Project Reality Forums

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote: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.

Well if you need someone dedicated to it, I'm up to it, and it isn't so much as hard as it is repetitive, how ever depending on what level of detail it needs to go to, it usually takes 1 to 3 hours to take a top-down photo and matching height map.

How ever the main thing is having a defined map reference key to start off with to keep the maps consistent, and what is wanted and not, because I've proposed this idea before using the Muttra map as a example of what the low end of non-photographic maps would be based on various US army maps I've seen of various Iraq cities



With this thread showing what the high end would be

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f388-p ... imaps.html

How ever both are very doable for me

I'll leave a more elaborate response tomorrow, but I just have to say / ask this now:

Why is it that every map has to be the same? Why can't there be deviation in their styles, maybe to every mapper's own liking?
The current map style is straight out of vanilla Battlefield, how come we have to abide by that like law?

Why is it so important to see every little bit of detail in the map? Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against that (=aerial images as maps) but why should every map be like that?

For example: It isn't very realistic to have colored aerial photographs in a WW2 era map like Project Normandy..

Well one could argue it's neutral because BluFor and OpFor wouldn't be using the same maps, and if I recall one of the devs in the topographic map thread stated they use the current style because that's what the British military uses, simply a reference grid slapped onto satellite image

I hope this isn't too offtopic. Whether we ever implement topographical maps or not I think it would be cool to have at least some place names for different areas and points of interests and why not names for the main streets too. Not just for flag areas.

We dont necessary have to invent fictional names for fictional areas or roads. Instead we could use some names invented only for military use for example "Hill 666" or "Route Badger".

This way you dont always need to use precise grid coordinates or just try to mutter something about "The area between those houses and the road." or "You know where that hospital/mansion stylish building is".

splatters wrote:I'll leave a more elaborate response tomorrow, but I just have to say / ask this now:

Why is it that every map has to be the same? Why can't there be deviation in their styles, maybe to every mapper's own liking?

con?sis?ten?cy (kn-sstn-s)
1.
a. Agreement or logical coherence among things or parts: a rambling argument that lacked any consistency.
b. Correspondence among related aspects; compatibility: questioned the consistency of the administration's actions with its stated policy.
2. Reliability or uniformity of successive results or events: pitched with remarkable consistency throughout the season.
3. Degree of density, firmness, or viscosity: beat the mixture to the consistency of soft butter.


Consistency is a huge part of making many things in this world successful and keeping high standards. I don't expect you to understand how important it is but it is seriously important and its not going to change as long as I, and many other devs are part of PR.

splatters wrote:The current map style is straight out of vanilla Battlefield, how come we have to abide by that like law?

That's technically isn't true. We have drastically improved on the vBF2 minimaps to make them far better quality, although yes they are the same basic concept I will agree but with far more detail and much more realistic. The vBF2 ones are missing many of the statics on the map, just showing a black shadow of where the building was etc.



Not even one of the buildings on that mini-map is showing, not even the massive ones like that huge ramp where its now just a shadow, not to mention the bad roads clipping though the terrain etc... Oh sorry the watertower is showing, although must be an old version since its in the wrong place but if you look at the one ingame, its the same story and across all the Bf2 maps

Ours has every single static showing

splatters wrote:Why is it so important to see every little bit of detail in the map? Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against that (=aerial images as maps)

The more detail the player has the better strategic decisions they can make which is something that's very important in a mod that focuses on realistic tactics. What Broseph has above I would argue doesn't give the player enough knowledge of the map since many of the buildings are just painted into a flat colour, which is yes the case on some maps, but a big reason why troops on the ground use aerial photos since they are up to date and show all the details, other than the terrain's shape.

splatters wrote:For example: It isn't very realistic to have colored aerial photographs in a WW2 era map like Project Normandy..

PN isn't part of PR, its a minimod for PR, yes being headed up by a PR Dev but as of yet not part of PR but yes in the case of an old map, we might have a black & white arterial photo mini-map for them.

Well there's always this, which on of my friends who was a Abrams driver said he was issued maps made to USGS guide lines during his tour of duty like this one.



