PDA

View Full Version : Carpiquet



Sgt. Booze
11-23-2008, 11:04 AM
http://7timechamp.com/Hanger3/images/Bodney_new/Carpiquet.jpg
http://7timechamp.com/Hanger3/images/Bodney_new/Carpiquet1.jpg
http://7timechamp.com/Hanger3/images/Bodney_new/Carpiquet2.jpg
http://7timechamp.com/Hanger3/images/Bodney_new/Carpiquet3.jpg
http://7timechamp.com/Hanger3/images/Bodney_new/Carpiquet4.jpg
http://7timechamp.com/Hanger3/images/Bodney_new/Carpiquet5.jpg
http://7timechamp.com/Hanger3/images/Bodney_new/Carpiquet6.jpg
http://7timechamp.com/Hanger3/images/Bodney_new/Carpiquet7.jpg
http://7timechamp.com/Hanger3/images/Bodney_new/Carpiquet8.jpg
http://7timechamp.com/Hanger3/images/Bodney_new/Carpiquet9.jpg
http://7timechamp.com/Hanger3/images/Bodney_new/Carpiquet10.jpg
http://7timechamp.com/Hanger3/images/Bodney_new/Carpiquet11.jpg
http://7timechamp.com/Hanger3/images/Bodney_new/Carpiquet12.jpg
http://7timechamp.com/Hanger3/images/Bodney_new/Carpiquet13.jpg
http://7timechamp.com/Hanger3/images/Bodney_new/Carpiquet14.jpg

Mike
11-23-2008, 11:07 AM
OMG Booze, nice work once again.

Sgt. Booze
11-23-2008, 11:24 AM
Thanks Mikie! ;D

Chivas
11-23-2008, 12:33 PM
Amazingly well done...most all aspects of the buildings and terrain flow together very realistically. Is it possible to add some color shading at the boarder of the roads to soften the line between the road and the surrounding terrain?

I noticed in Compans beta tree addon that some tree lines pop in and out of view at no consistant distance, as if some tree lines had different LOD's. Do you experience this on your map?

~Salute~
Chivas

Sgt. Booze
11-23-2008, 03:57 PM
Chivas thanks and yes I goofed up when I took the screenshots. We have 3 runway textures we're playing with and when I generated out the texture I forgot to add the outer glow. Its a brownish color that blends in pretty good with the surrounding areas. We are working on Raydon now so you will see the runways there in a couple days. Always appreciate your input.

And yes I have also experienced this in a few places and have not yet solved it totally. It appeared originally at places where the tree lines touched each other width wise but do not hold me to that still experimenting with it.

Booze

Jg3_Prodigy
11-23-2008, 05:26 PM
Woooooooa :o
this looks great.
I've posted a photo in a topic above, i think it shows y good example for ground textures.
But on thing really keeps me thinking:
You make 2 maps, one Bob map and one 8th Army Bombing map right?
Will the bob airfields be diffrent to the later ones?

wheelsup_cavu
11-23-2008, 10:00 PM
Hi Booze

On this map I see 3 hardpoints located at the bottom of the picture.
I see several others that look like bomber hardpoints to the left.
I see all the elaborate taxiways on your maps and would like to know if most of these taxiways are going to be used by the A1 planes during offline play?
Will the A1 planes actually taxi to these points or is it mainly for online play and used as eyecandy for offline play?

http://7timechamp.com/Hanger3/images/Bodney_new/Carpiquet8.jpg


Thank you.
Wheelsup

Sgt. Booze
11-24-2008, 05:38 AM
Prodigy thanks. Well the intent is to have different base layout for different periods of time. However it has proved very difficult to locate good aerial photos of the Luftwaffe bases epecially the earlier years. We have a set of very good schematics of the bases for the later years but not much from 1940. So we are faced with the decision of going with what we have or holding off on releasing the map until when or IF we actually come across good detailed photos. So we are doing the best we can with what we can find. :)

Wheels we are still testing but so far we have not had a problem. We realize the limitations of the AI aircraft so we will keep it simple for them.

