Close Combat Series :: View topic - Maps errors not fixed in the new WaR patch...

Maps errors not fixed in the new WaR patch...

through

[^/[Print]\]

Close Combat Series -> Close Combat Wacht am Rhein

#1: Maps errors not fixed in the new WaR patch... Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 9:38 am
—
I have seen many reported about the maps been wrong coded (symtoms) in WaR, has the team not read that? The problems has not been fixed in the new patch.

#2: Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 11:03 am
—
Some one did fix the.ovm and .mmm files,correcting the shadows I had complained about.That was done before the patch and can be found here.
http://closecombat.matrixgames.com/WaR/WaRmods.html
(Thanks again for doing that,I dont know who did it by name to personally thank)

I'm not sure about what you mean by codded wrong and dont recall seeing anything posted about it.
I don't understand the LOS yet it looks like one can shoot the enemy in higher buildings something I dont recall CCIV ever having (dont know about CCV) maybe I should go back and look at that.

I also dont like the use of Deep Water or Steep elevation it just seems to make the AI dumbfounded.I cant remember which map it was but Bloody Omaha had a map with Steep Elevation and it just took your troops forever to get up the hill.
The one map that would have been fun to have deep water is one they didnt do.An original CCIV (Clervaux) it never had deep water to begin with but would have made the map more challenging.

I do wish I knew how to relocate the VL's ,on the map South Eifel the text for the VL "To Andler" is covered up by a tree.

#3: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 11:35 am
—
Yes michaells, yer complains about the LOS and buildings is about the wrong coding, (the errors come from wrong made map codes in WaR)
And other report get LOS through houses and be able to shoot through houses, its coused by this error way of code maps in WaR.

I better explain this to the WaR team as they have coded all houses wrong in WaR, the houses aligned horizontal and vertical is not that bad coded in WaR for natural reasons, the greatest error come in houses that are offset from horizon +- degrees..

The greatest problem this error coding comes when its city fights, and many houses, and all is about fight in house to house etc, in a forest map with one house this error way of code don’t matter that much ofcose, other errors in code is then more important. WaR is a city fight CC game so ofcose as all the houses have wrong coded this become v problematic, if one dont play the game as a arcade that is.
The LOS become wrong, the protection gets wrong, and cover get wrong and also the movement time penalty don’t work if one don’t code the maps right… Non of this works as ought to in the houses that are not horizontal aligned.

The wall coding must be done like this:
(let the 1 represent a wall, and 0 a non-wall element)

000111111111
0011
001
001

In war they coded like this:
00011111111
0010
001
001

See the red 0, should be a 1, well
I make a image to more explain how its to be done.

Edit as i forgot to say what 1 is and 0 is.

Last edited by AT_Stalky on Sat Mar 07, 2009 12:12 pm; edited 2 times in total

#4: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 11:53 am
—
Yep, excuse the bad english, hope the images say more then my "broken english". Wink

#5: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 12:33 pm
—
Nice find, Stalky...and thanks for the easy to understand pics and huge lettering Very Happy

I guess we need another new CCWAR patch to address these map coding errors on buildings.

BTW, on most multilevel buildings with partial 2nd or 3rd floor...the coding looks wrong too...part of the upper level walls are coded as interior walls when they should be outer walls. Maybe I should follow Stalky's example and post pics to explain this...maybe later Wink

#6: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 12:34 pm
—
My english is "broken" i dont even know if my talk of alignment make sence in english, this is what i meent:

#7: Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 1:15 pm
—
That indeed was a very good post AT_Stalky.
Very easy to understand.
I never did understand Mafis soldier viewing soldier or soldier viewing tank in 5CC.
And I dont understand how this tank had LOS.On the same map my tank also shoot through a house but I was not able to capture a screen shot quick enough.

UO0001.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

153.13 KB

Viewed:

17541 Time(s)

UO0004.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

305.15 KB

Viewed:

17540 Time(s)

#8: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 3:42 pm
—
Let me explain some things about some elements in CC.

As my "english is broken" (say the S3T team)
So I supose Its more easy for me to make another image to explain a fundamental part of the CC engine and map code:

Maybe Round / circles is wrong way of say it or illustrate it, its more H/V shape so the image is just for illustrating the general ideal of the space in between elements only.

Hope that explained that part of that element, Smile

Edit some spelling

Last edited by AT_Stalky on Sun Mar 08, 2009 9:16 pm; edited 3 times in total

#9: Author: MossOrleni,

Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 7:06 pm
—
Informative post... though it looks more like an Andy Warhol composition Laughing

Moss

#10: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 4:10 am
—
Hmm...still no response from the developers?
Or are you guys still too busy rechecking the map coding and fixing the coding glitches on buildings?

#11: Author: southern_land,

Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 4:52 am
—

squadleader_id wrote:

Hmm...still no response from the developers?
Or are you guys still too busy rechecking the map coding and fixing the coding glitches on buildings?

No. Personally I'm running away cackling like the villian from a 1940's melodrama and planning my next foray into the world of evil were Supa-stalk dude can come and save the world.

