PDA

View Full Version : Pacific island maps - stink



nearmiss
02-18-2005, 07:02 PM
I was watching Palau Survivor last night on TV. What a disappointment when I loaded the Pacific Fighters map of Palau in the FMB.

All the maps in the IL2 series looks so sterile and lifeless. In fact, all the maps look alike except for some trees crossing the water in PF.

It just looks to me like 1C:Maddox would dress up this sim with some decent map topography and greenery.

There is absolutely no way the Pacific Fighters islands could exist. They're too flat in most cases to exist after a small windstorm. LOL

Obi_Kwiet
02-18-2005, 11:04 PM
I have to admit, the Iwo Jima map looks awful.

LEXX_Luthor
02-18-2005, 11:38 PM
Maps look great.

The brown Iwo and Marianas volcanic rock maps are my favorite. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif: Iwo and the Coral islands are nice fresh difference from classic FB Green (or PF Green).

The problem is the 1 island = 1 map.

We need multi~island maps like the Slot and/or several islands on one map, but seperated by 200-400km so you can have campaigns where you take off from one island and fly to target on another island far away.

Rivers look Bad. I'd rather have no rivers in New Guinea and no roads...but the whole region from Wewak to New Caledonia, from Aussie to Rabaul. With no rivers and no roads, and NO BUILDINGS we can run a map that large.

Stiglr
02-19-2005, 12:10 AM
Reason #1 that, all things considered, Target:Rabaul (http://www.targetware.net) trumps PF.

Because in PF, you can't really get to grips with the action as it happened historically. With Target:Rabaul, you can. You get all of the Bismark Archipelago, the Solomons and half of New Guinea (that is, the half fought over when the war was still competitive) on ONE map. And, true, the lack of urban areas and "amenities" helps with the huge map size.

And as the original poster here noted, even with PF's superior world-beating graphics, it still doesn't compare to the real thing.

So, why not have the immersion and the realism in the flight modeling, and the scenarios?

LEXX_Luthor
02-19-2005, 12:58 AM
Stiglr:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And, true, the lack of urban areas and "amenities" helps with the huge map size. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This can be done in PF if they wanted to.

I Love the PF jungle textures. But please leave out the *ugly* rivers, hard to AI-program roads and river bridges, and the few Building Objects that we can place ourselves in our FMB where we need them for our missions...there were so few buildings even at Port Moresby (1942) we can place our own Building Objects. We only need to place a very small number. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

Then they could create one giant PF map covering Wewak (in New Guinea) to New Caledonia (east of Guadacanal) and Northern Australia up to Rabaul...on ONE MAP.

~~> I knew nothing about this region of WW2 or the South Pacific geography until PF made me start reading. I am starting to enjoy the Pacific now. Thanks Oleg!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

WWMaxGunz
02-19-2005, 04:40 AM
I used to work just inside of Kole-Kole Pass on Oahu where the first Zeroes flew through
and killed the first 3 men. There is a 30 foot high white metal cross on the site, or
there was over 25 years ago.

The bottom of the pass is high above the plain below and you wouldn't want to fly too
many planes through it at once. I am sure that past the first few planes, the mass
went over the peaks around that pass but then I've only the place close and far about
... just too many times.

In PF the pass is a sunken ravine. I had to look many times but there is Schofield
and the open plain and the road up to and down through the pass....

Oleg needs to take an underwater photo shoot vacation on Oahu. The pass is clearly
visible from H2 over the cane fields, he wouldn't need to set foot on the base at all.

If there are not good topo maps of that area, it is for a reason I can't mention but
hey the whole area is strict military.

Extreme_One
02-19-2005, 04:41 AM
How old is the IL2 engine again? 4yrs? 5yrs?
It's definatly pre DirectX 9 - They've squeezed every ounce out of it without completley re-writing it.

BOB's terrain modelling will be more realistic be sure.

WWMaxGunz
02-19-2005, 11:17 AM
The terrain part of the 3D engine is capable of far more correctness than what I described.
When a hill that guys would take skateboards up for the long ride down a 35 to 45 mph is
turned into a valley and the width of the pass... bury a nuke there and maybe it would
change that much contour!

On one Russian map there is a sort of chateau that someone recognized and posted a picture
of next to a screenshot. The 3D engine got very close. It is not from hill to crater
either. So I wonder what kind of maps were used to map the islands and I wonder if the
real topography is available for that place because yes, it is a sensitive place. So
maybe not 1C at fault but I really did want to see somewhere I was at home look at all
what I remember. It is a very beautiful place even when the rainbows are not out.

Stiglr
02-19-2005, 11:51 AM
This kind of accuracy is to be expected. The source of terrain available to the public these days is accurate down to something like 25 meters per "pixel". You can go to GTOPO and download most of it free of charge, for anywhere in the world.

The challenge then becomes how the sim's terrain software interprets it; some areas are going to get "smoothed over". I would suppose certain areas that the developer KNOWS will see action have to be gone over with the proverbial finetoothed comb to make sure there isn't any distortion.

nearmiss
02-19-2005, 09:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
This kind of accuracy is to be expected. The source of terrain available to the public these days is accurate down to something like 25 meters per "pixel". You can go to GTOPO and download most of it free of charge, for anywhere in the world.

The challenge then becomes how the sim's terrain software interprets it; some areas are going to get "smoothed over". I would suppose certain areas that the developer KNOWS will see action have to be gone over with the proverbial finetoothed comb to make sure there isn't any distortion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point...

We now have all the topography mapping imaginable readily available. The topography hasn't changed much since WW2, at least not noticably in the Pacific.

Development has certainly taken place that's sure, but the hills, valleys, ravines, mountains, lakes, rivers and seas are still intact. There may be a few exceptions like man-made lakes and canals, roads and towns, but those wouldn't be enough considering we'd have a more realistic war theatre overall.

When I saw the Palau on TV I was blown away with it's beauty, land and sea. When I put it up in FMB I was sorely disappointed. If I didn't know I loaded the Palau map I wouldn't have believed it.

You mention Target:Rabaul in an earlier posting.

Target:Rabaul is strictly on-line combat from my understanding, therefore it's more of a shoot-em-up than a flight sim. I'm not knocking it, because I never tried it. I DL it, but when I found it was online stuff I just deleted it. Online air combat has never of interest to me after my days with CFS2 and the ZONE. LOL

Cheats have always been a problem, and there will always be some twit the finds a way to beat the system. In turn, making it lousy fun for everyone.

