RE: one cheek maps

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: one cheek maps

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Last Stand Arnhem >> RE: one cheek maps

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: one cheek maps - 7/21/2010 5:06:39 PM

xe5

Posts: 783
Joined: 5/3/2009
Status: offline

Estimate 1.5 meters lower than the field on the left and ~3 meters lower than the assumed roadbed off to the right... a specific terrain situation where a coarse elevation increment would be entirely appropriate.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to TheReal_Pak40)

Post #: 31

RE: maps - 7/21/2010 5:45:40 PM

kojusoki1

Posts: 172
Joined: 1/6/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RD_Oddball
Calling them half-assed is definitely not a fair characterization. A lot of work and effort went into them.

I dont want to be a pain, but its like I would pay you half money and said: "Come on, I spend a lot of work and effort to earn 20$ so it should be ok with You if I pay only 20 bucks for this game. Additional 13$ ill send you later guys."

Its the same here:)

(in reply to RD Oddball)

Post #: 32

RE: one cheek maps - 7/21/2010 5:48:05 PM

RD Oddball

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: xe5

Helmond - stream #1 is 1 m. lower than the surrounding terrain. Stream #2 is the same level as surrounding terrain.

Thanks for the report Mick we'll make the adjustment.

(in reply to xe5)

Post #: 33

RE: cheeky - 7/21/2010 5:54:43 PM

RD Oddball

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: xe5

Arnhem Road Bridge map:

1. Coarse 4 meter increments rather than smooth 1/2 meters
2. 'MC Escher effect' where the bottom of the stairs are 20m. high and the top of the stairs are 4m. high. On the north end of the bridge are similar stairs that are flat.
3. Tri-level one story building where a parts of the floor are higher than parts of the roof. (tip: each building should occupy terrain sharing the same elevation)
4. Bridge wall shadow (blue circle) indicating an upward sloping elevation is coded as a flat 20m height.

RE: #1 - We'll add some subtlety to the elevations.
Re: #2 - Was reported right after the release and has been fixed on our end. Will go out with the first update.
RE: #3 - It's my understanding that because the buildings are sitting on uneven terrain does not make the building itself uneven in elevation. Will check to be sure. Just like real life, any building built into a hillside would have floors on one continuous level.
RE: #4 - Actually what you're seeing is the bridge shadow. The elevations there are still not correct but there is a bit of an eye trick going on that makes the terrain a bit difficult to understand. Will address it along with #1.

Thanks!

(in reply to xe5)

Post #: 34

RE: maps - 7/21/2010 6:04:34 PM

RD Oddball

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kojusoki1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RD_Oddball
Calling them half-assed is definitely not a fair characterization. A lot of work and effort went into them.

I dont want to be a pain, but its like I would pay you half money and said: "Come on, I spend a lot of work and effort to earn 20$ so it should be ok with You if I pay only 20 bucks for this game. Additional 13$ ill send you later guys."

Its the same here:)

You're not being a pain. It's a valid point. Sorry I wasn't being clear on my point. The characterization implies that we didn't approach the map making with a sincere effort to the best of our ability when in fact we did. We certainly make every effort to make sure the builds go out with as few mistakes as possible but it's my feeling that it's unrealistic to think that our testers will catch every single mistake and the build will go out faultless. That's why updates and revisions are such an integral part of software development.

I feel the important part here is that we're going to address the reported issues and do what we can to make it right in a timely manner. That's all we can do. We appreciate everyone taking the time to identify those aspects they feel need addressed. Thank you!

(in reply to kojusoki1)

Post #: 35

RE: cheeky - 7/21/2010 6:16:15 PM

xe5

Posts: 783
Joined: 5/3/2009
Status: offline

quote:

_Oddball:
RE: #3 - It's my understanding that because the buildings are sitting on uneven terrain does not make the building itself uneven in elevation. Will check to be sure. Just like real life, any building built into a hillside would have floors on one continuous level.
RE: #4 - Actually what you're seeing is the bridge shadow. The elevations there are still not correct but there is a bit of an eye trick going on that makes the terrain a bit difficult to understand. Will address it along with #1.

When CC bldgs sit on uneven terrain they reflect that underlying variation...unlike real life where a foundation or excavation is used to level a building. Right click on the bldg in question and see that its cross-section varies from 4 to 8 to 12 meters in height.

Bridge shadow shows it rising from the approach, not flat (20m) all the way across. Shadow also indicates the terrain in, and to the right, of the shadow should be at a lower elevation than the bridge.