#12: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:59 am
—
...at least that was a response of some sorts Wink

#13: Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 9:29 am
—
Im currently on Day 4 of the 25 day GC and would have to admit the LOS makes it very difficult to figure out where to hide.

Maybe this explains it.
Got it from the Matrix site from the behind the scenes thread.

Quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: RD_Oddball

RE: LOS through two lined up windows - Coding interior walls into the map IS the solution. Not all situations allow for it tho. Sometimes the house graphic is so small that if you put in interior walls there'd be no room for soldiers inside.

Agreed. And this was the case 90% of the time in WaR. Either code the interior walls/doors, or dont and allow room for the sprites.

In WaR we found that interior coding was impossible in most cases due to the size of the building (small) and the angle of the building in relation to the pixel to be coded. One pixel coded at an odd or extreme angle could ruin a sprites whole day and make the building an untenable piece of architecture.

In the end it came down to minute adjustments post coding to ensure that sprites could access the coded building. Whether this left a snap shot opportunity through windows or not was not evident until post coding and LOS was applied.

Most were picked up and rectified. Unfortunately you must accept that in any instance some LOS through windows will still be evident.

What can I say, take the snap shot if offered. I know the lame assed AI will.

#14: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:04 am
—
No michaels. Jim is wrong there and I made a new image to explain it a bit better:

Edit spelling:

Last edited by AT_Stalky on Mon Mar 09, 2009 1:39 pm; edited 1 time in total

#15: Author: QM, Location: Australia

Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:06 am
—
Thats my quote, and I'll stand by it, I'm on day five turn two. I play the original CCIV as a parralel GC and get predominately the same LOS as I do in WaR. ??
I dont think it explains zip. It states the OPINION of myself only (ME), not the position of any one else including MATRIX, Destineer, S3T or the game designer, cast, crew or staff of anything.
I have a ball playing WaR, and thats from a hard and fast CCIV fanatic from the original release date back to my days at Platoon.

Choose your side. I welcome constructive feedback.

#16: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:22 am
—
Haha, here is the green house just to prove a point, if you guys dont get it, im so sorry, and I pitty the future of CC.

Things look dark in the land of CC, even though I am in a green house, and dont through many stones.

Last edited by AT_Stalky on Mon Mar 09, 2009 10:24 pm; edited 1 time in total

#17: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:28 am
—
And just to explanin one more thing, I can also have that green house look through, haha, and also block look thorough windows totaly, that part is made in the ELEMENTS file mates, so yer answer Jim is really not accurate at all.....

Dark times dark times, guys try to get it atleast, put all yer head together, for the sake of the future, and be a bit humble, you obviously dont understand this.

Anyone who whant my recoded map, this one and green house experiment, plz mail me and i send it to ya.

#18: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:55 am
—

QM wrote:

Thats my quote, and I'll stand by it, I'm on day five turn two. I play the original CCIV as a parralel GC and get predominately the same LOS as I do in WaR. ??
I dont think it explains zip. It states the OPINION of myself only (ME), not the position of any one else including MATRIX, Destineer, S3T or the game designer, cast, crew or staff of anything.
I have a ball playing WaR, and thats from a hard and fast CCIV fanatic from the original release date back to my days at Platoon.

Choose your side. I welcome constructive feedback.

Yes, ofcose your talk only for your self and is independent etc.
Tell, me QM, dint you singelhandedly coded HALF the WaR maps, or have I got that wrong?

Smile

#19: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 12:35 pm
—

QM wrote:

You know, I get a bit scared when someone say what you say here about not notice the difference from CC4 to WaR, and I get even more scared when your a part of the developement team and are part of coding maps (or are you not?).
I get even more horrified that you still dont understand it after I have so grapixly explaind it,

anyway here is the Atomic CC4 code from 1999, and its perfect:

Now start yer OLD Atomic CC4 up and look at the qualety of map codes.

#20: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 1:36 pm
—
Umm...don't understand or don't want to understand? Wink

I think Stalky painted the picture (literally!) clear enough for all to understand...you don't even have to be a CC expert or modder to understand the pics (and huge lettering Very Happy

).
At least if the developers and CCWAR map coders don't want to understand...then maybe just try coding a few of the maps the way Stalky explained...and test it to see if this fixes the LOS anomalies in CCWAR Wink

#21: Author: tripwire, Location: Florida - USA

Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 1:49 pm
—
Very, very well explained, Stalky. Your use of the English language is clear for any really technically inclined person to understand. I am a relative novice at CC modding... and it makes perfect sense to me. Thank you.

I usually wait for "new" products to be tested by the die-hards. This was (and still is) a good case for this attitude of mine.

#22: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:32 pm
—
Thanx Men

Anyway ID your idea is v good, and its just to code according to my instruction and one see how the "WaR LOS BUG" will go away, as there is no such BUG, its come from the maps in WaR is WRONGFULLY coded..

