Project Reality Forums

splatters wrote:Found them off the map threads in the forums / google. That is the only way to get original mini-maps (= without the grid) unless we get them directly from the source I would love to see how you would edit them for comparison, maybe start with muttrah?

Something like this maybe. Would need further tweaking before I call anything final.

My version on the left, original on the right. Edit; New versions in post #26
Muttrah | Muttrah, edit only
Qinling
Tad Sae
Iron Eagle
Jabal
Mestia

I don't think there needs to be a huge difference, just a little tweaking to reduce the sometimes gamey(?) colours. I did use the same effects on all of these though for consistencies sake, I don't know if that's optimal to do because especially dark maps could suffer from it.

There is subtle editing and then there is Zrix! Don't get me wrong, they're all improvements but there is barely any noticeable difference, especially if they're not next to each others.

Images taken with a real camera through the atmosphere have a lot of color imperfections for obvious reasons, some less than others depending on the conditions. That's what I'm going for here and that's why I don't think they all should look alike.

Here's my improved version of muttrah, which retains most of the container colors this time
http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/8269/mut1024.jpg

splatters wrote:
Here's my improved version of muttrah, which retains most of the container colors this time
http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/8269/mut1024.jpg

I do like that the trees stayed green and there is some color, but I don't know... it's kind of depressing to look at since it's so grey and washed-out. Is this really what you guys prefer?

What's so depressing about more realistic colours? Does it really matter where in the happy-----depressing scale the mini-map locates when the map (=level) itself isn't going to change a bit. Do you really prefer the current maps?

No-one is complaining how depressing the weapons and tanks look, they're not very colourful either!

This is a war game, it's not all about flowers, unicorns, sunshine and rainbows. Besides, I don't think that those mini-maps look depressing at all.

As much as I want to support the addition of semi-realistic satellite images for the minimaps, I would like to point out that you could lessen the filters and greying just a bit on the muttrah minimap. You could make it more realistic but also retain the nice brown that the mountains have while still crushing the really bright hues such as the greens and yellows.

Also, I'm going to step in as a mediator here and suggest that everyone just calm down a bit before someone says something that is going to be a regret. Let the thread pan out the way it is meant to pan out but please don't be to hostile when backing up opinions.

splatters wrote:There is subtle editing and then there is Zrix! Don't get me wrong, they're all improvements but there is barely any noticeable difference, especially if they're not next to each others.

Ah, but that's the point good sir. I'm just tweaking them a bit to feel more natural, not trying to replicate anything in particular. I leave the satellite image to you. The blur in your latest one is kinda painful to watch though.


Anyway, here's a few other versions. Top half is modified.

splatters wrote:I listed a load of things and arguments for my idea in the post above, you completely ignored and left them unanswered and instead took this conversation personally and played the DEV-card, taking the thread way out of context. I don't think I am the one embarrasing myself now.

With good reason, that your arguments are totally invalid and most even totally off the main point in some cases. If you want me to smash your arguments to bits I can but I seriously can't be asked to waste my time....

splatters wrote:What I'm trying to achieve with this thread is improving the quality of the mod to my l and other peoples liking, and finding out whether people support this idea. Would be nice to hear other people's takes on this, AFSoccer and Zrix started off with a constructive attitude, you should learn from them Rhino

A lot of inexperienced people feel that applying a load of photoshop filters to stuff enhances the quality but in most cases, all it dose is seriously degrade it when its overdone, like in this case.

Yes a few subtle filters and edits can certainly improve an image or texture but just because something drastically different from what it was before, dose not make it better. We had one guy a long time ago who applied a load of filters to all the vehicles and at first everyone thought they looked so cool and new until they got up-close ingame with them and realized how shit they really where and this guy even managed to get as far as getting his stuff into the test builds before it was all scraped in a split second.

splatters wrote:Would be nice to hear other people's takes on this, AFSoccer and Zrix started off with a constructive attitude, you should learn from them Rhino

I'm just saying it as it is, if you have a problem with it that's your problem but maybe you should learn how to take criticism

splatters wrote:Images taken with a real camera through the atmosphere have a lot of color imperfections for obvious reasons, some less than others depending on the conditions. That's what I'm going for here and that's why I don't think they all should look alike.

The funny thing here that I thought you understood is these are not really satellite images, taken though the atmosphere, nor what soldiers on the ground use either as maps. They are aerial photographs, taken in the atmosphere only a few thousand meters above the surface with a high rez digital camera (what the military use, not talking about google here although they do the same basic stuff).

As such its not much different from taking a photo from your normal digital camera. Providing its set up correctly, you should have a decent image that looks as it would up close in r/l.

splatters wrote:Here's my improved version of muttrah, which retains most of the container colors this time
http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/8269/mut1024.jpg

Better than before but still not better than the original IMO. I know your trying to match the colour of the water in the google ref but water colour depends on a lot of things such as weather conditions and what's in the water, depth of the water etc and that black water was most likely a one off as the water is most of the time very blue/green in this location even when taken from the air and since its blue ingame, it should be the same state on the map as realistically, the aerial photos the troops would use would have been taken very close to the time of attack.
http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/8367 ... osport.jpg
http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/4255/qport.jpg
http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/103/26894736.jpg

Also loving the neon green trees and grass

Zrix wrote:Something like this maybe. Would need further tweaking before I call anything final.