WWMaxGunz
02-19-2005, 11:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
This kind of accuracy is to be expected. The source of terrain available to the public these days is accurate down to something like 25 meters per "pixel". You can go to GTOPO and download most of it free of charge, for anywhere in the world. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I note, that whole area is of military significance. You cross the pass from the Schofield
(Army) side into a Naval base and by warning signs the windows in the car must be up, no
cameras allowed. No stopping or getting out or slowing way down even. I won't describe
what you see on that side either but it's also restricted airspace, no overflights. If
you develop car trouble you are to pull over, stop and turn the window down the bare minimum
to push a white cloth out -- a nice man in green paint will come to stay with you until the
tow truck arrives, one of our crew found that out. It about drove our crew Texan crazy too
since he spotted prickley pear cactii with pears on them and couldn't get a single one!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The challenge then becomes how the sim's terrain software interprets it; some areas are going to get "smoothed over". I would suppose certain areas that the developer KNOWS will see action have to be gone over with the proverbial finetoothed comb to make sure there isn't any distortion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If they had the terrain within 50 meters the pass wouldn't look like it does. And that is
Kole-Kole Pass, look up the significance it is where the radar that spotted the Japanese
was situated. It is where the first planes came through and took the first lives before
seeping over and shooting up Schofield and then Wheeler AFB. The pass is HIGH above the
plain IRL.

Either they can't get correct info (foil nuke strikes? those would be above ground but if
someone programmed thinking the ground was 200+ ft lower... but no way some govt would just
trust to maps, not send an observer or correlate with oh, H there's only dozens of postcards
of it.) or they made a hash of it to let the AI's have loads of extra room going through.

bolillo_loco
02-20-2005, 05:07 AM
nothing upsets me more than people who want some great looking eye candy terrain. for the most part I do not even pay attention to it. if you had the graphics you wanted the computer that could run it would not be available for another five years. personally I do not like having to buy a computer every 3 months and nor do I like having to wait 2 years for a computer to become available so I can run my game.

I would rather have terrible terrain and a playable game than eye candy.

daiichidoku "flight simmers that complain about terrain and water detail is like someone complaining about cloud detail that plays a submarine game"

Bearcat99
02-20-2005, 12:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
I have to admit, the Iwo Jima map looks awful. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well what exactly do you want from a map that is supposed to represent a volcanic Island that had been thoroughly bombed for weeks prior to the landing?

p1ngu666
02-20-2005, 12:23 PM
terrain is ok, better than stock fs2004, which is like brown vomit over a bad mesh.
also it scales or something really bad, actully makes your eyes hurt http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
the ground, and sky, clouds, and weather, was more important than 99% of us realise.

Stiglr
02-20-2005, 07:06 PM
Nearmiss wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Target:Rabaul is strictly on-line combat from my understanding, therefore it's more of a shoot-em-up than a flight sim. I'm not knocking it, because I never tried it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huh??? How can you say that a sim that's strictly online is more of a shoot-em-up? That makes no sense.

Actually, Target:Rabaul is much LESS of a shoot-em-up than this sim because there is more STRUCTURE in the design (and it's about to take another quantum leap in that regard soon). Although it is entirely possible to have a "whatever plane" dogfight arena, it is more natural to set up a mission based on a certain time period, certain (limited) planeset, etc.

To me, that's a huge difference. One of several, actually.

nearmiss
02-20-2005, 10:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Nearmiss wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Target:Rabaul is strictly on-line combat from my understanding, therefore it's more of a shoot-em-up than a flight sim. I'm not knocking it, because I never tried it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huh??? How can you say that a sim that's strictly online is more of a shoot-em-up? That makes no sense.

Actually, Target:Rabaul is much LESS of a shoot-em-up than this sim because there is more STRUCTURE in the design (and it's about to take another quantum leap in that regard soon). Although it is entirely possible to have a "whatever plane" dogfight arena, it is more natural to set up a mission based on a certain time period, certain (limited) planeset, etc.

To me, that's a huge difference. One of several, actually. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don't have to defend Target:Rabaul to me. It could be fabulously fantastic and I wouldn't be interested. I enjoy building and flying my own and other missions, built by people for offline use.

I gave up Online everything when I moved to IL2 series 2+ years ago. The Zone drove me nuts, and from all the cheats and whines about online issues it's just not for me.

I'm glad for you and others that enjoy it.

Chuck_Older
02-21-2005, 09:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
I have to admit, the Iwo Jima map looks awful. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well what exactly do you want from a map that is supposed to represent a volcanic Island that had been thoroughly bombed for weeks prior to the landing? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gotta agree with Bearcat here...the bombing campaign went on for 70 or 72 days, depending on which source you beleive- the USMC or the USAAF. The USAAF bomber pilots described Iwo Jima s looking like a "burned pork chop" during the bombing campaign

So many bombs were dropped on Iwo, that the Marines were half expecting there to be no resistance. The problem was, it was assumed nobody on the island could survive that barrage- and they couldn't have, but see, the Japanese were inside the island, not on it

Japanese soldiers on the island pre-invasion described Iwo Jima as "the island were birds do not sing"

"Iwo Jima" means "Sulfur Island". It was no paradise pre-war

Stiglr
02-21-2005, 11:37 AM
The Zone???

Man, you're traveling with the wrong crowd.

You should know about HyperLobby (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/). Great setup, and although it's not totally free of knuckleheads, you won't find nearly the percentage of snotty-nosed "twitch-game" punks there as you will on other online lobbies. There also are not as many issues with "cheats" as you'd think.

Online is the ONLY way to fly; AI ruins sims, for the most part. Give it another try.

Nubarus
02-21-2005, 02:38 PM
Stiglr, I am really amazed that you didn't spot that one.

With "the zone" he means the internet, online play, in general......lol.

Stiglr
02-21-2005, 03:01 PM
I certainly don't claim to know the name of all the net hangouts for pimply-faced Doom and Everquest players.

But I do know that some people who "try online" through Ubi.com (ugh) and All Seeing Eye and other places have a radically different experience with online play than those who use HyperLobby, so I thought I'd pass it along.

I frankly don't "get" the mindset of people who cower behind their AI offline only smokescreen. If that's the extent of your experience with this sim, you've missed a LOT. AI can only go so far. There's never any telling what a real human pilot will do.

Nubarus
02-21-2005, 03:10 PM
Well, I have been on HL for a long time and to be honest I don't play online anymore either.

Too much whining going on there.

I have played many WWII games and the first game I EVER bought was Spitfire 40 because I love Spitfires.
So naturally I fly them in every WWII game I ever owned and to be totally honest I prefer the EAW online crowd over the HL crowd any day.

Especially the whining online to players who fly the Spit from the blue camp and they "holier then thou" attitude turned me off big time.

I see no real difference between them and the pimply-faced doom and everquest players.

nearmiss
02-21-2005, 03:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I certainly don't claim to know the name of all the net hangouts for pimply-faced Doom and Everquest players.

But I do know that some people who "try online" through Ubi.com (ugh) and All Seeing Eye and other places have a radically different experience with online play than those who use HyperLobby, so I thought I'd pass it along.

I frankly don't "get" the mindset of people who cower behind their AI offline only smokescreen. If that's the extent of your experience with this sim, you've missed a LOT. AI can only go so far. There's never any telling what a real human pilot will do. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's cool, that is, you enjoy Online play.

