PC Map Editor

[Mad Russian]

There is a discussion about the editor for PC and specifically the map maker here....

PC Editor Thread

Let Matrix know what your preferences are.

Good Hunting.

MR

[madorosh]

What map editor?

There was talk of one before, I downloaded some beta thing, couldn't get it to work.

Now I see a bunch more talk, and links all over the place, but really no central place to download anything. If there is some kind of map editor, you would think it would be talked about here in the main forum, and that there would be a website upon which it was hosted. Is there, or isn't there, a map editor for this game?

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Michael Dorosh

What map editor?

There was talk of one before, I downloaded some beta thing, couldn't get it to work.

Now I see a bunch more talk, and links all over the place, but really no central place to download anything. If there is some kind of map editor, you would think it would be talked about here in the main forum, and that there would be a website upon which it was hosted. Is there, or isn't there, a map editor for this game?

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You Canadians kill me.........[:D]

Yes, of course there is a map editor. Well, there kind of is. No, I'm sorry there isn't a map editor for PC yet. Take your pick, all the above answers are correct.

Go to the top of the page and see the Sub-forum called Mods and Scenarios. Once inside you will find the threads, tutorials and files to download the Map Maker.

This is NOT an official Matrix PC map editor but a program that Stidor put together for the community. Matrix has NOT done a map editor for the game yet.

I'll leave it to you to either use what Stridor has put together or wait for something else. There is a complete tutorial that goes step by step on how to use it. My OLD computer has issues and won't run it. Yours may do fine with it.

I would like to say again that watching Stridor put that together was one of the most amazing feats of computer coding I've ever seen. The speed with which he put that together, the features and capabilities boggles my mind. I know that no mortal could do what he did in that short amount of time.....[&o]

From the rest of us Stridor THANK YOU!

Good Hunting.

MR

[rickier65]

Stridor got it to version.9e i think was the latest I have.

I had some trouble getting it to work, but traced it back to security settings on downloaded files. It seems when my comp dtected that i downloaded a file from another comp, it would lock parts of it so that it would like like it unzipped, but it wouldnt put all the files where they needed to be.

I found by unhblocking the original file, i could usually get it working.

I'm not sure if Stridor released it publicly or not at this point. I I get the impression that hes not planning to work any more on it. But version 9e is pretty complet, with some nice tools, including labeling and some textrue preview features, and Heightmap editor.

Rick

[Mobius]

I have made 11 completely new maps using MapMaker. Four will replace the PCK maps used in the Mcensk campaign, 6 are for two new Kursk campaigns. Hopefully I'll have these tested for the end of the year PCK update.

Like I've said in other posts, I can take elevation data of the actual battlefields from Google Earth and make a map of the real landform. Gives new insight in the actual battle.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

I have made 11 completely new maps using MapMaker. Four will replace the PCK maps used in the Mcensk campaign, 6 are for two new Kursk campaigns. Hopefully I'll have these tested for the end of the year PCK update.

Like I've said in other posts, I can take elevation data of the actual battlefields from Google Earth and make a map of the real landform. Gives new insight in the actual battle.

I've done the same thing with the CM map maker. That 2 month map project is very accurate in all respects.....FOR TODAY.

Here's the thing with making maps though, they are at best semi-accurate. Things change over 60 years.

A topo map is only so accurate. That depression where they had the HMG that tipped the scales of the battle won't show up. For me personally I don't get all uptight if I can't make a map that has the "exact" terrain we see today.

As you said though, there are reasons that battles are fought where they are and ALWAYS the terrain has an effect on the battle. The more information you have about where the battle was fought the easier it is to make historically based scenarios.

Good Hunting.

MR

[thewood1]

From someone who does not do official map making or do any playing around with 3d modeling.  Take a look at this thread: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1905309

I know it is kind of like watching the sausage being made, but it reinforces, to me anyway, MR's point about the flexibility being a two-edged blade.  There is no way someone with out specific knowledge comes into this forum looking to see how to build a map and is not somewhat intimidated by that thread.  That is what will keep people from using MM.  MM is not even officially a release at version 0.9.  I don't mean to denigrate the work people like Rick and Stridor do, but this isn't some out of the box organic program like CM's map maker.  You need some external programs, a 0.9 MM release, command lines, layers, etc.  I used to do a lot of 3D CAM programming and many of the discussions about MM turn me off.

