Project Reality Forums

Von-Vormann's earlier thread (https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f10-pr-general-discussion/72967-factions.html) influenced me to read over the entire Features page again. Which I assume has been updated fairly recently: Project Reality : Battlefield 2 Mod - Features

I was confused by some statements about map sizes:

vanilla BF2 maps are scaled as 2km squared (4km area).

Vanilla maps such as Strike at Karkand seem more like 1x1km (Fallujah size). So I'm wondering if I'm getting the scales wrong, or there is a lot more surrounding terrain we don't see in the 'smaller' Vanilla maps.

Most of Project Reality's maps are 4km squared (16km area), and some are 8km squared (64km area).

I thought most of PRs maps were 2x2km (Muttrah size), With only 2 4x4km maps (Kashan size) currently and no official 8x8km maps.



Speaking of 8x8km maps:

Seethed Waters in it's current CA layout seems to be held back by the lack of realistic naval assets (US Nimitz Carrier and Chinese ships). But surely the layout could be altered for mainstream PR with 1 or 2 of the available LHDs assaulting the island (heavily defended by the Chinese).

Therefore we wouldn't have to wait until we have a finished Nimitz carrier and Chinese ships before playing on that scale of map.



Clarification from DEVs/CONs and general community thoughts welcome.

Most of the vanilla maps have a large amount of the terrain hidden within the exclusion zone but are probably 2x2 km terrain size.


As you can see here in Karkand


And more obvious With Jalalabad

Map size in vBF2 varies greatly but can be anywhere from 2km by 2km (dragon valley for example) to 1km * 1km (Strike at Kahrkand for example) and even smaller. One big difference to bear in mind is that BF2 used Combat Areas to make certain portions of the map not enterable thereby effectively limiting map size. Take a look at the Kahrkand map, it may have 1km squared total area but I would say only a third of that can actually be accessed. PR on the other hand only used combat areas to prevent baserape and in general has a policy of making as much of the map area playable as possible.

The reason for this is PR employs multitudes greater man-hours in map production than vBF2 did. This is of course because DICE had to pay their developers for making maps where the PR devs do it for free (or for small favors I suppose (YES THAT MEANS YOU RHINO)). This is of course one of the many reasons why mods > games .

As far as Seethed goes yes 8*8 km maps are very possible (heck even 10*10 and larger is possible) but to be fair their are a few glitches with them that need to be sorted out if they were to be considered for Project Reality. For now Seethed serves as a suitable testing ground for the concept.

Another major drawback for 8*8 and similar sized maps are that you need to use either static terrain or mostly water to get them to work. Using static terrain makes it a lot harder to make maps because things like over and undergrowth need to be done manually; and objects wont default to the ground like they normally would. Then again there already is a static terrain map being made... (Devils Tower or something?)

master of the templars wrote:Most of the vanilla maps have a large amount of the terrain hidden within the exclusion zone but are probably 2x2 km terrain size.

Jalalabad looks to be 2x2km with a lot of unused area, but Karkand still appears to be 1x1km.

Another map I noticed had a lot of surrounding terrain was Mashtuur City when DCon modified it. I recall it was originally meant to support more than 64 players and had jets and other differences in the trailer.

Sniper_dog14 wrote:Map size in vBF2 varies greatly but can be anywhere from 2km by 2km (dragon valley for example) to 1km * 1km (Strike at Kahrkand for example) and even smaller.

Which contradicts the statement in the Features page that all vBF2 maps are 2x2km.

Sniper_dog14 wrote:Then again there already is a static terrain map made... (Devils Tower or something?)

I think Devils Tower was the 4x4km Afghanistan map Paramedic was working on, with long view distances and complex terrain.

I understand theres some technical issues with scale 8, but considering Seethed Waters is playable in CA I'm not sure exactly what prevents it from being technically 'PR-worthy'.

I believe they are considering one in game meter to be 2 meters (dont know why really; maybe to reflect what the distance actually feels like) so what they say in the pr features page:

To give an estimation of the size that some of Project Reality's maps include, vanilla BF2 maps are scaled as 2km squared (4km area). Most of Project Reality's maps are 4km squared (16km area), and some are 8km squared (64km area).

would best translate to:

To give an estimation of the size that some of Project Reality's maps include, vanilla BF2 maps are scaled as 1km squared (1km area). Most of Project Reality's maps are 2km squared (4km area), and some are 4km squared (16km area).

in "in game units".


In the units they are using Seethed would actually be 16*16 km or 256 kilometers squared O.O

Do maps have to be squares? I mean, instead of 4x4 km square map, is it be possible to make e.g. 2x8 km rectangle shaped map?

Sniper_dog14 wrote:I believe they are considering one in game meter to be 2 meters (dont know why really; maybe to reflect what the distance actually feels like)

Ah, seems to be a logical explanation.

clueless_noob wrote:Do maps have to be squares? I mean, instead of 4x4 km square map, is it be possible to make e.g. 2x8 km rectangle shaped map?