Meanwhile there's this map, which is a example of the Soviet's military maps. which appear consistent compared to Soviet General staff maps of Baghdad and Basra produced in 1991
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_e ... a_1990.jpg

Also these maps aren't fun to play with once you get to urban areas, since using the US model it's just a shade, while the Soviet model is just cluster and sometimes resorts to the same flat color technique
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/united_s ... y_nj94.jpg
http://mapas.owje.com/img/Mapa-Topograf ... -10335.jpg
http://kokshetau.online.kz/maps/map_bor.jpg

Changed oversized images to links, see forum rules. - Spec

Indeed, the main difference is that in PR, we have small areas of interest where these maps are mainly for very large areas and troops on the ground working in mainly small areas are given both these large maps (as well as GPS etc that have them on) and aerial photos of the main small areas of intrastate to them.

Since PR we focus on the small areas only, it makes sense to use Aerial Photos

Well I was going to suggest we'd just do it like the first map I imaged tagged where each buildings is a filled-in outline of the physical building like so



There's also the master USGS topographic map key which provides markers and symbols for just about everything
http://egsc.usgs.gov/isb/pubs/booklets/ ... ymbols.pdf

Ye if we where going to go down that root that is what we would do but its unlikely to happen for reasons stated before.

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:Ye if we where going to go down that root that is what we would do but its unlikely to happen for reasons stated before.

Meh, I'm going back to working on that MEC Woodland idea Rudd sparked, currently I'm split between M83 woodland and French Lizard

Broseph wrote:

I'm sorry but we're playing a video game, and like Rhino said, it's useful to be able to see the detail within the map to come up with tactics. Those maps that Broseph posted above, just make things too freakin confusing and no point in going into that much detail. The reason why. It's because it's a video game. Balance > over Realism.

This is an interesting thread with a good idea.

You say it looks 'dull', the poster say it is more 'realistic' and I actually say I can actually tell where the roads are (I hate the bad visibility on all the minimaps).

There could to be a minimap overhaul. When I say the new minimap for Jabal I was so shocked at being able to see everything so clearly. Maybe I have eyesight problems though :/

ukkis wrote:I hope this isn't too offtopic. Whether we ever implement topographical maps or not I think it would be cool to have at least some place names for different areas and points of interests and why not names for the main streets too. Not just for flag areas.

We dont necessary have to invent fictional names for fictional areas or roads. Instead we could use some names invented only for military use for example "Hill 666" or "Route Badger".

This way you dont always need to use precise grid coordinates or just try to mutter something about "The area between those houses and the road." or "You know where that hospital/mansion stylish building is".

yes to this.
played some new map today and someone said that there enemy mortars at moscue.
then we were ...is there`s moscue at this map at all`?...where it is?.
i think that maybe some places should be named on map.

Grid is better than names

Having both is even better.

maarit wrote:yes to this.
played some new map today and someone said that there enemy mortars at moscue.
then we were ...is there`s moscue at this map at all`?...where it is?.
i think that maybe some places should be named on map.

[quote=""'[R-DEV"]Rhino;1713090']Grid is better than names [/quote]

[quote="Hulabi""]Having both is even better. [/quote]

Exactly! It would be extremely useful especially to new players to get to know important points of interests.

+ You would not necessarily have to use exact grid coords while briefing your squad and then every squadmember should't have to check their map all the time for your waypoints.

Isn't that more laziness than anything else?

It kind of reminds me when a squad member is shouting "enemy on me!" and suddenly everyone have to open the map just to check his position while hoping that it's not in close quarters.

I also don't understand the change of position from going to mini-maps with "not so clear visibility" to names of the streets and even the little store in M8 that sells golden apples.

names on the map would be very cluttered.

but a more realistic looking mini map would be nice. neon blue muttrah water FTL lol

for consistency you could make the person present every mini map at once for quality check right? i agree it is very important. so in that respect is splatters saying he is dedicated to doing all maps (current/future) and or tutorial for future maps? the idea is pointless if nobody would do it.

Arcturus_Shielder wrote: I also don't understand the change of position from going to mini-maps with "not so clear visibility" to names of the streets and even the little store in M8 that sells golden apples.

Im not suggesting naming all the streets or all the apple selling stores. That wouldn't make any sense now would it?

But if you gave names for example to certain compounds or for example the hospital/mansion (I really have no idea what that thing is) area in Fallujah west, that I believe would make communicating much easier.

[R-DEV]Spush wrote:I'm sorry but we're playing a video game, and like Rhino said, it's useful to be able to see the detail within the map to come up with tactics. Those maps that Broseph posted above, just make things too freakin confusing and no point in going into that much detail. The reason why. It's because it's a video game. Balance > over Realism.

what's so confusing about the map you quoted? it's very clear unlike the soviet maps I posted.