Terrain effects question

[xe5]

Im curious why LOS/LOF is always obstructed at approximately 10m in situations such as the one shown below? It would seem that these stream & bank locations should function as 'natural' trenches. Is the depth of the stream (0.0m) somehow being taken into account, or is the obstruction being caused by some other factor?

[emperor peter]

This is typical for most countryside roads in the market-garden area. They are elevated above the surrounding fields, so the LOS from the ditch to the other roadside should be blocked.

[xe5]

As I was saying...

[STIENER]

i dont know why you get what you get in the second pic, but in the top pic it was explained to me that you cant see anything behind the raised road because of the dead ground behind it. your at the same raised level looking across flat ground. i think you already know that part tho...but i dont know why you cant see more than 10m across the top of the flat road that appears to be 20 to 30m wide.

it would be nice if someone in the know would reply to your post.

[Q.M]

What map Mick?

[xe5]

Glad you asked that Q.M - the map is Best but similar LOS/LOF obstruction can be found on Doornenburg:



however...

[xe5]

...on Driel North, where the Bank is at the same elevation as the Stream (0m) there is no obstruction. Which leads to further questions -

1) since the bank appears graphically to be higher than the stream, shouldnt it be coded for elevation that way?

2) when the bank is coded at the same elevation as the stream does it provide the expected defensive benefit?

[xe5]

A related issue encountered is inconsistent terrain coding w/r/t streams and shallow water.
eg. Elden, where some small waterways are streams and others are shallow water.
Difficult to determine whether 'shallow water/bank' combinations also incur LOS/LOF obstruction, because its hard to get teams to deploy linearly in shallow water as readily as they do in streams.

[Manu]

for the Driel , I think that the bank should be coded with the 0.5m elevation. Is the game taking in account that the soldiers are lying down? I have not seen the element txt but I think it is important that the mapmakers have a very good knowledge of each element and his characteristics. If I had to make new maps, I think that before coding them, I would study and adapt the element txt. Is there a workbook for the element of LSA?
Another question, there are wood, stone and brick floors but what determine the choice of the element : the floor or the roof? I think that a wood roof floor or zinc roof floor would be more interesting as the protection top of the soldiers is more important that the nature of the floor. What do you think?

[xe5]

The Bank elemment has an inherent 0.5 meter height so in the Driel North example above, the bank terrain essentially represents a low earthen berm. However, visually this does not appear to be the case - what you see on the map graphic isnt what youre getting in the all-important mapname.txt file. Agreed - map coders need very good knowledge of the terrain Elements characteristics. When multiple map coders are involved its also important to maintain a consistent "style" of terrain coding.

Changing the height of the Bank element from 0.5m to 0m might be worth considering. Bank is commonly used as the intermediate terrain type between a low lying body of water and higher surrounding terrain. Making Bank height = 0m would simplify terrain coding by making it more WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get). Then the elevations for typical water/bank/field location would be water @ lowest elevation, bank at slightly higher elevation, field (ie. surrounding terrain) at slightly higher elevation than the adjacent bank.

Good point asking whether the game takes the team's stance into account when determining its LOS. The LOS line from a team should be a measure of potential line-of-sight - could that team see/fire at a point/target from any available stance, not just its current stance. If a team then needed to change stance so it would gain LOS it would do so when issued a Fire order. Given that 4 stances are available in the Elements file (prone, low, medium, high) the question then becomes - can a stationary team assume a medium or high stance? Or are stationary teams confined to either prone or low (kneeling) stances while medium and high stances are only available, respectively, to teams that are moving or moving fast?

[Platoon_Michael]

Good Luck with that xe5
Let me know how it goes for you.

The 3 story House is 18M the Shed is 7.5M and the Field is 7.5M

We can do this all day if you want to?

[xe5]

The LOS discrepancy youre seeing on the Lutrebois map is caused by the height of the WAR & TLD "Stone Window" element being wrongly specified as 8 meters (16).
In both versions the "Stone Window" element should be changed to 4 meters (8) as it is in the LSA Elements file.