I don't think so, if there even was a tweak to do this, I assume it would be very buggy.

clueless_noob wrote:Do maps have to be squares? I mean, instead of 4x4 km square map, is it be possible to make e.g. 2x8 km rectangle shaped map?

no. The only way to make a 2 by 8 map would be to make a 8 by 8 map and consrict it with combat areas. This is because of the fundamental nature of maps in this game. Everything in a map is based on a 3 dimensional coordinate system where the center of the map at it's base is the origin. The coordinates of objects in the game are described with a finite number of numeric figures so naturally as you get farther away from the center of the map they become imprecise, causing different game functions to fail In succesion as you travel away from the center and make bigger maps. The two things that limit us the most with regard to this are the maps terrain first and then the static objects. We can push the limit on the engine by replacing terrain with static objects but after that we run into a wall.

the problem with the 8x8 maps is that they read the texture files a bit different. this means that all pixels have to cover 4 times as much ingame ground as they would in a 2x2 map (which the engine was made for until coders found a loophole)

that means that the terrain detail on a 2x2 map is 4 times better than of those being projected onto the maps that are 8x8.

also because of this the grid system is very hard to work with. the grid system scales up so it is very very hard to place statics properly close to each other (not even sure if it is possible) therefore making cities etc useless and ground combat would look like **** since there would be bad vegetation and ground textures.

maps such as kashan already look pretty bad but this is largely hidden by the fact that it's desert and therefore doesn't need that detailed ground textures.

i'm not a mapper or a coder so this is only what i have gathered from my stay on this forum for a few years

Scale 8 maps. - Official BF Editor Forums

Notice the date of that topic that I made, (posted in 2006).

We have know the possibility of scale 8 maps for a long time, 4 years now. The fact is they are not really workable. For a starts you really only have 3 options with them:
1. a 100% water map (which is going to be your best result most likley)
2. a small island in the middle where the terrain still has a texture, but this is going to look like shit because the terrain is a 8x8m grid, textures are stretched to shit, and all just looks like **** as you can see on Seethed Waters
3. use "Static Terrain", to crate your land/islands which this in itself isn't very workable, can be done but anyone going to even think about undertaking this would need a bloody good understand of how BF2 maps work, have a very good understanding of making, exporting and coding statics as well as a lot of experience of it and some other stuff too and even then, the end result probably wouldn't be that grate.

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:anyone going to even think about undertaking this would need a bloody good understand of how BF2 maps work, have a very good understanding of making, exporting and coding statics as well as a lot of experience of it and some other stuff too

I see three possible candidates

1. God
2. Mosquil
3. Rhino

Mosquil can only code, he dont know shit about modelling, statics etc to make a real decent modelled terrain.

I've seen his attempts and like I've told you before SD, they aint very good.

Well volunteered there Rhino, get to it! Well, you didn't rule God out aswell but I'm sure he/she is more involved in PR2.

Why not scale down every single model in the game to half size. There, a 4km map is now a 8km map! Yaho!!

Sgt.Smeg wrote:Well volunteered there Rhino, get to it! Well, you didn't rule God out aswell but I'm sure he/she is more involved in PR2.

I've got enough on, maybe some time in the future

Lemon wrote:Why not scale down every single model in the game to half size. There, a 4km map is now a 8km map! Yaho!!

Main reason is because Bf2 only has some many decimal places of accuracy and making things smaller means you can't have things so accruate which would screw up loads of things, animations, placment etc, let alone talking about the work load required would be huge, not talking about just saying "50% scale of model, reexport and done", your talking re, positioning everything, every effect, every wheel, every barrel, every projectile, and then that's not even talking about the vBF2 models that we can't change.

Snazz wrote:but Karkand still appears to be 1x1km.

Because it is, scale 2 doesn't mean 2Km, it means 'multiplied by' and in this case it's 512x2 (Like Fallujah, Tad Sae, Road to Kyongan ni, Mestia), whereas 2Km maps are 1024x2. And yes Jalalabad and Mashtuur in vBF2 have 3/4 of the map unused.

Have actually tried a 10x10km or similar static terrain map. It was simple, and had errors but it worked.

I see potential, but I don´t understand about mapping.

[R-CON]Outlawz wrote:Because it is, scale 2 doesn't mean 2Km, it means 'multiplied by' and in this case it's 512x2

I wasn't disputing what scale 2 meant (don't think that term was even mentioned), I was pointing out that the features page says:

vanilla BF2 maps are scaled as 2km squared (4km area).

Despite some being 1km squared.

i dont remember what map it was or who made it(maybe devils tower?), but whoever made it posted a video in the fourms as a WIP look at the map. In the video he flew a LB around the map to show it off and he pointed out just how much terrain would change when you got closer to it. it would go from diagonal lines with almost nothing between them, and as you got closer the terrain would swell outward from between them and form the mountainside and the road he was flying over. he went back and optimized the map, and flew the same pattern again. the lines and terrain were visable, and had less space to swell into when you got closer, but it was still pretty bad. he pointed out that if someone knew about this, i could be exploited. they could hide inside this area shoot out, and someone one the outside would just see a wall. you can already see some of this in current maps if your flying fast and low over the terrain, but its no where near as bad as what you see in the video. i would think that making a map more then 4kmx4km would make this problem worse.