bowman74 Posted April 24, 2002 Share Posted April 24, 2002 Does anyone know if CM:BB will be able to handle more drastic elevation changes, such as mountains (or at least the foothills of mountains) on maps? This wasn't much of an issue with CM:BO but I'm already looking at situations where it might come up in CM:BB. Thanks, Kevin E. Ford CMMC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted April 24, 2002 Share Posted April 24, 2002 Best of my knowledge, the answer is no. Reconfiguring the terrain engine (for "terrain square" size, max-elevation-variation, terrain step size, etc) will be in the rewrite. I feel your pain; I don't know how many battles that involved large elevation changes in a small area have to be fudged in CMBO, but I'm sure it's considerable. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russellmz Posted April 25, 2002 Share Posted April 25, 2002 Originally posted by bowman74: Does anyone know if CM:BB will be able to handle more drastic elevation changes, such as mountains (or at least the foothills of mountains) on maps? This wasn't much of an issue with CM:BO but I'm already looking at situations where it might come up in CM:BB. Thanks, Kevin E. Ford CMMCcripes, you can make some pretty impressive mountains with the 5m elevation change setting in parameters, and with 20 possible elevations your tanks are gonna be aiming at a pretty high angle there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louie the Toad Posted April 25, 2002 Share Posted April 25, 2002 Check out the elevation change in Fertile Fields. This is one fine map. Nosebleed.... Toad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xavier Posted April 25, 2002 Share Posted April 25, 2002 I'm actually designing an accurate map of Vire area in Normandy and I find the CM engine quite a little weak to modelize some hills :eek: , even with 'map contour' option on 5 meters... And I'm talking about Normandy wich isn't known to be a particular mountainous area! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Crowley Posted April 25, 2002 Share Posted April 25, 2002 Not sure if it's an elevation problem; perhaps more of having a "rockier" looking terrain tile. The existing "rough" tile has too much green in it for mountainous terrain. Funnily enough "brush" has a better effect, but it's still far from perfect. Obviously mountain peaks etc. aren't needed but there were many battles in rocky mountain passes and terrain that, while having some sparse vegetation, was basically just rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowman74 Posted April 25, 2002 Author Share Posted April 25, 2002 Our problem is that we are looking at scenarios for CMMC 2, some of which involve mountainous terrain. We meticulously model all historical maps. Our problem is that in extremely rugged terrain (as some of the scenario suggestions for CMMC 2 have) a 100 foot change in elevation to play with isn't nearly enough. I think we will have to give up on some those scenarios as candidates due to mapping limitations. Thanks, Kevin Originally posted by James Crowley: Not sure if it's an elevation problem; perhaps more of having a "rockier" looking terrain tile. The existing "rough" tile has too much green in it for mountainous terrain. Funnily enough "brush" has a better effect, but it's still far from perfect. Obviously mountain peaks etc. aren't needed but there were many battles in rocky mountain passes and terrain that, while having some sparse vegetation, was basically just rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tools4fools Posted April 26, 2002 Share Posted April 26, 2002 Originally posted by James Crowley: Not sure if it's an elevation problem; perhaps more of having a "rockier" looking terrain tile. The existing "rough" tile has too much green in it for mountainous terrain.I made a large operation map with lots of elevation changes and even vertical cliffs. To have a more "rockier" look on those cliffs I simply modified on of the existing rough mods, adding mor "grey rocks" to the "rough" tile and little grenn parts left. It did make for reasonable looking vertical cliffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schrullenhaft Posted April 26, 2002 Share Posted April 26, 2002 20 x 5m = 100m which is approximately 325ft. That should probably get a majority of the hills in the Normandy area which I don't think got over 350 ft. (I might be wrong on that I can't recall the tallest hill in the area). To achieve this however you would have to use the lowest level in CM as sea-level and that would prevent modelling gullies or below-sea-level terrain (though you could obviously decide on using level 2 or 3 as sea-level). Unfortunately I don't think that CMBB is going to change this fact, since at its core it is still the same engine. So you won't be able to model the ascent up Mt. Erebrus either in CMBB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wadepm Posted April 29, 2002 Share Posted April 29, 2002 What about the other way - can we have smaller increments? I am thinking of 1 meter or even 0.5 meters for those stepp scenarios. The current limit of 2.5 meters creates too much of a stair-step looking map. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flammenwerfer Posted April 29, 2002 Share Posted April 29, 2002 What about the other way - can we have smaller increments? I am thinking of 1 meter or even 0.5 meters for those stepp scenarios. The current limit of 2.5 meters creates too much of a stair-step looking map. Good question bump... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts