Citabria said:1. will ah2 use current terrains or will all new terrains be needed?
In the absense of an official response, I'll tell what I know and think I've understood from what HT told me at the Con...
AH2 appears to use the same basic terrain data as AH1. As such, AH1 maps work with AH2 up to a point. For instance, the demo HT gave us used the Trinity map, but only the hills, water, etc. All the tiles were different and had all the new clutter and micro-terrain features on them.
Also, all the objects on an existing map have to be changed to AH2 standard. All the airfield components, at least, because the hangars, towers, fuel tanks, etc., all have a new look. It didn't look like there were more than 2 or 3 fields on the AH2 version of the Trinity map I saw at the Con, and HT said all field objects are still works in process, so it'll be a while it seems before the full story here is known.
2. I am wondering if HTC could have a look at Combat Mission's scenario editor in which you can edit terrains very easily and create really interesting stuff very easily. granted its smaller scale but the intuitive interface is what I would like HTC to look at.
What's your handle over at the BTS boards? I go by Bullethead there as well, or did before I quit reading it some months back. Testing CMBB burned me out on it; othewise I'd challenge you to some PBEM.
Anyway, I think the difference in map size makes CM's system very inappropriate for AH. Have you ever tried making an historical map from scratch for a CM scenario? There's no quick way to do it like AH has for importing elevation maps. Instead, you have to manually set the elevation for every stinkin' tile, and it's terrain tile as well. It takes a good week to make a decent CM historical map, at least.
I used the example of historical maps because that's the closest analogy to making an MA map for AH. In both cases, you start with a drawing and have to get everything in the right place: in CM, as it was in real life, and in AH to give it a three-fold symmetry. But in AH, you can take the drawing and directly convert it into a map. Then all you have to do is change some tiles and tweak some contours. There's still a Hell of a lot of that, mind you, but nowhere near as much as if you had to do every single tile's alt and type by hand.
But then, of course, "dividing the waters from the land" is the most trivial of the tasks in building an AH map. It's the zillions of objects, and making sure they all work correctly, that's the real killer. CM has nothing at all similar to this stage of the process.
I want to build terrains. but building terrains for AH is like trying to play WW2online. it can be done and many are doing it but for many many others its such a complicated process that they get discouraged and say "why bother with this crap on my free time"
The problem isn't with the editor IMHO. True, it looks hideously arcane at first, but once you spend 3-4 good nights tinkering with it and build your first simple, tiny (64-mile) H2H or buff target practice map, you understand all there is to know about the editor. After that, you're fully qualified to make an MA map. It's just a matter of much, MUCH more work. But if you can make a small map, you have the knowledge necessary to do a big one.
The real problem is, IMHO, the sheer amount of tedious work needed for an MA map. On the large maps, there are 250 or so airfields, in 9 or so zones, and each zone has 5 factories, and all of them need their resupply systems. Then add in shore batteries, remote GV and PT spawn points, and testing all of them to make sure they work properly, and you can see why it takes months to make an MA map.
How can you make that simpler? You have to be able to place all the fields and factories where you want them; otherwise, all maps would be pretty much the same. Same goes for the spawn points, shore batteries, etc. The only suggestion I can make is that it would be great if the editor worked on polar coordinates, to make doing three-fold symmetry easier. Doing that on an x-y grid can be a pain.
But apart from that, I think it's actually pretty good the way things are. The editor itself is pretty simple once you understand what it does. The devil is in the details. That separates the real map-makers from the dabblers. Otherwise, we'd be flooded with crap maps churned out by the hundreds and all their creators whining that they weren't all in the MA rotation. OTOH, some of us dabblers can find work in helping the real map-makers with the tedious stuff. This is how I contribute. I don't have the time to make a full map myself, but I can help others with the drudgery.
ps map makers out there i will trade dogfighting lessons for terrain editor lessons
Just get the tutorials and you'll fully understand the editor in less than a week.
