RE: one cheek maps (Full Version)

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



Message

TheReal_Pak40 -> RE: one cheek maps (7/22/2010 7:45:08 PM)


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?


No, see the MG42 thread. Protection values were intentionally changed in the Elements file and weapon values were also changed by the developers. Thus, you will see squads getting wiped out easily even when behind good cover like a stone wall. Hopefully they will fix this in the upcoming patch.



Platoon_Michael -> RE: one cheek maps (7/22/2010 10:51:56 PM)

Any chance someone's going to go back and look at the maps for tLD and WAR?



RD Oddball -> RE: one cheek maps (7/23/2010 3:04:59 AM)

That's already been done and the maps were included in the beta patch that is available. The two maps that had problems have already been fixed. Schoenbert and Setz. The Setz.txt file is available through the WaR forums. The TLD maps were checked prior to the beta patch release and were included in that patch. If you happen to be finding additional problems please report them in their respective forums with any pertinent details explaining the problem and they'll get taken care of.



Doggie -> RE: one cheek maps (7/23/2010 5:25:37 AM)

Y'all should cut Mick a check for proof-reading all those maps.



Redmarkus5 -> RE: one cheek maps (7/23/2010 11:04:57 AM)

Thanks. I saw that after posting the above. My bad.



xe5 -> RE: one cheek maps (7/23/2010 2:46:37 PM)

My Nazi Static troops (aka the 'Statisticians') have Grave Bridge well defended...or so they thought. The AI, seeing the map code where players only see the pretty picture, sends a team into the shallow waters of the Maas, then leaps its GIs 20 meters onto the bridge. How'd they do that?

Turns out the Under Bridge element coding (purple boxes), intended to prevent such acrobatics, has some gaps in its coverage - at the approach, at the stone pier, and at the shallow water (green circles).

Also, why is the island on the other side of the Maas coded as 'Out of Bounds' when its connected to the shore by dock and footbridge?

@Doggie - only 4937 more verifiable bug reports and I'll earn a dollar off at the Matrix store!!!

[image]local://upfiles/31774/326ACA194F464439B08ABD6ADD64AD46.jpg[/image]



CaptRio -> RE: one cheek maps (7/23/2010 2:56:24 PM)

Man....This is really screwed up.....

Best thing Ive done was stop playinf LSA till the patch....[:@]



Manu -> RE: one cheek maps (7/23/2010 3:37:27 PM)

Is the same person who has drawn the map and who has coded it?



Reiryc -> RE: Hate Train Bandwagon (7/23/2010 4:21:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: xe5

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 [;)]



I think it was the cc3 h8 train that led to a vigorous mod community.



Dundradal -> Maps (7/23/2010 4:32:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CaptRio

Man....This is really screwed up.....

Best thing Ive done was stop playinf LSA till the patch....[:@]



I'm guessing it has more to do with the nature of maps are drawn and coded. Clearly they aren't using the most modern method here, so I think that opens the doors for errors slipping in more than we'd normally expect.

At the same time, testers are everything. It's not about just playing a game to see "ohhh that was fun." You have to intentionally try to do everything and anything you can to see what happens. xe5 is doing just that by exploring map elevation relations. I applaud him for it. In the end his hard work helps us all.

I do agree though, waiting for a patch might not be the worst idea in the world.



xe5 -> RE: Maps (7/23/2010 5:25:02 PM)

@Greg: leakage from the CC3 beta group starting in late summer '98 only added fuel to the anti-Atomic rebellion brewing since earlier in the year. All those CC2 data bugs everybody bitched about led to Bruce Ralston's 'Real Para' & 'Real Yank' mods.



RD Oddball -> RE: one cheek maps (7/23/2010 7:58:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: xe5

The AI, seeing the map code where players only see the pretty picture, sends a team into the shallow waters of the Maas, then leaps its GIs 20 meters onto the bridge. How'd they do that?

Turns out the Under Bridge element coding (purple boxes), intended to prevent such acrobatics, has some gaps in its coverage - at the approach, at the stone pier, and at the shallow water (green circles).

Also, why is the island on the other side of the Maas coded as 'Out of Bounds' when its connected to the shore by dock and footbridge?



