Nicholas Bell

Gentlemen, thank you for your responses regarding the power/telephone poles. I will not be putting any in, and there are no large power pylons on the map. I noticed my map showed up in Mateck's M1A1 teaser video - that's quite a compliment. Actually, I really need folks to make more movies with the Schmalfelden map so I can enjoy it more I do than when I attempt to play I want to thank W0lle and Mr Burns for posting their missions. Oh man, do I stink at playing! This is what happens when you make maps I guess. Regarding fence lines. The only fences I ever saw were for pasture land to keep the livestock contained, and there's not much in the Schmalfelden area. That's one thing I really loved about Germany when I was there - the ability to walk around on farm tracks without fences. Totally unlike here in the US where everything is fenced. I guess the German farmers trust folks not to damage their crops. Once I complete reducing the tree quantity to a more manageable level I will add some brush lines between some of the fields where it is evident on the aerial photos. This is never going to be easy terrain for infantry to cross in the open, though. One reason of course for the plans for heavy use of artillery & rocket delivered smoke by the Warsaw Pact. This there an artillery mod with working smoke shells? (another example of how far out of touch I am with playing ArmA I guess one could simulate a prepared assault smoke barrage by really lowering the fog range -which is what the Soviets intended to create to enable their forces to close with the NATO units without suffering from long range ATGM fire. Posted another update on page one. More incremental improvements/fixes.

Glad you are enjoying the map, RavenDK. I enjoy driving around myself (most of the time looking for misplaced objects). Funny, even though I know the 2D map like the back of my hand, I often get mis orientated while driving around (ie lost) Got to figure out how to modify the location signs. Icebreakr - you want clearings 15-30 meters in rough diameter? I can do that. In fact, there are a few there already. I guess the cleared areas with stumps and logs do not work? What about bushes - do they interfere with helicopter landings? A question for our German friends. I recall that most (but not all) telephone and power lines were buried in the ground where I lived near Wuerzburg. Would this be true in this very rural area? I don't want to add telephone/power poles if they should not be there. Regarding street lights, I recall that only the intersections of roads would be illuminated in small towns. Is my memory correct? Thanks for your help!

I'm not sure of the technical feasibility of expanding the map, even if I was so inclined. It's not possible to simply increase the map size like one can increase the "canvas size" in a graphics editor. One could create a new map and import the height map, mask and satellite images, but importing all the objects and getting their position exactly would be the problem. Visitor allows for copying objects into the same position from island to island, but if the size of the island is different, the reference would be wrong. Probably more info than you want A map with a real river would make for some interesting scenarios. I would rather create a real one from scratch - the topography around rivers is totally different than the undulating ridges in the Schmalfelden map. I've got a lot of ideas for new maps, but hardly enough time. I'm three months plus and running on Schmalfelden, during which time I've not really "played" ArmA or anything else (am also a flight sim and wargame nut). So a break may be in order, during which time I will think about what is next. Guess that discussion belongs elsewhere

Yes, but much of the work is in the way of fixing bad intersections and other minor problems which may not be noticed. Most of my time is spent redoing the forests, which involves deleting portions and then placing the trees manually. If I had a bit more knowledge and sense I would not have so heavily saturated the forests with objects using the random object placement script. This is more than doubling the work - I sure hope it's worth it to others and helps everyone get decent frame rates.I've also been adding traffic road signs (not town names...yet) and other objects. The "town square" in Schmaldfelden has benches and such. Unless someone tells me otherwise, I'll continue to release the updated map weekly. It is a beta - very much a work in progress for me, although playable. Oh yes, I will do that after I first thin out all the forests and get this up to version 1.0. Now that I can see how much improvement thinning the trees has done for my frame rates, I want to put in the bushes, even if there is a FPS hit. Want to keep in manageable though, and not go overboard this time. There will then be 2 versions - one with undergrowth and one without. (and probably 2 versions with autumn trees) Stewy, it's BW. Google Maps or Google Earth "Schmalfelden Schrozberg, Schwäbisch Hall, BW, Germany".

Panther77- I'm ahead of you on that - I increased the tree sizes when I began redoing the forests. Visitor allows for randomizing object size, but because it requires input of the size less than 100 percent and another more than 100 percent, it's not possible to create trees that are, for example, 130 to 150%. Instead, the highest minimum size value can be 100%. To wit, I have the trees being created randomly between 100-150 percent of the model size. I've eliminated several tens of thousands of trees and am continuing to see improved frame rates. My static test where I am in a field looking at woods from about 1 km distance has now increased from the original 30-31 to 50-55. Close in the woods the FPS is in the 30-40 range. Hopefully others who are suffering low frame rates will see some improvement too. I'm also continuing to fix problems, add objects of interest, and tweak the satellite image. I plan to post another interim update this weekend.