Booze

Jg3_Prodigy
11-24-2008, 08:46 AM
i will search for images of airfields 8)

philip.ed
11-24-2008, 10:56 AM
Great work once again Booze and co! ;)

wheelsup_cavu
11-24-2008, 02:15 PM
Hi Booze

I didn't make it clear about the taxiing.
I wasn't even thinking about where the A1 planes would take off.
I just assumed they would take off like they do now from the runway without taxiing to it.
I was more interested in knowing where the A1 planes would be allowed to park after landing.
I know it is an inane detail but these things fascinate me.

The spawn points are more for coop play and dogfight play correct?


;D ;D ;D ;D
I can't put enough happy faces to describe how good this map looks to me.

Edit:
Not sure if Oscar was being funny so hopefully I explained this question better at M4T.
Final stay points (http://mission4today.com/index.php?name=ForumsPro&file=viewtopic&p=38843#38843)


Wheels

352nd Oscar
11-24-2008, 02:20 PM
The spawn points are more for coop play and dogfight play correct?

Is there something else?

UF_Hallacar
11-24-2008, 03:44 PM
It s look quite good

2 points

- I think there is a little bite too more building in your base and to many have camouflage
- there is no pine forest on this part of france à these period
an now ( i have a house 90km of caen near Utha Beach) there are pine but it is not au three of "the cotentin"

good job

Sgt. Booze
11-24-2008, 06:30 PM
Hallacar nice to see you and thanks for the tips. ;)

Wheels to be honest I'm not sure we'll have to see the next time we run a big mission. The way you build the way points into the airfield is like a big circle with a path they are suppose to follow. I've just assumed they go back where they started when they return but we are all usually back and landed before the AI's so I do not think I've ever watched one taxi back to its stay point. Anyone else seen this?

Booze

wheelsup_cavu
11-24-2008, 07:09 PM
Hi Booze

That is fair enough.
I have seen this discussed elsewhere too.
I'll leave it at that.

What I saw looked like you made a taxiing path to a final stay point.
There could be several stay points at the end of this taxiway.
It also looked to me that if you put the stay points to close the larger bombers would run into one another.
The B-29 was a good example of this problem happening.
When the B-29 first came out if you let them taxi and park they would hit each others tail section and wing.

What I saw fascinated me and I was curious about your landing, taxi, and stay points.
I hope to get a computer up and running in the next few weeks to be able to fly with you guys as a guest pilot.
I can't use the computer I am on right now because it is my work computer.

Thanks again

Wheels

352nd Oscar
11-25-2008, 05:03 AM
IMHO - One probably should not try to park B-29s in places where only fighters would park. As this airfield (and others) were specifically designed for a certain time period and location; Bf-110s, He-111s and Ju88s should be about the biggest you should be parking in those spots. Parking B-29s on this base would be poor form.

Yea, I know, now I'm going to reap the wind from the "un-real 1946 scenario folks". TS.

However, that being said and just so you know, we test these spawn points with B-24s.

352nd_Deacon
11-25-2008, 10:56 AM
All spawn point should be checked with the types of planes that normally would be using the airfield. it is confusing to us as map makers to want to make a map that is accurate and then be questioned about the types of trees or hangars or textures that were there in one instance and then be questioned as to spawning in B-29's which were not used on that airfield.
Seems like the community wants an accurate field up to the point where they want their favorite and then they want us to join fantasy land.
As CO, I've directed the map makers to make the maps as accurate as we can in a timely manner, with the research we have available, realizing that many of these 'researched" aifields will be within reason but not completely accurate as the available research is dated, lost or modified in some way and often innaccurate for the period.
We're doing the best we can and when we release the map, it will be open for anybody to change in any way they want. Change the bases to suit your fancy, make them as accurate as you feel or as fantasized as you need. Map makers can do what they wish and mission builders can fill in what they need to satisfy your mission. We're making them so that anyone can fly them without having their computer come to a grinding halt because we've added too much.