My experience with it in combat flight sims goes way back, and to be honest I finally "threw in the towel". I remember the times when you'd spend a half hour getting in and half the guys would just disappear, the other players would gang up on you, they'd pull some cheat stunt,etc. It was just nuisance air combat. Honestly, the AI in the IL2 series has been better than the some of the best opponents were online as I recall. The missions were always grunt dumb and had no focus.

Again, I'm glad you enjoy Online play, good for you.

Still I'd like to see maps with topography that really makes flying enjoyable. The Survivor TV show is now being staged in Palau and there is absolutely nothing in PF that closesly resembles the beauty of the real Palau.

LEXX_Luthor
02-21-2005, 05:29 PM
Pure offwhine player myself, but I am thinking TagertWare's historical structured onwhine Pay~for~Play may weed out the ...m..."stinkers" -- (I couldn't think of a word I have not used yet, and was looking at the thread title).

Stinkers don't look for historical stuff and that is what TagertWare seems to be made for. TagertWare could use AI though. I have been thinking of this a bit. What you need is a pure AI onwhine sim, but humanoid players take the seat of AI. Ideally, all aircraft seats will be taken by humanoids. In the real world, the humanoids have husbands, kids, and jobs, so you can have limited humanoids and still sim large online missions using AI to fill out the ranks. The neatest thing is you may not know if the enemy is AI or humanoid until you commit. I heard some onwhine stories where humanoids worked together and flew as AI would, suckering other humanoids into thinking they were "AI only."

...and, TagertWare should cost less than upgrading to the current "midrange" video card once a year.

WWMaxGunz
02-21-2005, 05:43 PM
Tagertware?

Tagertware?

For a minute there I thought Tagert made a mission or campaign bundle.

Le-eeeexx? I think there is a company called TARGETWARE.

nearmiss
02-21-2005, 08:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Pure offwhine player myself, but I am thinking TagertWare's _historical structured_ onwhine Pay~for~Play may weed out the ...m..."stinkers" -- (I couldn't think of a word I have not used yet, and was looking at the thread title).

Stinkers don't look for historical stuff and that is what TagertWare seems to be made for. TagertWare could use AI though. I have been thinking of this a bit. What you need is a pure AI onwhine sim, but humanoid players take the seat of AI. Ideally, all aircraft seats will be taken by humanoids. In the real world, the humanoids have husbands, kids, and jobs, so you can have limited humanoids and still sim large online missions using AI to fill out the ranks. The neatest thing is you may not know if the enemy is AI or humanoid until you commit. I heard some onwhine stories where humanoids worked together and flew as AI would, suckering other humanoids into thinking they were "AI only."

...and, TagertWare should cost less than upgrading to the current "midrange" video card once a year. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


TagertWare = Targetware, probably just a little play on words. Course it'll probably bring out some fire or smoke http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

LEXX_Luthor
02-22-2005, 01:12 AM
I get mixed up, watching Stiglr and Tagert on the boards messes with the head. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

That, and a Flyable G3M would be Aussom (I assume this was made for TARGETWARE). For real nearmiss, Bear is into onwhine, so it must have something going for it. Not all onwhiners are behavioral wimps obviously.

I think the best flight sim of the future will be designed for offwhine play against great AI features able to use that superb AI for huge onwhine mission play. That way even a brother and sister at home could setup a LAN WAR and just those two fly with AI.

btw...I meant FB Chichi Jima (not Mariana) and Iwo are great looking colours. Burnt pork chops that looks like it.

LEXX_Luthor
04-19-2005, 09:02 AM
FB/PF map engine is Perfect for ~sweet~ Pacific jungle island maps...

<span class="ev_code_yellow">Normanby</span> Island on the New Guinea map shows what PF maps of the Slot and other island archipelagos could like. This is sweet.

They need to stop putting European FB Objects into Pacific islands, especially the FB European Rivers and FB European Roads (and they won't have to program AI and bridges for these European Objects http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif ).

Rivers and Roads in FB/PF require vast flat open areas cutting out the jungle--and this lets player land airplane almost anywhere and that was not the case in Pacific jungle islands. And, the European Rivers and Roads cutting wide flat plains through the jungle just look...European.

And...FB maps never had European Pine Tree objects ~~> we DO NOT need Pacific Palm Tree objects. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Bearcat99
04-19-2005, 03:20 PM
Some of you guys kill me....... The scenery is top notch in PF. Nearmiss I guess I can attribute this little fishing expedition to patch fever.... It's a frickin flight sim for cryin out loud. If some of you yahoos spent more time enjoying it than complaining youd probably have less time to fish. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Blackdog5555
04-19-2005, 04:01 PM
We are talking about scenery? Well, I'm Laughing! Anyone who thinks those cheesey amateur renditions PF Island Scenery/ Topography is "good" has never seen a pacific island. Oleg made no effort to recreate the historical battlefields in this "off the shelf" game on any of the islands. Yes, Its ok for those who are easily satified with the fantastic plane models and good FM but dont kid yourself, the scenery *sucks*. Remember MS2004 did the whole world...not just 4 or 5 barenaked islands...

crazyivan1970
04-19-2005, 04:11 PM
Why don`t you smart pants talk to Ian or Luthier and find out what it takes to make a map. Gosh, i hate statements like this http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Tater-SW-
04-19-2005, 05:06 PM
The PF maps are not lacking due to any problems in the Il-2 engine. They are lacking because whoever did them didn't seem to care much, and didn't do any research at all. The choices are poor about which maps to do, and which way to run them. The vegitation is inadequate, most of the "rivers" that are represented are in reality tiny streams that could be waded across in a handfull of steps---without ever leaving the jungle canopy above you.

The maps are actually the worst travesty since they didn't have to be that way. Il-2 is capable of generating some really immersive terrains if the map maker actually has some interest in doing so.

crazyivan, I have read everything I could find by Ian on the subject, as well as asking him specific questions (which he answered). He doesn;t seem to be involved in PF maps, I'm waiting to read anything my luthier on the subject (or any subject, frankly).

tater

LEXX_Luthor
04-19-2005, 06:44 PM
crazyBear, internet Dogfight does not need any maps over 30km. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif offline players need large Pacific island maps. Although TargetWare has some great Pacific island maps, its online only, but then its supposed to be Pay~Play so they have to get it right.

Excellent post Tater (worthy of its own thread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

tater:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The PF maps are not lacking due to any problems in the Il-2 engine. They are lacking because whoever did them didn't seem to care much, and didn't do any research at all. The choices are poor about which maps to do, and which way to run them. The vegetation is inadequate, most of the "rivers" that are represented are in reality tiny streams that could be waded across in a handfull of steps---without ever leaving the jungle canopy above you.

The maps are actually the worst travesty <span class="ev_code_yellow">since they didn't have to be that way</span>. Il-2 is capable of generating some really immersive terrains if the map maker actually has some interest in doing so.

crazyivan, I have read everything I could find by Ian on the subject, as well as asking him specific questions (which he answered). He doesn't seem to be involved in PF maps, I'm waiting to read anything my luthier on the subject (or any subject, frankly). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Te_Vigo
04-20-2005, 09:30 AM
Is it just me, in my naiivity or do objects, etc, etc stop being drawn when you are a certain distance away from them?