(in reply to RD Oddball)

Post #: 36

RE: cheeky - 7/21/2010 6:24:01 PM

VicKevlar

Posts: 881
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Minneapolis, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: xe5

quote:

_Oddball:
RE: #3 - It's my understanding that because the buildings are sitting on uneven terrain does not make the building itself uneven in elevation. Will check to be sure. Just like real life, any building built into a hillside would have floors on one continuous level.
RE: #4 - Actually what you're seeing is the bridge shadow. The elevations there are still not correct but there is a bit of an eye trick going on that makes the terrain a bit difficult to understand. Will address it along with #1.
When CC bldgs sit on uneven terrain they reflect that underlying variation...unlike real life where a foundation or excavation is used to level a building. Right click on the bldg in question and see that its cross-section varies from 4 to 8 to 12 meters in height.

Bridge shadow shows it rising from the approach, not flat (20m) all the way across. Shadow also indicates the terrain in, and to the right, of the shadow should be at a lower elevation than the bridge.

Yeppers.......The Thumb has got me all worked up......not really playing.....just right clicking all over the place on the maps.

_____________________________

The infantry doesn't change. We're the only arm of the military where the weapon is the man himself.

C. T. Shortis

(in reply to xe5)

Post #: 37

RE: cheeky - 7/21/2010 6:31:50 PM

RD Oddball

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: xe5
When CC bldgs sit on uneven terrain they reflect that underlying variation...unlike real life where a foundation or excavation is used to level a building. Right click on the bldg in question and see that its cross-section varies from 4 to 8 to 12 meters in height.

Bridge shadow shows it rising from the approach, not flat (20m) all the way across. Shadow also indicates the terrain in, and to the right, of the shadow should be at a lower elevation than the bridge.

Okay will address both. Thanks again.

(in reply to xe5)

Post #: 38

RE: maps - 7/21/2010 9:13:59 PM

Dundradal

Posts: 753
Joined: 6/9/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RD_Oddball
You're not being a pain. It's a valid point. Sorry I wasn't being clear on my point. The characterization implies that we didn't approach the map making with a sincere effort to the best of our ability when in fact we did. We certainly make every effort to make sure the builds go out with as few mistakes as possible but it's my feeling that it's unrealistic to think that our testers will catch every single mistake and the build will go out faultless. That's why updates and revisions are such an integral part of software development.

I feel the important part here is that we're going to address the reported issues and do what we can to make it right in a timely manner. That's all we can do. We appreciate everyone taking the time to identify those aspects they feel need addressed. Thank you!

I find it funny that people here are so willing to just bash for mistakes getting through. I mean come on guys, I bet most of you are running some form of Windows...you want to tell me MS got every bug when they released it?

I worked on a mod where I was one of the main testers. I played for hours and hours trying to do everything that a gamer might do and I thought we'd gotten almost all of the bugs...then we released to mod and immediately I started a bug thread thinking we might of missed a spelling mistake or something....and then they started rolling in. The whole team had missed some things because sometimes you overlook them because of how you test the program. We'd missed a HUGE continuity mistake. The game was not giving players the proper mission path after completing a previous episode. It instead always sent the player to the "you did terrible last time" branch which made the next group of missions extremely difficult...why did we miss this? We were so concerned with Ep5, we forgot to test a complete playthrough, the other 4 eps worked fine, why would we need to test again?

I felt horrible for letting that and some other good sized bugs get through. I'd spent hours testing wanting to deliver the perfect game for our little community, but again things got through.

It wasn't a conscious effort by me just to half ass through things. It was a mistake. For those of you who have never tested a game, it's not as easy as just playing the game. You have to create a checklist of things you want to try for each level of the game and try to break it. You want to make it crash so you can prevent it from happening again. Sometimes you get wrapped up in things (say one bug that just drives the whole team insane...we had one...for some reason after one update to our test build the game just started randomly crashing...it took us over a month to figure it out...) and things slip past. Sometimes the tools you are using have bugs in them.

Now I'm not making excuses for bugs getting through, I'm just saying think about it before you open your anonymous internet mouths. These guys put a lot of hard work into this and while I agree there are a lot of things about this game that drive me up the wall, it was still a lot of people's effort to get it done.

On a side note, CC really needs a new engine that incorporates all the great features from the 10+ CC titles out. That's what will really save/reinvigorate this series.

