[Peek] @ Eternal Struggle
Moderator: Moderators
[Peek] @ Eternal Struggle
Yep, I said when I released Asia Pacific I'd be working on a new map with Europe and Africa in it.
So I thought I'd post a sneek peek at the map and see what the reaction is. Not that I care, with almost 40 hours into the map so far I've really gone the extra 10 miles with this map. I have another 20+ hours at least.
The only thing is, I wish I knew exactly how the water height is determined. And by that I mean, given the max height, and the max depth, what grey value the water will be at. That would help ensure the map is rendered accuratly.
So here's the current state of the map:
Needless to say, once Spring has a few more wrinkles ironed out this will be an epic battle map. I'd like to see the max LOS distance increased so many units can see as far as they shoot. :-D
-Buggi
So I thought I'd post a sneek peek at the map and see what the reaction is. Not that I care, with almost 40 hours into the map so far I've really gone the extra 10 miles with this map. I have another 20+ hours at least.
The only thing is, I wish I knew exactly how the water height is determined. And by that I mean, given the max height, and the max depth, what grey value the water will be at. That would help ensure the map is rendered accuratly.
So here's the current state of the map:
Needless to say, once Spring has a few more wrinkles ironed out this will be an epic battle map. I'd like to see the max LOS distance increased so many units can see as far as they shoot. :-D
-Buggi
- BlackLiger
- Posts: 1371
- Joined: 05 Oct 2004, 21:58
Panama had to go too. :D :D :DDurandal wrote:Is it just me or is there a chunk of the US + Canada + Russia + the East in general missing ?
Lets just say, I am trying to be as CLOSE to the real thing as I can be while maintaining very high playability for Spring. Some small lakes and such have had to go for example. And countries if you try to find Panama @.@;;
Whoever controls Spain controls the navy's of all the armies inside that area.
And if you want Asia, download my AsiaPacific map. :-/
This sucker is an 800 meg Photoshop file. ^_^;; I've got about 40-50 hours into it already. Getting close to trying to compile it for the first time. I just wish someone overhauled the mapconv to ensure support for large filesizes. @.@;; And, and to those who don't like trees, this map has two (TWO) areas of rainforest, so trees will be plentiful. I like trees.
-Buggi
- RightField
- Posts: 110
- Joined: 11 Nov 2004, 21:29
- [K.B.] Napalm Cobra
- Posts: 1222
- Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 06:15
level of grey of sea shore= - 255 * (value after -n in the mapconv commandline) / ((value after -x in the mapconv commandline) - (value after -n in the mapconv commandline))
For instance, if you use:
mapconv -c 0.5 -x 400 -n -100 -o "NewMap.sm2" -m "metal.bmp" -a "height.bmp" -i -t "color.bmp"
then the sea level should be:
-255 * (-100) / (400 - (-100)) = 255*100/500=51
as in color index 51 made of R:51 G:51 B:51
If it doesn't work, just use trial and error to find the exact perfect value.
For instance, if you use:
mapconv -c 0.5 -x 400 -n -100 -o "NewMap.sm2" -m "metal.bmp" -a "height.bmp" -i -t "color.bmp"
then the sea level should be:
-255 * (-100) / (400 - (-100)) = 255*100/500=51
as in color index 51 made of R:51 G:51 B:51
If it doesn't work, just use trial and error to find the exact perfect value.
After playing around way too much...
Erm so basically.... n/x'ths of 255level of grey of sea shore= - 255 * (value after -n in the mapconv commandline) / ((value after -x in the mapconv commandline) - (value after -n in the mapconv commandline))
Yeah well I can assure you that doesn't work out so well in practice... Which is basically what has us all going insane.If it doesn't work, just use trial and error to find the exact perfect value.
That and my realising that I cannot do simple division so my previous tests were all flawed
For instance lets say I take my heighmap and make 2 grayscale images
a) 0-127 [black to mid-grey] containing all the bathymetric terrain (underwater)
b) 129+ [mid grey to white] containing all the topographic terrain
then take both and slap 'em into a single grayscale bmp...
run
Code: Select all
mapconv -c 0.5 -x 200 -n -200 -o "NewMap.sm2" -m "metal.bmp" -a "height.bmp" -i -t "color.bmp"
And of course if I don't run it as
Code: Select all
mapconv -c 0.5 -x 200 -n -200 -o "NewMap.sm2" -m "metal.bmp" -a "height.bmp" -i -t "color.bmp" -l
This crack-addled behavior is quite obvious when your texture is markedly dissimilar between land and seafloor, heh.
I really think that to make the maps robust will require at the very least 1:2 or 1:1 heightmap resolution.
Blocking will never work correctly so long as maps are compiled with -l (sans adding another map layer), and I think it is what ultimately leads to completely unexpected sealevels.
Da 'Verdict: It is an inherent 'feature' that you cannot have 'good' shorelines. With 1/8th (Plus 1!) heightmap resolution you will never get a complex shoreline to match when you have a high contrast between sea and shore textures. (I can hear it now 'The engine does shading')
Re: After playing around way too much...
Nope, n/(x-n)'th of 255 basically. With a few more negative sign thrown around.mother wrote:Erm so basically.... n/x'ths of 255
Try dichotomia!Yeah well I can assure you that doesn't work out so well in practice... Which is basically what has us all going insane.If it doesn't work, just use trial and error to find the exact perfect value.
1:1 heightmap is mad. The current heightmap squares are roughly the size of the paw of a fido. Are you trying to make sure the shorelines of the whole earth is accurate up to the point of grain of sand or what?
Yes, obviously you'd better not used -L if you're trying to make a pixel-perfect heightmap.