wheelsup_cavu
11-26-2008, 12:24 PM
Hello Oscar and Deacon

First let me wish you both a Happy Thanksgiving! ;D



IMHO - One probably should not try to park B-29s in places where only fighters would park. As this airfield (and others) were specifically designed for a certain time period and location; Bf-110s, He-111s and Ju88s should be about the biggest you should be parking in those spots. Parking B-29s on this base would be poor form.
Yea, I know, now I'm going to reap the wind from the "un-real 1946 scenario folks". TS.
However, that being said and just so you know, we test these spawn points with B-24s.



Oscar telling someone that something is TS is poor form IMO.
Up to this point I had expected less animosity from someone involved in this project.

Your post makes me feel that I just called your baby ugly, fat and stupid.
I have done nothing of the sort.
You might want to read or reread my posts here and at M4T.
I have been nothing but complimentary when discussing your Cross Channel Map development.
I still have nothing but good things to say about the map project.
I am also not trying to call you out but you do seem a bit testy to me.
If I was reading what I thought were complaints about something I had put a lot of time into I might not be as benevolent as I am attempting to be right now.


Deacon telling everyone that they can modify your map to their satisfaction at a later date is fine.
With all due respect I have no intention of doing that and neither will most people IMO.
Learning the base programming, or in different words the programming not seen by the standard FMB, to modify the map will be beyond the capabilities of most people.
If the map is too difficult to be used it will just be shelved and thought of as something that could have been nice.
I wish it could do what I wanted though, will be their other thought.
There are several version 4.08m maps that fit into that category for me already.
Having said this, I know that someone is not going to be happy with the map or map features no matter what you do with the final map.
I don't believe I will be one of them.


I am not attempting to knock the work that is already done in any way with these statements.
I am also not asking anyone to go back and rework your map features or any part of the map to suit me.
I could care less about a B-29 being able to be used on any specific airfield.
I used the B-29 for my example because it is the largest plane I know of in the sim.

What I was asking about was the possibility of collisions occurring when the A1 planes landed and taxied back to their final stay point, no matter what plane caused this problem.
It just happened to be the Carpiquet map that caused this question to cross my mind.
(If the taxiways and airfield weren't so darn good looking it might not have crossed my mind.)
The question I asked may have been asked in the wrong thread is all IMO.

I know that if someone didn't take into consideration the size of the planes when creating your final taxiing and stay point location you could run into problems with planes colliding.
It was a problem I had experienced with version 4.04m and I wanted to know if you had taken this type of problem into consideration.
I had this problem not just with the B-29 but the TB-3 and B-24 as well.
I also know that it is something that won't be seen by the average user of the map until they do have problems.

The B-24 that you used for testing is one of the larger planes but the TB-3 and the B-29 are larger.
Again not accurate for this map or theatre, but if they had been used as your test planes “what if” scenarios could have been made without having to rework the whole map to keep the planes from colliding at their final stay point after landing.
That may or may not be the situation at this time having used the B-24 for your testing.

The planes size will most assuredly be something that has to be considered if you ever intend to create an Eastern front or Pacific front map.
The B-24 won't be large enough for your testing purposes to allow the use of all the airplanes that were used in those theatres.

I hope this post does not anger or offend anyone as that was not my intention.
If it did, I apologize to you in advance for that perceived slight.


Regards,
Wheels

Here is a picture of the four largest planes that I know of in the sim.
All of the planes are exactly on the 22.8 Y axis line. (Changed so I used the correct axis in my description. Had X instead of Y.)
I modified the Y axis locations in the .mis file to do this. (Changed so I used the correct axis in my description. Had X instead of Y.)
This will allow you to use the other Y axis lines for a reference. (Changed so I used the correct axis in my description. Had X instead of Y.)
You will notice the B-24’s wingspan is smaller than the TB-3 and B-29.
Click on the link for a 1024 X 768 size picture.
Full Size (http://i479.photobucket.com/albums/rr153/wheelsup_cavu/IL-2/352%20VFG/planesizes-001.jpg)
http://i479.photobucket.com/albums/rr153/wheelsup_cavu/IL-2/352%20VFG/planesizes-001-1.jpg

Again I am not attempting to get you to modify the Cross Channel map with this picture.
It is for future reference only and to be used as you deem appropriate for your future projects.

