How do you guys get your sat map perfect

[m1lkm8n 410]

So I'm almost done my first island and I'm pretty pleased with myself. It's a winter map, fairly decent size but i want to finish up the sat map now.

I exported the map image at 8200x8200 to give me 8192x8192 because u have 8 meter grid cells. I've been using that to paint the sat map. Mountains that are snow are being covered in white which looks good but at the edge of the land where it meets the water is where I'm having issues.

Do you guys texture the water?

When I do it overlaps into the land and looks weird.

Is it just a tweaking game till it comes out good?

[m1lkm8n 410]

Ok I've figured out that by setting the contour lines to 1meter I can then match my sat map to my layer mask very well.

[bushlurker 45]

I exported the map image at 8200x8200 to give me 8192x8192 because u have 8 meter grid cells

Be careful with this exporting imagery thing... You have to allow for "BlueEdge" in the image when you export it, then crop it off afterwards... Looks like you're aware of that.

However - what size your grid cells are has nothing to do with it......

BlueEdge is equal to the Number of Satellite Map pixels Divided by the Number of Heightmap pixels (or cells)

Examples make it obvious....

You have a 1024x1024 heightmap grid

(it doesn't matter if they're 1 meter, 5 meter or 50 meters per "cell" - you've got 1024 of 'em - that's all that matters for this)...

Your Sat & Mask images are 10240x10240

So 10240/1024 = 10 So BlueEdge is 10

You'd export an image of 10240+10=10250x10250

Load into Photoshop - you'll see a 10 pixel Blue Edge on the Left & Bottom sides of your 10250x10250 image

Crop them off to get back to a 10240x10240 image with no Blue Edges

This image will overlay perfectly with your original Sat & Mask layers..

Another example...

Your heightmap is a 2048x2048

Your Sat layer is 16384x16384

16384/2048= 8 So BlueEdge is 8

You'd export an image of 16384+8=16392x16392

Load into Photoshop - you'll see a 8 pixel Blue Edge on the Left & Bottom sides of your 16392x16392 image

Crop them off to get back to a 16384x16384 image with no Blue Edges

Your heightmap is a 2048x2048

Your Sat layer is 20480x20480

20480/2048= 10 So BlueEdge is 10

You'd export an image of 20480+10=20490x20490

Load into Photoshop - you'll see a 10 pixel Blue Edge on the Left & Bottom sides of your 20490x20490 image

Crop them off to get back to a 20480x20480 image with no Blue Edges

Get the idea?

Notice that our first and third examples both required a BlueEdge treatment of 10 pixels, despite them being different "sizes" of terrain... Notice also how the first example could have had 2 meter cells and the third could have had 50 meter cells and it wouldn't have made any difference to the calculation....

Satmap - divided by heightmap

Add it on - export - crop it off

B

[m1lkm8n 410]

Thanks bushlurker. I am aware of how to get the blue edge measurements.

The problem I was having was getting my land satmap texture to end at the right spot where the ocean starts as well as the layer mask. But once I turned on the contour button and set it to one meter the first line seems to be exactly where the ocean ends.

Everything is lining up now.

As it is now I am trying to layer mask the roads so no clutter pops up under it. I'm using a gravel texture but because the roads curve and the layer mask is done in pixels it gets jagged patches of gravel sticking out under the road before it gets to my next texture which is snow.

Is this just an arma thing because of the way the layer mask can only be one solid color?

[bushlurker 45]

I am aware of how to get the blue edge measurements.

No problema! You had me worried for a second by mentioning cell sizes in the same sentence ;) ... you have no idea how many times I've had to explain they don't matter :)

Anyhow - yeah, the Contour trick is one way to get a "coastline mask" so you know where the sea ends - another way is to load your heightmap into L3DT, run a water table calculation for Sea at 0 meters and export the result as a mask...

