Potential Map Improvements

[angriff]

You could use some information like this 1944 Blechammer Targeting Map

Notice how there are contour lines as well as peak spot height callouts in black. Good stuff for bombers and bombing FBs away from cities. Cities show up as if shown from alt in recognizable shapes.

You can leave out the target distance rings.

Edited March 23, 2011 by angriff

[angriff]

Some more of the same map on the left side. A few more contour lines. Again point heights identified as well as city shapes for ID.

The scan exposure is more inline with the original.

Edited March 23, 2011 by angriff

[Sudden]

Nice maps angriff.

Makes me think it would be nice to tone down the roads and other marker in favor of more visible contour lines. We do spend most of our time off the roads and in the countryside.

Can you tell from the map what the contour spacing is?? How many meters between lines? The image is too fuzzy for me to see it.

[Sudden]

Wait. I think it is 100 meters.

SHEF, can you run a test view at 100 meters? I think you said 40 was too ugly due to the map rendering.

I'd also like to see a test view of a height colored map with similar resolution.

Maybe when we see it we can all agree on it as good or bad.

[branko]

(if someone already posted this, sorry, I only skim read the three pages)

Topography

Every point on the terrain has a height ... but displaying it in a meaningful, useful and pretty way is tough. So why display it on the map?

If you have the correct left-hand panel displayed, when you mouse-over the map, you get the lat-long co-ords.

As a first step, why not add the height, at the mouse-over-point, to that readout?

This way you could see the change in elevation as you ran your mouse over the map, but you would not get any of the display issues concerned with colouring*-it-in, or adding contour lines to it.

This would also make life easier for pilots, who would not need to refer to a table of altitudes for bombing (or whatever it is that they do). Same for mortors and artillery etc.

Look & Feel

As for the look of the map - It must be accurate to what we see on the ground, or it's useless.

As someone said (sorry, not going back to check who) different map-styles, at different zoom-levels, would be cool.

So a WW2 style map, showing a larger area than current in-game maps, but zoomed out further than current maps, would be useful.

The more you zoom in, the more accurate it would get ... eventually zooming to the current map style.

Unless you are saying you can be 100% accurate ... and I know the current map is not ... with a WW2 style map ... at which point, it looks by far the best and would be a real graphical improvement

Colour of terrain

We use the colour of terrain to help with marking contacts. So you know that if an enemy tank is on the edge of the dark green field, as seen in the game-world, it is on the edge of the same coloured field on the map.

So, at some level of zoom, terrain-colour needs to be accurate.

Forrests & straight-canals

How accurate you want to be depends on how much intel you think the map should give.

When is a big berm a forrest? You could map, at really-zoomed-in levels, every tree in the game world ... but I don't think the game needs that level of map accuracy ...

But, features like rivers are straight in-game, so they need to be straight on the map ... At least at zoomed-in level ... Zoomed out the maps need less detail (but more visible area).

Stuff

Things like rivers, forrests, cities and so on, should all really be layers that can be turned on or off (I imagine you'd do topo that way, if you are going to add it to the map?).

The more we could get as show/hide layers the better, I think (and the cooler).

Interns ... you gotta love 'em

(note: colour = color )

Edited March 23, 2011 by branko

[Enigma]

If the maps are being fixed, for god sakes please move the bridge icon at the eastern factory in Köln. It's impossible to do a .own on the production facility unless you disable bridges.It's very annoying and tedious to do when you are rushing to get altitude for factory defense.

It could also help if you could integrate better the AWS lines on the map. They completely tear the map up. Instead of looking like Angriff's map, where the grids act as a background, the AWS lines tear lines into the map. It completely changes the feel of the map. It doesn't feel like you are navigating across a giant map, but simply jumping from box to box.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Enigma

[branko]

If the maps are being fixed, for god sakes please move the bridge icon at the eastern factory in Köln. It's impossible to do a .own on the production facility unless you disable bridges.It's very annoying and tedious to do when you are rushing to get altitude for factory defense.

Bridges and so on are all good candidates for layers I think?

Show/Hide ... you can do this with factories now (I think) ... be good to do it with "everything"

Another layer might be FBs. I hates having to to click on a town to see the location of the FB. If/while they remain static, having all FBs on a layer would just let you click it to show them all ... But this would need to be a clever layer, to somehow show which of the two FBs was active ...

