m16a2m203 0 Posted January 9, 2003 Yep. I tried messing with the land grid at one point a long time ago hoping that that would be the answer to increasing the entire land mass by increasing the grid size. I also tried the opposite as you mentioned at one point to increase resolution but I couldn't figure out how to provide for the additional data for the higher res without a program such as wrpedit. My educational and work background is in land surveying not programming so hex editing or creating usable programs for the community is beyond me at this point. and I forgot to say - Thanks! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aLoneWolf 0 Posted January 9, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (mads bahrt @ Jan. 09 2003,21:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1. Did you make the map by hand, or did you convert it from a DEM (digital elevation model). It you made it by using a DEM - where in the world is this terrain located? 2. How difficult would it be to make the ground texture a runway 2-3 places on the map? Would this slow down the map significantly? 3. Are you working on a 51.2 * 51.2 km map? If you do - when do you expect to release it?<span id='postcolor'> Ad 1) I'm very lazy man, so it's from DEM Only MicroDEM was used for necessary manipulation... Real location is San Francisco, CA, USA - but the coordinates are not swapped & other modifications are inside, because "WRPdouble" was only experimental stuff... Anyway, have conversion tool, which swaps correctly coordinates, so orientation can be realistic too ... Ad 2) Have no automatic placement tool for this... Many 3D-objects slow down mainly any scene - therefore some runway is OK... Ad 3) Preliminary WRPquad (51.2*51.2km) is already done - some testing now, because this WRP eats almost all resources of my PC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chaztheducky 0 Posted January 9, 2003 hey lonewolf didnt you use to model for cs or play it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HellToupee 0 Posted January 9, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (deadsoldier @ Jan. 09 2003,23:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Thats because Ia Trang is a finished island, and its looks complete enough for ppl to invest time in making missions for it. All the other islands aer not complete, small, featurless, and have nothing different to offer. And the mountians and hills in most of them are blocks and giant pokes I think if we have bigger island sizes, this will make us build 2 big islands into one map, and here is where Battle Field 1985 mp mission can last for up to 6 hours of continous play cheers<span id='postcolor'> ive played that battle field map, on a full server to all slots filled it was still far to big for teh number of ppl it went for an hour and was very slow with about 1 person per area, i got about 3 kills was killed 5 times in a row by the same guy at a spawn etc. Thing is theres no point to have bigger maps really at the moment a single mp game wont even use half of nogova and when it dose it spreads players so thinly it gets boring, be ok for mmorgs where its an ongoing thing with lotas ppl and JIP but ofp dont need more size. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mads bahrt 0 Posted January 9, 2003 In my opinion this is great - there's really possibilities for making Bravo Two Zero and Scud Hunting missions in this terrain. There is also space enough to make the Herkules and the fighters more useful. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralphwiggum 6 Posted January 9, 2003 great job! time to drive around SF!(thought it was MAlden stretched ) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aLoneWolf 0 Posted January 9, 2003 OK, thanks to all for replies And the biggest thanks to "Snake Man", who have helped me to test that big "beast", because my PC is underpowered for my own creation... Maybe, he is going to post his experiences soon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peanuckle_00 0 Posted January 9, 2003 This is a great development in the community. Now fighter missions will be great because you'll actually run low on fuel and won't run out of map so soon. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ShadowY 0 Posted January 9, 2003 Hi Great work With some proper desert textures, some small cities and a big one, rocks, even an oasis or 2 and so on then you`ll have a very nice middle east conflict map, todays or a WWII one. It`s great for low level flighing and as a trainings map also Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stag 0 Posted January 9, 2003 Damn, this is GOOD! For future development, if the landmass was made just a wee bit smaller, it would give plenty of maneouvering room for coastal attack craft... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #### Posted January 9, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (aLoneWolf @ Jan. 09 2003,23:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And the biggest thanks to "Snake Man", who have helped me to test that big "beast", because my PC is underpowered for my own creation..<span id='postcolor'> Well when I tried it everything went smooth. I have a p4 1.5, 768 MB sd ram (just got 512 yesterday), a gf2 mx400 w/64mb vid ram. My settings are 2100 m for the clipping with a deatil level of 7.5 or so everything but object shadows on. If I hadn't ungraded my ram yesterday it would have definately run sluggish. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hellfish6 7 Posted January 10, 2003 I have a K7 900mhz, 384mb SDRAM and a 64mb Radeon 7500 and it was fine to fly over and around in an F/A-18 with. I was a bit shocked to see that before I knew it, I was 25km away from my waypoint... The map in the editor screen of OFP looked really, really small. At first when I was browsing it, I thought that I downloaded the wrong file. The paper map scale is really wierd. But to actually be flying or walking around.. you definately get a sense of the huge size. I'm curious to see how long it would take to walk from one end to the other. Outstanding work, A-lone-wolf and crew. Can't wait to see what else you can do. And, BTW - is BIS still planning to release Visitor? I haven't heard a peep about it for almost a year now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted January 10, 2003 Well done AloneWolf. Thought you might come up with something oneday, ever since your original post about matrix sizes. Glad to see you kept up with the work. IMO there are two main reasons to have larger maps: 1. Air battles. As has already been pointed out, it doesn't take long to fly from one side of an island to the other. 12.8km at 350km/h.......you do the maths. 2. Battlefields. Wars are usually fought on more than one front at a time. With larger islands it could be possible to have multiple fronts being fought at the same time, and wise commanders having to co-ordinate the attacks. Can you imagine turning up to a big LAN with 25+ people per side, each with it's General trying to out-manouver, and out-plan the other? Each side pushing and retreating, trying to gain territory whilst making sure they have all necessary equipment available? Oh the possibilities! CounterStrike looks like a Commadore64 game in comparison! OFP rocks!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kueppcera 0 Posted January 10, 2003 Wooooow!!!!! Great work!! That's what i was waiting for.... this will make air operations much more realistic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aLoneWolf 0 Posted January 10, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hellfish6 @ Jan. 10 2003,03:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The map in the editor screen of OFP looked really, really small. The paper map scale is really wierd.<span id='postcolor'> Agree, but... To prevent some problems, the same limits for visual & voice navigation - as for the standard 12.8*12.8km WRP - were used, only the steps are double... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Snake Man 407 Posted January 10, 2003 Okay here is my experiences in the ALoneWolf larger islands. My testing computer is AMD Tbird 1200mhz @ 1333mhz, 512m ram, gforce 2 gts 32mb, sb live! value, XP with DX8.1 and latest sb drivers. The WRPdouble 25.6km x 25.6km island seems to work without any problems. The mission editor works OK, the ingame 3d world works OK and mission map (M key) works OK. I created big test mission with about 90 East tanks vs 2 West Apache gunships... all went smoothly, it was real pleasure to hunt those tanks in that big desert. The WRPquad 51.2km x 51.2km island is a problematic. The basic .WRP file is 2mb of size and that without any objects except few trees, basic desert texture only. When you load up OFP v1.90 with the wrp it takes about 5 seconds longer than on normal islands. First 51.2km problem comes in mission editor, the contour map is taking so much system resources that when you use the mouse to move the map it lags heavily. You cannot even double click to insert units/vehicles successfully. This is not very good sign if you cannot even make missions. The contour map itself displays much larger than original maps, our master ALoneWolf has added those digits to show the coordinate ranges which is nice. Ok so luckily there was mission included in the WRPquad where alone AH-1 Cobra was flying at top right corner of the map. When you finally manage to get your mouse pointer into the Preview and click it, the 3d ingame world works just nicely! There was no lag that I could detect except some tiny "jerkyness" when you move. I'm not sure if I was only imagening this but it looked like that the weapon/unit/helo would shake just a bit (almost cannot even see it). OK so I'm flying now... no lag, no problems. Cobra flys just nicely in the terrain, shoots missiles, rockets and cannon without any problems. No lag, did I mention that. However when I press M key to bring up the contour map up, the lag is unleashed and my system goes to its knees. Mouse pointer lags heavily, but its possible to assign orders for your team. The M key press brings up the map view in about 1-2 seconds, bit longer time than the normal wrps. Conclusion by me: 51.2km x 51.2km island is possible by the game engine but the contour map (M key + Mission editor) kills the fun with the lag. 3D world itself runs just OK. 25.6km x 25.6km island is awesome, no lag, nothing wrong to be noticed. Very very large island. Very nice Air to Ground engagements possible, deep search and rescue missions, Oh my! ALoneWolf is the God of OFP to me, right after BIS guys </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And the biggest thanks to "Snake Man", who have helped me to test that big "beast", because my PC is underpowered for my own creation...<span id='postcolor'> No, Thank You! You have done what I've been waiting for a long time, larger OFP islands, this is very much appreciated and I salute you for your hard work on OFP! Snake Man, PMC. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stag 0 Posted January 10, 2003 What would happen if you went to the next size up? Not to make the islands that big, but to get "sea room" for full naval engagements/amphibious operations? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Commander-598 0 Posted January 10, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">weapon/unit/helo would shake just a bit (almost cannot even see it). <span id='postcolor'> This could be turn problematic. Once, I used setpos commands to place myself quite a few digits into the air, the higher up, ther shakier it got. It got so shaky that the sun wasn't looking right and neither was me in the pilot seat of an A10. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">First 51.2km problem comes in mission editor, the contour map is taking so much system resources that when you use the mouse to move the map it lags heavily. You cannot even double click to insert units/vehicles successfully. This is not very good sign if you cannot even make missions. The contour map itself displays much larger than original maps, our master ALoneWolf has added those digits to show the coordinate ranges which is nice. <span id='postcolor'> What kind of RAM do you have and how much harddrive space? How do you think it would perform on my(I'm not bragging either): Intel Pentium 4 2.40 Ghz 512mbs of PC1066 RDRAM ATI Radeon 9700 TX Soundblaster Audigy 2 Windows XP DX 9 120GB 7200RPM HD BTW, it took me near 5 minutes to get halfway across the island with I belive an A10. With a UH60, I thoought I had run into the end of the land and landed. I then checked the map and saw I was still a good distance from the side I was heading to. Good work. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #### Posted January 10, 2003 Well seems like we are doing some beta testing for BIS. Now they will have an idea what lower end and higher end systems do with bigger map areas. Maybe they can use this info while making OFP2 and for applying to VBS1. This topic should be a sticky. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Snake Man 407 Posted January 10, 2003 Forgot to mention that my viewdistance was 1500meters and terrain detail was Normal. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What kind of RAM do you have and how much harddrive space?<span id='postcolor'> 512mb ram and hard drive... well 60gb but something like 8gb free on the OFP drive and I believe 5gb free on XP drive (swap). </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How do you think it would perform on my(I'm not bragging either):<span id='postcolor'> Quite nice setup there. Well we have the same amount of ram, but your CPU is real fast. I think it would be much faster, but how much... difficult to say. Snake Man, PMC. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eviscerator 0 Posted January 10, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is a very neat map. I would be more interested in seeing an experiment in doubling the resolution of a regular map. I remember at one point there were screenshots of this, and an explanation of how this could be done. Anyone remember where this was? <span id='postcolor'> any answer for this? is it possible to double the size of an existing island without too much fuss? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mads bahrt 0 Posted January 10, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Eviscerator @ Jan. 10 2003,22:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is a very neat map. I would be more interested in seeing an experiment in doubling the resolution of a regular map. I remember at one point there were screenshots of this, and an explanation of how this could be done. Anyone remember where this was? <span id='postcolor'> any answer for this? is it possible to double the size of an existing island without too much fuss?<span id='postcolor'> What Ebud is talking about (as I understand it) is doubling the resolution. That means making twice as many "readings per lenght unit". If you do that to a existing map it would make the sides of the map half the size and therefore the area of the map a quarter size of the original. But i think you could take an original map and reduce the resolution to half the original - then you would get a map four times as big. Actually i don't think it would require any more from the computer compared to the original map, since there aren't more data. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aLoneWolf 0 Posted January 10, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (mads bahrt @ Jan. 10 2003,23:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Actually i don't think it would require any more from the computer compared to the original map, since there aren't more data.<span id='postcolor'> Hmm, maybe: better resolution = bigger sensitivity = more interactions Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mads bahrt 0 Posted January 10, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (aLoneWolf @ Jan. 10 2003,23:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">0--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (mads bahrt @ Jan. 10 2003,230)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Actually i don't think it would require any more from the computer compared to the original map, since there aren't more data.<span id='postcolor'> Hmm, maybe: better resolution = bigger sensitivity = more interactions <span id='postcolor'> What i meant was: If you make the grid size 100 m there is'nt more points on a 25,6 km * 25,6 km map than on a 12,8 km * 12,8 km map with a grid size of 50 m. I think that would mean that you could run a 25,6 km * 25,6 km map on the same requirements as a normal map, but with a penalty of lost terrain detail. Someone asked for a large map fo naval engagement - couldn't this be made as a 56,2 km * 56,2 km with a grid size of 100 m? - without being worse to run than the current WRPdouble map? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Commander-598 0 Posted January 10, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Forgot to mention that my viewdistance was 1500meters and terrain detail was Normal. <span id='postcolor'> About the same. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">512mb ram and hard drive... well 60gb but something like 8gb free on the OFP drive and I believe 5gb free on XP drive (swap).<span id='postcolor'> That could be part of the problem. I always had trouble running any maps like Nogova on my old 12.7 GB HD of my old PC(Usually only had 1 GB free). Infact, I stayed well away from it. Hell, I couldn't even play either campaign. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
