Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Terrain Editor => Topic started by: 8thJinx on November 06, 2017, 05:58:41 PM
-
I followed Kanth's video to a tee. But when I go to load the terrain and click offline practice, the CraterMA map loads, not my test map. My test map is in the list. Any suggestions?
-
Click on "Choose Terrain", choose your terrain name. If it is longer than 8 letters small case, go into the terrain editor, export it. Create a new terrain properly named and import that height.raw file.
-
Oh, and no special characters for the name just letters or numbers (no under scores, dashes, etc.).
-
Got it. Fixed. Thank you.
-
New question. Why do I have the ability to drive straight through rubble piles, tank revetments, and bridge embankments. Also, some of the objects have weird colors. Such as: the ruins, windmills, and farmhouse buildings are all bright blue. Are we allowed to edit these colors?
-
No the standard objects provided with the editor you can't edit. You would have to the uncompiled files for them to be able to edit them. By this I mean while you can make a new airfield layout the standard fighter hangar object can't be edited. You only can place that in a different position in a custom tile.
We would need more information about where and how you are seeing windmills, ruins, and farmhouses, since they shouldn't be bright blue. in AHedit or in the built terrain. Can you post a screen shot of what you are seeing?
-
New question. Why do I have the ability to drive straight through rubble piles, tank revetments, and bridge embankments. Also, some of the objects have weird colors. Such as: the ruins, windmills, and farmhouse buildings are all bright blue. Are we allowed to edit these colors?
Some objects, mostly speedtree, are meant to be installed in the OE instead of the TE and will appear blue. To clarify, they belong in terrain tile sets such as terrset00.
In the case of ruins01-04, the texture for these items was never completed; maybe that should be a bug. You can export the objects from the OE and you'll see a single tiny texture named 'collision' or something like that iirc.
As textures were allowed in AH2 MA terrains, you might be okay to created and include a set of textures to replace the single 'collision' texture. How are your skills in Blender or AC3D.
Be sure to set your objects as Can collide except for Map rooms and Entry points. That should fix rubble. Anticipating why you want it, I have no idea if it would be accepted in an MA terrain.
-
Ah, Easy I think hit the nail on the head. I never thought of placing certain objects manually into the terrain instead as part of a tile. Generally placing objects individual via the Terrain editor is frowned on since if you place to many this way it used to cause issues. Not sure if it still does. You can place bridges manually (like bustr did for his latest map). In some SEA terrains I placed ships manually (Pearl ... which would not be accepted for a MA terrain) and some planes manually to provide static strafing targets (again in Pearl and would not be accepted as a MA terrain). But there is not much else you should place statically.
If you wanted to create say new area for tank battles it is best to do that by making a new tile in OE than manually placing things like Windmills and farms in the TE.
-
If you wanted to create say new area for tank battles it is best to do that by making a new tile in OE than manually placing things like Windmills and farms in the TE.
This is what I'm trying to do. But I don't know if new tiles would be allowed in the MA.
I see shapes in the terrain editor list called tanklndne, tanklndnw, tanklndse, and tanklndsw. These are the things I want to make. But I won't even bother if they won't be approved for a main arena terrain. And I'll set this effort aside if adding individual objects into the terrain won't be approved either.
-
I don't have experience in creating new tiles others always did that for the SEA terrains. That said if you are using just the existing objects in the OE you have a better chance of it being acceptable for the MA. Remember that HTC would have to review and approve the new tile for the terrain. So you might want to ping them first to make sure they will even accept a new tile submission (8thjinx's tank town) and what their guidelines for a new tile would be.
-
I'm trading emails with Skuzzy on this subject. I'll post the outcome.
-
I talked briefly with Hitech about "one of objects" and it got around to something I had not thought about. There is a minimum spacing for objects from each other that Hitech mentioned to me if I was going to pursue this. FPS impact by objects in a small area is the concern in the MA because the MA has so many objects in any 40 mile field of view for your PC to process. If you get a go ahead to try this, you will need to find out how Waffle tests for FPS impact when he creates new objects like the 1x1 feilds and the 2x2 tank town. Or Hitech may have a way he can do it himself once you have a prototype to test.
This may be why he suggested using the new tank revetment objects as berms. If you bribe him maybe Waffle can fill in the revetment cutout and make it a mound of dirt so there is a revetment02 object. Then you would simply get a rule for how many and how close they are spaced inside of a given area. I can already see a possibility if you pull up a 50ft hill, then add some of these in a pattern around the hill. Also bridges don't have to cross anything, they can be legacy aqueduct segments.
-
Forget the existence of bridges and revetments and buildings for a minute. I'm still coming back to this: if somebody had the means to make the terrain that currently exists on the GV bases and towns, why can't the same means be employed by other interested parties to make the ride from a spawn to a base more interesting game-wise (i.e. - tank fights) than what's being offered now.
-
From my experiences with Hitech and AH3, object count for a given area. You should really just ask the question straight out and wait for Hitech to answer.
Hitech, can the small hill like berm objects Waffle placed onto the Tank Town object and the vBase objects be turned into their own one of object for Melee arena terrains like the bridge objects?
