Le Tondu Posted November 11, 2002 Share Posted November 11, 2002 Here is another vote in favor of a sticky camera angles. Yes, let's do it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt. Kije Posted November 11, 2002 Share Posted November 11, 2002 Le Tondu said: Here is another vote in favor of a sticky camera angles. Yes, let's do it now. That's the spirit! Here, let me hold your coat. -- Lt. Kije Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted November 11, 2002 Share Posted November 11, 2002 BUMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manchildstein (ii) Posted November 12, 2002 Share Posted November 12, 2002 i like the level 9 view... it's like being in a 'storch' or somefink... i wonder if level 9 view with bases off and units at realistic size would be something which could be added to franko's rules... as for the other views being modified... the main thing i noticed was the 1-5 before going to overhead (6-9)... where in cmbo it was 1..4 then 5..8... i think that overall cmbb is better in this regard... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted November 12, 2002 Share Posted November 12, 2002 Please make camera angle 'sticky'. Lot's of people would like it, and it can't be very hard to program, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 12, 2002 Share Posted November 12, 2002 Originally posted by manchildstein II: i like the level 9 view... it's like being in a 'storch' or somefink...Actually it's more like the view from a high flying bomber. For the view from a Storch, go to view 7 or in extremis, 8. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illo Posted November 12, 2002 Share Posted November 12, 2002 Bumping up...this needs to be adressed. More votes for this please! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted November 12, 2002 Share Posted November 12, 2002 BFC (Madmatt) already said this will NOT change. Per Charles, It would NOT be an easy coding fix. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but adding functionality would take tiem away from the engine rewrite. Rune Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col Deadmarsh Posted November 12, 2002 Share Posted November 12, 2002 I love that...we're trying to implement a new suggestion to the first patch for this game and we're already taking time away from CM3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted November 12, 2002 Share Posted November 12, 2002 Try this again, it is NOT an easy fix, so YES, it would take a LOT of TIME away from Charles. Oh yeah, Charles is the ONLY coder, so yes, it would take away from CM3. Since the guys don't get paid for patches either, why would I expect them to add functionality instead of fixing bugs, then moving to the new engine? Rune [ November 12, 2002, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: rune ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Leader Posted November 12, 2002 Author Share Posted November 12, 2002 Making +1 camera angle default is hard to do? Then why did they spend so long working on it to get it into CMBB? Oh, you mean, making the angle "sticky" perhaps? Well, in that case, let's get the angle to be the +1 it is supposed to be! Oh and Rune you haven't happened tp notice anything with river elevations, have you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted November 12, 2002 Share Posted November 12, 2002 Without violating the trust BFC put into me, both things were discussed and still would take coding effort. As for the Rivers, since i made many scenarios, yes I know about it. Actually I like the feature, as I rather have flat rivers then the editing like crazy where the "water" was on a slope where you didn't want it. However, I see the other viewpoint too. Altho, how many fights took place near a waterfall? So, I see both points on that one. It has been mentioned by Berli to the guys. Rune Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Leader Posted November 12, 2002 Author Share Posted November 12, 2002 Thank you Rune, now I can quit obsessively bumping my threads. Once again, my life is complete. Upon further thinking, it does seem to make map editing simpler, but it is sad that it is also limiting. I agree the waterfall idea is a bit hokey, but marsh banks, or a river flowing through a swamp, with or without a bridge over it? Anyhow, thanks, mate. [bridge, not bride, doh!] [ November 12, 2002, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: Panzer Leader ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted November 12, 2002 Share Posted November 12, 2002 Like I said, having made maps, I can tell you it took a lot of time to get a river looking right in CMBO if you had bends and any type of elevation. I would have to get down to level 1, and follow the river to see if it was level or not. This way, i know the river is flat and cuts time off of the editing. Drawback is exactly as you pointed out. Marsh has to be flat. There is a scenario i made where the terrain was in actuallity swmapy forest...but with slopes I could not do it. You can still do a bridge over the terrain, you just have to view the bridge at level 1 to be sure it iw level with the embankments. Workaround for riverbanks for me is trees. I just did one where the cliffs over the river are rough, for the stone out croppings. Like I said, I see both viewpoints on this one. Will send an email to the gang shortly. Rune Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts