Falkland Islands Map - Ideas, Discussion & Demo Terrains

[mr pedersen 41]

update?

;)

[Schancky 10]

update?

;)

Say please :rolleyes:

[mr pedersen 41]

pleeeeeeeeease!

;)

[Pathy 0]

Update: The suns been shining, so I've mostly been out, making the best of the countryside.

I *have* been playing with the satmap/layer mask, as I think I went abit too rock/snow on the released testmap thing, when I think it's more highland style grassland. So yeah, theres that. I'm also rescaling stuff slightly, as the elevations were abit proportionally extreme. The trouble is, to go perfect perspective, you're going to have very small mountains, which I don't feel does any justice to the place, so it's striking a balance between proportion and feel.

[bushlurker 45]

The trouble is, to go perfect perspective, you're going to have very small mountains, which I don't feel does any justice to the place, so it's striking a balance between proportion and feel.

This is a perennial discussion in the general GIS community too, Pathy... How much to "vertically exaggerate"...

There's no fixed answer sadly, because it IS largely an aesthetics choice... A strict reduction to the "Z" factor in the same proportions as the X & Y DOES look silly... so some kind of exaggeration is definitely required...

On my WIP scotland map it's a heavy reduction in scale... roughly 200x200km down to 20x20km... it's the "highlands" area, so theres several hundred mountains over 1000m - highest roughly 1300m.

To be in proportion that highest peak of the Cairgorms Mountain Range would be 130m!!

So I followed the "generally accepted GIS guys rule" (even though it isn't one really) and doubled that to 260m...

Any higher and it does look grossly exxagerated... any lower and mountains become a series of low hills...

Reduce X and Y to suit, and make Z about 1.5x that and see how it looks for starters... maybe allow a little for later smoothing purposes...

when I think it's more highland style grassland

The whole place looks quite like Scotland West Coast really... lots of rough moorland, most of the (quite Arma1-looking) houses white with grey slate or red tile roofs... all very familiar...

British Towns dot net :)

B

Edited March 5, 2010 by Bushlurker

[KEVBAZ 0]

Looking good mate ;)

[Pathy 0]

I'm having problems with this. I've downsized it to 30km x 30km as a result of these problems, and it's still happening. The map is fine in SP. I can fly around it for hours in SP, at full view distance, and it's great. I go into MP, with a couple of the VCB guys, and we're all having crashes every 3-5 minutes. Flying, driving, walking, doesn't matter, the thing just keeps crashing our games. I've played with all my settings, i've downsized the map, it's still going on. Seems to be an out of memory problem, but again, it never happens in SP.

Sick thing is, theres no noticeable signs, no warning. Everyones games are smooth as silk, then suddenly....freeze or CTD. Nothing to indicate it's coming up. And only in MP. So, what is it about ArmA 2 MP thats giving me this error....does it handle memory differently for an MP game, perhaps?

Edit:

Oh and:

www.volcbat.com/flk2.rar

Thats the 30km version (although it overwrites the previous version directly). Theres a few other changes in it, too, for the better. Appreciate any feedback or suggestions regarding the MP crash thing.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Pathy

[Nutty_101 0]

I'm having problems with this. I've downsized it to 30km x 30km as a result of these problems, and it's still happening. The map is fine in SP. I can fly around it for hours in SP, at full view distance, and it's great. I go into MP, with a couple of the VCB guys, and we're all having crashes every 3-5 minutes. Flying, driving, walking, doesn't matter, the thing just keeps crashing our games. I've played with all my settings, i've downsized the map, it's still going on. Seems to be an out of memory problem, but again, it never happens in SP.

Sick thing is, theres no noticeable signs, no warning. Everyones games are smooth as silk, then suddenly....freeze or CTD. Nothing to indicate it's coming up. And only in MP. So, what is it about ArmA 2 MP thats giving me this error....does it handle memory differently for an MP game, perhaps?

Does the same in the 40k - Single. Funny, it keeps running in the background but the main window goes away. Was pulling data with the clipboard and it seems to survive the crashes.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Nutty_101

[Pathy 0]

I've gone as far as i'm going to go with this stuff, which was more just a concept thing anyway. If anyone wants the source files, contact me and i'll pass them off to you - it should also be pretty easy to rework this material to a smaller map if anyone so wishes.

Cheers.

[SD_BOB 10]

Damn shame you stopping work on this Pathy, had a play with the above version and it could be a superb map.

Just set up an advance to contact with 4 or 5 sections, 0230hrs. I tell you what, it was some of the most intense infantry combat i've seen on ArmA. The dips in the ground are just so natural (which it would be if you've used real world data :p). The trace, the movement of the AI (actually pretty good) it just all came together.

Like i said, damn shame.... I hope someone will pick this project up. I dont suppose you have a bigger version of this above map do you? the 30km although nice is afterall way out of proportion and doesnt feel right. Especially around the Stanley area.

[trickster1982 10]

Hope this project isnt dead & someone can carry on some work with this! :)

[cbfasi 4]

Sorry but I have seen a few posts I am not entirely happy with some assumptions made, and I thought I would let you know some information that has obviouslly been forgotton. This may even help!!

These two posts do it...

I remember the OFP Falklands map as being too compressed. The main thing about the Falklands, which I guess most people don't appreciate, is the scale. And, thanks to it's relative sparse object density, it really could be done in real scale, or at least near to real scale. I can't really imagine a better map more suited for real life scale given it's low object density, I think it would be a good opportunity to make at least one large scale map.

The FLK Mod islands weren't much bigger than 10km x 10km though were they?

Scaling and sizing , obviously you did not look at the 1982: Flashpoint in the Falklands maps !

1982: Flashpoint in the Falklands Map information

South Georgia 12.8k x 12.8km scale 1:1

Pebble Island 12.8km x 12.8 km scale 1:1

San Carlos Bay 25.4km x 25.4km scale 1:1

Goose Green 12.8km x 12.8km scale 1:1

Stanley 25.4km x 25.4km scale 1:1

Atlantic 12.8km x 12.8km scale 1:1

Port Stanley in particular has the road layout matching the actual 1982 plans, the buildings in the mod are some case as close as we could make or are representations of what would of been there. Even has road signs...

Sorry to say but most of Arma1 or Arma2 buildings do not suit at all.

But I still have all the buildings etc from the OFP projects... some is even rther suitable for direct conversion.

What makes this news sad however is that I lost all the source data a couple of years ago for the elevations. I do however have all OS maps for East Falklands Island, (little reason for West Falkland as there was very very very very little combat there, in fact on Pebble Island)

I also have some of the WIP elevation data, but its earlier than the finalized elevation data.

This does mean however there is a wealth of information in hy head too, I spent over 5 years working on the terrains for OFP, I will remember a fair bit.

[Pathy 0]

Pstt, it was a question, not an assumption,thats why it had a question mark at the end. ;) And although it turned out my question wasn't far off the mark with 4 out of 6 maps 'not much bigger than' 10x10km, i'm very sorry I couldnt remember the exact map specifications that you used.

Nobody was actually doubting the commitment the Faklands Mod Team put in, but hey ho.

I tried contacting you at the start of all this but you never responded. Really it's now abit late in the day for any imput on my stuff, as i'm not taking it any further. You are welcome to the source files if you wish to adapt anything there, though.

[cbfasi 4]

Understood, to do East Falklands I think it would take 6 25k maps, but think is what we did with the OFP one was actually only deal with the ones where know significant actions took place, the Stanley map actually had the coverage for most the latter part of the 82 conflict.

As for contact, your right I have not been the easiest to contact, although Rock (RKSL) does have that ability

[cbfasi 4]

Ok guys you have really done it.

I cannot stop thinking of this...

Biggest stumbling block

Source data to at max 50m res (50m x 4096 = 204km !!!)

If I go this way, as in no more elevation detail than the old, I should be able to get most of East Falkland, and some of West Falkland.

OR we go higher detail with maps in sections. Although it would be nice, to be honest the areas where the conflicts too place are not actually that big. The only one from the OFP version that could of really done with being bigger was the stanley one, and that was to cover a ver more mounts to the west that I think had some involvement, the huge area between was more yomp terrain and not battle, as far as the conflict was concerned.