Respectfully
Wheels

352nd_Deacon
11-26-2008, 01:43 PM
Wheelsup,
At first when we were making the bases our research showed which planes flew from which bases. There were the fighters and bombers for both Allied and Axis forces and these, in most cases, were stationed at separate bases. So we made a number of bases with those specs for planes available within the sim. When we started testing the bases for spawn stay and taxi points, we encountered a very few which were too close together for the planes for which these bases were made.
A suggestion by one of our members was made, that we separate the stay points a little more to accommodate a different plane which lead to another discussion of which plane. Arguments were made for "what if somebody wants to put this plane at this base", which was followed by the counter, "I thought we were trying to make this historically accurate."
We thought of including this fact in the readme so that mission makers would be using the correct plane at the correct base which would exclude the "what if" contingent. Thus we found ourselves in a no-win situation. Trying to satisfy all people, all of the time. So we made the decision to arrange the stay points for the B-24 spacing, a compromise for sure, especially when you are trying to work from blueprints of a base that had 10 hardstands for much smaller planes. This would cause another comprimise and so on and so on.
So all bases are checked for stay and taxi points using B-24's and this will be our standard for the ETO bases of our maps and this should prevent any AI from colliding after landing and taxiing.

352nd_Coster
11-26-2008, 02:06 PM
Hallacar nice to see you and thanks for the tips. ;)

Wheels to be honest I'm not sure we'll have to see the next time we run a big mission. The way you build the way points into the airfield is like a big circle with a path they are suppose to follow. I've just assumed they go back where they started when they return but we are all usually back and landed before the AI's so I do not think I've ever watched one taxi back to its stay point. Anyone else seen this?

Booze


Booze,
The easiest way to test this is to create a Coop mission where the AI are coming into land at the airfield and run it at high speed. The AC will taxi back to their endpoints and shutdown. [If you have more AC than Spawn points, the extra AC will disappear, so we used this in Forgotten Skies to determine how many AC could spawn at a base.] Come to think of it, you could test the spawn points this way. With a Notepad and Find & Replace, you could also verify the points/paths for different aircraft.

Coster

wheelsup_cavu
11-26-2008, 03:17 PM
Deacon

Thank you for your response.
I hope I have made it to clear to you and the others in the 352nd that I am not knocking your efforts in any way.
I do understand everything is a compromise when it comes to a project this large.
I also appreciate the effort that has went into completing this map by you and your members.
I know it has been considerable.
I don't want it thought I said something that was negative or demeaning.

If I had my way the sim would allow each plane to park the least amount of distance necessary from one another.
The parking would be plane dependent and not location dependent.
This would solve some of the "what if" problems.
I know that this is not possible due to the way the staypoints are utilized by the sim.
And of course my way may create unacceptable compromises for someone else.
So the compromise circle would begin all over again.

I still think this map will bring hours of enjoyment to all those who utilize it in the future.

I hope everyone has an enjoyable Thanksgiving holiday tomorrow and I look forward to discussions about this and future projects being done by the 352nd.


Wheelsup

Sgt. Booze
11-26-2008, 04:01 PM
Coster thats a great idea!!! ;) Will give it a whirl.

Booze

Jg3_Prodigy
11-27-2008, 10:52 AM
I have an idea too but with a dedicated Server!
We just get it run 4.09 with mods we just need an installer of the map and i will host it so anyone can join and we can test the map together!

just an idea ::)

352nd Persecutor
11-27-2008, 11:26 AM
Wheelsup,

Thank you for your comments, particularly since they are all constructive and thoughtful. I believe you misunderstood Oscar's "TS" reference; he was directing it to those folks who would try to fly inappropriate (historically) aircraft from any particular airfield and then complain that the airfield wasn't constructed correctly (for them). We all know comments like that are going to be made by someone -- that's the way of the world.