I have here now recoded all houses this map "Butgnbch.txt", and its a 10 minutes work, so its not done like it was a product I was selling for money... Its fixed up Just to prove a point.

Backup yer old "Butgnbch.txt" and replace it with this file in yer marix games/Close Combat Wacht am Rhein/maps folder. And anyone can see how the "los" bug is gone.

Notice its a fast work, and non of the other errors in the map is fixed just the houses. And that house below the Lumber yard is coded as a green house, Just righclick over the walls and oull see its glass all over.

Here is the file, (its a new file now, i have put another 10 min into it)
http://www.closecombatseries.net/Hosted/at_stalky/images/Butgnbch.zip

Try it

If I have time I will make a new elements file to, just to prove a point (and as they having so hard time understand my english) that the windows can be made either not look through at all, or fully look through, or any other level one whant to, and how the LOS blocking accumilates etc, if a unit is just outside a bilding and another another is just opposit building one can get los with this element file and even with correct coded maps, thats as it shold be (with the setting current in the WaR element file that is), and if one dont whant that one need no interial walls to stop that one just set another value in the elemts file for the windows and make window less see through. BUT one MUST CODE right (as i have explained) or ITS AS NO ELEMENTS IS THERE AT ALL and LOS go right through, cover, protection and movment penalty dont work either etc, and one see right through buildings as the building is not there at all. All my images should give a clear picture about that i hope..... But more of that later, first they have to understand the coding.

#23: Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:02 pm
—
You would think that WaR maps had been coded in a new and unrealistic way compared to the way all Close Combat maps had been coded.

I just checked a few maps and the coding seems fine and suitable for the intended purpose.

Although in theory stalky has it almost right, there are a lot of other contributing factors in coding a map... size of the graphic/size of the building/type of building/position of the building etc etc.

The building must be coded large enough to hold a team of men and the coded walls can't extend (too far) outside the building.

If we were to make cookie cutter stamps of each building they would become boring to play and not play at all realistically.... I want to have LOS through windows for instance, not windows that block LOS as stalky suggests.

Thats not to say there may be errors... 64 maps is huge, if you would like to point out anything that is particularly worrisome I'll be glad to take a look.

cheers

#24: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:15 pm
—
Hmm
'
Here is a building with Windows ALL around, and its a no see through...
So IF YOU WHANT SEE THROUGH of windows mate, you SHOULD SHANGE THAT in THE ELEMENTS FILE mate, Smile

Thats not the same as the missing elements the current WaR maps has in its houses that cause the see through even SOLDID WALLS. (shall I code that in yer way with the gaps and take some pic and post it just to prove my point?).

One more time mate, the elemenst are ROUND ok, you MUST code as Atomic made it..

I will try recode (in the Atomic way) one of the sadest coded maps in WaR, and have it ready tn or tm.

And Schrecken, I can offer you, to recode say 10 maps for free. If ya whant to.

#25: Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 10:37 pm
—
This topic is now a thread at Matirx Stalky.(but u probably already knew that)
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2056957

Your only going to do 10 maps for free?
If you can tell me how to get 5CC to display the elements like 3C does I will do 10 more.(just send me your list of 10 so I dont do the same ones)
that will give us 20.

#26: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 11:00 pm
—
I wich i had more time so I can offer more maps, but I have other project running, and it would not be fair to em. And family, etc.

And about 5CC, you have the latest version? Contanc me over my mail and I hint how to set it for WaR.
And U have a PM.

#27: Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 3:01 am
—
Great presentation AT_Stalky!

Definitely SOME maps have coding issues with buildings. The stock maps reused should be pretty good except for maybe buildings in expanded areas. The new maps seem to be a mixed bag with some looking right and others wrong.

Thanks for fixing some of them, look forward to downloading and playing on your updated maps....

#28: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 12:52 pm
—
Yeh
Some of the CC4 maps in WaR as dasburg is not changed from Atomic code so that map look perfect at first glance..
Unfortunately Some of the CC4 maps in WaR had changes in em, and they need recode, but, all the new made maps need recode.

This map I put maybe 25 minutes into (suppose it need as much more time making the small stuff)
We are talking of what? 21 new maps times maybe 1 hour each, and then just scheck up the CC4 maps that has been alterd in WaR, that’s maybe like 30 minutes each. Thats some 40 houers of work..

And then a dbl sheck by someone (another 20 houres maybe). I don’t think that’s to much effort to put in to make movement time work, LOS and protection, and cover work good.

I have offer to recode 10 maps… ??

Here is this recoded maps file: http://www.closecombatseries.net/Hosted/at_stalky/images/Lutrmnge.zip

#29: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 1:37 pm
—
Nice work, Stalky!

One more thing...I think the CCWAR elements.txt file needs to be re-checked for anomalies.
I discovered this when discussing 'your thread' at the Matrix forum:

Quote:

About the mystery of that ghostly see-thru Stavelot factory...you guys might want to take a closer look at the elements.txt file.
Eventhough Schrecken...err...Andrew pointed out that the factory has flimsy walls...it should still be a LOS/LOF obstruction but with low protection values.
Look for "Factory Wall" (column A, row 234 - or 237 in the Workbook), check "Visibility Hindrance" columns (KLMN)...notice that they're set at low values of 100 (same hindrance value as doors, and even lower than windows). Change those values to basic "wall" values of 450...and you should still get flimsy Factory Walls but not see-thru anymore.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2056957

#30: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 2:17 pm
—
Yes

Yep ID, the factory wall element in elements file in WaR has a see through value of 100, and as a wall it shold had a value of 300-450, so no wonder one see right through that building, and yes 100 is lower then values for a glass window, so its more easy see through that wall then a see through the windows.. So yes, that must be corrected in the elemts file. Your right Sir.

You fined a similar "anomletys" in the Factory Floor value in the elemnt file, 20-00-00-00 but maybe it shold have been something like 30-20-20-20 so LOS acc dont work with that either. So its a bouble issue in that i guess.
Oh, and also the los acc is turned of in Wall/Window Factory elements, that must be turned on for any of this to work.

(non of this has anything to do with the wrong coded map, this is s seperate issue as i said in secon post at top of this page)

I try make a new recoded map before bed.

Last edited by AT_Stalky on Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:11 pm; edited 1 time in total

#31: Author: Pzt_Serk,

Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:38 pm
—
Hi Stalky,

keep up the good work with maps. Just had a good laugh at the invisible houses lol.

I also just had a shreck team spotted right away in a forest while on ambush mode far from the ennemy...and my general feeling is that cover (concealment) is close to non-existent.so I was wondering if you could also take a look at it.

Infantry is spotted as soon as it moves, even if its a crawl. It makes infantry movement and advance very difficult if not impossible.

Maybe make a comparison with trsm data??

Cheers!

#32: Author: RD_Oddball,

Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:40 pm
—
First off thank you for your offer to recode the maps.

Actually there is no right or wrong answer to this problem since with every solution any of us viewing this thread can possibly come up with there is a trade-off. I accept that your presentation is viewed as right in your mind because you are willing to accept the consequences of the trade-offs. Fair enough. We all have different standards. We too are concerned with the LOS issues you point out. That can be agreed upon. You make some good points that were considered early in the WaR development process hence the coding style guide Schrecken created for map coders. Which I'd mention his style guide is not that far off your proposed solution. As Schrecken said, yes some mistakes were made and that style guide was not always followed for whatever reason. And I'd add that no amount of testing would uncover every last bug in the game. Even seemingly obvious bugs. There'll always be some that slip by despite our best efforts. That's why patches are made. We'll definitely take your suggestions to heart and factor them into the decision making process as we go.

To address your solution directly:
First the problem with tiles meeting at corners allowing clear LOS between them is inherent to the game engine and has always been there. It's an issue with nearly every game system that utilizes a cell based system. Even hex based games have the same issues. Sure there are work arounds and we feel the style guide Schrecken made was an acceptable solution when it was followed. I'll react to your suggested workaround and why it's not ideal or pefect or even the only solution.

The problem with coding walls double tile elements thick is that they now do not match up with the BGM graphics. Since the BGM is the only decent feedback the player gets about the coding environment in my mind that's a negative trade-off with your solution. Sure a player can right-click an element to see why they can't see through what looks like an unimpeded area but not reasonable to expect in the heat of battle. Agreed, it's just as much problem as being able to see through buildings. Yes maps can be drawn larger but that leads to my next point.

Game scale. I'll admit it's less of a concern since it's aesthetic and not about game function but it does appear as a mistake when coding is done as you're suggesting. If walls are coded double element tiles wide they now 4m thick by game scale (5px/m if one is to draw an LOS line you'll recall the distance in meters is displayed next to it. If you do a test you'll see that is 5px/meter). So now instead of walls being closer to reality (8" thick is architectural standard nowdays back then it was likely wider. We can round up to 30.55cm) they are now out of scale with game engine scale. To accomodate the larger map scale to accomodate your thicker walls soldier animations would have to be redrawn so they are 18 element tiles tall, vehicles would have to be made to be the same scale (10px=13cm < that's centimeters not meters) and so on down the line. This would mean, if my math is correct, that a 4800px square map would represent an area 624m square. Far too small. Making larger maps would tax computer system resources on slower computers. Not to mention the game engine scale would have to be reprogrammed likely causing an entirely new set of problems that would take years to debug. Not a reasonable expectation within the scope of a rerelease project.

So as you can see there are trade-offs to every issue, ones we thoughtfully considered and no perfect, absolute answers.

If any of this needs further clarification I'll be glad to. Please ask.

#33: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 6:34 pm
—

RD_Oddball wrote:

First off thank you for your offer to recode the maps.