Yeah, I forgot that my sample only has one clutter. BTW, all I did was rename rvmats and textures too So to add more than one clutter type: Change this with one type: <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">class CfgSurfaceCharacters { class lawnClutter { probability[] = {0.98}; names[] = {"lawnClutter"}; }; To this with 3 types, adding the probability for each and the additional Class CfgSurfaces. <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">class CfgSurfaceCharacters { class lawnClutter { probability[] = {0.98,0.75,0.80}; names[] = {"lawnClutter","SpiritClutterA","SpiritClutterB"}; Of course you need to define your specific clutter types. Hope this helps.

Yes, Planck is a good man. A fount of knowledge for those of us who missed out on modding OFP. I keep forgetting to read all those old references.

What and where is the Geometry LOD, Linker Split? Right over my head, you know.

Former Captain, RA, US Army 1981-88 (yes, I think I'm older than most ArmA players)

Beautiful countryside. Bet the frame rates would be horrible too! Yes, you are right, they are not correctly set. The double reflectors should be on the left side. However, the black chevron correctly points down to the road. So half right, half wrong. Most importantly, the Visitor Avenue Script which sets these in place puts them the way they are shown. Impossible for me to fix this - I'm too stupid to understand scripting code. But I bet some intelligent fellow could work out a Visitor script which could rotate all specified objects 180 degrees, which will set the reflectors on the correct side. The process I outlined above and am currently working is reducing the tree count in any one forest to 50-60% of the original version. The woods in the center of the map in v0.81 are examples of this process. Much fewer trees and they will just be bumpy golf coarses Nice photos. That is what I would really like to do, but this will offset any FPS gain from eliminating trees. I plan on experimenting to see which bushes create the greatest concealment with the lowest loss of FPS before going crazy with this. The long sideways zig-zag shaped treeline in the center of the map is an example of bushes and trees which was what I originally intended to do. I have not done any missions involving that treeline with the bushes to see the impact on FPS. Anyone notice any noticeable lag in that area?

Check out this thread where I give an example of how I added a new texture with a specific clutter: http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....9;st=30 There is a script which randomly places objects selected in an area you define: http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....+script Please experiment with this before you go too far. It works well - too well in fact. You need to use very low values (like less than 10) or you will end up with far too many trees for ArmA to handle. Note that if you select more than one tree type you should divide the density value by the number of types you select. That is, the script places equal density for each object type you select. Select 4 tree types and a value of 35 like I did and you will have a wonderful looking dense forest that is unplayable on most computers. This I learned on my Schmalfelden map. I am now having to redo all those nice forests. Guess how - by placing each tree! That's the only way to ensure the density does not get too high. Actually, I create a small area of trees and then copy and paste it, then fill in the gaps. You do NOT want to copy and paste flowers and grass as objects on the map. This will kill your frame rate. The program renders objects which are defined as clutter differently than if those objects are specifically placed on the map.

Thanks for the missions - hope to try them this week. And I am working on correcting those mistakes revealed. I appreciate the pointers, while wondering how I missed them. I know the broken road was fine in Buldozer, so I'm wondering what the heck happened. No excuses. Not sure if I can get every hanger & barn to be able to be entered by vehicles. The buildings are limited to the amount of slope they can handle. I can sink the buildings and give them "mesto" texture floors (ie gravel). Flattening the terrain is what I should have done initially before placing the buildings, but I was learning as I went along. Flattened the terrain now can introduce problems to buildings and roads in the vicinity which are worse than the original problem. The map elevations are based on a 10 meter grid which makes it difficult to fine tune. I will do what I can. The problems with the ponds are also a result of the 10 meter grid. I could "fix" the problem by making them larger, but then they wouldn't be the correct size. To me, they are there for looks, not swimming . When I release the map source files you can alter them to suite your needs. Regarding German signs, mailboxes, etc - I am not a modeler. I can repaint existing signs (or at least I think I can - but I'm starting to doubt that...) but unless someone with modeling experience can send me the files which will work in Visitor, there will not be anything "new" or specifically German on this map. I apologize for my limited skills and lack of time to learn 3D modeling. From what I have picked up modeling objects is quite an undertaking itself -and there's little room for artistic license. As for including or not including certain things/having multiple versions - I am not against doing this to a limited degree. Limited. Fortunately one of the few things Visitor makes easy is deleted objects from the map, or exchanging them for others. So if there is something specific you want in a version - please provide the model. For example deleting the road signs is a simple matter. Exchanging the summer trees for autumn trees is likewise easy. Beyond these minor changes I will let others do the work. As I said earlier I will release the source files so others can muck around in Visitor to their heart's content - while I work on a different new map perhaps. So the plan remains: 1. Concurrently work on fixing problems, adding stock Arma objects, and cutting down the number of trees to help increase frame rates. (hey, a pun ) 2. Attempt to repaint existing ArmA signs and integrate. 3. When the map is "done", then provide a limited number of easy to do alternate versions. Somewhere in there I hope to find some time to create and play a few missions myself.