[Enigma]

Bridges and so on are all good candidates for layers I think?

Show/Hide ... you can do this with factories now (I think) ... be good to do it with "everything"

Another layer might be FBs. I hates having to to click on a town to see the location of the FB. If/while they remain static, having all FBs on a layer would just let you click it to show it ... But this would need to be a clever layer, to somehow show which of the two FBs was active ...

Great idea about FBs...

But everyone please read over what I said about AWS and then look at the in game map. Turn on and off AWS and you will get a completely different feeling when you look at the map. With it off its a huge and beautiful map, with its on its a collection of boxes. The AWS grids need to be better incorporated onto the map. This is especially true for pilots, we are the ones that are roaming free around the map, while the navy and ground guys are restricted to their smaller areas. Pilots should have a map that gives them a feel that they are free to roam and not enclosed into a cell.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Enigma

[szyporyn]

As far as I know the topography of our game is based on real life DEM models - correct?

If so - then its just to merge the contour lines of that DEM model (which would give you "pretty") on top of our map.

It would maybe at times vary a little - but would get the job done.

This should be something you can do with a GIS program, for instance this one... http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/gmt/

Other examples on what people do

http://addictedtor.free.fr/graphiques/search.php?engine=RGG&q=contour

This one is based on greyscales:

http://addictedtor.free.fr/graphiques/RGraphGallery.php?graph=21

Which is what you should have if CRS used DEM models.

Other than that you might just be my favorite CRS intern of all times...

Edited March 23, 2011 by Szyporyn

[Sudden]

As far as I know the topography of our game is based on real life DEM models - correct?

If so - then its just to merge the contour lines of that DEM model (which would give you "pretty") on top of our map.

It would maybe at times vary a little - but would get the job done.

Instant fix. I like it.

[SHEF]

Wait. I think it is 100 meters.

SHEF, can you run a test view at 100 meters? I think you said 40 was too ugly due to the map rendering.

I'd also like to see a test view of a height colored map with similar resolution.

Maybe when we see it we can all agree on it as good or bad.

The minimum terrain resolution is 400 meters. Think of it this way: If you look at contour lines on the map and it tells you the elevation is 600m at a point, it's actually not true: SOMEWHERE in a 400m x 400m x 566m triangle there, the elevation is 600m, but not necessarily at that point.

Ideally, I'd like to have a wide assortment of map layers that we can turn off and on to customize the map to our individual likings. But that is a lot of work and time that the producers may not want to devote to the map.

As far as I know the topography of our game is based on real life DEM models - correct?

If so - then its just to merge the contour lines of that DEM model (which would give you "pretty") on top of our map.

It would maybe at times vary a little - but would get the job done.

This should be something you can do with a GIS program, for instance this one... http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/gmt/

Other examples on what people do

http://addictedtor.free.fr/graphiques/search.php?engine=RGG&q=contour

This one is based on greyscales:

http://addictedtor.free.fr/graphiques/RGraphGallery.php?graph=21

Which is what you should have if CRS used DEM models.

Other than that you might just be my favorite CRS intern of all times...

Again, slapping the real-life contour lines on our game map would not be accurate at all - OUR minimum terrain resolution is 400m. Also, note that the real life contour lines take into account enormous mountains, numerous rivers, creeks, roads, lakes, etc that we don't have in the game. So yes it would just be pretty, but entirely misleading to anyone who attempts to use them for tactics.

Another thing to consider is that changes to the terrain might be made in the future - and if we were using GIS or some other tools, we'd have to put our map through the process again. The map should automatically be able to display itself based on the terrain.

Instant fix. I like it.

If there were such things as instant fixes, game development would be a one-person job. Personally, I like the challenge of figuring out how to solve a problem in the best way, and I like learning new ways to solve common problems. I think this project is going to be as fun as it is challenging!

Edited March 23, 2011 by SHEF

[Sudden]

I misread it as 40. oops.

