76 replies to this topic

[Ghogiel]

Allfex, on 10 April 2013 - 11:26 PM, said:

Like the shapes a lot but keep in mind you cant use a heightmap for negativ angles.

If only you could import vector displacement maps as height map input.

[Nacon]

You guys are in for surprise then.

Yes, that picture you're looking at is pure height-map.

[Allfex]

Nacon, on 11 April 2013 - 07:02 AM, said:

You guys are in for surprise then.

Yes, that picture you're looking at is pure height-map.

Than its no problem but some of the shapes looked like they had some negativ angles... want o see it in the engine

[Nacon]

I think the occlusion shadow is playing trick. Yeah, will have to see it in different light.

[Sirgrant]

Allfex, on 31 March 2013 - 08:05 AM, said:

another "quicky" with an canyon theme for discussing some general layouts. Discuss!

Just a concept idea, what about a high plateau with more green running lengthwise alongside your canyon so we have two distinct battlefields in the same map? Is it too tough to make separate environments in one map? I'm not a designer / modder at all, just would love a map like this...

[Tice Daurus]

Allfex, on 31 March 2013 - 08:05 AM, said:

another "quicky" with an canyon theme for discussing some general layouts. Discuss!

Allfex, I'm not seeing this completely as a canyon. It looks partially like a depression with a mix of it being an impact crater. Canyons look more carved out areas that used to have water which carved out the rock and made depressions. It needs to have a flow of where the water carved a dry river like area through it. And I'm not seeing it here. I'm not saying it doesn't look nice, but it needs an area where the dry river formation flows from one pooled area to the next to the next and goes from one side of the map to the other side.

[Allfex]

Tice Daurus, on 12 April 2013 - 10:14 AM, said:

Allfex, I'm not seeing this completely as a canyon. It looks partially like a depression with a mix of it being an impact crater. Canyons look more carved out areas that used to have water which carved out the rock and made depressions. It needs to have a flow of where the water carved a dry river like area through it. And I'm not seeing it here. I'm not saying it doesn't look nice, but it needs an area where the dry river formation flows from one pooled area to the next to the next and goes from one side of the map to the other side.

I totally know what you mean but this pic was only a fast heightmap from side 2 of this thread. Such heightmaps are very fast to produce to get a general idea. You still have to make changes on it and bring it later back after sculpting but without a little word from pgi on terrainres/ internal scale its useless to focus on such things. This is the reason i'm focusing now on contentcreation because these asset are easy to scale afterwards.

[Iqfish]

Allfex, on 12 April 2013 - 11:31 PM, said:

I totally know what you mean but this pic was only a fast heightmap from side 2 of this thread. Such heightmaps are very fast to produce to get a general idea. You still have to make changes on it and bring it later back after sculpting but without a little word from pgi on terrainres/ internal scale its useless to focus on such things. This is the reason i'm focusing now on contentcreation because these asset are easy to scale afterwards.

Will you send these Maps to PGI?
I made some Maps for Company of Heroes, and I must say that you all did impressive work.

I would send some screenshot to the support, telling them that they can have all the rights, and you want no payment for them, so it's easier for them to actually use them.

[Ghogiel]

My guess is 1 unit per meter 2km x 2km levels are probably 1024x1024 (eww) or 2048x2048 height maps. And the 4km maps are just double that.

They are using a metric scale we know that much.

This map is 2km with a 2048x2048 height map.

http://i25.photobuck...p2.jpg:original

spot cataphract for idea of terrain scale.

[Tice Daurus]

Ghogiel, on 14 April 2013 - 11:26 AM, said:

My guess is 1 unit per meter 2km x 2km levels are probably 1024x1024 (eww) or 2048x2048 height maps. And the 4km maps are just double that.

They are using a metric scale we know that much.

This map is 2km with a 2048x2048 height map.

http://i25.photobuck...p2.jpg:original

spot cataphract for idea of terrain scale.

Ok after seeing this map, it's not bad, and I like the lunar craters on the map but I would suggest for actual lunar craters, check out some of the Apollo landing footage for actual craters or check NASA's lunar mapping to see how craters look. These look ok...but something about them just doesn't look right to me. And while I'm just one opinion, I would suggest doing the homework just to make sure. Or if you'd like, look at the Arizona impact crater as that would give you an idea what a crater looks like. Also, it looks like the NW corner would look like one side of the base area, yet the SE corner would look to be another base area, however, the landscaping looks to be a bit unbalanced. One side would have a height advantage as they would quickly look to be able to climb the mountain area and get a height advantage and sniping area for the people making the early approach on the SE corner. And there would have to be certain paths, either man-made or natural paths of progression to move from one area to the next.

Sorry if I sound too critical here, but again, you have to think like PGI is probably thinking here. PGI wants a certain balance to the map, so as to not give one side of the map an advantage causing a disadvantage to the other side. Each side has to have some type of balanced flow to the map. So if you give a high hill or mountain for sniping, the other side has to have defensive ridges to work their way around without getting sniped and be able to use cover to protect themselves from snipers. Or a hill or mountain on the opposite side of the map so the other team can snipe as well.

[Ghogiel]

You are not looking at any level design lol. It's a procedural height map.

[Tice Daurus]

Ghogiel, on 15 April 2013 - 07:28 AM, said:

You are not looking at any level design lol. It's a procedural height map.

Whoops! My bad. I thought it was something you were working on as a map.

[Ghogiel]

Anyone interested in some space rocks? I can upload them somewheres if so. Collision, couple LOD levels, and 1024^2 diff/spec/nrm.

http://i25.photobuck...s1.jpg:original



Me arsing about with material>
http://i25.photobuck...t2.jpg:original

[Tice Daurus]

Ghogiel, those look awesome in both forms. One looks like moon rocks and the other look like volcanic rocks. Both look really good!

[Nacon]

Ghogiel, on 14 April 2013 - 11:26 AM, said:

My guess is 1 unit per meter 2km x 2km levels are probably 1024x1024 (eww) or 2048x2048 height maps. And the 4km maps are just double that.

They are using a metric scale we know that much.

They (PGI) are using 2 unit per meter for all of their maps.

[Tice Daurus]

Nacon, thanks for that info. It should help anyone here who's looking to create possible future maps as to what PGI wants as a scale of reference.

[Tice Daurus]

I just wanted to revive this topic to see if anyone here was able to do any further work on maps and see what they've developed so far....anyone?