The real validation is in the number of maps being made and how many people are making them.  Can't be more than a dozen maps and a half dozen people making them.  In CM, there are probably hundreds of people making maps within a few months of CMBO's release.  Another validation point is CM2's map maker.  More powerful and flexible than CM1.  But also a lot more complicated with AI scripting added.  CM2 probably has less than 50 custom maps in 18 months of release.  Once again, a more powerful editor narrows the number of people willing to make a map and scenario.  Now I am not saying CM1's mapmaker was the be all and end all of editor's.  It had some sever limitations.  But, IMO, it struck a good balance between being approachable by a casual gamer and powerful enough to get close to what a designer visualized.

Maybe what we are seeing is the divergence/convergence of true 3D and wargaming.  Convergence from the aspect that counters and visual abstractions have given way to true 3D modeling and realistic depictions.  Divergence because it is a shift in what features and functions can be included because of the resources expended on 3D porgramming over additional features.  As wargame companies jump on the "true" 3D bandwagon, wargamers who like the flexibility to easliy create scenarios and maps will be left playing older games because the true 3D environment doen't lend itself to that kind of flexibility.  PCK and CM2 are probably the vangaurd of that shift.

My philosophy has always been that if a scenario/map editor is too complicated and is percieved to be out of reach of the non-passionate, casual player, grapical mods will outstrip scenarios and maps.  I think that has become the case for PCK, as well as CM2 to a lesser extent.

What is the solution?  I really think a Matrix sanctioned, and approachable mapmaker needs to eventually addressed.  Even if it means limiting some of the functionality.  Real mapmaking fans can continue to use grey area programs to make more complicated maps and get more flexibility.

[junk2drive]

Good post wood.
 
I still ponder how HPS sells Squad Battles and the Campaigns without the ability to make new maps. Let alone the buy another module if you want something else system.
 
With CM, I cobbled up some maps and mods but had to wait for those with real talent to share the good stuff. We begged BFC for better maps and ability to add units. PC gives us that and here I sit waiting for those with talent to share them with me.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: thewood1
My philosophy has always been that if a scenario/map editor is too complicated and is percieved to be out of reach of the non-passionate, casual player, grapical mods will outstrip scenarios and maps.  I think that has become the case for PCK, as well as CM2 to a lesser extent.

This actually speaks to not including any official fancy 3D editor at all. Having been involved with the evolution of another game (Railroad Tycoon) from 2D to 3D I have seen the decline in player made maps. The numbers went from hundreds of 2D maps in RRT2 to only dozens of 3D maps in RRT3. Maps took on average 3 days to make to 3 weeks in the 3D game. (I heard that there was an unlimited number of game generated random ANSI maps made for RRT1, the original.)

The 3D editor of RRT3 even included a world elevation data base where you could make a height map of any part of the earth and import it directly into a map. Still far fewer maps were made.

So I feel no amount of money invested in a 3D Editor for PCK will generate many more maps than could be made with MM. Matrix should use the money for something else more productive.

If you want lots of maps made for a 3D game there has to be an engine that just strings together a few generic hills and ravines in a haphazard manner. This the equivalent of the old ANSI game generated maps but with a 3D look.

[Stridor]

Wood,

Thanks for your post.

ORIGINAL: thewood1

From someone who does not do official map making or do any playing around with 3d modelling. Take a look at this thread: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1905309

I know it is kind of like watching the sausage being made, but it reinforces, to me anyway, MR's point about the flexibility being a two-edged blade. There is no way someone with out specific knowledge comes into this forum looking to see how to build a map and is not somewhat intimidated by that thread.

That thread has nothing to do with map making or the map maker [&:]

Can I suggest that the only thread worth reading now on the map maker is http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1893360, everything else written is as you say like watching a sausage being made or the mess inside a workshop before the finished product.

That is what will keep people from using MM. MM is not even officially a release at version 0.9. I don't mean to denigrate the work people like Rick and Stridor do, but this isn't some out of the box organic program like CM's map maker. You need some external programs, a 0.9 MM release, command lines, layers, etc. I used to do a lot of 3D CAM programming and many of the discussions about MM turn me off.

