!

[kipanderson]

Hi,

There is clearly a demand for some sort of refinement to the elevation settings. There has been quite a range of suggestions. However, there does seem to be a consensus, even if only amongst a relatively few souls, that it would be great if one could make use of a elevation setting smaller than the current minimum of 2.5m.

So, may I take the opportunity to ask a straight question to any of the four that actually run BTS.

a) Is there any chance of CM2 having an elevation setting less than the current minimum of 2.5m?

Or are you not answering these forms of direct question because BTS prefers to keep such matters under your hat, for the time being? You want to surprise us in your own time.

At this stage I should point-out that I am entirely relaxed about it, I have had a number of suggestions turned down and still enjoy CM just as much. All I am really asking is “is there any practical purpose in continuing to lobby you on the topic” or is the collective mind of BTS made-up on the subject.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. I realise it is not a priority, so you may not have even considered the subject.