PDA

View Full Version : URGENT SUGGESTIONS FOR THE FMB



Bluebeard2006
04-09-2006, 12:25 PM
Hi everybody http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I'm building a Pearl Harbor missions and I found that there are many problems on the map and on other PF and FB maps. Some airfields don't have the good revetement, some are not pointing to the right direction, there are hangars where there shouldn't be, some airbases have only one airstrip......

And that's only in the Pearl Harbor map http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

1.Make some ground objects that would represent airstrips like the stationnary ships ones but that wouldn't be thick and that would have more textures. That could be useful to recover the airstrips with the right revetement nad make other airstrips combining them to Test Runway 4.

2.Make tiles with grass, snow,sand or stone textures that we could use to recover areas on airstrips that we don't want to see like the taxiing ways, the tarmacs and the airstrips that are not at the good place.

3.Allow us to delete objects that are already on the map like houses, hangars and airfields. At Hickam field there is a bunch of hangars that are not at the right place an that need to be deleted.
http://tk.files.storage.msn.com/x1pbglk-vqL4Bvt0b3rYoOYBQCR7HTbGETSEcyU34QnI7uRyPa0MyqSGlO 1lUCCZGsRyW7cB9gsoYhhg5yT2LpHfK9PqPOPgUrm9rsXAqpuK Quf8iRJNy

4. And mabye letting us put forset could be fun

That would just improve the game, and let us make some more immersing missions with more realism!

By the way, I want to be clear, some maps in the game have marvelous airfields, like Murmansk, North-West europe, Kurland, Midway, Wake,Tarawa,Palau,Okinawa, Iwo-Jima and many more http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Bluebeard2006
04-09-2006, 12:26 PM
Here's the picture

http://spaces.msn.com/1992rockanarchy1992/PersonalSpace...toAlbum&_c02_owner=1 (http://spaces.msn.com/1992rockanarchy1992/PersonalSpace.aspx?_c11_PhotoAlbum_spaHandler=TWlj cm9zb2Z0LlNwYWNlcy5XZWIuUGFydHMuUGhvdG9BbGJ1bS5GdW xsTW9kZUNvbnRyb2xsZXI%24&_c11_PhotoAlbum_spaFolderID=cns!D8DD4CFA2815EC81!2 65&_c=PhotoAlbum&_c02_owner=1)

Bluebeard2006
04-09-2006, 12:27 PM
Just search a little bit and you'll find a picture with a bunch of airsrips, I think it's at the end

Dunkelgrun
04-09-2006, 12:42 PM
Ummmm, yeah, like none of us has ever suggested any of this before. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Unfortunately we have, many times, and it's not going to happen. Especially now that most of the dev team's work is going into BoB. Sad, but there it is.

Cheers!

faelas
04-09-2006, 06:51 PM
After getting DEEP into the FMB, I can see why some of this stuff would be impractical to implement from a development standpoint.

First of all, the idea of simple "runway textures" wouldn't work. The ground is coded with a "bumpiness" that makes taking off and landing difficult, and a mere texture would not change that.

Second, the ground in FB/PF isn't perfectly smooth, except in the rare odd place and right next to water. There are slight, almost imperceptible rises in the terrain, which, when run over by a speeding plane on takeoff, would crash you in nothing flat. A takeoff from any runway that is perfectly flush with the terrain is not practicle unless the terrain is

A) perfectly flat (rare in FB)

and

B) not coded as "bumpy"

So, I think that's why the test runways have a thickness to them. it lets you place them in any place that's NEARLY perfectly flat, which is fairly common on most FB/PF maps. The object placement of the FMB in FB/PF maps is such that the object will perch on the highest point of the terrain under it. That's why you can "balance" a runway on top of a hill and both ends are sticking way up off the ground. However, this logic in the FMB is not perfect. Some slight areas of overlap occur, where a piece of hill or whatever is over the height of the runway. Try taking off over one of those humps some time. Spectacular explosion is the result.

So, I can understand why most of these ideas were hardly considered. They would take an aweful lot of work to implement, even if the team was full-time on FB/PF work.

Bluebeard2006
04-09-2006, 07:23 PM
But, would we see that the land isn't really flat at all with a ''non-thick''runway.