Although many will say you cant do 50m res in ArmA2, well I remember how impressive it all looked in OFP, and even at 50m you defiantely had a impressive terrain, especailly if you knew just how I had created them..

(Scan map, trace each contour, assign a colour to each level, fill each level, smooth map, its was a NIGHTMARE, and took over a year to get it look right at 512's !)

Actual greyscale elevation data will actually reduce the time required significantly.

How to get DEM/Aster/SRTD, pass... I tried over 8 years ago and failed..... hence used the above method..

The good info

I have OS maps of a large part of the Falklands.

Having already done parts of the terrain under OFP I still have much of my referance material.

I still have all my objects and although requiring a little better texture work much is already mapped well.

Bushlurker

The source data from your file, what is the real world scale of that elevation data, asking as I wish to try for 1:1.

This is a possibily......

[bushlurker 45]

Hi CBFASI

Can't believe you actually did the whole contour-tracing thing! What a nightmare.... thats pretty much how we used to make all DEMs in the old days!

We used to pay students by the hour to trace contours into AutoCAD with a puck... maan they usta bitch and squeak after an hour or two... it's one of those ultra-picky, tight-precision, hi-stress jobs...

There's a couple of automated programs around that do it now... tho if you have a better Sat DEM - whats the point...?

Ahhh... those happy days when the whole DEM/GIS thing was Black Magic to most people and they paid you heavily for sub-google map standard rubbish... :)

Anyway...

Me and Pathy both used SRTM 90m data for these demo terrains... it's readily available nowadays... How that would behave 1:1 I'm not sure... the DEM itself is OK - with the usual slightly "jaggy"and abrupt dropoff coastline you have to spend a bit of time smoothing...

ASTER DEM's are 30m... however, they're derived slightly differently from the SRTM's... essentially - SRTM=radar = clouds don't matter... ASTER = optically extrapolated = clouds and large shiny things DO matter = extensive "tidying" often required...

(I wrote a big thread about this HERE which is worth a quick glance I guess, from a techie point of view...

So basically, SRTM has predictably less detail, but is more "immediately usable"... ASTER would need some "tidying" around the DEM to get it into shape - fixing glitches and "hotspots", bits obscured by cloud, etc... better detail, but more work required...

Both are freely available online, though wading thru the EROS or NIMA or whatever gateways to find the appropriate ASTER granules can be picky...

Feel free to PM me if you like and I'll send you both raw DEM datasets...

B

[cbfasi 4]

Just to give an idea...

http://www.cbfasi.co.uk/ArmA-2/SanCarlosVisitor4.bmp

What I have not given here is what heights mean what, but if others wish to experment with this elevation map then enjoy..

(I do have that data on paper somewhere)

This is the actual greyscale elevation map I made for the San Carlos region.

Each pixel is 50m, it still had plenty enough detail, and as anyone who has played the actual OFP map can say, its impressive even at 50m resolution.

The thoughts of actually have longer approaches and maybe even flying from San Carlos to Stanley its amazing, but thats quite a distance, even for a plane!!

Although higher resolution is what many expeect, how about just taking it the other way, bigger area... afterall we survived many years on OFP's 50m and some great maps were made at that 50m resolution...

I will likely be in contact Bushlurker, once I work out what do with DEM data all over again..

[Pathy 0]

Great news, but I think the smaller maps sound better if you're fully intent on doing 1:1 ratio. I'd avoid going for the 50m x 4096 option for a few reasons

• Firstly, the satmap is going to end up very low res, as unlike in OFP, it's one big texture (well, it gets broken up into parts during the map making process but...). At 30km x 30km, and 10240px, I was on 3Px/M. The BIS islands made under the new method are 1px/m (Sara, Chern). 3px/m is about acceptable, but I wouldnt want to go any lower....that means at 204x204km, you're going to be looking at roughly a 68000 x 68000 pixel image to get even 3px/m. Needless to say, a) it's going to take you an age to put together and b) you're going to need to rent a supercomputer off NASA for awhile.
  
• Secondly, even 30km x 30km seems unstable in MP, and for some in SP too. You'd have a great looking map at those sizes, but the chances are it'd be unusable for sure in MP, and maybe even in SP.
  