Will have to check the "gaps" you may have found. That is not an expected result. What your illustration doesn't show is that "bridge wall" element lines both sides of the entire span of the bridge and your troops should NOT be able to cross those elements when coded 1 element wide side to side. So either there's an incorrect value in the elements file or there's a gap in the bridge wall where elements are meeting corner to corner rather than side to side. It would also depend upon how you deployed your troops. If some were on the bridge and some off that might be another possible explanation. We have enough to go on to check this out so we'll have a look. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

FYI - 'Under bridge' element will NOT prevent movement only allow the passing of troops and LOS underneath the bridge. In this case the 'bridge wall' element should be providing that function. If troops couldn't move into the underbridge element they'd not be able to pass under the bridge. There'd be no trigger. [;)]

The island is coded as it is to prevent the AI from deploying on that island.



Andrew Williams -> RE: one cheek maps (7/23/2010 10:37:55 PM)

I propose we change it's name (Out of Bounds) to  "Impassable"  or "Impassabe Terrain"



RD Oddball -> RE: one cheek maps (7/23/2010 11:43:51 PM)

Yep I recall you suggesting that before. Good suggestion.



xe5 -> Grafwegen (7/24/2010 11:41:17 AM)

What do items 1-7 have in common? Theyre all as high or higher than the raised roads on this map.

1. stone debris - 1 meter
2. wood debris - 1 meter
3. grass field - .5 meter
4. short post - 1.5 meter
5. stone fence - 1 meter
6. crops - 1 meter
7. bush - 1 meter

Elevation of raised dirt roads on Grafwegen - .5 meter
Should be 2 - 2.5 meters.

Fields vs Grass Fields - field terrain elements have 0 meters of height; grass fields have .5 meters of height. Therefor, the smoother 'lawnish' ground cover (eg. #3) is the more likely candidate to be coded as field than the area top left that is coded as field but s/b grass field.

[image]local://upfiles/31774/A3D8FBBA4D7D48F7B7CE9B6922A826B7.jpg[/image]



RD Oddball -> RE: Grafwegen (7/24/2010 4:20:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: xe5

What do items 1-7 have in common? Theyre all as high or higher than the raised roads on this map.

1. stone debris - 1 meter
2. wood debris - 1 meter
3. grass field - .5 meter
4. short post - 1.5 meter
5. stone fence - 1 meter
6. crops - 1 meter
7. bush - 1 meter

Elevation of raised dirt roads on Grafwegen - .5 meter
Should be 2 - 2.5 meters.

Fields vs Grass Fields - field terrain elements have 0 meters of height; grass fields have .5 meters of height. Therefor, the smoother 'lawnish' ground cover (eg. #3) is the more likely candidate to be coded as field than the area top left that is coded as field but s/b grass field.



Thanks for the relative elevation and coding suggestions Mick. This one has already been addressed and the new text file will be in update #2. BTW what was the elevation of that road when you created the example?



xe5 -> RE: Grafwegen (7/24/2010 4:34:29 PM)

Most of the elevated roads on Grafwegen are at 1.5 meters. Portions of those elevated roads, as shown below, are coded at 1 meter (02). The rest of the map is at 1 meter.

[image]local://upfiles/31774/0348AF2A320C48AAA1B3C428906A8B8C.jpg[/image]



RD Oddball -> RE: Grafwegen (7/24/2010 5:37:23 PM)

Thanks. So it wasn't coded as flat but actually had a rise to it. I agree it should have been made to be higher in elevation and closer to the 2 -2.5 meters you mentioned. As I said the guys have already taken care of it.



Reiryc -> RE: Maps (7/24/2010 6:29:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: xe5

@Greg: leakage from the CC3 beta group starting in late summer '98 only added fuel to the anti-Atomic rebellion brewing since earlier in the year. All those CC2 data bugs everybody bitched about led to Bruce Ralston's 'Real Para' & 'Real Yank' mods.



Agreed, but it didn't become 'vigorous' until cc3.

CC2 was played on the zone, which was the major h2h meeting place, dwarfing all others, and it wasn't common to have a mod installed to play. CC3 on the other hand found that the majority of games to be played required real red at the minimum.



GaryChildress -> RE: one cheek maps (7/25/2010 4:01:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CaptRio

Man....This is really screwed up.....