Actually there is no right or wrong answer to this problem since with every solution any of us viewing this thread can possibly come up with there is a trade-off. I accept that your presentation is viewed as right in your mind because you are willing to accept the consequences of the trade-offs. Fair enough. We all have different standards. We too are concerned with the LOS issues you point out. That can be agreed upon. You make some good points that were considered early in the WaR development process hence the coding style guide Schrecken created for map coders. Which I'd mention his style guide is not that far off your proposed solution. As Schrecken said, yes some mistakes were made and that style guide was not always followed for whatever reason. And I'd add that no amount of testing would uncover every last bug in the game. Even seemingly obvious bugs. There'll always be some that slip by despite our best efforts. That's why patches are made. We'll definitely take your suggestions to heart and factor them into the decision making process as we go.

To address your solution directly:
First the problem with tiles meeting at corners allowing clear LOS between them is inherent to the game engine and has always been there. It's an issue with nearly every game system that utilizes a cell based system. Even hex based games have the same issues. Sure there are work arounds and we feel the style guide Schrecken made was an acceptable solution when it was followed. I'll react to your suggested workaround and why it's not ideal or pefect or even the only solution.

The problem with coding walls double tile elements thick is that they now do not match up with the BGM graphics. Since the BGM is the only decent feedback the player gets about the coding environment in my mind that's a negative trade-off with your solution. Sure a player can right-click an element to see why they can't see through what looks like an unimpeded area but not reasonable to expect in the heat of battle. Agreed, it's just as much problem as being able to see through buildings. Yes maps can be drawn larger but that leads to my next point.

Game scale. I'll admit it's less of a concern since it's aesthetic and not about game function but it does appear as a mistake when coding is done as you're suggesting. If walls are coded double element tiles wide they now 4m thick by game scale (5px/m if one is to draw an LOS line you'll recall the distance in meters is displayed next to it. If you do a test you'll see that is 5px/meter). So now instead of walls being closer to reality (8" thick is architectural standard nowdays back then it was likely wider. We can round up to 30.55cm) they are now out of scale with game engine scale. To accomodate the larger map scale to accomodate your thicker walls soldier animations would have to be redrawn so they are 18 element tiles tall, vehicles would have to be made to be the same scale (10px=13cm < that's centimeters not meters) and so on down the line. This would mean, if my math is correct, that a 4800px square map would represent an area 624m square. Far too small. Making larger maps would tax computer system resources on slower computers. Not to mention the game engine scale would have to be reprogrammed likely causing an entirely new set of problems that would take years to debug. Not a reasonable expectation within the scope of a rerelease project.

So as you can see there are trade-offs to every issue, ones we thoughtfully considered and no perfect, absolute answers.

If any of this needs further clarification I'll be glad to. Please ask.

Quote:

The problem with coding walls double tile elements thick is that they now do not match up with the BGM graphics. Since the BGM is the only decent feedback the player gets about the coding environment in my mind that's a negative trade-off with your solution. Sure a player can right-click an element to see why they can't see through what looks like an unimpeded area but not reasonable to expect in the heat of battle. Agreed, it's just as much problem as being able to see through buildings. Yes maps can be drawn larger but that leads to my next point.

Yeh ofcose, its so trubblesome, nevermind that the map Code in ALL Atomic CC4 and ALL CC5 map codes was done in that way, and ohh how we sufferd when playing them lousy games, they truly sucked...... Wink

Quote:

So as you can see there are trade-offs to every issue, ones we thoughtfully considered and no perfect, absolute answers.

If any of this needs further clarification I'll be glad to. Please ask.

yeh,

Tradeoffs, right, Smile

And done in yer way we have to live with some nice
tradeoffs yep,
Another bad trade off with yer code is that LOS get between them
elements, but who cares, right, thats a accepteble tradeoff you think?
And another trade of with yer code is that movement time penalty dont
work as soldier move between the elements, but who cares its another tradeoff you think is ok, right?
And ofcose neither cover or protection works with that way you code, but
who cares, its another of thouse tradeoffs one have to make, right...

No, the way of code I have described Jim, its not my way of code really, its the right way to code, and its the ATOMIC way to code mate, so the talk of double wall etc is just utter nonsense.

All the CC4 maps are coded in this way mate all CC5 maps to, and even most of yer CC4 maps YOU HAVE IN WAR is coded in this way, Wink

, so if this isn’t right and the "double wall" is a problem, THEN YOU BETTER RECODE all the CC4 maps in WaR to "yer standard", (god save us) Smile

Horrors horrors Jim, you need to recode many more maps now, to get em to yer "standard" to avoid the double wall...
Here is Dasbourd from YOUR WaR game mate, with them "double walls" you point out as problems...
I made some arrows to point at the “double walls” Wink

sorry I dint mark all of em I got a bit tired of drawing so many arrows pointing to the double walls IN your WAR Dasbourg map…
Start yer 5CC up and starte recode all the 43 maps mate, to get rid of them “trobble some double walls”.. Wink

My english is lausy you know, shall i take yer post as you just turn down my offer to recode 10 maps. Smile

Look all thous nasty double walls in yer dasbourg map mate, brrr "such tradeoffs" Smile

Last edited by AT_Stalky on Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:25 pm; edited 4 times in total

#34: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 7:05 pm
—

Pzt_Serk wrote:

Hi Stalky,

keep up the good work with maps. Just had a good laugh at the invisible houses lol.