My version on the left, original on the right.
Muttrah | Muttrah, edit only
Qinling
Tad Sae
Iron Eagle
Jabal
Mestia

I don't think there needs to be a huge difference, just a little tweaking to reduce the sometimes gamey(?) colours. I did use the same effects on all of these though for consistencies sake, I don't know if that's optimal to do because especially dark maps could suffer from it.

ye that's defiantly more on the ball.

Google Earth for example uses images taken from both satellites above the atmosphere and aircrfat within the boundaries of the atmosphere, there isn't a huge difference between them. The relevant thing is, that there is a lot of air (+humidity) between the ground and the camera, which tints the image in all kinds of ways depending on conditions (especially shadows). The color of the water is just one thing, one could edit that any way they wanted, reflecting the sun for example.

My way of editing the muttrah map was just one way and a concept you could just as well edit the water to reflect the sun. 'The funny thing here' is that you're talking about realistic pictures yet imply that the original one is the most realistic looking For the record, the 'neon green' trees are almost exactly the same color as in the google earth picture.

The main point I'm trying to convey is that having the mini-map look more gritty and less perfect, -not from an ideal world where the aerial images are taken at the exact same moment and conditions as the battle with supernatural equipment- more like an actual photo or a map would bring realism and immersion into the game. I'm not saying that my version is perfect because there are so many ways you can make a picture look more realistic.

p.s. you (Rhino) repeatedly keep referring to me and many others on the forums as 'inexperienced' and yourself as the 'vastly experienced' DEV, not in this thread only - it's causing a lot of discontent. The way you talk down to me and others is annoying, it would be in everyones interest if you regarded yourself as equal instead. I'm quite positive that I have way more experience in Photoshop and photography overall (both pseudo and real photography) than you do, for that matter.

splatters wrote:Google Earth for example uses images taken from both satellites above the atmosphere and aircrfat within the boundaries of the atmosphere, there isn't a huge difference between them. The relevant thing is, that there is a lot of air (+humidity) between the ground and the camera, which tints the image in all kinds of ways depending on conditions (especially shadows). The color of the water is just one thing, one could edit that any way they wanted, reflecting the sun for example.

My way of editing the muttrah map was just one way and a concept you could just as well edit the water to reflect the sun. 'The funny thing here' is that you're talking about realistic pictures yet imply that the original one is the most realistic looking For the record, the 'neon green' trees are almost exactly the same color as in the google earth picture.

The main point I'm trying to convey is that having the mini-map look more gritty and less perfect, -not from an ideal world where the aerial images are taken at the exact same moment and conditions as the battle with supernatural equipment- more like an actual photo or a map would bring realism and immersion into the game. I'm not saying that my version is perfect because there are so many ways you can make a picture look more realistic.

Google Earth is a seriously bad example as they way the Military work is nothing like GE. GE blend there aerial photos with there Sat photos to get good transition, as well as doing a hell of a lot of editing on the images to try and get them to blend together with each other and blending together some commercial atrial photos ranging from all different types of cameras and positions.

How the military take there reconnaissance photos is totally different. For starters they have specialized aircraft, with specialized flight and camera systems in order to get the best quality photos and they don't edit nor blend them together like GE dose since most of the time they just take the area of interest and print it strait out with any stitching together is done automatically via how the cameras take there photos which is linked to the aircraft's height and speed. Here are some examples of what the troops on the ground get which are low rez versions of the final aerial shots to fit on there print outs. Not the best shots ever but the best ones I could find without spending hrs shifting though all my Afghan refs.



As you can see, these images are not distorted and are very like the real thing which is what is what we are trying to portray with our mini-maps too, although are somewhat arguably more higher rez but I have seen soldiers carrying close up photos of points of interest.

The point is, changing PR's minimaps drastically to be really far off from what the real thing looks like is unrealistic, although a small edit to its colours yes can help in some cases to make the map look more naturally, but not to overdo it to the extent where its unrecognisable to what your standing on.

splatters wrote:p.s. you (Rhino) repeatedly keep referring to me and many others on the forums as 'inexperienced' and yourself as the 'vastly experienced' DEV, not in this thread only - it's causing a lot of discontent. The way you talk down to me and others is annoying, it would be in everyones interest if you regarded yourself as equal instead. I'm quite positive that I have way more experience in Photoshop and photography overall (both pseudo and real photography) than you do, for that matter.