The "Seashore on Winter Maps" thing is a good question! - Jakerod and I spent a while discussing this recently... It's one thing for "true arctic or antarctic" maps to have some sort of "ice" texture all the way down and into the water - that looks fairly OK with the full-on Ice Station Aardvark-type maps, but for a more temperate location, just in "Winter Dress"... what do beaches look like anyway? - the tidal action of the non-frozen sea would presumable keep the "wave area" pretty clear of lying snow... Unless it's actively snowing heavily, the longer duration rising and falling of the tide itself might be keeping a broader area fairly clear...

When we were discussing this, I think we came to the conclusion that the easiest cop-out would be to have fairly smooth "fresh-fallen" snow across the beach as a whole, with maybe the last couple of meters fading to regular beach texture...

I'm using a gravel texture but because the roads curve and the layer mask is done in pixels it gets jagged patches of gravel sticking out under the road before it gets to my next texture which is snow.

Is this just an arma thing because of the way the layer mask can only be one solid color?

You could reduce the jagginess by using a higher-resolution Sat & Mask... with a smallish terrain that's often a reasonably viable option, though there will be a slight performance impact..

You could also try to find or make a "snowy gravel" texture so the transition isn't so visible...

B

[m1lkm8n 410]

Yea I don't know where I was going with the grid cell thing I think I was trying to say that was the extra 8 pixels of the blue edge.

Anyway Ill have to try the l3dt trick and I didn't even think of creating my own gravel texture, which would be easy, since I made all the other ones.

I was thinking I have a snow texture with bits of dirt in it that I use for the lower sections of my map then the mountain areas I use a fresh fallen snow texture. I could just rename the dirty snow texture and reuse that under the roads so it would blend plus i could set it so it wouldn't have clutter

[bushlurker 45]

I have a snow texture with bits of dirt in it that I use for the lower sections of my map then the mountain areas I use a fresh fallen snow texture. I could just rename the dirty snow texture and reuse that under the roads so it would blend plus i could set it so it wouldn't have clutter

Good plan - sounds like it should work out OK...

when fooling around with these sort of ideas - trying different textures in different areas, it's worthwhile remembering you can "disable" colours on your "Layers.cfg" and "double up" others....

So - if, for example, you currently have your "dirty snow" in "Red" areas, and your current gravel in "Blue"

Layers.cfg (section)....

 class Colors
 {
   myterrain_gravel[]={{0, 0, 0}};       //Was originally set to "blue" (0,0,255)
   myterrain_dirty_snow[]={{255, 0, 0},{0, 0, 255}};

Assuming you aren't actually using "Black" on your Layer Mask, then the original gravel texture won't be assigned, but the "dirty snow" below WILL be assigned, to all "original Red" areas plus the "previously gravel" blue ones...

handy for fast testing, amongst other things.....

B

Edited February 11, 2013 by Bushlurker

[m1lkm8n 410]

That's awesome I didn't know you can do that. I thought they all had to be separate. Very handy indead!

Thanks again

[m1lkm8n 410]

Oh b one more thing.

Since I'm making snow textures I'm not gonna need an _mco version of the texture so what is the point of that file then?

[bushlurker 45]

Well I'd be careful of abandoning .mco entirely...they're sortof required for the whole procedure and the engine might cry if they're missing.... ;)

Actually, on closer inspection I've noticed BI being a little... lazy with their .mco's.. they reuse the same ones in different contexts sometimes, but every texture set calls on some sort of .mco at the appropriate point.

There's nothing to stop you making and using appropriate .mco's for your snow textures - they're equally valid in that context... maybe just keep 'em pretty centred on 128 and bland - they'll still add that appropriate little extra detail in the middle ranges like they're supposed to... You'd notice the lack if they weren't there...

B

[m1lkm8n 410]

Ok ill try them like you said. I've noticed for some reason in the near distance ,which is the mco texture I think, that the snow texture looks very dark.

[m1lkm8n 410]

Ok figured out what I was seeing. I thought it was something with my sat map but it was an inheritance from chernarus.

In the config file where it points to midleveltexture it was pointing to their grass mco.

Why is that needed when you have to create a mco for each texture anyway?