I also just had a shreck team spotted right away in a forest while on ambush mode far from the ennemy...and my general feeling is that cover (concealment) is close to non-existent.so I was wondering if you could also take a look at it.

Infantry is spotted as soon as it moves, even if its a crawl. It makes infantry movement and advance very difficult if not impossible.

Maybe make a comparison with trsm data??

Cheers!

Thanx Serk

But I dont have to look at the TRSM elements datafile, as I have made that file for TRSM 097. Smile

Stalk

#35: Author: RD_Oddball,

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 1:35 am
—
Sorry Stalky for not being more clear. I was agreeing with you that your suggestion was a legitimate solution. I was just saying that there were no perfect answers or one way to solve the problem as every conceiveable solution has drawbacks. I wasn't trying disprove what you're saying.

Our intent was to follow Schreckens coding style guide which is nearly identical to the solution you're outlining. We felt it was the lesser of all evils. We also agree we didn't always follow that style guide. Which was a mistake we're acknowledging. So we're agreeing with you Also it is very generous of you to recode the maps you have and we appreciate any and all help you're willing to give.

Also my apologies if I came across as glib. Wasn't my intention. I was being sincere in my reply and we're truly grateful to have such passionate, scrutinizing peers who love the same game we love.

I hope this clears up my earlier points. Again my apologies for not being more careful in my last post.

#36: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 1:50 am
—

RD_Oddball wrote:

Sorry Stalky for not being more clear. I was agreeing with you that your suggestion was a legitimate solution. I was just saying that there were no perfect answers or one way to solve the problem as every conceiveable solution has drawbacks. I wasn't trying disprove what you're saying.

Our intent was to follow Schreckens coding style guide which is nearly identical to the solution you're outlining. We felt it was the lesser of all evils. We also agree we didn't always follow that style guide. Which was a mistake we're acknowledging. So we're agreeing with you and will graciously accept your offer to recode the maps or whatever you are interested in contributing.

Also my apologies if I came across as glib. Wasn't my intention. I was being sincere in my reply and we're truly grateful to have such passionate, scrutinizing peers who love the same game we love.

I hope this clears up my earlier points. Again my apologies for not being more careful in my last post.

Nice answer, Jim...
Great to see members of the CCWAR development team starting to really look into this problem (Shrecken too at the Matrix forum)...and not just post bitter comments when people scrutinize their work Smile

Stalky already offered to re-code/fix 10 maps...I think it's only fair that the S3T team also re-check the coding glitches on the rest of the maps...and fix them too.
The actual fix (map txt files) should be very small in size...and offering this as a small patch might be possible using Bernd's CCWARmodinstaller application.

BTW, Stalky...which 10 maps are you working on?

#37: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:18 am
—
Looks like the value for "block LOS" (col AB) for Factory Window is also wrong in the CCWAR elements file...thanks for pointing this out in our little chat, Stalky!
It should be "1" like all the other window elements...not "0".
That's why the Stavelot factory ended up the ghostly see-thru building in the game Wink

Here's the now not so ghostly Stavelot factory with fixed elements file:

CCWAR_Stavelot-edit.jpg

Description:

Stavelot with fixed elements file by AT_Stalky

Filesize:

286.23 KB

Viewed:

11405 Time(s)

#38: Author: RD_Oddball,

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:49 am
—

squadleader_id wrote:

Thank you Squadleader. Was never our intent to come across as bitter. The intent from our perspective has only ever been to illustrate that we've done our homework. Not to defend our mistakes or pretend as if we never made any. We certainly have. And for everyone to acknowledge that we've made good decisions, done a good job despite any clear mistakes. I'm sure there's been communication problems on our part in not doing a better job of tactfully conveying that. We've always been willing to fix any outright mistakes and have done so.

squadleader_id wrote:

Yes, I couldn't agree more. It was VERY generous of Stalky to have offered to do any at all, let alone 10. And I know Schreck has already gone through a majority of the maps if not all of them to double-check that there weren't any more deviations from his coding guideline.

Thanks for your understanding Squadleader.

For Stalky:

I agree with Squadleader. Would be good if you could post here the names of the 10 maps you've recoded already that way we're not duplicating your efforts. Or even to arrange for those text files to be transferred to Schreck. Much appreciated.

#39: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:33 pm
—

RD_Oddball wrote:

Sorry Stalky for not being more clear. I was agreeing with you that your suggestion was a legitimate solution. I was just saying that there were no perfect answers or one way to solve the problem as every conceiveable solution has drawbacks. I wasn't trying disprove what you're saying.

Our intent was to follow Schreckens coding style guide which is nearly identical to the solution you're outlining. We felt it was the lesser of all evils. We also agree we didn't always follow that style guide. Which was a mistake we're acknowledging. So we're agreeing with you Also it is very generous of you to recode the maps you have and we appreciate any and all help you're willing to give.