LEXX_Luthor
04-20-2005, 09:51 AM
Yes, you can set this with Visibility Distance in the Video Options game menu, or in "conf" file where the values are 0,1,2,3...3 being the setting that draws Objects the farthest away from you (I think the
"0" value works, I forgot).

Te_Vigo
04-20-2005, 10:01 AM
Thanks Lex!

So...does this mean we could run bigger maps then?

LEXX_Luthor
04-20-2005, 11:42 AM
Vigo:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So...does this mean we could run bigger maps then? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The draw distance to the objects does not stop them from being there. You just can't see them. This helps those with old grafix cards, but the AMD/Intel sees them, calculates their position, and stores their properties in memory--lots of memory.

Yes, fewer Building Objects allows larger maps. In the upcoming Patch there possibly should be a "simplified" Kurland map for internet Dogfight. This dogfight map is the same full size as the "real" offline version (also in future), but has Building Objects placed only inside the "dogfight" area. Read here...

Ian Boys @ sinhq:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Murmansk - 1 version, winter land textures, icy lakes but the sea and a few lakes near the coast are water not ice. Because of this it was impractical to make a summer version as the water map is done right at the beginning ad it would have meant starting from scratch. In practical terms, it was that or Kurland.

Kurland - 4 versions. 2x Autumn/Spring, 2x Winter thaw. Each has a full map (495,000 objects) and an <span class="ev_code_yellow">online version (195,000 objects)in which the whole map is displayed but a red rectangle on the 2D map shows the "flyable area" that is populated with objects.</span> This means that those flying along the edges of the online map will see normal textures, woods etc below their "offboard" wing. This looks better IMO than blank terrain. It goes without saying that it is also less work [Smile]

In Kurland the autumn version has slightly muted "green-brown" ground textures (except near water) and the fields show ploughed brown strips instead of summer corn.

The winter version is white terrain (but with paths, field edges etc visible) but dark trees, houses etc, showing the effect of a thaw after light snowfall. I think it looks good but I expect loads of people will disagree. One thing that isn't great is the green runways - they look OK I think (showing where the snow had been worn away) but you can see the tile edges a bit too clearly. Its a compromise.

~> http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=127;t=000602;p=2
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Although I would consider the non building-populated regions to be "flyable." The populated regions are for Fancy Screenshot. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

So yes, fewer Building Objects make maps load and run better, and are more easy to make for the map makers. Imagine Gulf of Finland map with no Building Objects (it has 500,000 of them). Such a map could be 1000km size just like Hawaii map and load and run smooth.

With No Building Objects, No Roads, No Rivers, etc...a full size Rabaul~Guadcanal Slot map is possible at full scale, or a heavily reduced 1/4 scale map of the entire South Pacific compressing the 4000km from Java to Guadacanal into a usable 1000km. That would also help many who do not like long Pacific mission flights.

Obi_Kwiet
04-20-2005, 12:00 PM
You all have to admit though, the Iwo Jima map is *terrible*. A rather bland texture slapped on a 50 polygon, completely out of scale, piece of crud sticking out of the otherwise nice looking ocean.

LEXX_Luthor
04-20-2005, 12:15 PM
Obi:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>piece of crud sticking out of the otherwise nice looking ocean. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sounds like how Saburo described Iwo. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Iwo is one of my Faves. Fast drawing, easy to make, and it looks (to me) like Saburo described it, a place you don't wanna be. Volcanic bile long ago erupted from the Earth. It works.

Same with Chichi Jima map, that is nice for simple missions. Such simple mindedness can create large Pacific maps. The total absence of jungle island archipelago maps looks the most terrible. One must repress the European Mind when making Pacific maps...No European Roads, No European River Plains, etc... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

D_River
04-21-2005, 12:35 PM
European roads...
The north European roads, Norway, Swedish, Finland have usually trees quite close to the roads.
On the normal roads you can not! land a plane.
But there are roads that are quite wide too.
I say Roads.
The trees are quite close to the roads, only a ditch between, mostly.

Taavetti & Luum¤ki is somewhat familiar to me.
You can not land a plane on the roads there, atleast not in the 40´s.
Best place to land a plane is on an airfield, lake or some field.

Blackdog5555
04-21-2005, 02:23 PM
The Coral Sea map looks good. LOL. Well, I like to think that the map and terrain builders for PF are just as good and just as smart as the ones for MSFS2002-4. But! In MS2002, when i take off from Portland International, which is perfectly reproduced, fly over the perfect Columbia River, the the Willamette River and fly over perfectly reproducded versions of the Steel, Broadway, Hawthorne, Morrsion Bridge. Then view some exact recreations of dowtown buildings. well then go to my grandmothers house on Ladds Edition and there it is. Then Go to the Honolulu International (HNL) or (OGG) on Maui and see exact recreations of the terrain and downtown structures etc. Proper elevation, terrain, color etc. I think...professional. The NG map in MS2002-4 has Stanley Range with an elevation of 12,000ft. Wow, I think professional.

Then....When I look at PF Islands and I dont see properly laid out airstrips, hangers, gun placements, pillboxes, troop positions, I think "not professional". When i dont see proper terrain , elevation, color and vegatation combined with European Ocean Color and Artic sky colors, I think "rookie cheesey map building". The sim is still a great game and a good value but we are talking PF island maps. I wouldnt apologize for the map builders, I would fire them. Or at least take their Vodka away until they finished the maps. Just sloppy work. Yes i know its time consuming and difficult, thats why you get paid to do it. Ive tried to fix some maps but with the FMB you can only do so much. BTW i would pay extra for a proper Pacific Island Addon. LOL..

heywooood
04-21-2005, 07:41 PM
ChiChi Jima is the best looking PacMap be sure

RAAF_Furball
04-21-2005, 09:02 PM
Please click here for another Topic on Pacific Theatre maps (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=335104745)

sapre
04-21-2005, 10:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
The Coral Sea map looks good. LOL. Well, I like to think that the map and terrain builders for PF are just as good and just as smart as the ones for MSFS2002-4. But! In MS2002, when i take off from Portland International, which is perfectly reproduced, fly over the perfect Columbia River, the the Willamette River and fly over perfectly reproducded versions of the Steel, Broadway, Hawthorne, Morrsion Bridge. Then view some exact recreations of dowtown buildings. well then go to my grandmothers house on Ladds Edition and there it is. Then Go to the Honolulu International (HNL) or (OGG) on Maui and see exact recreations of the terrain and downtown structures etc. Proper elevation, terrain, color etc. I think...professional. The NG map in MS2002-4 has Stanley Range with an elevation of 12,000ft. Wow, I think professional.