I apologize, I didn't understand the question. "Normal" parameters set when initializing the map in the Satellite Grid Calculation In Visitor is 1 meter per pixel. A 10 x 10 mile map would be about 16,384 x 16,384 pixels for the satellite & mask images. As a point of reference, Sahrani is 20,480 x 20,480 pixels.

Thanks for the info on the road posts! We must have the Czech version in ArmA because they are not quite the same. I've posted version 0.81 on the first page. Please let me know if the color is better (less intense). With my color deficiency I can't tell if it looks okay. Actually, in order for me to see the color I need more saturation, but I can handle that for myself. Also, please check your frame rates in the woods. I did a lot of "weeding out" of trees in the 2 woods in the middle of the map and have done a good portion of those in the NW corner. I ran a platoon vs platoon engagement in larger center woods and the frame rate varied between 25-50. Smoke takes 4 or 5 FPS. I'm still using 1.08 too. My static FPS test scenario set north of Speckheim (looking at the large woods in the NW corner) went up from 30 to 35. (I don't particularly care how they look now - too much light getting through, but I have keep remembering "form follows function".) Anyway, please let me know if these changes are helping you and I will continue working on the rest of the forests on the map. Thanks for all the comments. Please continue to point out my mistakes - it will take me a long time to find all of them on my own. Also, anyone willing to share their mission(s) with me? I don't have much time for "fun" since I am working on the map, but would appreciate seeing the map from your perspective, so to speak. Thanks.

A question for the local experts Are the reflector road markers at 50 or 100 meter spacing? Thanks.

Visitor can handle it - that's smaller than the BIS maps. Can your system and graphics editor handle working on the satellite image required for that size map with multiple layers? A flattened image for that size map will be around 200 mb, and if your like me you'll want to work with more than a few layers to keep things straight and make editing easy. You also have to ask your self about in game performance issues with a map with that many cities (and therefore objects). I'm not sure how to put this without sounding negative (which I of course do not intend), but perhaps you should consider something a bit smaller for starters, since it's your first. This map making is a real pain in the you-know-what, and perhaps you've noted the number of announcements of new islands under construction in the last 6 months doesn't equal the number released. They take a looonng time to do. I just released a beta of a 5 km x 5 km map which I started in January. I stopped keeping track of the hours when I passed 250, and I've got a ways to go before it's done. (must admit there is something quite addictive about this despite the difficulty...) In any case there's a load of information in this forum if you search (and remember to set the search to the "beginning" of the forum, time-wise) and plenty of folks with lots of experience willing to help. Welcome! (muhahaha!!!!...)

Cibit - Good workaround. Pretty massive engagement!

Franze - That is probably the quarry. Fasad - thank you for the specifics. MrCash2009 - Good point about the tree types. I did a quick FPS test here at, *cough* work, on a trail with deciduous trees on one side and tall pines on the other and the frame rate more than doubled when looking at the pines. I also did look at Gardinasis - those woods are similar in density to those on the ACE Everon island. If my current tree thinning doesn't work that is the solution of last resort. I agree that if it isn't playable there's not much point in the map. Thanks for all the comments. Even if I don't respond directly I am reading all and taking notes.

Remember to use the fog setting in your scenarios to help the frame rate. (note the paved farm field trail and also the gravel cross track)

Examples of how dense real German forests are: Note the different heights of growth, and the dense plantings - these trees are really crops:

Fasad, Thanks for reporting these problems. I will adjust the quarry - others have mentioned that. Where is the other "snow" area - can you give me a direction from a town? There are some very light grain fields which I have not touched. The areas you say are impassible to AI - the areas with the small pines only - or the areas which have been logged (cut trees and stumps)? I am continuing to eliminate trees to the point where I am not particularly happy with how they look - that is they look like the open forests on the BIS island. I eliminated another 10,000 trees and gained 1 FPS in my distant test. In the "forest" where I have been thinning trees the frame rate doubles or triples, but it doesn't look like a forest anymore. If I could add some bushes I would be happier but that would defeat the point of eliminating the trees. (note to self: next island project to semi-arid treeless, uninhabited wasteland) There are 2 types of field terrain masks, one representing the green fields and one the tan wheat fields. Attempting to reproduce:

Well, unless I can download them and drop them into Visitor it's a great idea with no way for me to impliment. I have no knowledge of modeling. Yes, they have great frame rates but don't really look too much like real forests, IMO. This is a last resort, but if there's no other way... I'm a little confused. The patch is supposed to fix/replace the existing grass P3D. My map rvmats refer to existing grass P3D so in theory the grass in this map should be "patched" when using 1.09 - no? I located the "fixes" in the hotfix pbo, but the rvmats are binarized so I can't see what is going on. Any ideas? Yes they do look good, but as I noted above I have no idea how import OFP models. Yes, that is on the "to do" list. Unfortunately another hit on the FPS though...

