I'm leaning against adding the tree types again. A half hour of searching could not find me a bamboo icon and very few of my reference maps used it.
[quote=""'[R-DEV"]Rhino;549806']remove the CP radius, not accurate size wase for a start, and as all 16, 32 and 64 (+ other game modes) use the same minimap and have diffrrent flag setups and settings they just wont work.
distance line at the bottom make black, white blends in too easily...
only real main comments i have.[/quote]
I really like the CP radius
The idea is that it will make it far easier to tell where bunkers, RPs and firebases can be placed. I have not yet tested them in game, this is more of a proof of concept. Purple is standard for late additions to a map so it could be allowed. As for different gamemodes, I realize this could be a problem. You can ignore them quite easily though. I think the flags are in the same position for 32 and 64. Does anyone even play 16? I might remove these unless other people say they like it as much as I do.
As for accurate size, they should be very close assuming each pixel is a meter. I'll fix the scale color.
[quote="Hanniz""]Just some thoughts:
1. Is this supposed to be "just a map" or a map who also gives situational awareness? In IRL Im used to navigate by a standard NATO 1:50000 map in most situations and sometimes in well prepared operations we throw in sat.photos and other stuff that can be usefull. To achieve situational awareness I have to use my eyes and ears. And of course remembering the essence of the intel brief.[/quote]
Just a map with some additions drawn on by the cartographers to give some situational awareness. I want to make this as accurate as possible. Could you link or scan a NATO 1:25000 or 1:50000 map for reference purposes?
2. A map normally doesn't involve craters and man-made improvised fortifications. Thats unless they have been there for a very long time. In my opinion the map should show terrain and man made structures that have been there for a long period of time, like the railway, temple and so on.
This is why I do not want to add the craters. I was iffy about the trenches too, but ended up adding them because they are very important features in on area of the map. Let's assume the cartographers made this map a week or so before the conflict of OGT.
3. As a general rule the map you carry on you should always be unmarked.
thats it. May seem harsh to "only" have a map, but then again I'm a reality puritan.
Really? I have a hard time thinking that is true. If I had to take a map into battle I think I would mark objectives on it, add some important landmarks and intel on enemy positions.
I'm trying for a realistic angle here, one that looks semi-authentic and yet is useful in the game.
Reference table scans would be great.
could still use some more survey symbols (things like waterfalls etc.)
Jaymz