Best thing Ive done was stop playinf LSA till the patch....[:@]



I guess I'm just not a stickler for detail. I really hadn't noticed all the problems with the maps. I don't get why people get so worked up about mismatched elevations and stuff like that. It's just a game. You'd think it was a major life crisis or something.



Sheytan -> RE: one cheek maps (7/25/2010 4:11:53 AM)

I do not have this version of CC but I did own a number of the previous versions. I agree that all of these products are "just games". However having said that if you read the comments in this thread you will note how some of the LOS issues related to map irregularitys give people headaches. Because in some cases everything seems to appear fine, yet you cannot figure out why anomalies are happening. This is where the irregularitys come into play and understandably why some folks are concerned about this issue.

At any rate why do you care? Clearly you dont take the discussion seriously.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress


quote:

ORIGINAL: CaptRio

Man....This is really screwed up.....

Best thing Ive done was stop playinf LSA till the patch....[:@]



I guess I'm just not a stickler for detail. I really hadn't noticed all the problems with the maps. I don't get why people get so worked up about mismatched elevations and stuff like that. It's just a game. You'd think it was a major life crisis or something.




GaryChildress -> RE: one cheek maps (7/25/2010 4:30:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sheytan

I do not have this version of CC but I did own a number of the previous versions. I agree that all of these products are "just games". However having said that if you read the comments in this thread you will note how some of the LOS issues related to map irregularitys give people headaches. Because in some cases everything seems to appear fine, yet you cannot figure out why anomalies are happening. This is where the irregularitys come into play and understandably why some folks are concerned about this issue.

At any rate why do you care? Clearly you dont take the discussion seriously.



I'm just a curious spectator I guess. I hate to see a bunch of people in this much anguish over a game. It makes me wonder if I'm supposed to be in anguish too.



Sheytan -> RE: one cheek maps (7/25/2010 4:46:30 AM)

LOL![:D] Good reply. I agree though, it is just a game, some are better then others. But I think the anguish you refer to is likely disappointment on the part of folks whom expected or expect more from each release of a series.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sheytan

I do not have this version of CC but I did own a number of the previous versions. I agree that all of these products are "just games". However having said that if you read the comments in this thread you will note how some of the LOS issues related to map irregularitys give people headaches. Because in some cases everything seems to appear fine, yet you cannot figure out why anomalies are happening. This is where the irregularitys come into play and understandably why some folks are concerned about this issue.

At any rate why do you care? Clearly you dont take the discussion seriously.



I'm just a curious spectator I guess. I hate to see a bunch of people in this much anguish over a game. It makes me wonder if I'm supposed to be in anguish too.




CSO_Talorgan -> RE: Maps (7/25/2010 12:20:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dundradal

I'm guessing it has more to do with the nature of maps are drawn and coded. Clearly they aren't using the most modern method here


What would the most modern method be?



Dundradal -> RE: Maps (7/25/2010 2:42:23 PM)

That I do not know since I'm not an artist. I just know that the method currently being used is the same method that was used when CC came out. I'd imagine there is a much better way of doing it now since technology has come so far.

As for the other debate, people get so worked up because THEY LOVE THE GAMES! They want them to be perfect because they enjoy them so much. No one would be posting to this forum just to bash a game they do not own or plan to own. I'm in anguish over some of the errors found because I want to help the guys get it right so we get a good game we can enjoy for years to come.



Mafi -> RE: Maps (7/25/2010 3:00:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dundradal
That I do not know since I'm not an artist. I just know that the method currently being used is the same method that was used when CC came out. I'd imagine there is a much better way of doing it now since technology has come so far.


Sir, dear Mr. Dundradal,

you are talking about "technology"? You're saying "I just know that ... is the same method that was used when CC came out ...". Sir, you believe you know this? For sure? You know something, really! Look here and search for the words "Close Combat":
http://3dnature.com/events.html

CC2 was different to CC1. Atomic got some of the maps made by 3dnature, not even the graphics, but also the data. The whole CC2-data concept (terrain / elevation) and it's graphical representation was not an invention by Atomic. And you still believe that you know something about technology? In this case you are familiar with the WCS tools? Good to have you here to tell us how to modernize the technology...