[xe5]

The various Elements files have always been chock full of peculiarities. In the example below - the fodder stack which appears from its shadowing to be as tall, or taller than the L1 stone bldgs, is actually only as high as the surrounding light snowy field. The fodder stack is effectively flat!

Youre right though. You can go on all day asking why light snowy fields are as high as heavy snowy fields (0.5m), or why a stone (1m) is bigger than a boulder (0.5m) etc. etc. Terrain issues that only tend to be compounded when maps get coded for elements and elevation.

[mooxe]

ANZAC_Lord4War was right when he said the map makers should code their own maps.

[Manu]

ORIGINAL: mooxe

ANZAC_Lord4War was right when he said the map makers should code their own maps.

yes right, it was my first reaction when we saw the coding errors on the LSA maps

post 67 of this thread : http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2527195&mpage=3&key=&#2529805

[Platoon_Michael]

ORIGINAL: xe5

The various Elements files have always been chock full of peculiarities. In the example below - the fodder stack which appears from its shadowing to be as tall, or taller than the L1 stone bldgs, is actually only as high as the surrounding light snowy field. The fodder stack is effectively flat!

Youre right though. You can go on all day asking why light snowy fields are as high as heavy snowy fields (0.5m), or why a stone (1m) is bigger than a boulder (0.5m) etc. etc. Terrain issues that only tend to be compounded when maps get coded for elements and elevation.

I'm very impressed.
1) You knew the map.I just assumed you don't play WAR as I never see you post over on that forums.(Shame we don't,seems people here are more willing to fix the bugs you find)

2) You found the Hay Stack is the same height as the ground.

[STIENER]

Platoon Michael.....off topic here [:)] whats the best mod for WAR? i want to get back into playing it [8D] didnt really care for the stock version when it came out.....

[Platoon_Michael]

ORIGINAL: STIENER

Platoon Michael.....off topic here [:)] whats the best mod for WAR? i want to get back into playing it [8D] didnt really care for the stock version when it came out.....

I have been working on importing TT's VETBoB into WAR.
Not finished but it plays pretty good with NO crash's
The BG_Unit Icons are not finished yet so it looks a little sloppy.
And I believe I need to fix the medals on the Soldier screen still.I have them listed at the top of the .TGA but I think I have 2 of them labeled wrong.
I hope to have all the Icons done by next weekend and then do all the GS_Unit Icons,then work on the Force Pools.
Also been changing quite a few of the vehicle graphics as well.
I'm using Sapa's terrain Effects which is just an awesome improvement to the game.

Like I said plays good just still in the Beta phase.
Biggest issue that I don't like so far is the F.O's,the explosions sometimes arrive too early before the Plane passes over.
I'm sure I can fix it it's just a little low on the list right now.
http://www.mediafire.com/?ldkb73gxm1sv83z

Been trying to work on my vehicle graphic skills with mixed results.
Simple color editing? No Problem.
Creating them from scratch? ehh well,it;s a little slow.
I need 6-7 vehicles replaced and it's taking way too long.
Yes you do get the Tigers and other Heavy Tanks and the Op Grief vehicles and teams are used a bit more.

You can view some screen shots here.
http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/mo ... 04&start=0

There's also a link at CCS for the Excel Workbook I have been using.
It BIG,It's Bulky but very informative and once that's done I hope it provides people with a good idea of how to use it.

[xe5]

Ive been away from WaR too long to be anything but a dilettante about it. However, Ive ported the WaR & TLD maps into LSA (minus any bridge FX) so I recognized Lutrebois.

Change the height value for Stone Window from 16 to 8 in the WaR Elements file to fix that LOS issue.

IMO, Fodder Stack elements should get a height value of 6 and be drawn accordingly.

[STIENER]

thanks for the info and links platoon michael.......keep up the good work...looking forward to the finished product [:)]