Also my apologies if I came across as glib. Wasn't my intention. I was being sincere in my reply and we're truly grateful to have such passionate, scrutinizing peers who love the same game we love.

I hope this clears up my earlier points. Again my apologies for not being more careful in my last post.

np Jim, thanx

I make 10 map recode, i make a list of wich i make. I will try make list tn or tm.

Later men.

#40: Author: RD_Oddball,

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 4:05 pm
—
Excellent! Thank you! Whenever you have time to post the list is good for us. Much appreciated.

#41: Author: Jace10,

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 4:35 pm
—
Good stuff stalky, I admire your thoroughness and look forward to some solid error free maps...

#42: Author: lemon42,

Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 9:04 am
—
Thanks for the work stalky and thanks for trying to explain it for guys like me Smile

#43: Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 2:58 pm
—
In my current GC I see so many map errors it's not even funny.
I originally started saving screen shots for proof but then figured why bother.
It practically takes an act of God to get the developers to admit something needs addressed outside of a major bug.
(I.E.One that prevents the game from being played)

Horrible small deployment zones for an Attacker.
(On maps when one is attacking for the 1st time all you really need is a Naval Barrage to Massivly cripple them.)Just place one maybe 2 expendable teams with LOS as close as possible to the deployment and look for the concentrated group of victims.

Hopefully this is something on the now list to do,geuss time will tell.

#44: Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:46 am
—
For those interested i'm half way done with new .ovm's that display all the Trees.
I just can't remember how to access my CCS ftp site to upload them. Sad

I also have full size jpegs of WAR maps with trees displayed on them about 36 of em done so far.

#45: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:02 am
—
I'm interested...do upload them when you're done, PM.
You'll need to ask for an account and pass to access the FTP.

BTW, any update from the CCWAR team about the map coding glitches and progress on re-checking and fixing the coding?

#46: Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:10 am
—
yeh yeh... working on it... along with a lot of other stuff

#47: Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 9:38 am
—
[quote="squadleader_id"]I'm interested...do upload them when you're done, PM.
You'll need to ask for an account and pass to access the FTP.

OK thats one. Smile

I'm not sure anyone is going to be interested as the file size of the new .ovm's are HUGE.
This is because im just using screen shots pasted over the original .tga then erasing any craters/VL's/wrecks/rubble.

Only if the original map maker used 5CC and had set up the Tree patch option and used that option to create a new layer would the file size be any smaller.
Trying to do that all over from scratch or placing each graphic by hand is out of the question for me to do.
It is nice however to see it ingame and have full size images of the maps with the trees on them,unlike how most full size picutres of maps only show the original .tga with no trees.

Probably by the time Mooxe gets home I should be done.Then I can once again ask him how to get to the main page of my ftp site to upload them. Embarassed

#48: Author: bambam887, Location: Belgium

Posted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 7:33 pm
—
Now this was very informative for a no technical dude as me Very Happy

Thx for this shared info.

Now I got question about the patches on the matrix games site (When I'm in my member account).
It says Private downloads firstly ???
Then when I look there are 2 available:
the 4.50.2 patch
and
4.50.07b update

Is the patch supported by matrix? Is the update still not completed (due to the b from beta)?

#49: Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:16 pm
—
I don't think anyone at the CCS forum can answer that.

#50: Author: southern_land,

Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 6:58 am
—
[quote="platoon_michael"]

squadleader_id wrote:

I'm interested...do upload them when you're done, PM.
You'll need to ask for an account and pass to access the FTP.

OK thats one. Smile

This is because im just using screen shots pasted over the original .tga then erasing any craters/VL's/wrecks/rubble.

Only if the original map maker used 5CC and had set up the Tree patch option and used that option to create a new layer would the file size be any smaller.
Trying to do that all over from scratch or placing each graphic by hand is out of the question for me to do.
It is nice however to see it ingame and have full size images of the maps with the trees on them,unlike how most full size picutres of maps only show the original .tga with no trees.
Embarassed

Something esle we've done wrong. damn! I feel the urge to string myself up and have someone flagulate me with limp rhubarb. instead I'll suggest there's an easier way to put out the trees on. I'd suggest you could do each map inside a minute. but with your recent whining I can't think of a single reason to help you.. uh hang on.... nope, not a single reason... enjoy!

#51: Author: mooxe,

Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 12:30 pm
—
4.50.07b is the latest official supported patch.

#52: Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 11:04 pm
—
For anyone interested I have new .ovm's with all the Trees on them uploaded at my ftp site.
http://www.closecombatseries.net/Hosted/platoon_michael/WAR%20Files/

Many of the .ovm's look much better and aid in both deployment and movement when playing the game.Also dont forget to add Sapa's New Terrain elements and the game becomes a little better.
Thanks to Mafi for CC2Tools

Feel free to do whatever you want with them and please let me know if you run into any errors.

