_actually_, the first non-minimap screenshot looks really realisitic.
Ever seen something under a _good_ microscope? If it wasnt polished or epitactically grown, its looks like that under a SEM (at least the packaging :) )
A few screens of my latest project.
Moderator: Moderators
Well spotted IMSabbel, that was exactly the look I was going for! I was looking for nice high res SEM picture of microchip to generate a height field from. I couldn't find one that I liked so I searched for pcb designs. I found a 3000x4000ish double sided layout and using good ol'PSP I mixed one layer over the other and after multiple attempts got the height map you see.
The texturing was also interesting, this map is pretty big 24x28 and normal landscape methods did not look good and came out with high file sizes. So this one is solid colours, the up-resing blends them a bit. I am surprised how good it looks.
Without a typeman, new overlay texture or skybox the SD7 is... 3.86MB
For the overlay texture I'd like something grainy and metallic, I don't think reflections are possible yet.
For the skybox, I would like to try a giant lens to enhance the microscopic feel. Maybe like http://www.militaryoptics.com/MUELLER/4 ... 2-8529.jpg
The texturing was also interesting, this map is pretty big 24x28 and normal landscape methods did not look good and came out with high file sizes. So this one is solid colours, the up-resing blends them a bit. I am surprised how good it looks.
Without a typeman, new overlay texture or skybox the SD7 is... 3.86MB
For the overlay texture I'd like something grainy and metallic, I don't think reflections are possible yet.
For the skybox, I would like to try a giant lens to enhance the microscopic feel. Maybe like http://www.militaryoptics.com/MUELLER/4 ... 2-8529.jpg
Use another mapconv. One where green is not automatically covered by grass.Weaver wrote:About the colours... I did do a version with a lot of green, but trees and grass look so wrong.
I'm sure that if you make a passable feature that is tall and hollow, units will pass under. Or through if the unit is a krogoth or a plane, but I'll pretend I didn't notice cause peewees passing under an arched wire would be so cool!FireCrack wrote:Ah features would add a lot to many maps, I really hope that units will be able to move over some as well as under them.
actually, solder points would just make glorious metal-features on this map (but i guess they are too large)
About the surface look:
Here is something i made last year, the surface of the bridge itself was nearly like the map (its a bid dull, because before liftoff it was 10 seconds in diluted HF)
[/img]
About the surface look:
Here is something i made last year, the surface of the bridge itself was nearly like the map (its a bid dull, because before liftoff it was 10 seconds in diluted HF)
[/img]
After lots of tweaking of various things I have Uploaded the map to FU.
http://www.fileuniverse.com/?p=showitem&ID=1666
I'll do some new screens and minimap soon, but I'd love to see some of real battles so please add them.
http://www.fileuniverse.com/?p=showitem&ID=1666
I'll do some new screens and minimap soon, but I'd love to see some of real battles so please add them.
It may be but...
Hovers are often overlooked.
This is designed as an east versus west map, and not a north versus south. You could play it that way and hovercraft would probably be decisive.
Then, which way does the pathfinding send hovers when crossing E -> W? They will almost always go the northern route, if you know which way they will come some of their advantage is lost. If they cross the middle they will be fast between the tracks and slow to cross them, it would need lots of micro to gain an advantage from this.
The outer flat areas are a very tempting place to build a base, but there is room to build in the in the gaps between tracks away from those pesky hovers.
Having said all that I will detune them if games turn into hover rushes that end too quickly.
EDIT
I already know JCAI crashes immediately on it, probably because of the size.
/EDIT
Hovers are often overlooked.
This is designed as an east versus west map, and not a north versus south. You could play it that way and hovercraft would probably be decisive.
Then, which way does the pathfinding send hovers when crossing E -> W? They will almost always go the northern route, if you know which way they will come some of their advantage is lost. If they cross the middle they will be fast between the tracks and slow to cross them, it would need lots of micro to gain an advantage from this.
The outer flat areas are a very tempting place to build a base, but there is room to build in the in the gaps between tracks away from those pesky hovers.
Having said all that I will detune them if games turn into hover rushes that end too quickly.
EDIT
I already know JCAI crashes immediately on it, probably because of the size.
/EDIT
Wow...
That's actually a really, really clever idea. Hovers are normally completely useless except in mixed water-land maps. By cranking up the hover speed, it makes them viable on all-land maps. Do the SYs know about this? If not, I'd suggest they start - it could be relevant to balancing XTA. An ideal "all land hover speed" value needs to be developed, seperate from the "1.0" value that is assumed for mixed maps.
3.0 might be rather high, but either way that's brilliant. I just hope it can be adopted as a standard.
3.0 might be rather high, but either way that's brilliant. I just hope it can be adopted as a standard.
I noticed when I built the map that the pathfinding estimates didn't get recalculated when you change the speed modifiers. Which might mean the path estimates don't use speed modifiers, but maybe they are not meant to.
I'll agree the map does challenge the pathfinding system, I don't see that as a fault with the map. Map is how I wanted it to be, it will serve as a good test for any pathfinding code changes.
It is pretty easy to force unit to cross the middle, just set a way point halfway across. Setting several to make units follow a better path, may or may not be time well soent.
I'll agree the map does challenge the pathfinding system, I don't see that as a fault with the map. Map is how I wanted it to be, it will serve as a good test for any pathfinding code changes.
It is pretty easy to force unit to cross the middle, just set a way point halfway across. Setting several to make units follow a better path, may or may not be time well soent.