[szyporyn]

The minimum terrain resolution is 400 meters. Think of it this way: If you look at contour lines on the map and it tells you the elevation is 600m at a point, it's actually not true: SOMEWHERE in a 400m x 400m x 566m triangle there, the elevation is 600m, but not necessarily at that point.

Ideally, I'd like to have a wide assortment of map layers that we can turn off and on to customize the map to our individual likings. But that is a lot of work and time that the producers may not want to devote to the map.

Again, slapping the real-life contour lines on our game map would not be accurate at all - OUR minimum terrain resolution is 400m. Also, note that the real life contour lines take into account enormous mountains, numerous rivers, creeks, roads, lakes, etc that we don't have in the game. So yes it would just be pretty, but entirely misleading to anyone who attempts to use them for tactics.

Another thing to consider is that changes to the terrain might be made in the future - and if we were using GIS or some other tools, we'd have to put our map through the process again. The map should automatically be able to display itself based on the terrain.

If there were such things as instant fixes, game development would be a one-person job. Personally, I like the challenge of figuring out how to solve a problem in the best way, and I like learning new ways to solve common problems. I think this project is going to be as fun as it is challenging!

You do not slap on RL contour lines, you make your own based on your own definitions - just like was done with the in game resolution based on a RL DEM elevation map.

The games elevation was based on a DEM model as far as I know - so you just make a new greyscaled elevation map based on the in-game elevation I would think.

Then you make your contour lines based on this new elevation map and slap it on.

The whole idea of using the GIS is to make your own, not steak from RL - you do however need a greyscaled DEM like elevation map - which is where the former part comes in.

And the whole are we at 400m or 500m is irelevant I should think, you do not at all have to indicate the height in m. at all - your aim is to show "here is a hill" - no?

[SHEF]

...

And the whole are we at 400m or 500m is irelevant I should think, you do not at all have to indicate the height in m. at all - your aim is to show "here is a hill" - no?

My aim is to make improvements to the map that are desired and liked by the majority of the community. Getting all this input is invaluable for when I next meet with Gophur, whereupon we can work out which features to pursue. There are a lot of players that want contour lines, and are willing to accept the fact that they will be primarily aesthetic. I think everyone is ok with hill markers - while they won't be too incredibly helpful, there will still be merit to knowing the general elevation in your area.

It would probably be an option in the topography layer of the map, to turn elevation markers on/off. Hills would have a little + sign with the elevation and hill # displayed, and valleys would have a little - sign with the elevation and valley # displayed. It would still be up to the players, however, to determine the extent of these regions with their eyes on the ground. But at least mission leaders could say "Head for Hill 523 and scout out a place for mortar teams."

[Sudden]

your aim is to show "here is a hill" - no?

That's part of it but how about getting to that hill without being detected?

Some way of picking a route based on hill cover would be useful but we don't have the level of detail to make it possible.

If we had an editable HC overlay they could draw routes, covering positions and gunnery positions based on prior experience. We have waypoints already but I don't think they are seen outside of a mission. Let High Command make and tweak overlays of some sort that can be pulled up for the current target.

Just seeing a hill on a map is not enough information imo.

[szyporyn]

That's part of it but how about getting to that hill without being detected?

Some way of picking a route based on hill cover would be useful but we don't have the level of detail to make it possible.

If we had an editable HC overlay they could draw routes, covering positions and gunnery positions based on prior experience. We have waypoints already but I don't think they are seen outside of a mission. Let High Command make and tweak overlays of some sort that can be pulled up for the current target.

Just seeing a hill on a map is not enough information imo.

Has nothing to do with contour lines

[szyporyn]

My aim is to make improvements to the map that are desired and liked by the majority of the community. Getting all this input is invaluable for when I next meet with Gophur, whereupon we can work out which features to pursue. There are a lot of players that want contour lines, and are willing to accept the fact that they will be primarily aesthetic. I think everyone is ok with hill markers - while they won't be too incredibly helpful, there will still be merit to knowing the general elevation in your area.

It would probably be an option in the topography layer of the map, to turn elevation markers on/off. Hills would have a little + sign with the elevation and hill # displayed, and valleys would have a little - sign with the elevation and valley # displayed. It would still be up to the players, however, to determine the extent of these regions with their eyes on the ground. But at least mission leaders could say "Head for Hill 523 and scout out a place for mortar teams."