If so, why couldn't they make the tiles and the runways whitout any thickness on top but with sides that would go under the ground level, like most of the buildings

http://tk.files.storage.msn.com/x1pbglk-vqL4Bvt0b3rYoOY...4j8cwmXWDIc7-NL7qcMh (http://tk.files.storage.msn.com/x1pbglk-vqL4Bvt0b3rYoOYBQCR7HTbGETSEcyU34QnI7u0QjxSbWOgEOm 0fs-gjynYuYeSapTATDk2XpTbrlci0XZ0eqjshL2foqfn2LxerbbV1 N-xiuGT8YLBI7tSw0KVeQ3i_LcfvQn54j8cwmXWDIc7-NL7qcMh)http://tk.files.storage.msn.com/x1pbglk-vqL4Bvt0b3rYoOYBQCR7HTbGETSEcyU34QnI7u0QjxSbWOgEOm 0fs-gjynYuYeSapTATDk2XpTbrlci0XZ0eqjshL2foqfn2LxerbbV1 N-xiuGT8YLBI7tSw0KVeQ3i_LcfvQn54j8cwmXWDIc7-NL7qcMh

Bluebeard2006
04-09-2006, 07:25 PM
And that would be used only for the esthetic, we would just have to add the test runway 4 on it and BINGO!

Tater-SW-
04-09-2006, 09:06 PM
The Pearl Harbor map is abysmal considering the huge wealth of 1940 ere pictures available---just online. It's yet another map that looks like it was made by someone unfamiliar with "google."

tater

zoinks_
04-10-2006, 12:46 AM
nit won, pearl 2
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e170/zoinks_/wip.jpg

SS_Bubblehead
04-10-2006, 03:49 PM
My apologies to Bluebeard.

Upon re-reading my post I thought it was rude. So I deleted it.

Chuck_Older
04-10-2006, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by Bluebeard2006:
Hi everybody http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I'm building a Pearl Harbor missions and I found that there are many problems on the map and on other PF and FB maps. Some airfields don't have the good revetement, some are not pointing to the right direction, there are hangars where there shouldn't be, some airbases have only one airstrip......

And that's only in the Pearl Harbor map http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

1.Make some ground objects that would represent airstrips like the stationnary ships ones but that wouldn't be thick and that would have more textures. That could be useful to recover the airstrips with the right revetement nad make other airstrips combining them to Test Runway 4.

2.Make tiles with grass, snow,sand or stone textures that we could use to recover areas on airstrips that we don't want to see like the taxiing ways, the tarmacs and the airstrips that are not at the good place.

3.Allow us to delete objects that are already on the map like houses, hangars and airfields. At Hickam field there is a bunch of hangars that are not at the right place an that need to be deleted.
http://tk.files.storage.msn.com/x1pbglk-vqL4Bvt0b3rYoOYBQCR7HTbGETSEcyU34QnI7uRyPa0MyqSGlO 1lUCCZGsRyW7cB9gsoYhhg5yT2LpHfK9PqPOPgUrm9rsXAqpuK Quf8iRJNy

4. And mabye letting us put forset could be fun

That would just improve the game, and let us make some more immersing missions with more realism!

By the way, I want to be clear, some maps in the game have marvelous airfields, like Murmansk, North-West europe, Kurland, Midway, Wake,Tarawa,Palau,Okinawa, Iwo-Jima and many more http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

I'm all for this!

However:

1) if I recall, a techincal problem exists, having to do with why they ended up being 'stationary ships' in the first place. The sim engine was never designed for this stuff

2) View and draw distances would make the tiles invisible at a certain distance. Try this- place the "white cliff" object over an airbase, and then fly around it. For quite some distance, you may see an airstrip with no cliff...then BAM! a cliff appears

3) I'm pretty sure that this isn't possible. My gripe is with objects that are on roads, like houses squarely on roads around falaise, or permanently palced trucks in some maps. But the way they are made, I don't think it's possible for our commercial install to remove any object that loads with a map

4) Again, this is part of the map and we probably don't have the software in the sim to change that in any way

Bluebeard2006
04-10-2006, 06:35 PM
I've just something to say about #2:

In FB-AEP-PF, not all the objects dissapear at the same distance, so why wouldn't they make those airstrips to dissapear at a very long distance

Dunkelgrun
04-11-2006, 01:55 AM
Originally posted by Bluebeard2006:
I've just something to say about #2:

In FB-AEP-PF, not all the objects dissapear at the same distance, so why wouldn't they make those airstrips to dissapear at a very long distance

The draw distances ARE a bit inconsistent; for example the shadow of smoke is visible before the smoke itself.
Also, it must be possible to change some of them. Before PF ships were not visible further than 5km away; suddenly it was increased to 25km! Just as well, as nobody would have found anything on a Pacific map.

Cheers!