Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Belial on August 27, 2009, 05:40:08 PM

Title: Mountains capped at 12,000 ft.
Post by: Belial on August 27, 2009, 05:40:08 PM
Honestly how many areas on earth have mountains over 5,000 feet even?  The game has gargantuan mountains everywhere you look.
Title: Re: Mountains capped at 12,000 ft.
Post by: Stoney on August 27, 2009, 05:49:12 PM
Honestly how many areas on earth have mountains over 5,000 feet even?  The game has gargantuan mountains everywhere you look.

You ever been to Colorado or to the Sierras? 
Title: Re: Mountains capped at 12,000 ft.
Post by: Belial on August 27, 2009, 06:25:47 PM
Thats what I'm saying there are few places on earth not like the 15k mountains you see everywhere here.
Title: Re: Mountains capped at 12,000 ft.
Post by: waystin2 on August 27, 2009, 06:33:04 PM
Your wish is...
Title: Re: Mountains capped at 12,000 ft.
Post by: AWwrgwy on August 27, 2009, 07:01:53 PM
Your wish is...


...the ground being closer to the sky?

wrongway
Title: Re: Mountains capped at 12,000 ft.
Post by: texastc316 on August 27, 2009, 07:17:42 PM

How many places in the world have cartoon airplanes shooting eachother?
Title: Re: Mountains capped at 12,000 ft.
Post by: Belial on August 27, 2009, 07:47:19 PM
My wish was in the title, no mountains higher than 12,000 feet. 
Title: Re: Mountains capped at 12,000 ft.
Post by: Krusty on August 27, 2009, 08:48:31 PM
We've had maps in AH with entire mountain ranges beeing sheer cliffs over 30K high. This is higher than the SINGLE most highest mountain on earth. And NO FRAKKING COMBAT took place over it!

I wholeheartedly support this request. Poor map design ruins the fun. Especially the 8K "ravine/crevices" in pizza or whatever the round map is. It promotes crappy gameplay. It's not realistic. It detracts. This game simulates WW2 tools and weapons, and the last thing I want to see is some arcade-like badly-laid-out terrain while I'm pretending I'm t3h ub4r l44t WW2 pilitz!

Probably one of the FEW places where action might have taken place over mountains was the Alps, and there wasn't all that much action directly over them (because bombers flew around them).

The "Hump" in CBI was also a major problem, even at a much lower altitude, but that was a supply route, NOT a major combat corridor.

I really wish the terrain would be made a little more realistic. I'm not saying "no mountains" -- I'm saying "make the bloody thing at least a realistic transition from sea level to hills to mountains, not this 0k-to-20k over the course of 1 map tile crap".
Title: Re: Mountains capped at 12,000 ft.
Post by: MachFly on August 27, 2009, 08:56:41 PM
We've had maps in AH with entire mountain ranges beeing sheer cliffs over 30K high. This is higher than the SINGLE most highest mountain on earth. And NO FRAKKING COMBAT took place over it!

I wholeheartedly support this request. Poor map design ruins the fun. Especially the 8K "ravine/crevices" in pizza or whatever the round map is. It promotes crappy gameplay. It's not realistic. It detracts. This game simulates WW2 tools and weapons, and the last thing I want to see is some arcade-like badly-laid-out terrain while I'm pretending I'm t3h ub4r l44t WW2 pilitz!

Probably one of the FEW places where action might have taken place over mountains was the Alps, and there wasn't all that much action directly over them (because bombers flew around them).

The "Hump" in CBI was also a major problem, even at a much lower altitude, but that was a supply route, NOT a major combat corridor.

I really wish the terrain would be made a little more realistic. I'm not saying "no mountains" -- I'm saying "make the bloody thing at least a realistic transition from sea level to hills to mountains, not this 0k-to-20k over the course of 1 map tile crap".

 :aok
Title: Re: Mountains capped at 12,000 ft.
Post by: Chalenge on August 27, 2009, 09:20:04 PM
Build the map so we can use it and I bet HTC adds it.  :aok
Title: Re: Mountains capped at 12,000 ft.
Post by: Krusty on August 27, 2009, 09:32:05 PM
If the TE weren't prohibitely user-unfriendly in every way shape and form, I would have.

I've picked up the TE, and put it back away dozens of times over the years, as have MANY other would-be terrain editors.

It's just not worth the effort to put 5 years into developing a map, just to have the next patch destroy all the work you've done by invalidating the terrain files.
Title: Re: Mountains capped at 12,000 ft.
Post by: Larry on August 28, 2009, 02:18:24 AM
If the TE weren't prohibitely user-unfriendly in every way shape and form, I would have.

I've picked up the TE, and put it back away dozens of times over the years, as have MANY other would-be terrain editors.

It's just not worth the effort to put 5 years into developing a map, just to have the next patch destroy all the work you've done by invalidating the terrain files.

It took me about a week to learn enough about the terrain editor to make a 'MA' map. Hell I spent more time learning how to make custom fields then I did learning the basics of the TE. When you take the time to sit there and actually want to do it then its very simple to understand.
Title: Re: Mountains capped at 12,000 ft.
Post by: Krusty on August 28, 2009, 02:26:18 AM
Learning little tiny basics is one thing. Totally integrating everything, laying out every tile of railroad tracks, every tile of convoy roads, every bridge, so that they all work perfectly, so that strats resupply fields, so that fields are numbered properly, to get an entire MA map up and running is far more demanding than "just" playing with custom objects.