Then....When I look at PF Islands and I dont see properly laid out airstrips, hangers, gun placements, pillboxes, troop positions, I think "not professional". When i dont see proper terrain , elevation, color and vegatation combined with European Ocean Color and Artic sky colors, I think "rookie cheesey map building". The sim is still a great game and a good value but we are talking PF island maps. I wouldnt apologize for the map builders, I would fire them. Or at least take their Vodka away until they finished the maps. Just sloppy work. Yes i know its time consuming and difficult, thats why you get paid to do it. Ive tried to fix some maps but with the FMB you can only do so much. BTW i would pay extra for a proper Pacific Island Addon. LOL.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You shouldn't have said that!
1C worshippers will barge into this thread screaming "This is the best WW2 sim out there so enjoy what you have!"

Blackdog5555
04-22-2005, 03:24 AM
I agree, it is the best WWII sim out there. Could be really "really" great with a little more attention to map/scenery detail is my point (i agree with the poster). For example, the cockpit for the I185 is pure genius, the water is unbelievable...fantastic carriers. So what happened to the island terrain...???

LEXX_Luthor
04-28-2005, 07:25 PM
5555::
Could be really "really" great with a little more attention to map/scenery
PF is very close to being the Masterpiece of the FB series. Everything else is Perfect.

Volcanic Island maps are fantastic looking and run smooth. They look like Saburo described them--a place you don't want to be. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif The Jungle Islands need some re~thinking.

Its so *weird* ~~> to make great jungle islands like The Slot would require less work...leave out the European FB Roads and European FB River Plains. Just let them go. We never got Pine Tree Objects in our Eastern Front maps, so why the Palm Tree Objects that only waste map maker's time and effort and are best Destroyed in FMB Destruction Slider by the end user? This is what I don't understand. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

OldMan____
04-29-2005, 06:17 AM
Please.. before start complaining.. try researching how hard is to do a few things.


Do you relly think that is a question as simple as modelling? LOL!!! Very big LOL!!

Did anyone here ever coded a terrain rendering system? Do you know what kind of limitations and compromisses you have to do so you can adequate you system to other features? Do you know that this kind of rendering system is coded with a LIMIT resolution? You cannont simply add 30 cm triangles at will to make that little bump at end of airstrip without collapsing all terrain triangulation to levels that will make rendering, collision detection etc much harder?

So if PF terrain code has a resolution of lets say 120 meters.. you WONT see terrain changes smaller than that (in horizontal measure). So you wont have crispy and facncy volcanic mountains (aka islands) with steep terrain, not without a heavy cost on performance.

Do you know how much more memory an extra level of detail on terain could cost? Potentially double!!!!

But you will say " but other games do it! they can do so PF can do either"

ok.. but HOW many games do it AND also do everything PF does? How many have thousands of bullets flying by, really complex flight model, AI running on complex combat algorithms etc...


well I know NONE!!!

bigchump
04-29-2005, 08:45 AM
Research? Or lack of it?
I can't imagine an easier map than this one to get right.

This is Wake on 3 Dec 1941:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v248/bigchump/RealWake.jpg

Here is the nautical chart:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v248/bigchump/RealWake2.jpg

Compare these with the PF Wake map!
Oleg's reply to my whine: "Not all things can be historically correct".

Indeed!

LEXX_Luthor
04-29-2005, 05:44 PM
Wake Island is fine. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Very few simmers know "exactly" what Wake looked like. Those that do and Whine are best ignored.

OldMan::
So you wont have crispy and fancy volcanic mountains (aka islands) with steep terrain, not without a heavy cost on performance.
FB Kuban Mountains are found in the lower right of the FB Kuban map. 1.5km high and steep Kuban slopes gave me good 30fps on my old ATI~9200 at 1152x864x32, and full Excellent settings. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif However, steep mountains are not what we need most, especially if strongly elevated terrain is difficult for the map makers to make so late after PF releace.

You only need look at <span class="ev_code_yellow">Normanby Island</span> on the lower right of the PF New Guinea map to see how *simple* it is to make Pacific Jungle Islands...although without steep terrain. One thing I have never Whined about is lack of steep terrain in PF maps, because that could be more than the Devs are willing to fix, unlike making simple Jungle Island maps with...

No FB European Roads (there were No Roads, this was not Europe)

No FB European River Plains (you can't see most of the streams under Jungle)

No FB European Bridges (no roads, no rivers, so...no bridges. AI ground vehicles don't need these anyway)

No Building Objects (mission builders can place the few historical Pacific buildings in the one or two places where the mission flies over)

Simple Coastline...look at Normanby Island and we see *simple* coastline. New Guinea coastline is a Terror for the map makers and looks bad. csThor posted that coastline is one of the hardest parts of FB map making (Thor worked over the "very soon, 2 weeks" Kurland map, which should have extensive coastline).

No Airfields (other than the ones at the start of Pacific War) Mission builders can more accurately place in time historical airfields using Test Runways--that is why the Deves made an extra Guadacanal map http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

And...

No Palm Tree Objects....we never got FB Pine Tree Objects for Eastern Front. We don't need Palm Trees. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

One thing I really love about PF maps is the occasional open grass areas surrounded by Jungle. That is correct, and offers places of ground combat where the player can see the units being targeted...I suggest for targets under jungle that they be at least approximately "marked" by the new smoke...there must have been methods of pointing out enemy positions that were invisible under the jungle.

LEXX_Luthor
04-29-2005, 08:33 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif LEXX_Loser::
Very few simmers know "exactly" what Wake looked like. Those that do and Whine are best ignored.
That was a Stupid reply from me -- I Apologize to you Bigchump. PF Wake works for me--it passes for great coral island (and it need not always be Wake for many possible missions). And, PF Wake looks good, and has good framerate. I say its "okay" over the PF.

SeaNorris
04-30-2005, 04:11 AM
Personally I wonder how many hours it takes them (Ian Boys and them) to make these maps? FS2004 looks unrealistic, Just houses/buildings placed anywhere, my hometown (Liverpool) Doesnt look like that. I like Iwo Jima, but for me its a little small http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

hotspace
04-30-2005, 06:48 AM
You should see Northampton in FS2004 - Not one person on the street having a fight or throwing up http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But I think the Maps in FB/AEP/PF are as good as this series can get, and that's not a bad thing from my point of view. As a Mission Builder I can work with what I got and go away happy in the knowledge that I've made something which is as good as it get's. Any Mission Builder here will tell you that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Maybe a few more Maps would be nice (Southern Britain, North France http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif), but I can't think of a better Sim (Military or Civil) for Map detail - Look at some of the Russian Maps http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Hot Space

bigchump
04-30-2005, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by HotSpace:
You should see Northampton in FS2004 - Not one person on the street having a fight or throwing up

Northampton probably doesn't have any "bridge trees" either.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v248/bigchump/bridge_trees.jpg

SeaNorris
04-30-2005, 11:27 AM
No, But my home city doesnt have lights etched in the floor

csThor
04-30-2005, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by SeaNorris:
Personally I wonder how many hours it takes them (Ian Boys and them) to make these maps?

