Question regarding tile objects

[8thJinx]

I understand the creation of land objects (such as the town and base tiles), and the association of the different bitmaps to the large object. 

For my question, consider the 1 mile town object.  It has the TOWN1X1M bitmap, normal, alpha, etc, maps associated with it. 

What I don't understand is this: the 256 color bitmap's resolution is 1024x1024, and the streets are a pixelated grey.  But when you're in the game, the resolution of the town streets shows the repeating cobblestone pattern in fairly good detail. 

My question is this:
How do you get from a pixelated 1024x1024 256-color bitmap of the 1 mile-square town's street grid, to pretty darn good detail at the street in the game?

The buildings and structures make sense to me.  I even made a few with custom bitmaps.  The land, not so much.  I'd like to learn how to do it with things as big as the town and base objects.

Any help would be deeply appreciated.

[8thJinx]

Is it as simple as starting with a super high detail bitmap, and then resizing it to 1024x1024? 

[715]

Is the detail you are seeing due to the detail texture map?  i.e. that bitmap that maps the detail textures, like cobblestones or cracked dry ground etc on top of the diffuse image map?

[8thJinx]

That detail is definitely what I see in-game.  But no where in AC3D is there a file with that detailed palette.

What's confusing me is this: I loaded the town object into the OE, and converted it to AC3D.  Then I opened it in AC3D.  When I open it, it has a 32-bit color (sorry, I said 256 color before and I mis-spoke) background bitmap visible in all views.  This background bitmap is 512x512 resolution, and is a full-color (though pixelated) rendering of the town.  And, it is named like a diffuse map (town1x1m.bmp) should be named.  And when you go to Object-Texture in AC3D, it lists this file as the texture map.  I was expecting to see a real texture map with detail on a palette, like you see for the game's buildings, not a 1 mile by 1 mile, pixelated aerial shot of the whole town object.

I think something got lost in the conversion to AC3D.  I was hoping someone had created a land object before in AC3D, and could tell me how it's done.  I'm basically stumbling through this.

[Easyscor]

EVERYTHING you see is built from scratch. If you don't see something in the exported output, you've exported the wrong object.

[8thJinx]

This is my guess as to what I am seeing with the converted town file in AC3D:

I'm seeing the background image of the town that the original author used to create the wire frame.  I'm guessing when he assigned textures to all of the polygons, he used a detailed texture map.  I say this because the larger street pavement polygons are overlaid with other polygons representing the sidewalks and yards.  Those polygons had their own textures.  And then the rock faces on the hills and grass areas have their own polygon areas, where they either pick up the detailed rock face texture, or the underlying grass from the terrain set (via the alpha map).  So the bitmap I'm seeing in the converted AC3D file was the guide the author used to make the wireframe and assign textures, and "alpha out" the areas where he wanted the underlying terrain set to peak through.  But the detailed texture map never made it over in the conversion. 

If anyone has knowledge proving I'm wrong, please please tell me.

[8thJinx]

EVERYTHING you see is built from scratch. If you don't see something in the exported output, you've exported the wrong object.

I'm sure it's all built from scratch, but somewhere along the line the author of the town object used a detailed texture map to plant the cobblestone and rockface images into the street and hill polygons.  That detailed texture map for the town did not make it over in the conversion.

Interestingly, the detailed texture maps for the town buildings, hangars and base buildings (both 'live' and 'dead') all make it over in the conversion process.  I would have expected to see the same thing for the converted base and town objects.

[8thJinx]

I created a 2 mile land object from scratch, with perimeter vertices spaced at 660 feet, and center point at 0,0.  Which is what I believe needs to be maintained, iirc. 

In AC3D, I highlighted all of the polygons and selected Object-Textures, and brought in the tanklandNW.bmp (renamed as rem2x2A.bmp, to match the AC3D file).  So in AC3D I now have a 2 mile square of land with all of the polygons filled.  I renamed the normal, alpha, environment maps as rem2x2A_#.bmp.  Then I converted the AC3D file using the Object Editor, which is what I think I'm supposed to do.  At least that worked for the berms I made.  But when I selected convert, it ran and gave me an error that a file named "hitech.bmp" was missing.  So I looked at the ".ac" file in Notepad, but there was no reference to that file.  I tried loading the object shape via the Terrain Editor, since the ".shp" file was made.  And the rem2x2A shape shows up in the list in the TE, but when I selected "add", the Terrain Editor crashed.

[Easyscor]

We'll get you straightened out.

[8thJinx]

Well I got the crash issue fixed.  I had set the center of the tile wrong.  Also, the 4 mile square objects snap to the red grid in the Terrain Editor.  Good to know.

I took an existing 4 mile object from the list, modified it a little, re-saved it, and placed it in a test terrain.  So the process works.

I think all things considered, I am better off taking existing 1 mile x 1 mile, 2x2, and 4x4 objects that have already been made, and modifying them for my use.  Example: take the 4 mile 'tland0' object, exporting it to AC3D, doing what I want, and then saving it as a new name.  It seems to have less problems than starting from scratch in AC3D or L3DT Pro.  I'm sure it's a naming convention I'm getting wrong, because in the text file for a 'from-scratch' 1 mile object, the materials and textures seem to have 'AC3D' in their names, while the modified objects all have references to "AH23", "AH42", etc.  Is that the issue?  I don't know enough to know.

Maybe one day I'll figure out how to create a land object from scratch that doesn't have problems, but for now, modifying existing land objects works just as well for me.  And it's actually quicker.

Side Note: 
Here's why reworking the 4 mile square objects is so key for me: it allows me to create a large, custom-molded block of terrain that I can place to the side of towns and fields.  If I put the spawn point roughly 4 miles from the town/field (and since the TE requires at least a 1 mile space between the edge of the town or field, and the edge of my custom 4 mile block of terrain), it provides me with a very large area for quality GV terrain.

Also, since the tankland objects are already on the approved list (I think) for the main arena (although not used), I have hope that I can get a different tankland-"ish" object approved for use in the main arena.  Which was my original goal.  So a future without tabletop-flat, densely-treed terrain between the spawns and towns/fields is within reach.

[bustr]

Is the individual polygon in the 2x2 object poly mesh smaller than the terrain editor's work space individual polygon?

[Easyscor]

Yes

[8thJinx]

Is the individual polygon in the 2x2 object poly mesh smaller than the terrain editor's work space individual polygon?

Sure, in a bunch of spots.  But I don't think that matters.   

Here's the poly mesh for the town.  Note the perimeter mesh needs to meet the 660 foot spacing.

[8thJinx]

I just noticed, on the tankland objects, that perimeter 660 foot vertex spacing isn't present in a number of spots.  In some areas the mesh size gets down to 5 feet or so, right along the perimeter.  But I can still successfully insert them into a terrain. 

[bustr]

Easyscor probably has had a conversation with Hitech that can answer this question.

A much smaller polygon size polymesh could be used as the terrain editor work space. Why hasen't Hitech given us that instead of the smallest poly component being 1\8th of a mile?