Half-assed Maps

[RD Oddball]

Thanks for the well reasoned opinions and kudos, where you felt we deserved them, from both of you.

[Dundradal]

ORIGINAL: kojusoki1

Dundradal - I dont complain that there are bugs, as in each software always were, are and will be. Im also in IT business and I moreor less knowhow things work. Also, RD_Oddball is doing great job and seems dev are taking care what I really appriate.

I only complained that "a lot of work was put into this..." - but it also was withthis magic emoticon:    ";)"

ANyway - I find this rerelease as the best game from the whole CC, I do like Devs approach and I hope they will keep doing good job.
And I will complain on bugs as finally I am on the customers side;)

PS
Dundradal: there is a HUGE dofference between a mod (user made) and a commercial product. Remember. CUstomers not "can" but MUST complain in such cases. I am always saying to my customers: if you find something wrong, I do want to know about this first and ASAP.

Oh I'm saying complain away within reason. By that I don't mean tell the people that made the game they half-assed it. I used my example to show that no matter what they are labors of love.

Of course people want to know what they've done wrong in order to correct it. I was more criticizing those who are just bandwagoning on a hate train.

And your welcome Oddball.

[xe5]

After numerous examples pointing to categorical errors w/r/t map elevations, you might expect those 'laborers of love' to announce a comprehensive review of the issue rather than "Five maps with elevation issues. They'll be taken care of. If you find others please post them. Thanks"

Some of us are somewhat less incognito than others. IIRC, the original CC2 'hate train' led to a pretty vigorous mod community [;)]

[RD Oddball]

I would disagree with your characterization of this being a "hate train bandwagon" and it is not fair to yourself and your interests. Like us, you're basic motivation appears to be that you're very interested in seeing the game as good as it can be. We're grateful for that long term dedication to the game. Thank you.

[xe5]

Dundradal's characterization ("I was more criticizing those who are just bandwagoning on a hate train.") not mine. Thx for the lifetime achievement recognition. I'll hang it right next to Atomic's cease and desist notice. What I was really hoping to hear is that y'all are going to comb thru all the map coding. As it stands now, the implication is that only errors on maps reported by users will get fixed. That being the case, on to Arnhem West:

1. buildings with multiple elevations
2. slope shading but no slope
3. twin chimneys coded as L2 brick walls with shadows that tower over the level 2 bldg beside them
4. roads with multiple elevations longitudinally. Multi elevations are OK on roads in cross-section (eg. just above circle #4)
5. 'invisible' .5 meter swale where the same elevation difference is indicated by slope shading on other LSA maps

[Dundradal]

ORIGINAL: xe5

Dundradal's characterization ("I was more criticizing those who are just bandwagoning on a hate train.") not mine. Thx for the lifetime achievement recognition. I'll hang it right next to Atomic's cease and desist notice. What I was really hoping to hear is that y'all are going to comb thru all the map coding. As it stands now, the implication is that only errors on maps reported by users will get fixed. That being the case, on to Arnhem West:

Nothing gets results like witty sarcasm.

I think they are going through all the maps. That is the impression that I got. You are doing great work by finding this errors and helping point them out. I know I appreciate what you are doing. I'm sure they do as well. So just relax a bit. Not the end of the world.

[GaryChildress]

Kudos go to xe5 for taking the time to find the errors and kudos go to Matrix for seeking to fix them.

[Dundradal]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Kudos go to xe5 for taking the time to find the errors and kudos go to Matrix for seeking to fix them.

Seconded.

[xe5]

Beek:

1. bldgs with multiple elevations (this hill is not well defined by slope shading)
2. No slope shading to indicate this road is elevated 1.5 m above the roadside
3. road continues but elevation on road abruptly ends
4. random .5 m depressions
5. lot more cover and concealment available from this discarded bicycle (civ equipment) than you'd imagine
6. invisible wire fence
7. (not shown) road lower right with longitudinal elev changes

[CaptRio]

Im sorry MATRIX, Im a big fan, but those issues are outrageous! [X(]

You guys would be able to find those maps bugs with minimal quality tests.

[:-]

[Tactics]

Was looking to spend some $$, but you guys consistently disappoint over the past few years (except with WITP). My 'crawl' bug never did get fixed in Modern Tactics, ya know.....

[Redmarkus5]

Probably a really dumb question, but could these map issues explain some of the cases of infantry being wiped out by MGs when they appear to be under cover, or overly accurate mortar fire? Maybe the targeted troops are standing on top of a bare hill as far as the program is concerned, and not in the ditch or behind the wall that shows on the map?