UO0001.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

204.25 KB

Viewed:

9723 Time(s)

#53: Author: Lt_2nd,

Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 11:14 pm
—
Nice Work

#54: Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:07 pm
—
Sorry,
I made a mistake on the Assenoiss file.It's corrected now.
Should anyone see anymore(I hope not) let me know it's an easy fix

#55: Author: Sapa,

Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:39 pm
—
Nice work my friend Smile

/Mats

#56: Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:22 am
—
[/quote]I'd suggest you could do each map inside a minute. but with your recent whining I can't think of a single reason to help you.. uh hang on.... nope, not a single reason... enjoy![quote]

Well then maybe you can include it in the next patch for WAR for others.
Assuming there is a patch comming with the map errors fixed?

#57: Re: Maps errors not fixed in the new WaR patch... Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 9:44 pm
—
Anyone care to tell us why were almost at 1 year from the original post and STILL NO patch for these errors?

I had a Zook team that couldnt shoot 5M the other night despite the Terrain being the same Eevation.
Wouldnt have saved the Battle but I definatly wouldnt have lost that VL.

#58: Re: Maps errors not fixed in the new WaR patch... Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 10:03 pm
—
Zooks won't fire at 5m, it's too close and will kill the operator if fired closer

that's not an error and has nothing to do with LOS or terrain

#59: Re: Maps errors not fixed in the new WaR patch... Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 11:50 pm
—
One can only imaging that the recent bug found with cohesion in tLD is just gonna push the date fo a WAR patch back even farther.
Crying or Very sad

#60: Re: Maps errors not fixed in the new WaR patch... Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 2:59 am
—
Good that that bug isn't in WaR Smile

#61: Re: Maps errors not fixed in the new WaR patch... Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Sun May 09, 2010 12:11 am
—
Has this one been mentioned already?

UO0003.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

660.67 KB

Viewed:

6478 Time(s)

UO0002.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

616.89 KB

Viewed:

6477 Time(s)

UO0001.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

558.46 KB

Viewed:

6477 Time(s)

#62: Re: Maps errors not fixed in the new WaR patch... Author: southern_land,

Posted: Sun May 09, 2010 12:44 am
—
It's not an error as such but a code/game dynamics flaw. Vehicles have been permitted inside on factory floor elements since CC3. That appears to be a factory.

#63: Re: Maps errors not fixed in the new WaR patch... Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 3:54 pm
—
Not only are the map errors in WAR still not corrected but after the latest patch for WAR there is one error that is so comical there is no way I will buy another CC game unless all 3 versions are fixed to perfection.

The most irritating thing of all NO ONE is beta testing these re-releases other than the consumer.

I wonder if anyone can find it?

#64: Re: Maps errors not fixed in the new WaR patch... Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:23 pm
—

Quote:

I wonder if anyone can find it?

you'd have to take your hand off it first.

#65: Re: Maps errors not fixed in the new WaR patch... Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:25 pm
—
Vehicles can drive around in factories... it's supposed to work like that... wether they can get in and out is another question.

#66: Re: Maps errors not fixed in the new WaR patch... Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:15 pm
—
Actually you guys had the map in question codded right the first time around.
After the last patch someone fucked it up.
It's not the map posted above.

Think Moat for a hint.

#67: Re: Maps errors not fixed in the new WaR patch... Author: Lt_2nd,

Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 3:14 pm
—
I haven't downloaded the latest patch cause im still trying to finish a H2H GC, but it looks like from what Im reading the latest patch may have fixed some things but made some things worse?

#68: Re: Maps errors not fixed in the new WaR patch... Author: Dundradal,

Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 3:32 pm
—
Dampsquib and I are playing a WAR GC using the latest patch and we've noted a few things, but nothing real major yet.

And Michael's what's with the guessing game? How am I supposed to know where the error is if we are going to play games about it? I wouldn't mind confirming it so it can get handled in the future by both of us making a report.

#69: Re: Maps errors not fixed in the new WaR patch... Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:30 pm
—
The map is Martelange.
The VL in the south is surrounded by Deep Water making it a trap if you deploy there as you can't get out.

#70: Re: Maps errors not fixed in the new WaR patch... Author: Dundradal,

Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2010 12:15 am
—
Ahhhhh ok. Damp and I played that map last night. I know exactly what you mean!

Any others we should watch out for?

Damp and I have been fighting over that damn map for 6 or 7 turns now...he just won't give it up! Very Happy

#71: Re: Maps errors not fixed in the new WaR patch... Author: mooxe,

Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2010 12:44 am
—

platoon_michael wrote (View Post):

The map is Martelange.
The VL in the south is surrounded by Deep Water making it a trap if you deploy there as you can't get out.

I beleive there are a few maps over a few versions that have islands with VLs. Do you mean this island has a entry/exit vl?

#72: Re: Maps errors not fixed in the new WaR patch... Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2010 12:49 am
—
the message is it will sort of get fixed in the official patch.

originally it had two east and west water crossings... in the Beta patch it has none... in the official patch one water crossing is slated.

Don't ask me why.

Close Combat Series -> Close Combat Wacht am Rhein

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Page 1 of 1