Map editor : an european point of view.

[Bogdan]

Originally posted by dalem:

The root page for my Euro pics is here.

Nice website Dalem :cool:

...but your "Clicky map" shows a "Normandy red square clicky zone" in actual norther Brittany. Normandie's coast is northern, between the river Seine and the Cotentin peninsulae.

Ahh, those french guys, always whining

[dalem]

Originally posted by Bogdan:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dalem:

The root page for my Euro pics is here.

Nice website Dalem :cool:

...but your "Clicky map" shows a "Normandy red square clicky zone" in actual norther Brittany. Normandie's coast is northern, between the river Seine and the Cotentin peninsulae.

Ahh, those french guys, always whining </font>

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by Lawyer:

WWII aerial photo's are most definitely the BEST sources to make a great map.

Hi Jake, good to see you around here again.

I agree with you assessment regarding the value of ariel maps; however, I am curious as to how you are able to obtain contour and elevation information from such sources? Do you also refer to a contour map, or just guess?

Steve

[Bogdan]

About high walls :

I finally found a perfect example of TYPICALL "high walls" I talked about. You can see that kind of wall almost everywhere in Normandy, in Center or in the region of Paris.

This picture was taken in the region of Falaise, southern Normandy. Please notice the little yellow box, on the left, on the wall. It's a letter box, approx. 1,50 meters above ground.

[junk2drive]

interesting roof textures.

who's mod is that? lol

[Michael Emrys]

Someone, I forget who, back about three years ago did a very good photo essay of the urban landscape in (I think) Edinburgh that made many of the same points, especially concerning walls and abrupt changes in elevation. A search of the CMBO forum archive might turn it up.

Michael

PS: Thanks both Dale and Bogdan on filling out my ejamacation on hedgerows.

[Andreas]

T'was David Aitken.

Michael, I take your point about it being unlikely that a 5m (or even 10m) tile would be the only change. That still does not invalidate my other points though - namely that in many cases it is not needed to enhance the simulation (although in some it would do wonders), and that there are other, more pressing issues that need attending to first.

[JonS]

I've recently finished a large map, approx 2.5km x 4.5km, which features a large plain leading into steep bluffs. Oddly enogh (though maybe not) it was while working on the complex bluffs that I found myself wishing for smaller tiles. In the flat areas I made fairly heavy use of the 'big brush' to quickly fill in large areas, and then went back and filled in any required detail. I can't see why that would change much with a finer grid (for example, the size of the 'big brush could stay the same as it is now - 100m x 100m).

But in the high, steep areas I was constantly fiddling about, changing a height here, changinga height htere. I one place I was trying to create a narrow path along a mountainside with cliffs above and below. It was surprisingly hard to do with the current 20x20 tiles and the way the edges of the tiles move about to conform with their neighbours. In the high places I think that a smaller grid would be much easier, and perhaps not really all that much slower.

Overall, it would take longer, but depending on the amount of detail and attention you pay, perhaps not that much longer. And without doubt the results could be far better.

Oh, but something else occurs to me: the size of the tiles as the currently are probably works better with the amount of abstraction inherent in the squads. So if he tiles got smaller, the modelling of the squads would likely need to change too.

Regards

JonS

[Bonxa]

I'am disturbed by a few things in the current editor. Mainly the general construction with one tilebased window where you mark out height and "terrain" for each tile and then go into a preview mode to see how it went. It seems like a more programmer friendly approach rather than user friendly. Why not put in the effort to make a system where you work and view in the same window, where you immediately see the effects of your fiddling? (I realize this requires an engine rewrite, but that's what they're up to.

Next is the open ground. I live in Sweden which has a lot of forrests like Finland and some farmland looking somewhat like in the rest of Europe. Where is open ground here? I have got into the habit of look at terrain with CM eyes when I get out and about outside town and there simply is very little open ground. (I know CM's open ground doesn't represent the lawn it looks like but it still plays like one, almost). All flat areas are either farmland, watersick or lakes.

Even tough some place might look flat it's usually undulating at a smaller scale, difficult enough to walk over and most likely impassable to wheeled vehicles.

The small scale undulations are most likely abstracted in the current engine but I think they often are systematic enough that a more accurate representation of them would benefit gameplay. Something like sneaking up in a ditch along a road is not possible right now. Or take the proper modeling of a trench. For this to work in a 5 meter grid system there has to be elevation changes inside a tile, which might not be a very good idea.

To sum up I'd like completely new editor that was made in a userfriendly fashion. I'd like to separate things like elevation (already done in the larger scale), general terrain type, density of main vegetation, undergrowth, softness/watercontent. Setting these things individually for each "tile" is not the idea. I'd rather see more of a brush where you could increase undergrowth or the density of your pines in a continous fashion, not like it's now where you have pinetrees or no pinetrees.

I hope the above is somewhat coherent and understandable. It's late and I'm tired. Please forgive any obvious mistakes.

[ April 17, 2004, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: KarlXII ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by KarlXII:

...watersick...

Okay, I admit I am stumped by this word. From the context, I am sure you don't mean 'seasick', which is the nearest literal equivalent that I can think of in English. Could you mean 'water meadow': a meadow that is subject to flooding from a stream or river? These are also called flood plains, though I think a larger expanse is usually assumed in that case.

Michael

[hurtzDonut]

wa·ter-sick

adjective

irrigated too much: used to describe land that has been made unproductive by excessive irrigation

[hurtzDonut]

From the 2 years I spent in Europe the only thing missing from the terrain pick list is a curve. Traffic circles are all over Germany, Benelux, and France. Keep the 20m tiles just put some 1/4 circles and curves in the mix.

[Lawyer]

Originally posted by MrSpkr:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Lawyer:

WWII aerial photo's are most definitely the BEST sources to make a great map.

Hi Jake, good to see you around here again.

I agree with you assessment regarding the value of ariel maps; however, I am curious as to how you are able to obtain contour and elevation information from such sources? Do you also refer to a contour map, or just guess?

Steve </font>

[Bonxa]

It's the similarity between the germanic languages and my lazyness that planted the word 'watersick' inmy post.

I'm swedish and we have a word that directly translates into 'watersick' which means terrain with too much water in it like a water meadow (never used that before) or a semi marsh/swamp. I could have checked a dictionary for this but you caught on just fine anyway, as I hoped. Soft ground would be the terrain type in CM I believe.