Murmansk took him 14 months, but that includes learning time for the map tool. Kurland ... well with a team of at least four it was still close to 6 months. If there had been any significant mountains it would probably still under development. The way I see it altitude modeling of the terrain is the most problematic part in coding a new map. J¶rg spent over two weeks on the altitude map of Kurland and in the end none of us was satisfied (but we went on anyway to have it included at all).

jurinko
04-30-2005, 12:08 PM
the terrain on the Peleliu (or Palau?) island is very good IMO

p1ngu666
04-30-2005, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by csThor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaNorris:
Personally I wonder how many hours it takes them (Ian Boys and them) to make these maps?

Murmansk took him 14 months, but that includes learning time for the map tool. Kurland ... well with a team of at least four it was still close to 6 months. If there had been any significant mountains it would probably still under development. The way I see it altitude modeling of the terrain is the most problematic part in coding a new map. J¶rg spent over two weeks on the altitude map of Kurland and in the end none of us was satisfied (but we went on anyway to have it included at all). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

so that is why most of the maps are flat?

btw, thanks for your efforts http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

hotspace
04-30-2005, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by bigchump:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HotSpace:
You should see Northampton in FS2004 - Not one person on the street having a fight or throwing up

Northampton probably doesn't have any "bridge trees" either.
]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v248/bigchump/bridge_trees.jpg (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v248/bigchump/bridge_trees.jpg[/IMG) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now that is one thing I can agree with.

Hot Space

LEXX_Luthor
04-30-2005, 09:15 PM
Another reason for the generally flat terrain (except southern Kuban) may be that the AI have difficulties at low altitudes.

The south~east corner of Kuban Map shows that Oleg knows how to make stunning knock~out maps. Also, the Online Summer 4 map has Brutal mountains over 2x the height of FB Kuban mountains, and, it didn't need real world data.

p1ngu666
05-01-2005, 09:01 AM
oh, u need rivers for jungle, rivers are like the roads of jungle, so need the big ones for moving rivercraft http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
and also for navigation.

surprisingly, allied and possibly axis wherent trained in surviveal, so when they escaped they where short of food, dispite being in a rich environment, they didnt know what they could eat http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

no ray mears for them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Aaron_GT
05-01-2005, 09:38 AM
In MS2002, when i take off from Portland International, which is perfectly reproduced, fly over the perfect Columbia River, the the Willamette River and fly over perfectly reproducded versions of the Steel, Broadway, Hawthorne, Morrsion Bridge.

It's not like that for the UK - the UK has next to nothing. Even with VFR add ons for the UK FS2002/4 lacks a LOT of detail and a friend of mine is trying to correct that for the local area. So if Portland looks good is FS2002 for you, you are lucky. The FS2002/4/CFS3 ground textures are terrible, though.

bigchump
05-01-2005, 09:39 AM
Too bad FMB does not have a "bogus object removal tool":
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v248/bigchump/bogus_objects.jpg
Try moving some vehicles across this bridge.

Blackdog5555
05-01-2005, 12:08 PM
I agree that if Olegs team wanted to doe great maps, they can. And i would imagine be that elevation is off on the NG map because the AI cant handle a 12,000 ft mountain ridge. Crash into it, etc. AI dont do good with low level maneuvering. there are major bugs in the AI programming. They cant handle a funky 6,000 ft ridge as it stands. Yes, the LOD is off because most puters cant handle high LOD. And im not talking about how nice the Kuban maps looks. Just pacific islands. I wont compare apples to oranges.

Some arent happy unless they are eating milet mignon, others are happy just to eat peanuts out of S*it. Im happy with a good Whopper from Burger King. The pacific island maps a bean burrito without cheese. I give the pacific maps a 7 out of 10.

1. why isnt the white coral sand white?
2. why do the map builders make the turquoise coral reefs green?
3. why are the green tropical islands lacking vegatation.
4. Why no streams? only giant mississippi rivers?
5. Where is the object detail?
6. Sky color is off. etc.


We are talking about islands with only a few square miles of terrain and very little elevation work. Again, I would be an opolgist. I dont need any schooling on how difficult map building is either. It isnt easy, but its not rocket science either. Olegs team paid meticulous detail to many things. Pacific islands isnt one of them. Who cares anyway. Most like bean burritos without cheese. Cheers..BD

bigchump
05-02-2005, 08:13 AM
Telephone service on Guadalcanal is unreliable...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v248/bigchump/bogus_phone.jpg
Some villagers report a high ping...

Tater-SW-
05-02-2005, 10:16 AM
I'll say it again. The PF maps are not bad for technical reasons, they are bad due to bad CHOICES. As many have said, you could make a better version of vitually all the PF maps without any additional work, and in fact perhaps less work.

The elevations need to be coded if the hills are 100m high, or 3000m high, so that's not an excuse. You might argue that the number of elevation changes matters...the number of tiles above or below sea level, but I think you'd find that even the "flat" maps have loads of gentle undualtions.

Roads? Dump 99.9999% of them in PF, assuming you keep any at all. That makes them easier to make.

Rivers? Either cover them with the large forest blobs, or just eliminate 90% of the rivers. They are all so big that they look silly. I'm not sure there is a single river on the Guadalcanal map that isn't 10X the width of the real 4m wide stream it represents.

Then there is just the choice of what maps and what direction to run them, etc. Yeesh.

tater

LEXX_Luthor
05-02-2005, 05:50 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Thanks Tater.

This is a good one http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif ...Guadacanal...

Puller reaches the Matanikau and moves downstream (north) and runs into the Japanese at 11:25 a.m. The Japanese shell Puller with mortar fire, and he cannot get across the river at One-Log Bridge. (The name is self-explanatory)

Sept. 20th to 26th, 1942 ~~> http://www.usswashington.com/dl_index.htm http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

PF Florida Island has jungle texture covering the rivers. I will have to check if river boats can follow waypoints with the trees (assuming they can follow the smaller PF Rivers.



Tater::
Roads? Dump 99.9999% of them in PF, assuming you keep any at all. That makes them easier to make.

Rivers? Either cover them with the large forest blobs, or just eliminate 90% of the rivers. They are all so big that they look silly. I'm not sure there is a single river on the Guadalcanal map that isn't 10X the width of the real 4m wide stream it represents.

ManicGibber
05-02-2005, 09:04 PM
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before or not so I'll bring it up here since it is about map creation. I loaded the New Guinea map in FMB then zoomed in to one of the mountains and where it meets the shoreline I could see underneath the map, well the mountain actually and it is possible to see the other side of the mountain. So I moved the camera closer to have a better look and the water actually rises up around 40 meters to meet the shoreline and the mountain baseline. The map mesh hasn't been smoothed out around the base of the mountain ranges, and where this edge meets water it causes the water to rise in elevation and leaving a gapeing hole where it begins to rise and where it meets the shoreline. Very disappointing if you ask me as it looks terrible. I have pic's of it but don't know how to load them to the forums for viewing.

bigchump
05-03-2005, 11:28 AM
ManicGibber, only sailboats can transit this area.
Ships with engines overheat when they become "airborne".
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v248/bigchump/bogus_sea.jpg
N.G. map, co-ordinates AR-19, in case someone wants to fix this.