Also in your sat maps do you not only draw in the roads but other objects as well like the tops of houses and walls?

Edited February 14, 2013 by M1lkm8n

[jakerod 254]

Ok figured out what I was seeing. I thought it was something with my sat map but it was an inheritance from chernarus.

In the config file where it points to midleveltexture it was pointing to their grass mco.

Why is that needed when you have to create a mco for each texture anyway?

Also in your sat maps do you not only draw in the roads but other objects as well like the tops of houses and walls?

I tend to do roads. I skip walls. Houses I just kind of made a generic gravel box underneath. For example, open up a Chernarus sat paa and look at what they did for villages. That is what I do.

[m1lkm8n 410]

Thanks jakerod. I've started doing the gravel box thing under the houses. It's looks pretty descent so far.

[jakerod 254]

Thanks jakerod. I've started doing the gravel box thing under the houses. It's looks pretty descent so far.

Just be weary of buildings that aren't rectangular. L shaped buildings are fairly common and it can look weird for them. I tend to have buldozer open when i'm doing my mask/sat in photoshop and go house to house as I do the mask. You could also try putting an object not used anywhere else on the mask at the corner of each part of the building and looking for it on the emf/png you exported. Same thing if you want to do paths to doorways etc. Then once you're done with the mask just go to replace object and remove them from the map.

[daringd 2]

Is there a way to sort of replace the red boxes that are used to represent buildings with something a little more accurate, that might be used to much better and easier map making?

for instance, if there was an icon that represented as well as possible the shape of the building, and maybe doors or something? or is this just... a really hopeful, yet useless idea?

D

[OChristie 0]

The Icon you see in visitor is created from the bounding box of the object, regardless of the size or shape, the bounding box will cover the entirety of the object :)

Cheers!

[daringd 2]

I thought it would be something unchangable like that, or someone would have already sorted it out!

D

[jakerod 254]

I thought it would be something unchangable like that, or someone would have already sorted it out!

D

The only way around it that I can think of is putting some kind of object at each corner so that you can see it when you export the EMF.

[m1lkm8n 410]

Just be weary of buildings that aren't rectangular. L shaped buildings are fairly common and it can look weird for them. I tend to have buldozer open when i'm doing my mask/sat in photoshop and go house to house as I do the mask. You could also try putting an object not used anywhere else on the mask at the corner of each part of the building and looking for it on the emf/png you exported. Same thing if you want to do paths to doorways etc. Then once you're done with the mask just go to replace object and remove them from the map.

Good info thanks. Couple of other things if I may. How on earth do you get the roads nice and perfect. Straight roads are no problem but since everything is done in pixels my roads tend to look jagged going around turns.

Also should I be trying to do the forests?

[jakerod 254]

Good info thanks. Couple of other things if I may. How on earth do you get the roads nice and perfect. Straight roads are no problem but since everything is done in pixels my roads tend to look jagged going around turns.

Also should I be trying to do the forests?

My standard road tactic is I set each type of road to a different color in visitor before I export the EMF. Then I magic wand that road in Photoshop. I use the marquee tools to fix up any parts that look weird due to overlapping roads or key parts. Then for the mask I fill it with whatever color I am using for gravel. Then for the sat I feather that selection and fill it with a grey color. I overlay it with some kind of asphalt type texture too. If the road has a line on it I contract the selection until there is only a narrow part left in the middle and then fill that with white and normally fade it a bit. I do similar things with the other types of roads too. With dirt/gravel roads I tend to delete the center part to make two sets of tire tracks though. Hope that helps.

I do forests by just darkening the grass texture and adding a new overlay. Normally I am satisfied with that but it's one of the things I think I could probably find a better alternative for when I have time.

Edited February 24, 2013 by Jakerod

[m1lkm8n 410]

Thanks again jakerod

I wasn't sure what to do with the forests since my map is in winter mode. (Mostly covered in snow). I guess I can darken the forest snow areas

Edited February 24, 2013 by M1lkm8n