Would be better to have "xe5" extending the thread than someone else... this "xe5" knows more about CC2-CC5 than anyone else posting here. And this is for sure. (and I hope you know who "xe5" really is, otherwise I can tell you ...)

Mafi



Dundradal -> RE: Maps (7/25/2010 3:17:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mafi
Sir, dear Mr. Dundradal,

you are talking about "technology"? You're saying "I just know that ... is the same method that was used when CC came out ...". Sir, you believe you know this? For sure? You know something, really! Look here and search for the words "Close Combat":
http://3dnature.com/events.html

CC2 was different to CC1. Atomic got some of the maps made by 3dnature, not even the graphics, but also the data. The whole CC2-data concept (terrain / elevation) and it's graphical representation was not an invention by Atomic. And you still believe that you know something about technology? In this case you are familiar with the WCS tools? Good to have you here to tell us how to modernize the technology...

Would be better to have "xe5" extending the thread than someone else... this "xe5" knows more about CC2-CC5 than anyone else posting here. And this is for sure. (and I hope you know who "xe5" really is, otherwise I can tell you ...)

Mafi


Now what's with the "mocking" sarcasm here? I just stated I believed there was a better way of doing it. In so doing I seemed to have sparked two "angry" responses and that doesn't really make much sense.

Mafi, I don't know why you want to attack me and then tell me that xe5 knows more than anyone about CC. If you read the thread you will not at several points I commend him for his actions. So I'm not sure what's with the hostility. No need to be defensive. Makes you look silly.

I just proposed there might be a better way. The process now must be fairly labor intensive and take a fairly long time. Just watching at what xe5 and Oddball are showing makes it look like each map takes hundreds of man hours to produce.

So cut the mocking crap. I noticed you didn't offer anything in the way of positive feedback just defensive hostility. I didn't crap on your mom's front porch. I just brought up a point for discussion.



Mafi -> RE: Maps (7/25/2010 3:42:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dundradal
I just stated I believed there was a better way of doing it.


Sir,
not at all, you wrote "I know...", not "I believe...".


quote:

Mafi, I don't know why you want to attack me


You feel yourself attacked? Maybe you are already encircled, now it is time to give up, soldier!

quote:

Makes you look silly.

As always. If you have not enough arguments, then make a personal counterattack. Rhetorik lesson part one. Not my field. Not the place. Go back to year 1998... we have had all this already.

quote:

I noticed you didn't offer anything in the way of positive feedback

I know my personal skills and limits, so I'm listening to my old teacher "xe5". Learning never ends!

quote:

I just brought up a point for discussion.

And it was the wrong point, as you might accept now. No need for hostility from my side. Just want to show you that CC-making is in process since 1997...

Cheers
Mafi



Dundradal -> RE: Maps (7/25/2010 3:55:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mafi

And it was the wrong point, as you might accept now. No need for hostility from my side. Just want to show you that CC-making is in process since 1997...

Cheers
Mafi


The rest of your post doesn't require a reply. Very cute though.

I don't understand how it's the wrong point, because you posted two condescending posts towards me? How did you show me that "CC-making is in process since 1997...?"

I just offered there's got to be a better way to paint and code maps. What's wrong with offering that? It's an inquiry. It's not even a criticism.

So, is there a better method? Would it make sense to change the format of CC maps and how they are produced for a new game after LSA?



Mafi -> RE: Maps (7/25/2010 4:32:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dundradal
So, is there a better method? Would it make sense to change the format of CC maps and how they are produced for a new game after LSA?


Hi Dundradal,
- is there a better method? Currently no idea what method you would prefer. All map makers I know use Photoshop and PaintShopPro. Tehcnologies in PS or PSP did not vary much during the last 6 years.

- would it make sense to change the format of CC maps? No. Changing the maps' format will result in a new engine. And this will be no CC. "Blitzkrieg2" or "DesertRats vs. AfrikaKorps" (2004) already exists or are vanishing away without leaving an active commmunity.

- how they are produced for a new game? Okay, make a map of your own and then make a second map of your own using a different way. Then you can report which "how to" would be best in your case.

I think it will not lead to a definitive result on all these three points, ... everything is possible, nothing can be told about the future, but future will not help us right now at the moment.

Cheers
Mafi



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.953125