Although I'm not a mission designer expert by any description, I've done my share of mission creating and flown zillions of missions since I host most of what our squadron does. I've never seen an example of AI aircraft taxiing to a recover point and colliding, although I've seen them collide with human piloted aircraft. That isn't to say that AI collisions while taxiing can't happen, but I've never seen it. I doubt that any thought about multiple AI aircraft taxiing after recovery has been given by the base making team. My guess is (and base makers, jump in here and correct me if I'm wrong) that our assumption is that the issue is handled by the game engine. After all, the game's ATC won't let more than one AI aircraft land at any one time and won't give clearance if there is an aircraft, AI or otherwise, on the runway. I deduce from that that taxi-way collisions are probably not going to happen.

I'm also not aware of any tool in the FMB that allows for separate AI recoveries other than by flight.

But, this entire adventure is a learning experience and perhaps we've overlooked something (or I have).

You are right in noting that many folks won't have the time, inclination, or skill to edit, add to, or otherwise change the map once it's released. Our point is that they can do so it they want to badly enough; if the desire to have something different or, in their opinion, more correct, is strong enough they are free to change the map to suit their tastes. Dissatisfaction with the maps as they existed when we started this journey was one of the primary motivations for our squadron to spend the time we have on the map in the first instance. If changes are important enough to such folks, they'll take the time to learn just as we have. More importantly, they will be able to, and we'll help if we can. As I've noted elsewhere, when we're done (or far enough along to justify the diversion of time) we'll develop some tutorials to describe what we've learned and how to employ the lessons.

wheelsup_cavu
11-27-2008, 05:28 PM
Oscar if you feel I owe you an apology I am giving it right now.
I may have taken your post out of context as Pers has mentioned.
Please accept my apologies for any statements I have made that caused you any offense.
It was not my desire or intention to do so.

Respectfully,
Wheelsup


Hello Pers

Thank you for the kind response. ;D

I have had A1 aircraft hit one another after landing and taxiing to the final staypoint.
Version 4.04m was bad about it.
Instead of trying to explain in text I will do a pictorial diagram and submit in this thread.
This is still just information for future projects.

I liked to do tracks of the entire flight to and from the target and this caused me to have to alter my flights.
If I didn't get home first one of the A1 aircraft would hit another and affect my mission.

Regards,
Wheelsup

352nd Oscar
11-27-2008, 08:32 PM
None required Weelsup - truely. Those who know me learn fast what the Avatar to the left stands for. I extend an apology back for the "TS" - sometimes I gotta learn that I need to keep the old 'trigger guard' down and locked.

I and others look forward to your input.

Blue Skies.....

wheelsup_cavu
12-03-2008, 11:53 PM
Hello Oscar it seems we both were overly sensitive regarding each others comments.
I am glad to be here, and I am looking forward to my time spent here.

All the best
Wheelsup

Disclaimer:
The following information is for future projects only.

Everyone
This is my understanding of how a plane taxi's and parks.
In my example Plane 1 has landed off the map to the right and used the taxiway to go to its staypoint and park location and shut down its engines.
Plane 2 has landed later and is going to hit plane 1 when it passes behind because plane 1's final location is not far enough forward to allow plane 2 to clear the tail of plane 1.
Here is the pictorial of what I feel I was experiencing with the taxi and staypoints.
The staypoints were not put far enough away from the taxiway and the taxiing plane would collide with the parked plane.
The taxiways are bidirectional but I did not go into that much detail for this example.