(in reply to RD Oddball)

Post #: 39

RE: maps - 7/21/2010 11:32:51 PM

kojusoki1

Posts: 172
Joined: 1/6/2009
Status: offline

Dundradal - I dont complain that there are bugs, as in each software always were, are and will be. Im also in IT business and I moreor less knowhow things work. Also, RD_Oddball is doing great job and seems dev are taking care what I really appriate.

I only complained that "a lot of work was put into this..." - but it also was withthis magic emoticon: ";)"

ANyway - I find this rerelease as the best game from the whole CC, I do like Devs approach and I hope they will keep doing good job.
And I will complain on bugs as finally I am on the customers side;)

PS
Dundradal: there is a HUGE dofference between a mod (user made) and a commercial product. Remember. CUstomers not "can" but MUST complain in such cases. I am always saying to my customers: if you find something wrong, I do want to know about this first and ASAP.

(in reply to Dundradal)

Post #: 40

RE: maps - 7/21/2010 11:50:27 PM

RD Oddball

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline

Thanks for the well reasoned opinions and kudos, where you felt we deserved them, from both of you.

(in reply to kojusoki1)

Post #: 41

RE: maps - 7/22/2010 12:49:54 AM

Dundradal

Posts: 753
Joined: 6/9/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kojusoki1

Dundradal - I dont complain that there are bugs, as in each software always were, are and will be. Im also in IT business and I moreor less knowhow things work. Also, RD_Oddball is doing great job and seems dev are taking care what I really appriate.

I only complained that "a lot of work was put into this..." - but it also was withthis magic emoticon:�� ";)"

ANyway - I find this rerelease as the best game from the whole CC, I do like Devs approach and I hope they will keep doing good job.
And I will complain on bugs as finally I am on the customers side;)

PS
Dundradal: there is a HUGE dofference between a mod (user made) and a commercial product. Remember. CUstomers not "can" but MUST complain in such cases. I am always saying to my customers: if you find something wrong, I do want to know about this first and ASAP.

Oh I'm saying complain away within reason. By that I don't mean tell the people that made the game they half-assed it. I used my example to show that no matter what they are labors of love.

Of course people want to know what they've done wrong in order to correct it. I was more criticizing those who are just bandwagoning on a hate train.

And your welcome Oddball.

(in reply to kojusoki1)

Post #: 42

Hate Train Bandwagon - 7/22/2010 1:53:30 AM

xe5

Posts: 783
Joined: 5/3/2009
Status: offline

After numerous examples pointing to categorical errors w/r/t map elevations, you might expect those 'laborers of love' to announce a comprehensive review of the issue rather than "Five maps with elevation issues. They'll be taken care of. If you find others please post them. Thanks"

Some of us are somewhat less incognito than others. IIRC, the original CC2 'hate train' led to a pretty vigorous mod community

(in reply to Dundradal)

Post #: 43

RE: collective interest in bettering CC - 7/22/2010 2:09:16 AM

RD Oddball

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline

I would disagree with your characterization of this being a "hate train bandwagon" and it is not fair to yourself and your interests. Like us, you're basic motivation appears to be that you're very interested in seeing the game as good as it can be. We're grateful for that long term dedication to the game. Thank you.

(in reply to xe5)

Post #: 44

CC socialism - 7/22/2010 1:10:36 PM

xe5

Posts: 783
Joined: 5/3/2009
Status: offline

Dundradal's characterization ("I was more criticizing those who are just bandwagoning on a hate train.") not mine. Thx for the lifetime achievement recognition. I'll hang it right next to Atomic's cease and desist notice. What I was really hoping to hear is that y'all are going to comb thru all the map coding. As it stands now, the implication is that only errors on maps reported by users will get fixed. That being the case, on to Arnhem West:

1. buildings with multiple elevations
2. slope shading but no slope
3. twin chimneys coded as L2 brick walls with shadows that tower over the level 2 bldg beside them
4. roads with multiple elevations longitudinally. Multi elevations are OK on roads in cross-section (eg. just above circle #4)
5. 'invisible' .5 meter swale where the same elevation difference is indicated by slope shading on other LSA maps

Attachment (1)

(in reply to RD Oddball)

Post #: 45

RE: CC socialism - 7/22/2010 1:31:41 PM

Dundradal

Posts: 753
Joined: 6/9/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: xe5

Dundradal's characterization ("I was more criticizing those who are just bandwagoning on a hate train.") not mine. Thx for the lifetime achievement recognition. I'll hang it right next to Atomic's cease and desist notice. What I was really hoping to hear is that y'all are going to comb thru all the map coding. As it stands now, the implication is that only errors on maps reported by users will get fixed. That being the case, on to Arnhem West:

Nothing gets results like witty sarcasm.