• Thirdly, editing it is going to be a pain. You can use maskmapper to populate it without too much trouble, but doing anything in the editor/bulldozer, you're going to end up spending most of your time waiting for your PC to catch up, which will make it frustrating and painstaking.
  

Even though a large 1:1 map would be great, I don't think it's practical. I'm all for trying out larger scale maps; hence the 40km and 30km test maps. However, sadly, I don't think it's do-able.

What ArmA will give you, I think, that you couldnt do in OFP, is put together 10-30km square maps of the areas you want, at a 1:1 ratio, at a high terrain resolution. Although of course if your heightmaps are already at 50m resolution I guess theres no need to go higher....look forward to seeing what you come up with, i'm certain Bushlurker will see you straight but if there are any resources you want from my end you're welcome to them.

Edited March 23, 2010 by Pathy

[rksl-rock 1300]

Great news, but I think the smaller maps sound better if you're fully intent on doing 1:1 ratio. I'd avoid going for the 50m x 4096 option for a few reasons

• Firstly, the satmap is going to end up very low res, as unlike in OFP, it's one big texture (well, it gets broken up into parts during the map making process but...). At 30km x 30km, and 10240px, I was on 3Px/M. The BIS islands made under the new method are 1px/m (Sara, Chern). 3px/m is about acceptable, but I wouldnt want to go any lower....that means at 204x204km, you're going to be looking at roughly a 68000 x 68000 pixel image to get even 3px/m. Needless to say, a) it's going to take you an age to put together and b) you're going to need to rent a supercomputer off NASA for awhile.
  
• Secondly, even 30km x 30km seems unstable in MP, and for some in SP too. You'd have a great looking map at those sizes, but the chances are it'd be unusable for sure in MP, and maybe even in SP.
  
• Thirdly, editing it is going to be a pain. You can use maskmapper to populate it without too much trouble, but doing anything in the editor/bulldozer, you're going to end up spending most of your time waiting for your PC to catch up, which will make it frustrating and painstaking.
  

Even though a large 1:1 map would be great, I don't think it's practical. I'm all for trying out larger scale maps; hence the 40km and 30km test maps. However, sadly, I don't think it's do-able.

What ArmA will give you, I think, that you couldnt do in OFP, is put together 10-30km square maps of the areas you want, at a 1:1 ratio, at a high terrain resolution. Although of course if your heightmaps are already at 50m resolution I guess theres no need to go higher....look forward to seeing what you come up with, i'm certain Bushlurker will see you straight but if there are any resources you want from my end you're welcome to them.

I'd agree with point one. But Im not sure i do with the rest.

I know of atleast 3 teams regularly using large scale (ie larger than 25km) maps in MP. DAR-V have been playing with 30 and 40km maps for about 6 months. They are also MP testing the 40.9km IA:Ilha Marrom map i showed you a while ago so I dont think your second point is true. Did you try that map at all?

Finally, I agree that populating it would be a pain. But if you were focus on the key areas and and leave the rest to clutter it wouldnt be too bad.

Edited March 23, 2010 by RKSL-Rock

[Lightninguk 0]

Ilha Marrom map

is this still been made sorry not see much info on it but keep up the good work

[rksl-rock 1300]

is this still been made sorry not see much info on it but keep up the good work

You'll hear all about it in a few weeks. Its something for another topic.

[das attorney 857]

Hmm, PR PVP island perhaps... ;)

[rksl-rock 1300]

Hmm, PR PVP island perhaps...

No its nothing to do with PR Mod or ACE or Santa Claus. All will be revealed in a few weeks.

Now can we stay on topic please?

[Pathy 0]

I'd agree with point one. But Im not sure i do with the rest.

Awesome, I can now sleep at night.

[das attorney 857]

Sorry mate, just idly speculating, although I realise I shouldn't do that in this thread. It would be really good to see a working Falklands map; I'm currently writing a mini campaign for British forces based in Chernaus. It's pretty low key but so far it's shaping up okay. I'd like to see (in the future at some point) a Falklands map to base missions on. It's the kind of thing that could get a few people inspired to make some missions.

All the best for your upcoming project, really liked the Puma and Lynx.