Try getting one of your maps in the MA, then maybe I'll listen to your thoughts on the matter. I don't have any myself, but at least I've tried. Many have, and have given up. Those that don't give up spend literally years on a single map sometimes. Try to tell THEM it's so easy, eh?
Title: Re: Mountains capped at 12,000 ft.
Post by: Greebo on August 28, 2009, 04:42:06 AM
I agree with Krusty on this. The TE is poorly docmented, unfriendly to use and it takes forever to get any feedback from HTC regarding an MA terrain.

There is also not much incentive for anyone to make an MA terrain. You can't be too creative in its design as there are strict guidelines regarding field placement, strat, balance etc. Anything like custom textures tend to increase the terrain's file size too much. HTC can't afford an MA terrain to crash so they won't allow anything too tricky in one.

WRT to large mountains, I can see a point to occasionally using them to channel players a particular way. The MA terrain I'm working on has a ring of 15K mountains around tank town for example. Its really annoying to have to climb over something like that to get to another airfield though, there should at least be a canyon to fly through. I agree mountains are overused. I think in many cases they were just dotted around to make an MA terrain look a bit more interesting, the old terrain system was very monotone green.

My personal gripe is terrains that look too "geometric". Those that have perfectly straight canyons, circular coastines or rectangular stepped mountains. They just ruin my suspension of disbelief.

Farms on mountainsides are another aspect of this, the TE could do a much better job of managing this problem.
Title: Re: Mountains capped at 12,000 ft.
Post by: Stoney on August 28, 2009, 05:00:32 AM
The MA terrain I'm working on has a ring of 15K mountains around tank town for example.

The perceived worth of building an MA map and the clunkiness of the TE excepted, why are you putting 15,000 foot mountains around tank town?  I think the OP's original point was that mountains that tall didn't have any place in the game. 

I assume that you're placing them to regulate player behavior with respect to tank town?
Title: Re: Mountains capped at 12,000 ft.
Post by: Greebo on August 28, 2009, 06:04:21 AM
I'm arguing that occasionally they do have worth in the game. I'd like to keep aircraft from interfering with tank town in my terrain which is why I put the mountains there. I also built low cloud cover over the V bases for the same reason.
Title: Re: Mountains capped at 12,000 ft.
Post by: AirFlyer on August 28, 2009, 07:36:24 AM
May as well go big or don't go at all. I can say with fair certainty that 15,000 won't stop everyone, though it would be a serious hindrance.

I'd say 30,000 - 40,000 if your really determined to keep everyone out without a care for realism.
Title: Re: Mountains capped at 12,000 ft.
Post by: moot on August 28, 2009, 08:50:31 AM
Don't see what the big deal is.  Have a couple of maps realistic, and have others be just for fun.  The air combat is what matters.  Nothing real or unreal about terrain unless the fighting happens on it, e.g. the GV spawns 5 kft higher on a steep incline in Trinity.. A8 I think the base is.
Planes don't care about terrain, they're in the air.  Oversized canyons are fun. For the same reason canyons in reality are more fun than creek beds.

The only thing I do really agree with is when you've got obvious mathematical patterns repeating.. Perfect primitive shapes that look like something out of a crop circle.  It doesn't look all that great, most of the time.
Title: Re: Mountains capped at 12,000 ft.
Post by: Larry on August 28, 2009, 02:11:08 PM
:cry


LoL. Iv tried and, unlike you, I didn't give up. I created a map in less time that I thought, and once I learned the basics it wasn't hard at all. Maybe I'm just a quick learner but IMO making a terrain was easier then learning to make a skin.
Title: Re: Mountains capped at 12,000 ft.
Post by: Anaxogoras on August 28, 2009, 02:16:33 PM
I'd like to see a map with a 20k plateau somewhere just to see people call the P-47 a dweeb plane. :D
Title: Re: Mountains capped at 12,000 ft.
Post by: Belial on August 28, 2009, 02:20:17 PM
I think that many of the FSO maps would be great to use as a basis, why not some real maps of Europe that are somewhat historically accurate?
Title: Re: Mountains capped at 12,000 ft.
Post by: Mustang T on August 28, 2009, 02:34:34 PM
 :aok I agree. It always seems like there are a bunch of islands. Never just big amounts of land. But I also agree to the mountain thing. Who would be fighting up there?
Title: Re: Mountains capped at 12,000 ft.
Post by: Stoney on August 28, 2009, 03:20:15 PM
I'm arguing that occasionally they do have worth in the game. I'd like to keep aircraft from interfering with tank town in my terrain which is why I put the mountains there. I also built low cloud cover over the V bases for the same reason.

I think this is a perfectly acceptable use of the terrain--necessary even.
Title: Re: Mountains capped at 12,000 ft.
Post by: usvi on August 28, 2009, 03:27:20 PM
Gee Toto I think we're not in Kansas anymore.
(http://www.kansasinc.org/images/photogallery/kansas_prairie.jpg)