DRB_Hookech0
05-03-2005, 12:01 PM
Ive never advocated for trees down to the water or the mountains are not high enough......the look of the maps I can live with.

It's the horrible map selections, placements, and missing 23 months of AIR COMBAT that make me irate. All i have ever asked for was some semblence of maps for the slot. Even scaled down some to fit. Russels to Southern New Georgia, All of New Georgia, including Munda, some scaled map from Munda to southern Bouganville.....etc...

From a mission builder standpoint....what we have really sucks for 23 months of the war.

p1ngu666
05-03-2005, 12:36 PM
i think the maps or texture is limited to 50m squares or similer, thats why we have alot of big rivers...

a stream texture, like a road or rail texture would be good for streams http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

bigchump
05-03-2005, 03:47 PM
I pre-ordered PF from Ubi.
Why? Because I KNEW it would be a vast improvement over CFS2.
Surely, Oleg & Co. had taken a good look at CFS2 and said "Ha! We can do better than that!"
And they did, except for you-know-what.

In 1942, a lone B-17 flew from Midway to Wake Island to see what the Japanese were up to there. On its return flight, it was chased by a fighter from Wake for so long that the fighter eventually ran out of gas and crashed into the sea.

Ok, a fairly simple mission to re-create in FMB. Only two planes, etc. If the fighter pilot uses all his skills, he may catch up with that pesky bomber before his fuel runs too low.
NOT!

Midway is one map.
Wake is another.
No way to use two maps in a mission.
DRAT!

The lack of a real PTO map literally surprised the hell out of me.

Back in the IL-2 days, I used to get a little annoyed that I couldn't fly from, say, Smolensk to Lvov. But only a little. IL-2 was great cause whenever you got down low, there was something to look at (or crash into), unlike other sims. So, I could appreciate why missions were limited to one map.

But this is the PACIFIC OCEAN WAR, guys!

I think this PTO thing can be fixed.
The way it is now, three maps would be required to create a mission like the one above.

1)Midway map (as is).
2)A water map (need to create).
3)Wake map (as is).

A water map. No evelvations, no land, no objects, no nothing. Just water. This water map could be used to connect Guam with Iwo Jima, etc, etc.

So a way needs to be found to connect three maps. How about this:
1) Take off from Midway
2) When Midway is no longer visible, switch to water map.
3) When nearing Wake, switch to Wake map.
And vice-versa on the way back.

The switch to the water map should be seamless. You're already looking at nothing but water at this point anyway. When approaching land, it first appears as a little blurb in the horizon. Not all objects need to be loaded at once. Ok, if you insist on having some stutters here, they would hardly be noticeable.

Now, for sure, some wizenheimer is thinking about what would happen if he decides to fly in circles just when the new map is loading...

I worked for M$ for 23 years. Guess what I worked on there. Yeah, it starts with an "M". Without jeopardizing my retirement, suffice it to say this problem was fixed after about 20 minutes of thought.

Sure, this will require some code changes.
But, think about the possibilities for BoB.
Like an ETO map.

Ok, go ahead and flame me now.
Tell me how it can't be done (just don't bet on that one).
Rant Over.

Tater-SW-
05-03-2005, 05:03 PM
Actually there is no reason not to just have the open water between the 2 islands, it isn'tike water needs to be created. You can already fly infinitely over the "off the map" water.

Wake+Midway would be far less of a load than Berlin, or even NG in terms of roads and objects.

tater

bigchump
05-03-2005, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
Actually there is no reason not to just have the open water between the 2 islands, it isn'tike water needs to be created. You can already fly infinitely over the "off the map" water.

Absolutetly correct, Mr. Tater. That's how the "competition" did it for the whole PTO.

I'm thinking part of the problem may be with limitations in FMB, i.e. it was never intended to cover 1/3 of the earth's surface. A "water map" as a "bridge" between two existing maps would require far less code changes, but that is still a poor second choice.

nearmiss
05-03-2005, 06:14 PM
Bigchump

The CFS2 was a better flight sim for Offline players, because the mission builder was so terrific. I built missions for several years and had a blast, that along with all the new add-ons kept the sim alive. We had triggers, events, comm triggers, weather, etc. all for building exciting missions. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

MSFT shot their foot off with CFS3, hiring that "dil" from Red Baron was a huge mistake. All MSFT needed to do was make some changes in the AI, upgrade the graphics and call it CFS3. Even today it would probably be the best sim for all out fun and excitement. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

IL2 series panders to realism with all the world class graphic cockpits, and flight models. This is great for Online players, but doesn't do much for Offline players. THe Mission Builder is a horrible static mission thing, that is a pain to build missions. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

My take on MSFT...they made a mistake with the CFS3, but could still fix it. The sad part is the CFS3 team missed the target sooooo bad MSFT just gave up on the project. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

THe only hope on the horizon is the BOB, which Oleg promises will have a much better mission builder. Maybe, yes, maybe no... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

The way things go around here, anything can happen. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

There are a lot of great things about this sim, and alot of not so great things.

Jane's WW2 Fighters and CFS2 had the best handle on great Offline play. They still do, but they're very outdated now.

bigchump
05-03-2005, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by nearmiss:
Bigchump

MSFT shot their foot off with CFS3, hiring that "dil" from Red Baron was a huge mistake. All MSFT needed to do was make some changes in the AI, upgrade the graphics and call it CFS3. Even today it would probably be the best sim for all out fun and excitement. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

That's a real funny story. CFS2 was basically the MSFS crowd, we put weapons on MSFS so to speak, did a little of this and that, and let it go.

When IL-2 came out, we were hopelessly outclassed by it. With the exception of the mission builder, they had us beat sideways.

Uncle Billy sent us all back to do FS2002 and hired some real morons who did Crimson Skies. Uncle Billy just loved that one. The fact that it was a joke didn't matter...

Well, these morons hired the politically-correct, who eventually took charge. To hell with FM's DM's, we've got the Seattle Symphony Orchestra and sound recordings from the engines of an ME-262 (they were Westinghouse jets, but who cares..), no computer in the office could run it without massive stutters ("oh, but isn't the weather pretty.."), but that didn't matter either. Who needs a mission builder? Our campaigns are "immersive". Oh yeah.

I guess the moral of this story is if you get too big for your britches (or lesbian attire), you can find yourself out of business.

FltLt_HardBall
05-03-2005, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by bigchump:
Too bad FMB does not have a "bogus object removal tool":
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v248/bigchump/bogus_objects.jpg
Try moving some vehicles across this bridge.

If you "destroy" the objects in the FMB then vehicles can drive through the wreckage. Try it.