I think they are going through all the maps. That is the impression that I got. You are doing great work by finding this errors and helping point them out. I know I appreciate what you are doing. I'm sure they do as well. So just relax a bit. Not the end of the world.

(in reply to xe5)

Post #: 46

RE: CC socialism - 7/22/2010 1:48:00 PM

GaryChildress

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline

Kudos go to xe5 for taking the time to find the errors and kudos go to Matrix for seeking to fix them.

_____________________________

(in reply to Dundradal)

Post #: 47

RE: CC socialism - 7/22/2010 2:46:54 PM

Dundradal

Posts: 753
Joined: 6/9/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Kudos go to xe5 for taking the time to find the errors and kudos go to Matrix for seeking to fix them.

Seconded.

(in reply to GaryChildress)

Post #: 48

RE: one cheek maps - 7/22/2010 4:15:21 PM

xe5

Posts: 783
Joined: 5/3/2009
Status: offline

Beek:

1. bldgs with multiple elevations (this hill is not well defined by slope shading)
2. No slope shading to indicate this road is elevated 1.5 m above the roadside
3. road continues but elevation on road abruptly ends
4. random .5 m depressions
5. lot more cover and concealment available from this discarded bicycle (civ equipment) than you'd imagine
6. invisible wire fence
7. (not shown) road lower right with longitudinal elev changes

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by xe5 -- 7/22/2010 4:16:13 PM >

(in reply to xe5)

Post #: 49

RE: one cheek maps - 7/22/2010 4:44:09 PM

CaptRio

Posts: 77
Joined: 10/26/2006
Status: offline

Im sorry MATRIX, Im a big fan, but those issues are outrageous!

You guys would be able to find those maps bugs with minimal quality tests.

(in reply to xe5)

Post #: 50

RE: one cheek maps - 7/22/2010 4:55:34 PM

Tactics

Posts: 347
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: USA
Status: offline

Was looking to spend some $$, but you guys consistently disappoint over the past few years (except with WITP). My 'crawl' bug never did get fixed in Modern Tactics, ya know.....

(in reply to CaptRio)

Post #: 51

RE: one cheek maps - 7/22/2010 5:04:15 PM

Redmarkus5

Posts: 4456
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: 0.00
Status: offline

Probably a really dumb question, but could these map issues explain some of the cases of infantry being wiped out by MGs when they appear to be under cover, or overly accurate mortar fire? Maybe the targeted troops are standing on top of a bare hill as far as the program is concerned, and not in the ditch or behind the wall that shows on the map?

(in reply to Tactics)

Post #: 52

RE: map issues - 7/22/2010 5:45:31 PM

RD Oddball

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: xe5

Dundradal's characterization ("I was more criticizing those who are just bandwagoning on a hate train.") not mine. Thx for the lifetime achievement recognition. I'll hang it right next to Atomic's cease and desist notice. What I was really hoping to hear is that y'all are going to comb thru all the map coding. As it stands now, the implication is that only errors on maps reported by users will get fixed. That being the case, on to Arnhem West:

1. buildings with multiple elevations
2. slope shading but no slope
3. twin chimneys coded as L2 brick walls with shadows that tower over the level 2 bldg beside them
4. roads with multiple elevations longitudinally. Multi elevations are OK on roads in cross-section (eg. just above circle #4)
5. 'invisible' .5 meter swale where the same elevation difference is indicated by slope shading on other LSA maps

Ah didn't know Dundradal had changed the title. I'm sure he agrees with my point as well. Since we'd "proof read" the maps twice before our testers had several months to look at them I wasn't prepared to immediately assume they're all with issues. As an example Arnhem West's elevation values have a lot of subtlety to the elevations that weren't present on the ones you reported as being too coarse. So I'm not prepared to generalize about all the maps as you are. We can certainly give them a 3rd pass but it doesn't appear all issues are present on all maps.

Again, thanks for the reports. We'll address them.

(in reply to xe5)

Post #: 53

RE: CC socialism - 7/22/2010 5:47:15 PM

RD Oddball

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Kudos go to xe5 for taking the time to find the errors and kudos go to Matrix for seeking to fix them.

Wouldn't have it any other way. It's the right thing to do and supporting the CC builds we've created is part and parcel as developer.

Mick, can't thank you enough for taking the time to file these reports.