You do need to download MM that is true. I know I sound like a parrot but the ONLY external program you need is a paint editor, like the free MS paint which comes on everyone's machine. I don't know where this business about command lines comes about [&:] but you don't need to know anything about command lines (unless you are referring to the knovix program which has nothing to do with map making).

My philosophy has always been that if a scenario/map editor is too complicated and is percieved to be out of reach of the non-passionate, casual player, grapical mods will outstrip scenarios and maps. I think that has become the case for PCK, as well as CM2 to a lesser extent.

I agree.

What is the solution? I really think a Matrix sanctioned, and approachable mapmaker needs to eventually addressed. Even if it means limiting some of the functionality.

Looking at this from the other side as someone who has actually built a map editor, looked at how many other companies who do 3D maps for their games have done it, and understand the requirements of the underlying PCK engine ... I think personally that it is highly unlikely that it will happen the way most people who are reading this thread hope it will.

Regards

S.

[Stridor]

<double post>

[Stridor]

Ok here is an attempt to describe what I think is about as basic as I can make map making. If this is still too complex then I will take my leave...

Draw your map in paint. Use the colors provided in a guide. Each color identifies a "thing" (like a house or a road or a field, etc). Personally I find this easier, faster, more flexible and MORE intuitive than laying out tiles in CM. You don't need to know anything about layers or advanced transparency techniques which would be used to trace over real world or google earth maps. Just a blank canvas, a color and a brush.

Here is an example below



Next pick a "look and feel template". These will define how things on the map will look (like forests, fields, roads, water, etc). These templates can also be added by the community.

Load your hand painted map along with the selected template into MM.

In order to make a map with terrain undulations you can use the terrain sculpting tools already available inside MM. Personally I find this to be easier, faster, more flexible and MORE intuitive than height number tiles in CM. These tools work just like real world scultping tools as you might use to sculpt a real life 3D terrain map in say styrofoam.

Press the build button and MM will make the map for you.

If anyone can think of how you can conceptually build a true 3D map easier than this than please post.

Regards

S.

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

From someone who does not do official map making or do any playing around with 3d modeling.  Take a look at this thread: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1905309

Wood,

that thread has nothing to do with MM. I think thats a tool stridor put together for some other purpose entirely.

I havent used it the tool in that thread for any mapmaking at all.

The MM tool cap be pretty simple simple to use.

I'm pretty much a novice at this with no 3D modelling and I was able to use MM to create a map. (though I still won;t attempt any 3D modelling).

It's really a matter of following along in the tutorial, while working on your own map. For some of the folks that that had trouble getting it to work. The very first thing they should do is download the mm zip files, then immediately check their properties and "unblock" them of they show blocked (security settings on their computer). Then unzip and run.

I was able to run MM on and older laptop with 1.5 Ghz Celeron processor with embedded graphics, and 512MB Ram. So this is pretty barebones system.

I really wasnt expecting to see ANY map maker until the third game release in any event, so this 3rd party add-on is a great bonus as far as I'm concerned.

Rick

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: junk2drive

Good post wood.

I still ponder how HPS sells Squad Battles and the Campaigns without the ability to make new maps. Let alone the buy another module if you want something else system.

With CM, I cobbled up some maps and mods but had to wait for those with real talent to share the good stuff. We begged BFC for better maps and ability to add units. PC gives us that and here I sit waiting for those with talent to share them with me.

junk2drive,

I've posted both a map, a template and a scenario in the mods section. Mobius has also posted some new maps. There isn't a central place to collect of this but there aare some threads there with new maps.

Rick

[junk2drive]

What I was trying to say is that&nbsp;we ask for something as if it is simple, then you get it and find out it's not so simple after all.
&nbsp;
I find I have no talent when it comes to things like this. I can only hope that those with the talent are generous.
&nbsp;
And those people are not that numerous.

