Possible new map in the works ...

genblood · Post by **genblood** » 19 Sep 2005, 00:10

I'm working on a new map and I'm looking to here comments on
it. I still have to add Geos and a few more trees...

Reading through other postings in the map forum I decided
to give this TA Classic map a try. Does anyone know what
map this is

Here are some screen shots for you to look over .....

I'm not sure if I'm going to release .... and its another map
under 2 MBs I did ...

Post your comments ...

GrOuNd_ZeRo · Post by **GrOuNd_ZeRo** » 19 Sep 2005, 00:38

Greenhaven, no grass though?

Dwarden · Post by **Dwarden** » 19 Sep 2005, 00:45

bulky :)) nice

genblood · Post by **genblood** » 19 Sep 2005, 00:58

I knew I forgot something ...

Here is a screen shot with alot of green grass ...

I still have Geos and a few adds and deletes for some trees ....

Only time will tell ....

Gnomre · Post by **Gnomre** » 19 Sep 2005, 01:23

The hills look much too small...

Dragon45 · Post by **Dragon45** » 19 Sep 2005, 02:11

I dont even see hills, just slightly triangular formations of trees.... Need a big boost on those; OTA heightmaps -> PAIN

TA 3D · Post by **TA 3D** » 20 Sep 2005, 02:41

I think I know why the map looks weird. There not big enough. Size comparism is way off. Thats why everything is small. Everyone keeps cutting corners with there maps.

mother · Post by **mother** » 20 Sep 2005, 03:10

What about here maps? Are people cutting corners on here maps too?

I also kept looking for your maps TA, couldn't seem to find any. I know this so totally doesn't involve me, but this is really getting to be one of my pet peeves.

NEW RULE:(I) Expect NOTHING

Dude *anything* is by definition beyond expectations. Because the baseline is *no map at all*. Ok?

NEW RULE: (II)PUSU- Put Up -or- Shut Up
Self explainatory. Don't open your mouth to diss someones work unless you have actually done better yourself.

There is a chasm between constructive criticism/feedback and dissing/complaining. One (may or may not

) be welcome, the other isn't.

So lets baseline:

There not big enough.

They don't look/seem/appear [some subjective lil verb] big enough.

Everyone keeps cutting corners with there maps.

" I'm a sheltered/spoiled youngster with very limited social skills who still thinks the world owes him everything. If someone gives me something free my first reaction is to complain that it's crappy ['Like WTF OMFG a 2 year old BMW 3 series? Bastard should have given me a new M5'] and I was wronged by not being given something better"

PS Live free or die... Looks great Gen, keep it up.

[K.B.] Napalm Cobra · Post by **[K.B.] Napalm Cobra** » 20 Sep 2005, 06:15

Thats all good and well mother, but those hills are a distinctly lower than the ota ones.

Theres a difference between 'tard bashing and constructive criticism.

genblood · Post by **genblood** » 20 Sep 2005, 06:52

[K.B.] Napalm Cobra,

What height range would you use when compiling
this map? I have it set 242 and 0 for the settings. What
setting do you think I should be using?

[K.B.] Napalm Cobra · Post by **[K.B.] Napalm Cobra** » 20 Sep 2005, 08:25

Well the hills are there to restrict movement, try a couple of different hights till you find something that looks good and plays good.

Maelstrom · Post by **Maelstrom** » 20 Sep 2005, 08:40

Does a height of 0 mean that one little explosion will reveal a great big puddle? Cause that would get annoying. Unless im just rambling on and what I say is not correct, a Minimum height of 0 on a map like this could look a little stupid as soon as any battles happened. Unless you designed it that way on purpous, and if thats the case, keep it. I dont care, its just my humble opinion.

mufdvr222 · Post by **mufdvr222** » 20 Sep 2005, 08:41

Mother,, Your post was oh so right,,

AMEN

Maelstrom wrote:Does a height of 0 mean that one little explosion will reveal a great big puddle? Cause that would get annoying. Unless im just rambling on and what I say is not correct, a Minimum height of 0 on a map like this could look a little stupid as soon as any battles happened. Unless you designed it that way on purpous, and if thats the case, keep it. I dont care, its just my humble opinion.

Thats easy to fix, the heightmap just needs to be loaded up in say Photoshop
and have the brightness upped by about 50 points "globally" and saved, this raises the whole map up so the low terrain will be around 45-50 above a water table set at 0, this way even a commy blowing up will not reveal any water.

Torrasque · Post by **Torrasque** » 20 Sep 2005, 10:30

mufdvr222 wrote:Mother,, Your post was oh so right,,
AMEN

Maelstrom wrote:Does a height of 0 mean that one little explosion will reveal a great big puddle? Cause that would get annoying. Unless im just rambling on and what I say is not correct, a Minimum height of 0 on a map like this could look a little stupid as soon as any battles happened. Unless you designed it that way on purpous, and if thats the case, keep it. I dont care, its just my humble opinion.
Thats easy to fix, the heightmap just needs to be loaded up in say Photoshop
and have the brightness upped by about 50 points "globally" and saved, this raises the whole map up so the low terrain will be around 45-50 above a water table set at 0, this way even a commy blowing up will not reveal any water.

that's the hard way to fix it.
Just instead of using 0 to 242 in map conv, use 200 to 442.

zwzsg · Post by **zwzsg** » 20 Sep 2005, 10:37

I think it's much easier and less risky to just change the parameter in map conv commandline. You don't risk flattening hilltop by bumping into white this way. Grah, torrasque beat me by 7min!

genblood · Post by **genblood** » 20 Sep 2005, 12:01

Thanks for the info on the height ranges. I'll try a few passes
with different height numbers to see which ones work the best.

Warlord Zsinj · Post by **Warlord Zsinj** » 20 Sep 2005, 12:36

*wonders why genblood feels the need to create a new topic announcing the slightest hint that he might be considering commencing a map which he may or may not ever release*

mufdvr222 · Post by **mufdvr222** » 20 Sep 2005, 13:24

zwzsg wrote:I think it's much easier and less risky to just change the parameter in map conv commandline. You don't risk flattening hilltop by bumping into white this way. Grah, torrasque beat me by 7min!

I actually agree,,

I should have added the qualifier, "make shure you have enough headroom in you mapconv max height" but I clean forgot how easy it is to just alter the heights in mapconv.. I stand corrected.

aGorm · Post by **aGorm** » 20 Sep 2005, 14:14

Id say... just of a hunch... Use 200 - 700 (which is the max if you dont want a bug) cause those hills need to be seriosly as big as possible. I mean... just look att he shading... Its clearly ment to be steep.

Whats the Dimentions of the map?

aGorm

zwzsg · Post by **zwzsg** » 20 Sep 2005, 16:29

If I compare those screenshots with a greenhaven screenshot taken under the 3D demo replayer, the hills in siamese cat map aren't that much too short. I think that if you keep the same level of grey as in the TA maps, then a -n 256 -x 511 parameters for mapconv should be the closest to the original you can get.

Spring RTS Engine

Possible new map in the works ...

Possible new map in the works ...