I’m glad many of you are enjoying the map. Thank you for your kind words. And thanks for posting those beautiful images. All the objects (plants and buildings) on the map are “vanilla†ArmA. The only "new" things are three textures made from modified existing textures. These are the "lawn" texture with very short grass and no flowers, a modified travajih with no rocks or flowers and higher dry grass to represent wheat fields, and a modified trava with no rocks or flowers, and only one type of clutter grass. Regarding the problem with low frame rates, as I explained in the readme, the best coarse of action is to reduce the visibility range and avoid looking toward the forests on the west and northwest sides of the map. A few observations: I ran some tests placing myself north of Speckheim facing the north. The entire horizon was forest. The base frame rate was 30 FPS. (with a visibility range of 4 km) I then deleted everything on the map south of Schmalfelden, cutting the total number of on-map objects by over half (still over 100,000 objects). The FPS in the test scenario remained 30. I then deleted “just†20,000 trees in the forests in the north – a clear cut of everything, but far behind the treeline so that I could not see the area of the removed trees. The FPS in this case jumped 50% to 45 FPS. Decreasing the number of objects in the FOV/visible range improved the FPS. The frame rate is impacted because the graphics engine is rendering all objects in the players field of view out to the visibility range, whether the objects are actually in sight or not. This is confirmed by the fact that looking directly at your feet or up in the sky will make the FPS jump way up. Likewise, zooming in (decreasing the FOV) increases the frame rate because fewer objects have to be rendered. Getting closer to a forest however decreases FPS because although the number of objects needing to be rendered is less, they are rendering in greater detail. Lowering the graphic settings will help close up, but have little or no effect when objects are far away. For whatever reason, bushes really hit the FPS hard when they are rendered close up. I have also tested converting entire forests to 1 tree type and it does little or nothing. It may help more with video cards with less memory (I am using a GeForce 8800 Ultra with 768 MB). Units (men & vehicles) impact FPS no matter where they are located on the map as the AI and their actions eat CPU cycles. Obviously the more units the greater demand on the CPU. Bottom line is that this map is never going to have terrific frame rates. There are simply too many objects required to make it look reasonably realistic. I guess I could convert it to desert terrain and the FPS would improve. I am however continuing to thin out the forests with the knowledge that it will help the frame rate problem. I just don’t know how much. If necessary I may produce a separate “low res†version with drastic reduction in the number of trees. Thanks for those who are submitting reports with errors they are finding. While I could upload a new version every day, I think I will wait a few days before posting the next update. I will offer a desaturated version of the satellite image for your opinion. Because I am partially color blind, I have to rely on your input on this.

I would appreciate an example of what you think would be good. You're not the first to mention this. The saturation looks fine on my monitor - but that's me. Oh man, you know it might look good to me because I have Anomalous trichromactic color deficiency. I never thought of that. I am continuing to work on that - another 2000 removed today so far. Half the trees out in order be to realistic? Have you been thinning out the forests since I was "playing Army" in them in the 80's

A map based on the actual area around Schmalfelden, Germany located just west of Rothenburg o.d. Tauber and south of Wuerzburg where I was stationed with the US Army 1985-88. 1:50,000 scale map used for topo: Apart from my desire to fight on "real" terrain, I selected this area out of my map collection because it is great "tank country". Low rolling ridges with open farmland broken by forests. This area has very small farming communities scattered every few km's. Their small size should hopefully "help" the AI. Sorry, no airfield. Too small to do much flying anyway, although I enough buzzing around in a helicopter. The map is not an "island" so there will be the issue with distortion of the satellite image past the edge of the map. The map size is 5 km x 5 km. I am using this imagery of the area as a base for geographic features. No guess work about where even singe trees and bushes are located (this is a low res version of what I am using): Although it may appear to be "flat" when flying over it, the area is hardly so, and offers good hull-down positions for AFVs. The contours on this image are at 1 meter. The "mess" in center left is a quarry. The road net is dense - typical of Germany. Orange lines are paved roads. I have "downgraded" most of the farm lanes to gravel or dirt. Actually most have light duty asphalt paving in Germany, but I thought it a bit "much", especially since the buildings provided in ArmA make everything have a Second World look about them - hardly prosperous enough to be paving farm lanes.