[thewood1]

I don't mean to sound smart-a$$ed, I am not trying to be.&nbsp; But if its that simple, or lets say as simple as CM1's editor, why are so many people still designing maps and scenarios for CM1, a game system coming up on a decade old, and not for PCK?&nbsp; I would really like to know.&nbsp; I would think with CM1 slowly dying and being left behind by new technology, people would flock to PCK's editing capabilties.&nbsp; I posted my opinion up a few posts.&nbsp; I have played many wargames and the ones that attract my friends and I are ones that provide a lot of flexibility in a simple easy to use package.&nbsp; That may sound contradictory, but that is why few games meet that challenge.
&nbsp;
I want PCK to work.&nbsp; Right now it is the traditional CM1 player's only near-term hope.&nbsp; But something is holding people back from embracing it.&nbsp; Part of it may be that the pain to run CM1 isn't big enough yet.&nbsp; Another part may be the percieved limited scope of PCK.&nbsp; But anther part, at least amongst my gaming friends, is that it is really a game that requires a lot of complicated modding to get any where near the flexibility of even one CM1 game.&nbsp; Whether anyone on this board wants to admit it or not, PCK is compared to CM1.&nbsp; CM1 has its own set of issues, but people know the game and its issues and learned to work around them.&nbsp; Even a misplaced perception that PCK is more complicated to get the same scope as CM1 will keep people playing CM1.

[Mraah]

thewood1,

I feel that PcK players are waiting for a random map generator ...
With Pck lacking a random map generator it seems most folks are turned off by the whole idea of making maps.

Just my opinion.

I personally haven't completed any of my maps because I find myself being a "tinkerer" or tweaker and there's always something I can make better. I think the hardest part about making a map for PcK relates to the amount of historial accuracy one wants in the map. The research on the battle location can be time consuming by itself. Mobius has done an outstanding job making historical maps for us.

Thank you for posting your thoughts and opinions. Everyone might not agree with everyone else but at least there is some communication on the subject of map making.

Rob

[thewood1]

Yeah, I use the random map generator more than anything in CM.&nbsp; Even when I was building a map, I usually did a random map first and then modified it.&nbsp; It just seems that all the momentum PCK had is slipping away.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Yeah, I use the random map generator more than anything in CM.  Even when I was building a map, I usually did a random map first and then modified it.  It just seems that all the momentum PCK had is slipping away.

Is there a possibility that interest in turn-based games like CMx1 and/or PzC is slipping away in general?

CC maps are much harder to make than those for either of the turn-based games, but that never stopped people from making them or playing on them.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[madorosh]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: thewood1
My philosophy has always been that if a scenario/map editor is too complicated and is percieved to be out of reach of the non-passionate, casual player, grapical mods will outstrip scenarios and maps.  I think that has become the case for PCK, as well as CM2 to a lesser extent.

This actually speaks to not including any official fancy 3D editor at all. Having been involved with the evolution of another game (Railroad Tycoon) from 2D to 3D I have seen the decline in player made maps. The numbers went from hundreds of 2D maps in RRT2 to only dozens of 3D maps in RRT3. Maps took on average 3 days to make to 3 weeks in the 3D game. (I heard that there was an unlimited number of game generated random ANSI maps made for RRT1, the original.)

When Close Combat (2D) turned into 3D (GI Combat), you didn't see people beating down the door asking "how do I make maps for that" either, simply because the new game itself sucked. Had nothing to do with the maps.

The 3D editor of RRT3 even included a world elevation data base where you could make a height map of any part of the earth and import it directly into a map. Still far fewer maps were made.

See above.

So I feel no amount of money invested in a 3D Editor for PCK will generate many more maps than could be made with MM. Matrix should use the money for something else more productive.

Throughout wargaming's history - and I've done my homework here - the most popular games have always been the ones that are the most open ended. People passed on Tobruk and embraced Squad Leader for two main reasons; the game mechanics, but also the open-endedness. Compare what SPI was doing with Tac Game 3 with its single map, and the way Avalon Hill took off with it as PanzerBlitz - with its isomorphic mapboards.

People are still playing the first generation Combat Mission and visiting the official forums - and there are all kinds of other forums out there devoted to the game, years after official support for the game has ceased - because of the open-endedness. This forum, on the other hand, lies dormant for days, sometimes weeks at a time.

You don't think people creating new scenarios, then actually playing them and discussing them, would lead to renewed interest? I don't see a worst case scenario out of it other than making the game more flexible.