Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RABIZO]

Hello "Glenn".

I'm probably the one waiting for this map the most.
I'm looking for a map of New Guinea where multiple planes can land safely.

[Whiskey_Sierra_972]

Rabizo is not alone!

I'm also waiting for this beauty to be released!

Keep up this great work!

[WxTech]

All right, boys, I'll get crackin'.

[WxTech]

Some progress. I've removed a lot of superfluous rivers. Those remaining have been properly placed based on the topography, with the proper elevations maintained (none of the flattening of waterways to sea level). And made more realistically narrow, instead of the broad, Mississippi-like navigable waterways of old. And with jungle closely encroaching, instead of the old, broad clearings flanking them.

This means that all bridges have been removed, for they force the map heights down to sea level like deep, steep-walled craters in their immediate vicinity.

I've started on greatly reducing the wide clearings within which the roads/tracks run, in most cases letting the jungle completely overlie them.

The jungle will, in places warranting it, be pushed a lot closer to the shore. A real eye-sore of the stock maps of old is the super-wide beaches. Tropical climes tend to have forestation run riot right up to any shorelines.

[WxTech]

To compare the river situation, here we are roughly 25km SW of Dobodura, looking NE toward the Dobodura complex and Buna beyond. The upper panel is Whitecat's retexture of the stock map. I have yet to deal with all the broad clearings in which the roads run.

On the stock map a veritable web of fictitious rivers radiate from a point, and which are also ridiculously broad. The vast expanses of artificially lowered terrain, to accommodate these sea-level rivers, exist no more.

Note how the point from which the fake rivers radiate corresponds to a real mountain, as seen in the lower panel. The stock map flattens this and puts a fake mountain offset a little distance away. The map creator(s) would seem to have run those numerous rivers based at least reasonably correctly on the actual topography. But what would have been largely invisible creeks, streams and rivulets were magnified out of all sensibility into waterways that sizeable steamers could navigate. 

[RABIZO]

I can't wait.
I want to use it as soon as possible. . . I want to fly quickly.

[Kopfdorfer]

Just something to chew on WX -

When you change topography that affects existing bridges , you have significant impact
on the systems the game uses for Dynamic Campaigns. These systems ( Predominantly DGEN , DCG , and SEOW )
all depend upon data captures from maps they use ( which is a very time consuming process ) ,
and the movement of land forces is absolutely dependant upon the road net.

Any bridges removed from the map are also removed from the data base , and will prevent any campaign
based ground units moving across those rivers.

As a result units will be unable to move between any locations that require the usage of road bridges.
There will be piles of units stacking up where functional bridges used to exist , and in some other cases no units can reach vital campaign locations.
Sadly , the inability for an existing mechanism for the mission/campaign builder to add functional bridges or fords through the FMB mean that there is no workaround either and that these cosmetic choices deeply effect the breadth
of functionality for these maps.

Your work always exhibits imagination and fidelity , and I love your additions to date - they show innovative selection and problem solving and make the game much better.

I suspect you fly almost exclusively offline and may not be aware of the unintended consequences of these choices
for purely visual improvements.

I have no intent of actively lobbying for my position which I suspect after years of championing SEOW has made
quite clear.

I do think it is worth you considering that these particular changes will affect a lot of users in a way you may not have considered.

Kopfdorfer

[stanislao]

    A big and resounding applause for this attempt of yours to make New Guinea rainforest waterways more realistic!  Actually, the problem of watercourses has always been one of the most unpleasant limitations in the realism of landscapes in this simulator of ours, they are always and notoriously disproportionate and end upstream always and all in an absurd cul de sac.  Over the years I have posed the problem several times, but the current opinion has always been that nothing could be done about it due to the structural limitations of the Il2 system. Now I find that those limits can somehow be overcome!  Thank you, that makes me happy .
Responding to Kopfdorfer, of course every improvement involves a cascade of adjustments on the archive of the distant past, but that's the salt of innovation, those who want to endlessly redo old campaigns will remain stuck with the old and unrealistic maps that have accompanied us for these twenty years. Life is good, because each one of us can always choose how to have fun......

[Kopfdorfer]

I'm not going to belabour this point after this as it undermines WXTech's thread , but to Stan's point the
essence and beauty of the concept of a "Dynamic" Campaign engine is that no two usages of
a given campaign are the same. One well designed Dynamic campaign can provide multiple
unique experiences without the same deep time investment required in individual scripted
Campaigns and Missions.
In essence is you commit the time investment of a dynamic campaign in the map data capture , the oob
construction , and the victory requirements and then the engine does the work mission to mission.
Front loaded entertainment return as it were.
The other thing that needs to be mentioned is that the Campaign builder/designer can have just as unique and
unpredictable experience as any other user - he/she does not know what each mission entails as the system
builds it/them - they do not suffer Mission Builder Ennui where they know the timeline of mission events ,
and so many mission builder/campaign builders never get one of those great "I wasn't expecting that "
moments out of their own campaigns.

Carry on folks.

Kopfdorfer out

[WxTech]

Kopfdorfer,
Indeed, I'm purely an offliner. Over the years I've played a number of campaigns, scripted and dynamic. And I'm fully aware of the effect of the removal of bridges. I knew from the outset that incorporating proper terrain would bugger that aspect, rendering this iteration as incompatible with campaigns that involve bridges in any capacity.

I also realize that discussing this update in the context of the stock base map should be clearly qualified, making unambiguous that this one is in no way a complete replacement. It's aimed more at those who would use it to create their own missions. I'm striving to keep things to a near minimum in terms of object population, along the lines of the original, principally for better frame rates--and to leave room for player creativity. This would be another stand-alone map in its own right. Of course, if one had no reason to retain the stock map due to never playing campaigns, this one could replace it.

I love the Green Hell map, but the latest iteration having the westward extension has boosted the object density significantly in a number of areas. The worst is the airfield complex at Port Moresby, where frame rates on my reasonably capable computer drop to as low as 4 fps in certain view directions. This inspired me to make up a better version of the stock map for early '42 action on a 1:1 scale battlefield. (The PNG map, while otherwise great, is half scale, and Mr. Oblongo's Kokoda map has more limited coverage.) If others can make similar use of this updated stock map, so much the better! 

Given the already loss of compatibility with campaigns, this opens up the whole shebang for improvement. Such as relocating some fields, and of course 'de-modernizing' strips to simpler arrangements. And re-routing some roads due to the terrain changes.

I've already greatly reduced in areal extent what was a sprawling megalopolis at Moresby. 

Before going totally nuts I'll release an interim version that will incorporate the main improvements.

[Kopfdorfer]

Don't go nuts for Pete's sake - we need ( I need ) you and your new work
and your positive enthusiasm !

Kopfdorfer

[WxTech]

In this context "going nuts" means getting so deeply involved as to risk the perfect being the enemy of the good. An obsession with detail that risks the task never being completed or at least taking ages to be satisfied with. It doesn't necessarily mean a mental collapse or a blow-up or ending up in a rubber room.  😀

This expression as I've used it here could be a 'down East thing' I picked up growing up in Newfoundland.