< Message edited by RD_Oddball -- 7/22/2010 5:48:16 PM >

(in reply to GaryChildress)

Post #: 54

RE: map issues - 7/22/2010 5:56:48 PM

Dundradal

Posts: 753
Joined: 6/9/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RD_Oddball
Ah didn't know Dundradal had changed the title. I'm sure he agrees with my point as well.

Again, thanks for the reports. We'll address them.

I didn't change it. It seems it changed a few posts before and carried over. I was wondering why the hell the latest thread said "CC Socialism" when I didn't see that thread in the forum.

(in reply to RD Oddball)

Post #: 55

RE: one cheek maps - 7/22/2010 6:04:15 PM

RD Oddball

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: xe5

Beek:

1. bldgs with multiple elevations (this hill is not well defined by slope shading)
2. No slope shading to indicate this road is elevated 1.5 m above the roadside
3. road continues but elevation on road abruptly ends
4. random .5 m depressions
5. lot more cover and concealment available from this discarded bicycle (civ equipment) than you'd imagine
6. invisible wire fence
7. (not shown) road lower right with longitudinal elev changes

One aspect of some of the comments you've made that we need to take into account here is that any surface that is perpendicular to the light source isn't going to have a lighter side or a darker side. As the angle of incidence changes from the surface being perpendicular to the light source it'll gradually start to pick up definition. In CC format (top down or birds eye view) I'd hazard a guess and say anything inside of 90 degrees from the angel of incidence (45 degrees on both sides of the angle of incidence) the light source will have very little effect on defining that shape. So some of these issues are judgement calls absent creating the maps in either a 3D modelling program or having a real life reference with the light source in exactly the right spot.

My point being that #2 and #3 could have a slight 1 meter rise over 5 meters of run (I'm guessing on the run, regardless that comes out to 20 degree angle from the ground plane) without the viewer being able to clearly see it due to what I described above.

Also I'd say that the top down CC format isn't good for communicating subtle changes in elevation such as #4 and #5. It's possible to have those small changes in elevation in real life without being able to see them from directly above. There simply isn't enough reflected light. Not to mention things like grass can obscure that light reflection

We'll address the other issues you mentioned. Thankyou!

(in reply to xe5)

Post #: 56

RE: map issues - 7/22/2010 6:10:38 PM

RD Oddball

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dundradal

I didn't change it. It seems it changed a few posts before and carried over. I was wondering why the hell the latest thread said "CC Socialism" when I didn't see that thread in the forum.

Okay my apologies for not having my facts straight. It didn't sound like something you'd do. Not that changing the post subject is a huge deal. My point still holds regardless of who changed it.

We're all working for the same goal here and it's not right to characterize any of these issues as either being the end of the world (game breakers) or summarily dismiss them as not needing fixing. Neither extreme viewpoint would be correct in my estimation.

(in reply to Dundradal)

Post #: 57

RE: one cheek maps - 7/22/2010 6:15:15 PM

RD Oddball

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

Probably a really dumb question, but could these map issues explain some of the cases of infantry being wiped out by MGs when they appear to be under cover, or overly accurate mortar fire? Maybe the targeted troops are standing on top of a bare hill as far as the program is concerned, and not in the ditch or behind the wall that shows on the map?

Yes and no. As you pointed out obviously terrain is going to effect LOS so if the target infantry team is behind a hill the answer would be yes. If they're out in the middle of a flat open field with no cover then that would be no. But the strength of the MG42's was being reported under multiple circumstances.

Steve our lead developer made a post that clearly explains the changes to the MG42's. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=2528335

(in reply to Redmarkus5)

Post #: 58

RE: one cheek maps - 7/22/2010 6:40:11 PM

xe5

Posts: 783
Joined: 5/3/2009
Status: offline

The relief shading in CC's top-down view has never depicted elevation well. Right-click and drag to recce map terrain is an insufficient means of getting a feel for an entire map. Even so, its startling to open a map like Arnhem West in the map editor and see the map's elevation scheme.

Agreed, a 1 meter rise over a 5 meter run might not be noticeable from above IRL, but in a game sorely lacking contour lines (ie. at least on the overview map), minor elevation changes (eg. the small bridges on Valkenswaard) have usually been over-emphasized.

(in reply to RD Oddball)

Post #: 59

RE: one cheek maps - 7/22/2010 6:45:09 PM

RD Oddball

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline

Agreed about the min and max values of Arnhem West elevations as compared to the BGM. We're going to change that to bring the two closer together.

(in reply to xe5)

Post #: 60