[RD Oddball]

ORIGINAL: xe5

Dundradal's characterization ("I was more criticizing those who are just bandwagoning on a hate train.") not mine. Thx for the lifetime achievement recognition. I'll hang it right next to Atomic's cease and desist notice. What I was really hoping to hear is that y'all are going to comb thru all the map coding. As it stands now, the implication is that only errors on maps reported by users will get fixed. That being the case, on to Arnhem West:

1. buildings with multiple elevations
2. slope shading but no slope
3. twin chimneys coded as L2 brick walls with shadows that tower over the level 2 bldg beside them
4. roads with multiple elevations longitudinally. Multi elevations are OK on roads in cross-section (eg. just above circle #4)
5. 'invisible' .5 meter swale where the same elevation difference is indicated by slope shading on other LSA maps

Ah didn't know Dundradal had changed the title. I'm sure he agrees with my point as well. Since we'd "proof read" the maps twice before our testers had several months to look at them I wasn't prepared to immediately assume they're all with issues. As an example Arnhem West's elevation values have a lot of subtlety to the elevations that weren't present on the ones you reported as being too coarse. So I'm not prepared to generalize about all the maps as you are. We can certainly give them a 3rd pass but it doesn't appear all issues are present on all maps.

Again, thanks for the reports. We'll address them.

[RD Oddball]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Kudos go to xe5 for taking the time to find the errors and kudos go to Matrix for seeking to fix them.

Wouldn't have it any other way. It's the right thing to do and supporting the CC builds we've created is part and parcel as developer.

Mick, can't thank you enough for taking the time to file these reports.

[Dundradal]

ORIGINAL: RD_Oddball
Ah didn't know Dundradal had changed the title. I'm sure he agrees with my point as well.

Again, thanks for the reports. We'll address them.

I didn't change it. It seems it changed a few posts before and carried over. I was wondering why the hell the latest thread said "CC Socialism" when I didn't see that thread in the forum.

[RD Oddball]

ORIGINAL: xe5

Beek:

1. bldgs with multiple elevations (this hill is not well defined by slope shading)
2. No slope shading to indicate this road is elevated 1.5 m above the roadside
3. road continues but elevation on road abruptly ends
4. random .5 m depressions
5. lot more cover and concealment available from this discarded bicycle (civ equipment) than you'd imagine
6. invisible wire fence
7. (not shown) road lower right with longitudinal elev changes

One aspect of some of the comments you've made that we need to take into account here is that any surface that is perpendicular to the light source isn't going to have a lighter side or a darker side. As the angle of incidence changes from the surface being perpendicular to the light source it'll gradually start to pick up definition. In CC format (top down or birds eye view) I'd hazard a guess and say anything inside of 90 degrees from the angel of incidence (45 degrees on both sides of the angle of incidence) the light source will have very little effect on defining that shape. So some of these issues are judgement calls absent creating the maps in either a 3D modelling program or having a real life reference with the light source in exactly the right spot.

My point being that #2 and #3 could have a slight 1 meter rise over 5 meters of run (I'm guessing on the run, regardless that comes out to 20 degree angle from the ground plane) without the viewer being able to clearly see it due to what I described above.

Also I'd say that the top down CC format isn't good for communicating subtle changes in elevation such as #4 and #5. It's possible to have those small changes in elevation in real life without being able to see them from directly above. There simply isn't enough reflected light. Not to mention things like grass can obscure that light reflection

We'll address the other issues you mentioned. Thankyou!

[RD Oddball]

ORIGINAL: Dundradal


I didn't change it. It seems it changed a few posts before and carried over. I was wondering why the hell the latest thread said "CC Socialism" when I didn't see that thread in the forum.

Okay my apologies for not having my facts straight. It didn't sound like something you'd do. Not that changing the post subject is a huge deal. My point still holds regardless of who changed it.[;)] We're all working for the same goal here and it's not right to characterize any of these issues as either being the end of the world (game breakers) or summarily dismiss them as not needing fixing. Neither extreme viewpoint would be correct in my estimation.

[RD Oddball]

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

Probably a really dumb question, but could these map issues explain some of the cases of infantry being wiped out by MGs when they appear to be under cover, or overly accurate mortar fire? Maybe the targeted troops are standing on top of a bare hill as far as the program is concerned, and not in the ditch or behind the wall that shows on the map?

Yes and no. As you pointed out obviously terrain is going to effect LOS so if the target infantry team is behind a hill the answer would be yes. If they're out in the middle of a flat open field with no cover then that would be no. But the strength of the MG42's was being reported under multiple circumstances.

Steve our lead developer made a post that clearly explains the changes to the MG42's. fb.asp?m=2528335

[xe5]

The relief shading in CC's top-down view has never depicted elevation well. Right-click and drag to recce map terrain is an insufficient means of getting a feel for an entire map. Even so, its startling to open a map like Arnhem West in the map editor and see the map's elevation scheme.

Agreed, a 1 meter rise over a 5 meter run might not be noticeable from above IRL, but in a game sorely lacking contour lines (ie. at least on the overview map), minor elevation changes (eg. the small bridges on Valkenswaard) have usually been over-emphasized.

[RD Oddball]

Agreed about the min and max values of Arnhem West elevations as compared to the BGM. We're going to change that to bring the two closer together.