If this is what is holding you up from building new terrains.....hmmmmmm. Adapt and overcome, work around it, AH2 is dead and gone.
Here I'm in the middle of testing things for my next terrain. This is the smallest combat structure you can build with the limitations of the polymesh. After testing this I would raise the bottom of the ditch a bit so a tank doesn't stop against the other wall needing you to restart 1st gear to get it to nose up. The bridge static object is not the one with the berms at each end and why I sank the ends in the ground. You can drive over it so it acts as a high point for sniping but there is a limitation in bridges now. If you drive either forward or in revers under the bridge, once more than half of your vehicle is under the arch, your commander view is popped onto the road bed above until you clear half of your vehicle out the other side. I have not got the time to wait on Hitech to solve my problems so I test a lot. I've found if he likes what you want with your terrain he answers right then. If what you want to do has FPS or program issues he tells you quickly. If he is not into your idea or your request, he ignores you. So I quit hitching my happiness to him answering my demands and just started testing until I came up with something.
For anyone wondering what is in the air in the background, a mistake with blending the edges of two bands of gray for the heightmap. Happens sometimes and a lighter gray border is generated one pixel wide between the two bands of darker gray. Tops of those are about 25k... :O
(https://s20.postimg.org/pd0tdx58t/medtst23.jpg)
-
I know it takes a lot of work to put terrains together, I mean no disrespect, but if I was a tanker that used to play AH2 and came back to see what was cooking, and I saw that, I'd say that was an order of magnitude better graphics wise, but not as good as the terrain we had on the approaches to the bases in AH2. So in a nut shell, we made a great leap in the visual presentation, but left some of the ingredients on the counter because they don't fit in the pot.
Here's my list of things we had in AH2, that we don't have now:
1. Long, clear lines of sight from a dominant, commanding, somewhat concealed position (read that as elevation) to areas where the enemy spawns in/approaches from/sets up at. The distance from position to enemy varied from 1.8k to 5k. (Think of the hills at the 85 spawn on Compello, 135/136 in Ozkansas, the center of NDIsles, etc). These areas were fought hard for, and it was difficult to knock the enemy off of.
2. Areas of prime, excellent cover that you fought over. (Think of the center berms at 85 spawn or 135/136 or 34+26/Montis.)
3. Opportunities to rush a gauntlet to gain an advantage. (Think of the beach at the 85 spawn, or the hill in front of the main lines in the Crater, both of which had cover you could leapfrog from and to.)
4. Confining terrain features that channeled or bottlenecked GV play, like the mountains in the Crater, or the ocean and the hill at 85 spawn, or the water at 135/136, the skinny islands on tagma.
-
Here's my list of things we had in AH2, that we don't have now:
1. Long, clear lines of sight from a dominant, commanding, somewhat concealed position (read that as elevation) to areas where the enemy spawns in/approaches from/sets up at. The distance from position to enemy varied from 1.8k to 5k. (Think of the hills at the 85 spawn on Compello, 135/136 in Ozkansas, the center of NDIsles, etc). These areas were fought hard for, and it was difficult to knock the enemy off of.
2. Areas of prime, excellent cover that you fought over. (Think of the center berms at 85 spawn or 135/136 or 34+26/Montis.)
3. Opportunities to rush a gauntlet to gain an advantage. (Think of the beach at the 85 spawn, or the hill in front of the main lines in the Crater, both of which had cover you could leapfrog from and to.)
4. Confining terrain features that channeled or bottlenecked GV play, like the mountains in the Crater, or the ocean and the hill at 85 spawn, or the water at 135/136, the skinny islands on tagma.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but I am confused, are you wanting to recreate places to run up kill counts? I don't understand how that is better gv play. It seems to me like areas that allow you to safely maneuver ending in large, open, rolling terrain to fight it out might be preferable to a wide open kill zone for spawn camping. I am just curious since I have never cared much for the ground game, especially spawn camping.
-
Kills in a GV this past summer, according to the stats, are less than half of what they were near the end of AH2. Let that sink in. Half. Something decimated the GV game.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4535/26475081679_3363810e25_b.jpg)
-
Experiment and stop trying to bring back AH2, the polymesh in AH3 is different, the tiles are different and many of the objects are different or no longer in the object menu. Work with what you have. I use a grass brush to open agrarian tile vistas for long range view and shooting. I set GV spawns to follow combat because our numbers a low so it brings the largest number of players willing into a fight around feilds. I experiment with features, like opening vistas in the agrarian tiles that already are setup for tank combat by Waffle. I experiment with bridges\rivers and earth ramps in Oceania along with setting spawns to follow combat. I set airfields with only map rooms on them to look at how much towns contribute to stalled out fights and if that configuration would promote activity, which it does.
I am not living in the past, I'm using what I have now and the current population numbers as a key to design. Here is a hard secret about terrains. All of the clever ideas you incorporate to promote a specific kind of combat scenario will fail just like buying your cat a hot new toy and he likes the bag it came in better. All of the great combat scenario terrain setups you remember from the past were lucky coincidences because players decided they liked it in that era of the game. Not the terrain builder had a clue that they would use it that way. All you can do is experiment with ideas on a test terrain and drive them offline to make sure the scale will work. Then add them into your terrain with all the other clever ideas you think will WOW GVers. Then hope maybe one of them will be a crater tank town or V85 spawn battle. The past is gone, build the future and take your chances.