LEXX_Luthor
05-03-2005, 08:30 PM
Yep, FMB destruction slider will take down any Building Objects or Tree Objects that prevent AI vehicle movement. Best of all, those killer Palm Tree Objects can be eliminated...the palm trees are AI Only so we are better without them. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Gog..
05-03-2005, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by Extreme_One:
BOB's terrain modelling will be more realistic be sure.

Yeah, cos' that English terrain can be so hard to model....what with all those open fields and stuff!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

nearmiss
05-03-2005, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by FltLt_HardBall:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bigchump:
Too bad FMB does not have a "bogus object removal tool":
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v248/bigchump/bogus_objects.jpg
Try moving some vehicles across this bridge.

If you "destroy" the objects in the FMB then vehicles can drive through the wreckage. Try it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is a nothing issue, compared to others in the FMB.

I mean all you have to do is poke in a camera and change the landscape objects.

What I'd have given for a despawn waypoint...or one random trigger. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Blackdog5555
05-04-2005, 04:27 PM
Good reading BC...One big issue i had with CFS3 was the gloomy feel. so much blue grey and earth tones. Very little shadow and highlight made everything feel flat.

92SqnGCJimbo
05-04-2005, 06:26 PM
nubarus he means msn zone... ie cfs 1/2 yes i flew there.... and it was.. er interesting at times.. kinda like having a army of stiglers badgering away at u constantly.. sorry stigler u know i love u really... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

bigchump
05-05-2005, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Good reading BC...One big issue i had with CFS3 was the gloomy feel. so much blue grey and earth tones. Very little shadow and highlight made everything feel flat.

I think CFS3 was more of an "artistic statement" of political-correctness than a serious attempt to compete with Oleg. In the campaign, bombers were not to target civilian areas. Very "correct", but little to do with reality, but what else to expect from a guy who loved Crimson Skies?

The add-on for CFS2 would have been for the late war years. We had a demo of IL-2 and intended to give Oleg a run for his money. The political correctness crowd were in charge by then and things like carrier raids on the Japanese home islands were considered "racist". The "you can't do this and you can't do that" memos from the powers that be pretty much killed the whole project.

Oh well, what could have been never happened.
PF might well have been a very different product had we been allowed to compete with them...

Blackdog5555
05-05-2005, 12:43 PM
That is funny to hear that BC. Bet it was fun doing a war sim with the tree hugging, history revsionist rainbow party. Im sure the nature of MS being a monster multinational/ multicultural organization had something to do with it. Every country that was involved in the conflict wrote its own history. Good example is how history goes wrong, the Chinese where just massively protesting the "new" Japanese history of the Chinese invasion of WWII (we did it to rescue China from the western colonialist cr*p). MS does business with both Japan and China, so, whose history do you adopt? Its a money question too.

///One of the The biggest complaints about CFS3 was the long boring campaign engine. multiple air to sea raids. Also the fact that "if you played the game right" the Axis could win. I guess thats the political correct crown input. Like...when children play/// Hey not fair...start over!!!
...................
///my feeling about the sky texture.. Its actually close the real gloomy feel you get from UK Autumns, but even in summer time it felt too flat and gloomey. I really didnt like the 3d codkpits either. Oleg has mastered to nice looking 3D cockpit. But MS had the great 2D cockpit which I miss in this game.

Anyway I loved the turqoise lagoons and bright blue sky, white coral sands and green jungles in CFS2. Really, too bad no high fidelity update.

//I am one who flys MsFs2002 just to fly around my old home town of Portland OR from PDX just to look at the red broadway bridge, Steel and Hawthorne bridge. Beautiful rendering of the downtown area and west hills with radio towers. It is a great job of map building. Cheers BD

nearmiss
05-05-2005, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by bigchump:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Good reading BC...One big issue i had with CFS3 was the gloomy feel. so much blue grey and earth tones. Very little shadow and highlight made everything feel flat.

I think CFS3 was more of an "artistic statement" of political-correctness than a serious attempt to compete with Oleg. In the campaign, bombers were not to target civilian areas. Very "correct", but little to do with reality, but what else to expect from a guy who loved Crimson Skies?

The add-on for CFS2 would have been for the late war years. We had a demo of IL-2 and intended to give Oleg a run for his money. The political correctness crowd were in charge by then and things like carrier raids on the Japanese home islands were considered "racist". The "you can't do this and you can't do that" memos from the powers that be pretty much killed the whole project.

Oh well, what could have been never happened.
PF might well have been a very different product had we been allowed to compete with them... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Considering the PF is only IL2 1.0 with some maps, planes and carrier ops I'd say you're correct. MSFT could definitely been a competitor if not a http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif "bestor" of PF as we have it.

IL2 series is just that...everything since IL2 is just a minor embellishment to IL2 with very little in the way of hard code changes. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

After MSFT troubles with the Justice department, who could blame them for backing off any controversial issues. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Leave it to the little guys, nothing to lose and not big enough cases for the Justice dept. to attack http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Te_Vigo
05-07-2005, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
Please.. before start complaining.. try researching how hard is to do a few things.


Do you relly think that is a question as simple as modelling? LOL!!! Very big LOL!!

Did anyone here ever coded a terrain rendering system? Do you know what kind of limitations and compromisses you have to do so you can adequate you system to other features? Do you know that this kind of rendering system is coded with a LIMIT resolution? You cannont simply add 30 cm triangles at will to make that little bump at end of airstrip without collapsing all terrain triangulation to levels that will make rendering, collision detection etc much harder?

So if PF terrain code has a resolution of lets say 120 meters.. you WONT see terrain changes smaller than that (in horizontal measure). So you wont have crispy and facncy volcanic mountains (aka islands) with steep terrain, not without a heavy cost on performance.

Do you know how much more memory an extra level of detail on terain could cost? Potentially double!!!!

But you will say " but other games do it! they can do so PF can do either"

ok.. but HOW many games do it AND also do everything PF does? How many have thousands of bullets flying by, really complex flight model, AI running on complex combat algorithms etc...


well I know NONE!!!

The Mountains Map for Two Armies, perhaps??

Blackdog5555
05-07-2005, 11:32 PM
I really didnt want to argue with an old_man. Actually CFS2 has some high mesh terrains that are available "for free" of the Marianas, NF, SWP, and PI islands, again "for free". Turquoise lagoons, white coral sand and lush tropical rain forest with correct terrain elevasions. Steep mountains, etc, etc. for computers that cant handle, you have have terrain options. It's just a lame apology for sloppy work. All island maps builders had available to then the historical accurate locations of bunkers, pillboxes, airstrips, AAA, guns, caves, etc etc... but used none of it. Water textures were built for a supercomputer but island textures were built for a low end unit. go figure. they wont be fixed so .. just gas and waste of time here. Cheers...BD

Te_Vigo
05-08-2005, 09:02 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v316/onlinephoto/Cruising.jpg

Blackdog5555
05-08-2005, 11:27 AM
Nice one Vigo, Thats what im talking about.