Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[agracier]

Map building manuals give a Microdem modification setting of 1 pixel should equal 50m. That is apparently the ratio/size that was meant to be used in Il-2 as standard. However I sometimes fudged a bit for big maps and used 1 pixel=55 or 60m. The results were just as good as the standard, though mountains did tend to look a bit too fluffy or like whipped cream on a cake.

I decided to go the opposite way and see what would happen if 1 pixel were set to 25m. Would it give a marked difference? Would it give a sort of 'hi-resolution'  map? I made a few maps of hilly terrain: Spain in the upper Murcia region, Oman and part of the Red Sea with lower Gulf of Aqaba. All are fairly hilly.

Making a basic map with just 1 (or 2) texture is not a big chore compared to actually finishing a map. So here are three basic try-out maps with terrain set at 1 pixel (Microdem)=25 meter.

I wanted to share the results to see if other members agreed. It seems that mountains and hilly region do indeed look markedly better and as an added unexpected bonus, textures seem to tile to a far lesser degree, meaning you can use 1 single texture over a large area without any visible tiling appearing. This would be a big advantage for map making.

But of course there are probably downsides to this approach. I suppose distances not longer accord with Il-2 standards and hence fuel consumption? Will this affect gunnery accuracy? Or mini-map rendering? I have no idea yet and even less of a way of checking or even to know if it important.

That is why I thought to put these 3 very provisional and basic maps here so others could test them out should they wish. They have no populating done on them, just a static file taken from other maps to allow for mission saving. And they all use 1 single texture throughout the map - except the Oman_25 map which has a few areas with extra textures, just to see how it looked. And don't be surprised when you see that the edmaps are the Microdem bmp height maps. This to save time.

Here are the links:
Spain-Murcia
https://www.mediafire.com/file/rju1u0t8moyjpke/ag_Spain_Murcia.zip/file

Red Sea
https://www.mediafire.com/file/lfktv0ejd512asu/ag_Red_Sea.zip/file

Oman
https://www.mediafire.com/file/0jvu4lj9bbgf5jn/ag_Oman_25.rar/file


Here a few screenshots from the Oman map.

[Uzin]

Interesting.
Two questions:
What about the size of buildings,
and how do you deal with rivers not at zero height?

[agracier]

Interesting.
Two questions:
What about the size of buildings,
and how do you deal with rivers not at zero height?

There are objects in the maps, those from the statics I used as temporary statics. Of course they are not placed in any logical or real place, but every now and then you can come across them when flying around. I've yet to really place objects on a village texture for instance, so I have no idea how they will look in proportion to the texture. If they give a problem looking too small, it is always possible to make the texture larger or look for a more suitable village texture. After all, I get my textures from Google Earth and one can zoom in or out to whatever degree necessary.

As for rivers, I haven't tried yet. My easiest solution is to make desert maps with no rivers ... ha ha. Or, depending on the terrain, one can also keep all rivers at 0 RGB. It usually doesn't show that much in height difference with surrounding terrain, and if it does, you can make a broad river valley, gently sloping so it won't be noticeable.

For myself, I've never tried making a river by gradient, sloping gently towards the sea. I will have to try it sometime.

[agracier]

A few more screenshots from a 1 pix=25 meter map, this one textured with a dozen or so textures. It is of a cluster of Scottish Isles. THis to give an idea of how nicely the textures blend into oneanother ...

[fatty_finn]

Hi Agracier
I've just seen this post, following your comment over on the Lord Howe Island Map thread.
 I did think of trying 25m/pixel when I was making that map, as it would have helped [?] overcome the topographic problems you rightly mentioned there. However, I feared it would also make that little Island seem twice as big ! -so didnt risk it.

Still, this may be a great idea, so I will certainly be trying the new maps you've provided here.
and the screenshots look beautiful!
f_f

[agracier]

Actually, I didn't realize that Lord Howe island actually looks like it should feature in a King Kong remake ... I didn't know that such terrain really exists ... ha ha.

So, all in all, your map is pretty accurate. There was no need to try and even out some of the terrain features.

____________________________

That said, I really haven't encountered anything untoward in a 25m=1 pixel map except that when there is a lot of coastline or islands, the coasts tend to come out very blocky and unless smoothed out in the My_mapc, give huge unrealistic squares, straight lines or triangles for coasts. They need to be retouched with a 1 pixel large brush to give more realistic looking coastlines or lakes.

But other than that, I haven't found any downsides yet and some good upsides concerning how (mountainous) terrain looks.

[Alex840]

Basically, 1 px = 50 m refers to 1:1 scale in the game engine when build map_c ingame (for map_t and map_h, this ratio is 1 px = 200m)

So, when you change this ratio, you change the scale of the map thus you change the size of the map too. Making 1px = 25 m in map_c (and 1px = 100 m in map_h and map_t accordly) you double the size of terrain. If a distance in real terrain is 100 m, in Il-2 map will be 200 m, and so on.

The inverse is true either. If you make a map with 1px = 100m, the scale is 1:2, and a distance in real terrain of 100 m wil be 50 m in Il-2 map.

So, 1px = 50 m (map_c) and 200 m (map_h and map_t) refers to 1:1 scale maps (real world distances). Changing this values changes the scale of the map, making it bigger or smaller than the real world area depicted.

[Wa99el]

Your screenshots are looking very good 


My experience is that with the reduction of the map_h the resolution of the heights in the map is a bit rough. Mountain ranges thus become slightly sharp-edged in some regions. These regions need to be softened a bit. This is possible with tools in FMP +. Another possibility would be to reprogram the size of the map_h. In Sturmovik the map_h is only 1/4 the size of map_c, as far as I can remember. Would you program now Sturmovik that the map_h has 1/2 size of the map_c, perhaps the quality of the map_h would be better.

Maybe you could also improve the map_c in Sturmovik to 1 pixel to 25 meters. It would now be possible to create smaller rivers. Currently it is only possible to create rivers that are at least 50 meters wide and that's difficult, because Sturmovik often does not recognize these 1 pixels in the map_c. Mostly you have to extend the rivers to about 100 meters wide.

 

Interesting.
Two questions:
What about the size of buildings,
and how do you deal with rivers not at zero height?

Rivers that are not at zero hight are possible. You have to go into map_c an choose a color from the riverbed so you canpaint the whole riverbed in this color, otherwise you will get FPS drops (maybe) with different hights in one river.

[agracier]

If anyone knows how to reset the pixel size parameters for map_c, or map_h do let me know.

Map_C is made with a java tool (I surmise) and i have no idea at all of how to change those kind of programs.

As for mountains becoming jagged, I have found just the opposite, that in 1 pix = 25m, the mountains look much better, far less jagged and smoother. Of ourse, one can always use conventional graphical editing tools to smooth parts of map_h, like soften or individually change RGB values for pixels or areas of pixels by using tools like 'lower RGB', also available for in most graphic editors ...

[Alex840]

In Il2ge wishlist, Slibenli sorted about a possibility to change the resolution of map_t. Because his extension change the rendering engine of the game, i think 1:1 scale maps with 25 px or better resolution will be a possible when Il2ge become more developed. So high res maps can be a reality.

Another feature that is easy for me to implement is supporting higher resolutions for map_T.
I could do something like looking for map_T_2x.tga, map_T_4x.tga, etc. and use that instead.