If you don't you will learn zilch about the current terrain editor or what players will do or not do with your ideas. Stop living in the past about terrains, it will make you un-happy as heck like you are right now.
-
I see now that the idea of an 85 spawn area is gone forever. I do however, want to at least recreate the "landmarks" of those successful areas:
1. Long, clear lines of sight from a dominant, commanding, somewhat concealed positions. Areas that are fought hard for, and difficult to knock the enemy off of.
2. Areas of prime, excellent cover that you can fight over.
3. Opportunities to rush a gauntlet to gain an advantage.
4. Confining terrain features that channeled or bottlenecked GV play.
There are no areas anywhere in the AH3 maps that have 1+2+3+4. And I just have this really strong, deep belief that when there were landmarks present in a past evolution that lead to positive outcomes (even if they were the result of happy accidents), you should do everything you can to repeat them in future evolutions.
I'll keep experimenting.
One last question. Is the placing-an-object-in-the-terrain a hard and fast rule, like you can't place ANY individual trees or bushes on a terrain, or is there a count that you have to stay under per square mile, etc. That would be helpful to know.
-
One last question. Is the placing-an-object-in-the-terrain a hard and fast rule, like you can't place ANY individual trees or bushes on a terrain, or is there a count that you have to stay under per square mile, etc. That would be helpful to know.
As bustr said, experiment. If you see an object in the TE's list, try it. You saw what happened with ruin##, that's why you need to experiment.
And don't forget, the choice of terrsets can make all the difference.
-
So there's no hard and fast rule? I thought frame rate was the issue.
-
Well don't go craaazy and do it everywhere.
Put these keywords into your head, experiment, and test test test.
-
Test, test, test. Got it. But from what, a plane, a gv? And do you do an entire terrain first, then drop in objects, and test, or do you test just a small area of plain terrain first, then keep building, then test again.
Kind of weird that there's no compendium or knowledge base on how to do this.
-
Don't start with your MA masterpiece. Create a 64x64 terrain exclusively for testing stuff you want to try out or don't understand.
The editor will run faster and build the terrain faster and it will keep all your tests in one place without breaking your final terrain.
Test both in the TE and offline in game. Never upload any test terrain. When you have your MA terrain in the final stages, yes, then upload it.
Use CMeye to quickly view the terrain with the HUD visible for Alt feedback. Occasionally fly it to confirm the scale of things, it can be deceiving.
Manuals:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,386033.msg5131623.html#msg5131623
Still haven't found time to finish the latest version, probably in December after Pearl Harbor is up in the Ava
-
Got it, thanks.
But just for my own education, if the frame rate in a 64x64 test terrain is ok for me flying offline, it will be ok on a 528x528 terrain on a server? Is it that simple?
-
A 64^2 should be the same but it really depends on your video card. I run a 1070 so nothing I can throw at it slows it down. Objects vary with the number of draw calls. Count the number of bridges visible at the same time in bustr's terrains and try not to exceed whatever that number is. Really, there's no hard rule for this because we don't know what objects you're talking about. The vehicles Hitech gave us are a heavy graphics load for instance and I think bustr said they weren't allowed for that reason, not sure that's the reason, but you get the idea.
I shouldn't need to say it, but don't put any guns except shore batteries into the final terrain.
In the AvA for our tank battles, as it might relate to an MA terrain, we often use a careful combination of rivers, bridges and tree lines. When the terrain tile doesn't fit, we move the bridge and if it still doesn't work, we move the river. There are many things you can do to create good tank battlefields but the best ones won't be the conducive to long range snipping IMO. They will be more along the lines of a first person shooter running between building or hiding in ambush along the way. As in AH2, the winners will be the ones who know and take advantage of the terrain. My opinion is worth what you paid for it so go experiment and have some fun along the way.
Glad to see you working in the TE now.
:cheers:
-
Thank you for finally connecting the dots for me: the issue is drawing the inserted objects and terrain details into the individual player's field of view. I thought it was a total count across the entire terrain, but now the light bulb went off. It's the player's machine handling the terrain and objects, not the server handling all the players and the terrain.
-
That's true as far as it goes. By design, using standard object groups like small airfields, MA terrains do try to control the overall object count, yes, but you are not likely to create an issue anyway.
FYI, although it should never apply to your project, if a builder exceeds the 50,000 count, some of the objects won't react correctly when they are destroyed. But again, you'll never want to put anywhere near that many objects into an MA terrain. The limit affects SEA and AvA terrains where you'll see counts in the high 40K were extra targets are included. Besides, I don't think you'd ever be allowed those kind of counts in a small MA terrain.
-
Kills in a GV this past summer, according to the stats, are less than half of what they were near the end of AH2. Let that sink in. Half.
Ah, so it might be funner to GV now since there are fewer camped spawns! Got it! :aok
In all seriousness, I wish you the best of luck if you are going to create new maps. More choices are always better than fewer. Thanks and :salute Sir.