I think the markers will achieve the part about head for hill 523 indeed - will even let them know that there is a hill.

What people want by contour lines, or what they provide, is the ability to visualise the terrain in 3D, but via a 2D mechanism.

The hill markers will lessen the guesswork, but will only achieve this.

[AHWULF]

If we had real overlays instead of the weird zooming thing we have now, one could imagine a color overlay mapping low med hi on a octet level which would at least give you some contour info. Hit a key or button to show find what you need and then hide. Sort of a plastic overlay with info and it if you think in terms of paper.

[SHEF]

In lieu of allowing players to draw all over the map, how do y'all feel about mission leaders being able to add a string of connected waypoints?

It would be a limited number of waypoints, like 4 or 5 (again, trying to avoid genitalia on the map), with an arrow or line connecting each one. In this way, mission leaders can still create routes for others to follow, or draw boxes around areas of interest.

I think using something like this, in conjunction with adding waypoints WITH HELPFUL DESCRIPTIONS, will give mission leaders plenty of flexibility without implementing a "grease pen."

[bogol]

For MAC players the ML Bug (cannot label waypoints properly) is annoying like hell. I know its not the place here, it WAS reported in Bug forums but that bug insists on residing in the code. If you or someone else could eradicate it we would be very very happy!

[Sudden]

In lieu of allowing players to draw all over the map, how do y'all feel about mission leaders being able to add a string of connected waypoints?

It would be a limited number of waypoints, like 4 or 5 (again, trying to avoid genitalia on the map), with an arrow or line connecting each one. In this way, mission leaders can still create routes for others to follow, or draw boxes around areas of interest.

I think using something like this, in conjunction with adding waypoints WITH HELPFUL DESCRIPTIONS, will give mission leaders plenty of flexibility without implementing a "grease pen."

We pretty much have the waypoint option already. It's not hard to imagine a straight line running between each one.

Adding meaningful text to a map mark of any kind would be nice.

The mission leader problem is this: The players in that mission are the only ones who see the ML's marks. The marks are gone when the mission is quit and have to be remade every time.

Giving HC a map marking capability with text would be better (provided all players on a target can see it and HC can edit it to perfection. It's a real pain having to mark the same stuff over and over.

Critical ground, hills, defense and offense are known to veteran players. Just let them make more permanent versions that are seen by everyone after a target.

HC also has a code of conduct to follow. Although it might be tempting, I doubt you will have a problem with HC drawing genitalia on the map. Given this capability, each sides command could slowly build up basic attack/defense overlays. Should be fun.

[szyporyn]

In lieu of allowing players to draw all over the map, how do y'all feel about mission leaders being able to add a string of connected waypoints?

It would be a limited number of waypoints, like 4 or 5 (again, trying to avoid genitalia on the map), with an arrow or line connecting each one. In this way, mission leaders can still create routes for others to follow, or draw boxes around areas of interest.

I think using something like this, in conjunction with adding waypoints WITH HELPFUL DESCRIPTIONS, will give mission leaders plenty of flexibility without implementing a "grease pen."

Neat idea, it does not take anything away so people cant object there, it does however add functionality - and a good one:

At the moment we operate with 2 types of user input map overlays

1) enemy marks

2) waypoints (rally/attack)

And current problems with this setup is apparent when you see how people use ship marks to indicate where they want MSPs or where MSPs are currently - and to indicate where they want ATG groups or ZOCs

This would make the distinction between marks and waypoints, so one should optimally end up with 3 different types of user input map overlays.

1) enemy marks

2) waypoints

3) markers

That would mean you open up for a load of new features with "markers" which could be all kinds of cool things like an icon for a ATG line (maybe extend the ability to draw lines like laid out in your waypoint proposal to this also) etc...

Edited March 23, 2011 by Szyporyn

[czpetr]

Make the grid lines as accurate as possible. The map should be used for accurate orientation not for presentation of its beauty.

[Sudden]

Add dead enemy infantry markers if you can.

[SHEF]

...

Adding meaningful text to a map mark of any kind would be nice.

...

This is entirely up to the players; the option is there now, why don't more people use it?

Add dead enemy infantry markers if you can.

Nice try