Page 7 of 7

Re: Air Vs Air maps

Posted: 2009-04-13 07:10
by chuckduck
omg, i wonder how DC pulled it off. I guess they got a pretty good modeler, and thats bf1942 were talking about, the quaility would be lower. Oh, well i guess we have to make do with the small and now, slightly boring Wasp class of asault carriers, as a placeholder.

Re: Air Vs Air maps

Posted: 2009-04-13 07:19
by Rhino
chuckduck wrote:omg, i wonder how DC pulled it off. I guess they got a pretty good modeler, and thats bf1942 were talking about, the quaility would be lower. Oh, well i guess we have to make do with the small and now, slightly boring Wasp class of asault carriers, as a placeholder.
DC had probably quite a few guys working on it for quite some time, and ye, BF1942 was much easier to make stuff for, detail wise this is like 1/3 of what it would need to be for BF2 most likely.

Re: Air Vs Air maps

Posted: 2009-04-13 08:53
by chuckduck
Yeah we could try a make a really large map (mostly sea) and have a few islands on it, but set the terrain detail to the maximum and try and cover the islands with a large amount of over and under growth to cover up the hideous terrain.

Or is there a way to have only a terrain texture map for only the center part of the 8km x 8km map.
So on maps like wake island 8km you dont need to worry about stretched textures. Because the sea will cover up the textures that are missing, around the island.

I also sent a e-mail to Joe Halper, the guy who made/helped to make the nimitz carrier.

Quoting Ed:


"Remember back in the day when you made, the Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier for Desert Combat, BTW it was an awsome mod, i played it more than regular Bf1942.
Well this is an unofficial request/question.Is it possible that we can use your carrier for this reality mod for BF2? (Project Reality Mod)
I am not part of the mods dev team, but i play the mod and enjoy it, but most players like me think that if we were going to have large maps 8km x 8km to have jet battles.If the maps are made this size it
would make the terrain look horrible, so nearly all of he map needs to be covered in water. Thats why we need a suitible large carrier, to make it realistic.
I also realise that it might have been aquired by DICE.
This is just a question."


Here is the message:

Hi Ed,

That is now owned by EA / DICE so I am not the one to give the
official "ok" on using that model. I am not aware though of DICE / EA
doing any crackdowns on mods out there so I think you should be safe.
If you do use it I wouldn't mind a credit. :)

Let me know if you need anything else.

Good luck with the Project Reality Mod. Nice work!

Joe

Re: Air Vs Air maps

Posted: 2009-07-12 16:18
by cfschris
Any word on the progress of the air map?

Re: Air Vs Air maps

Posted: 2009-09-22 00:58
by Archerchef
this would be cool. i was going to suggest this :P

Re: Air Vs Air maps

Posted: 2009-09-22 03:26
by Sniperdog
If i was not lazy and in college I would put a lot of work into the nimitz carrier and make a realistic scenario that would be legit for PR with the US on a nimitz with stable catapults and arrestors and such while the chinese would be on wake island with an 8*8 map. As it stands now what we have in Combined Arms is more or less the same concept. We have an 8*8 km map with mostly water and wake island in the middle with the US and China each having a 1 working Essex class carrier and one "simulated" Nimitz carrier which is basically the Essex Class with a few extra stern pieces (For those who didn't know the vBF2 carrier is actually 3 different pieces placed next to each other). So we're going to test that first and see how it plays with a lot of people. Finishing the Nimitz is a lot of work >.>

Here it is as it stands now:
Image


Obviously its still very sloppy and in need of a lot of lovin for it to be PR worthy. But in the mean time Combined Arms ftw :P

Re: Air Vs Air maps

Posted: 2009-09-22 04:03
by CAS_117
Ok for the last time. WAKE ISLAND IS A US AIR STATION.

fgsfds

But yeah nimitz would be nice.

Re: Air Vs Air maps

Posted: 2009-09-22 04:11
by Sniperdog
CAS_117 wrote:Ok for the last time. WAKE ISLAND IS A US AIR STATION.

fgsfds

But yeah nimitz would be nice.
CAS needs to work on his imagination skillz >.>

Re: Air Vs Air maps

Posted: 2009-09-22 04:16
by CAS_117
I made this when I got bored during a practice test today...

Image

Re: Air Vs Air maps

Posted: 2009-09-22 04:18
by rampo
CAS_117 wrote:Ok for the last time. WAKE ISLAND IS A US AIR STATION.

fgsfds

But yeah nimitz would be nice.
I might be a bid annoying here but isn't it a US Navy station?

Re: Air Vs Air maps

Posted: 2009-09-22 05:24
by CAS_117
The argument is whether we skip the part where China does its first amphibious assault in recent history or not. That said it is a USAF installation, although "Air Station" is usually used to refer to Navy I thought (anecdotal?).

Re: Air Vs Air maps

Posted: 2009-09-22 13:27
by Elektro
I remember that i once watched a documentary program on National Geographic about carrier landings and take offs.

Later that day i download Combined Arms, and played seethed waters. I thought (and still think) that their system was perfect for the BF2 engine.

You take off with help from a steam based catapult on the carrier. And land with help from ropes that slow the aircraft down.

It was exactly the same system they used on the carrier from the program I watched.

Its realistic, and coded :razz: All we need is CATOBAR, and a few good mappers. Would also be a good way to test the new AAVP7A1 https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f388-c ... vp7a1.html