This may I add was when you tried to lecture me on game play / engine mechanics and I'm coming from well over 6yrs of experience in this area and been a large part of crating this very successful mod. In that time I've also worked very closely with our MAs and done my own research on these areas and as a result have gained a large understanding of how things are done in r/l and how things are realistic etc. In the dev fourms we have been over this minimap subject many times before and the MAs have said the most realistic thing is for aerial photos of the area in question in the way I've talked about above, although yes, topographical maps are realistic too, iirc what the military satnavs use although would need to get an MA to confirm that but that was ruled out due to the amount of work required in order to do that.

I treat every forum user with respect providing they treat us, the devs with respect but as soon as that is broken, like you have here in the last few posts, your going to have to do a lot to earn back my respect and I can tell you now, not just from my POV but the other devs POV too, its not helping your cause of getting this change implemented into the mod when you go about it the way you are.

Correct me if I'm wrong but what I have understood splatters is not suggesting to do anything stylish and artsy fartsy to the mini-maps. Only to tweak its colors to look more like actual aerial photographs (uav or satellite) than just an ingame screenshot which to be honest the current mini-maps look like.

In fact these images seem to me more like what spatters is trying to aim at.

ukkis wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but what I have understood splatters is not suggesting to do anything stylish and artsy fartsy to the mini-maps. Only to tweak its colors to look more like actual aerial photographs (uav or satellite) than just an ingame screenshot which to be honest the current mini-maps look like.

Yes, which I agree with a small edit might make them look more realistic, but the point is splatters previous edits are a bit too much. If you look at thous refs you will see the sand on thous maps is pretty much the same colour as the sand around the maps, and the green fields are still a neutral green etc, just the brightness and tone is slightly different, not drastically different.

i personally like that mini map change. looks more realistic than the bright orange hills and no multi tone water. thanks splatters, i didn't notice that it bothered me before >:/ nah really nice suggestion.

gameplay wise it seems that it changes some colors. maybe a less tone version? love the water though.

having topographical maps is a terrible idea. i'd rather have colorblind crates.

illidur wrote:i personally like that mini map change. looks more realistic than the bright orange hills and no multi tone water. thanks splatters, i didn't notice that it bothered me before >:/ nah really nice suggestion.

^Same thing happened to me.

ukkis wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but what I have understood splatters is not suggesting to do anything stylish and artsy fartsy to the mini-maps.

splatters wrote:

Even though he initially suggested a simple change in the mini-maps, he has been defending the notion that personalized mini-maps would be even better.

Thing is, he's mixing things and not taking criticism lightly. I find Rhino has reason to be upset when his understanding of what is accepted within PR or not was merely reduced to "an opinion like any other". He was trying to guide splatters to what kind of experimentation he can look upon, but splatters dismissed him right away and took it as an offense.

As for the idea, I honestly couldn't give a rat's ***. I know everything is in the little details but some are so shallow that it has absolutely no impact in the big picture.
I like Zrix effort on this one though, but please, don't make this issue more than it's really worth it.

Arcturus_Shielder wrote:Even though he initially suggested a simple change in the mini-maps, he has been defending the notion that personalized mini-maps would be even better.

Thing is, he's mixing things and not taking criticism lightly. I find Rhino has reason to be upset when his understanding of what is accepted within PR or not was merely reduced to "an opinion like any other". He was trying to guide splatters to what kind of experimentation he can look upon, but splatters dismissed him right away and took it as an offense.

Couldn't have said it better myself

I just see splatters and Rhino as both feeling that they must have the 'last word' on the subject. Yes, splatters was somewhat 'arrogant', but then again, so was Rhino. All i'm saying is that just because one does not have something concrete to show, it doesn't always/necessarily mean that one is a complete noob that has no idea whatsoever of what he's talking about, and one should be given the benefit of the doubt.

What comes to the mini-map proposal, i myself find splatters 'toned' version to be more realistic and aesthetically pleasing, but that's just my opinion. I don't talk for others, which is something that other people here should also take into consideration, if you know what i'm saying.

I also feel, that mini-maps on different maps should be allowed atleast a slight variation, and not follow a strict protocol. That would give each map an unique feeling, nothing too radical tho.

Rhino, what was the eventual take on topographical minimaps? I understand they require quite a bit of work and they're not exactly realistic, but surely the soldier on the ground has some knowledge on the lay of the land? I'm thinking that potentially a light contour overlay on the aerial image could be useful for navigating.

Back on topic, and although I think the tweaked versions are perhaps prettier, I think it's more useful for a map to resemble what is seen on the ground.

The biggest problem is the amount of work involved in them, we would need at least one totally dedicated guy to doing them all if not more and since its quite a required skill set, it may mean the difference between delaying a release if the guy wasn't very active and wasn't able to meet the dead lines crating ones for the new maps some way off in the future. the current mini-maps however take much less work, don't require that much PS skill to do and represent what troops use on the ground pretty damn well, although in the perfect world we would have both, like ARMA2 has.

sounds good rhino but kinda offtopic;

how will PR:V maps look?

The same.