Taxi and Stay points Diagram: Full size 1024 x 768
Full size (http://i479.photobucket.com/albums/rr153/wheelsup_cavu/IL-2/352%20VFG/collision-000.jpg)
http://i479.photobucket.com/albums/rr153/wheelsup_cavu/IL-2/352%20VFG/collision-000-1.jpg

Plane 1 taxied and parked Diagram: Full size 1024 x 768
Full size (http://i479.photobucket.com/albums/rr153/wheelsup_cavu/IL-2/352%20VFG/collision-002.jpg)
http://i479.photobucket.com/albums/rr153/wheelsup_cavu/IL-2/352%20VFG/collision-002-1.jpg

Plane 2 taxiing Diagram: Full size 1024 x 768
Full size (http://i479.photobucket.com/albums/rr153/wheelsup_cavu/IL-2/352%20VFG/collision-003.jpg)
http://i479.photobucket.com/albums/rr153/wheelsup_cavu/IL-2/352%20VFG/collision-003-1.jpg

Plane 2 about to hit plane 1 Diagram: Full size 1024 x 768
Full size (http://i479.photobucket.com/albums/rr153/wheelsup_cavu/IL-2/352%20VFG/collision-004.jpg)
http://i479.photobucket.com/albums/rr153/wheelsup_cavu/IL-2/352%20VFG/collision-004-1.jpg


Wheelsup

Sgt. Booze
12-04-2008, 05:28 AM
Wheels thanks for the diagrams, this is something we'll need to look into more as we test. As Deacon mentioned we went through a round of debates on what to do. For our BoB map we have lots of small fighter bases that are going to be to small for bombers to take off from. We are doing our best to accomodate a B-24 from the majority of them but we will have some that are only to be used for fighters only and will be set up for fighters. Anything bigger does not have enough runway so there is no need to have a spawn point large enough for them, plus if its a fighter base we want it as historically accurate as we can so we are going to park the fighters as they were during the war. But we WILL have enough bases for bombers to take off from. With luck we should see the introduction of the Lancaster at some point in time and will enjoy using it from the bases they actually flew from. Then in our late war map there will be many more bomber bases so bombers will fly from bomber bases and fighters from fighter bases. We are trying to be as historically accurate as we can. ;D The only thing I see in your diagrams that might change the scenario is that I believe the parked B-29 should have turned the other direction by now and be clear and the following bomber SHOULD have given it enough time to do so. But we'll look into it more as we continue to test. Remember this is how we are setting up the map, once its released to the public you are free to change it as you please as it is for the community by the community.

Best regards,
Booze

wheelsup_cavu
12-04-2008, 03:50 PM
Hello Pers

Thank you for the kind response. ;D

I have had A1 aircraft hit one another after landing and taxiing to the final staypoint.
Version 4.04m was bad about it.
Instead of trying to explain in text I will do a pictorial diagram and submit in this thread.
This is still just information for future projects.

Regards,
Wheelsup


Hi Booze

I only posted in this thread because I started my discussion in this thread.
I was just following through on something I said I would do in a prior post.
Full Post: http://352ndfg.com/smf/index.php?topic=1541.msg7785#msg7785
Not trying to get you to change anything for me.
Forgot to add my future projects disclaimer again.
Went back and edited to add.

I should have used a P-51 instead of a B-29 and that might have redirected your thoughts from the map to the plane.
The map is irrelevant to my point, the distance from the taxiway to the final staypoint is what I am trying to explain.
The smaller the distance, the smaller the plane you are able to use.
The distance between two staypoints could be an issue too.

I am all for historical accuracy.
The version 4.08m patch has a disclaimer about the Norway map in its download telling you that large flights of aircraft can't take off from an airfield.


"Please note that Herdla on the Norway Map is a fighter base which based aircraft up to the Bf-110 only. When using large flights of aircraft, only planes of the Bf-110 size or smaller will take off successfully.

All the Best, Blue Skies...., Regards,
Wheelsup

Th!rdeye
12-05-2008, 11:25 AM
Oh my god guys....

This is amazing work. Now i know why im on a hiatus from IL-2

Saving myself for this beauty.