Thoughts on Bathymetry Layer Contour Levels

[boogabooga]

Does the Command engine set the levels for assigning contour colors, or are they third party textures?

Vast majority of submarines in Command operate at depths not more than about 1500 ft. It shallow waters, the difference between a few hundred feet of depth matters a LOT to gameplay, whereas in very deep water even thousands of feet difference in depth does not really matter much at all.

In my opinion, everything below about 2000 ft depth should be one color, and there should be many more contour level graduations for shallow water.

[Dimitris]

The raster tiles for the bathymetry layer are pre-generated by us, using the in-sim terrain data.

We are certainly open to suggestions for improved shading on this layer. Just share your suggested color ramp / shader profile, and we can generate samples at areas of interest.

[boogabooga]

How many submarines in command have max depths below 600m? How many naval mines can be laid below 600m?

My first pass would be:
However many levels you have, use that from 0 to 600m in evenly split bands. Then one color for everything deeper than 600m.

Also, I'm not an expert at the thermal layer/acoustic models, so if there is information to be gained by knowing how deep very deep water is, keep that in mind.

But, this isn't an oceanography game. I don't think anyone cares what the pelagic ocean floor looks like once it's WAY past the crush depth of all units in the database. We have Google Earth for that anyway. I DO think people care about navigating littoral waters, though.

[BDukes]

How many submarines in command have max depths below 600m? How many naval mines can be laid below 600m?

My first pass would be:
However many levels you have, use that from 0 to 600m in evenly split bands. Then one color for everything deeper than 600m.

Also, I'm not an expert at the thermal layer/acoustic models, so if there is information to be gained by knowing how deep very deep water is, keep that in mind.

But, this isn't an oceanography game. I don't think anyone cares what the pelagic ocean floor looks like once it's WAY past the crush depth of all units in the database. We have Google Earth for that anyway. I DO think people care about navigating littoral waters, though.

Agree enough to comment on this one.

M

[JFS737]

Good idea

[Dimitris]

OK, so here's an example.

Current shading of Aegean coastal area south of Athens:



Same area, but with the same shading gradient applied on a much narrower depth spectrum (0-600m instead of 0-5000m):



Better ?

[Knightpawn]

That looks nice!

[Swant]

Looks good

[BDukes]

Looks great

M

[ExNusquam]

My only thought is that the bottom topography is relevant in determining where CZs can exist. In the example used in the Aegean, it gives the appearance of deep water, but there will generally be no CZs. The current bathy layer does a good job of highlighting this.

I supposed a useful compromise would be to leave the BMNG layer as is and update the Relief + Bathy layer.

[boogabooga]

My only thought is that the bottom topography is relevant in determining where CZs can exist. In the example used in the Aegean, it gives the appearance of deep water, but there will generally be no CZs. The current bathy layer does a good job of highlighting this.

I supposed a useful compromise would be to leave the BMNG layer as is and update the Relief + Bathy layer.

How deep does the water have to be for CZs?

My point is just to make everything below some 'useful' depth to be one color, and graduations in color above that.