Matrix Games Forums

On the top left of Wardin map there is a small draw error.

Somebody made a bad copy and paste here. But I like the map because it is as the original but with many changes on borders, the hills, it is very good with the exception from this error.

Oh, gawd! Talk about fly specks in the pepper![8|]

What's the error exactly? A few tree shadows without trees? Draw error? That would be a coding error...

thanks firefox...got it.

This is other strange thing that I found on one map.
One image, better than nothing.

Whats that coded as?   Rubble?  If so that's abole to be traversed by vehicles.   And theoretically if you were a sneaky panzer driver wouldn't you reverse into a building and wait? [:D]
 

That whole destroyed area of the house is coded as "wood Debris"

No walls floor or roof exist.

I think he was pointing out the abrupt change from bricks to snowy ground too???

Many of the maps could use another look over.
In the picture below the elevation changes from 7m to 15m starting South of the plane to the plane.
And it does the same going from the house behind the tank to the plane despite the lack of shadows to depict such a change.
I do hope the next patch either inclueds all the tree shadows on the zoomed out map or removes them as well.

Varying elevation...especially only 8m...doesn't necessarily mean shadows.  The attached picture is my street from the same top-down satellite view...the distance between the 2 rows of houses is around 150-200ft (about 50-60m or so, probably about the same as your tank to the plane).  The sun is directly at the 6 o'clock based on the tree shadows.  The bottom row of houses sit about 10m high that the houses on the top of the picture.  No shading or shadows visible at all to demonstrate an elevation change...looks pretty flat.  It may be easier for some players to play...they don't feel like checking elevation...but it is not exactly an error.

If the ground slopes down towards the top of your picture, Neil, will that not lengthen the shadows; and would that not become obvious if the picture was bigger?

You do have a good point Neil,
 
But.........
 
The hill is clearly depicted on the CC map,unfortuanly it jusy only shows one side.

there are no shadows on the "sunny" side of a hill... only in the Lee.

It is brighter on the north side of that hill.  Just somewhat subtle shading as you can only make snow so white. [:D]  IIRC that map was stock with some modifications?  So that issue will have been there since CC4's inception and gone unnoticed the entire time... until now.[8|][:D]

ORIGINAL: RD_Oddball

It is brighter on the north side of that hill.  Just somewhat subtle shading as you can only make snow so white. [:D]  IIRC that map was stock with some modifications?  So that issue will have been there since CC4's inception and gone unnoticed the entire time... until now.[8|][:D]

True, it is an original map. I always had problems "seeing" that hill. It is the single biggest problem with 2D maps, the only real solution is 3D and we dont want that.

Does anyone remember GIjoe's 3D map images he posted? They helped alot to see the elevations. When you look at the map, there is a zoom out map available, I would like to see the elevation 3D map as a link as well. What do y'all think?

I think you guys have waaaay to much time on your hands..lol

It is ironic that in my view the slope is clearly shown going up to the aircraft and going down the other side..

I say it is ironic because I reckon all the maps should be flat. Obviously there would be walls and other obstacles along the way but I reckon flat maps would make for a better game.

-

Joe... I see what you mean now..... hmmm... I'm willing to give that idea some thought.

I spent a lot of time flattening out the WaR maps.

originally many were coded with much greater differences between hills and valleys..... Buildings/trees/other obstacles could easily be shot over the top of leving very few impediments to LOS.


When each map is much less than 1 square kilometre a flat playing field is almost a possibility.

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

I spent a lot of time flattening out the WaR maps.

Hmm, I was just about to complain about the absurd flatness of some of these "hills" on some maps. There as some maps with grand variations of topography, which I would expect in some of the hills/valleys in the Ardennes. However, many maps are extremely flat, like Holland flat, which is just not a realistic portrayal of the topography of the area. My biggest gripe is that some of the "hills" that you or the original map designers have flattened are nothing more than small bumps (2 meters or less) in the land when compared to the area that they cover. Often, the graphic shading of the "hill" will outweigh the real change in topography. In other words, the hill appears much taller than how it's actually coded. Now that I know you have gone back and lowered the values of some maps, it all becomes clear as to why some hills look bigger than they are. Perhaps some of the hills were shaved a little too much?

I also have come across a few map errors and as well as some questionable topography design. Perhaps I should re-find these maps and provide screen grabs and explanations?

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

I reckon flat maps would make for a better game.

No[font="Tahoma"][/font]