IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

HeightmapSecondary 16 bit, a dream ???
cataly63
post Mar 10 2017, 05:06 AM
Post #1


Private
**

Group: Soldiers
Posts: 28
Joined: 13-February 17
From: Brussels
Member No.: 12,093



Hello,

By developing maps of mountains, extracted from DEM (1024x4), I noticed the great visual importance of the surrounding terrain, unlike the more flat maps: here, and if one pushed the distance of view to his maximum(A little less than 3000 meters), the quality of relief and secondary textures becomes decisive for the general appearance of the map: from the point of view of texture, there is nothing insurmountable, the game accepting the maximum definition of 4096 pix for heightmapPrimary as well as for all 8 heightmapSecondary:

On the other hand, the 8 heightmapSecondary.raw does not seem suitable for this type of relief: in Bfeditor, it's possible to obtain the 8 terrains in 1024x4; But as the raw image is in 8 bit, the surrounding terrain is particularly "blocky"; Very, very ugly: it goes a bit better with 256x16, but then, the satellite textures used are superimposed less well, producing strong visual deformations.

Has any of you ever had this kind of problem?
And if so, is there a solution?

I tried to introduce the heighmapSecondary in 16 bit (which should produce a much milder relief), but I did not succeed

Any help, ............ finally, you know the formula biggrin.gif !

thank you in advance

cat
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 5)
cataly63
post Mar 10 2017, 05:58 AM
Post #2


Private
**

Group: Soldiers
Posts: 28
Joined: 13-February 17
From: Brussels
Member No.: 12,093



"Blocky" heighmapSecondary1024x4 8bit




heighmapSecondary256x16 8bit


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cataly63
post Mar 10 2017, 06:01 AM
Post #3


Private
**

Group: Soldiers
Posts: 28
Joined: 13-February 17
From: Brussels
Member No.: 12,093



heighmapSecondary1024x4 8bit detail



heighmapSecondary256x16 8bit detail

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cataly63
post Mar 10 2017, 06:07 AM
Post #4


Private
**

Group: Soldiers
Posts: 28
Joined: 13-February 17
From: Brussels
Member No.: 12,093



heighmapSecondary1024x4 8bit road





heighmapSecondary256x16 8bit road




It is clear that the result is much better with a lower definition; However, this nevertheless induces significant deformations as above on the roads;

so; 16 bit or not? uhm.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MasterChiefRulZ
post Mar 11 2017, 08:14 AM
Post #5


You know the drill...
Group Icon

Group: Mr. Admin
Posts: 10,251
Joined: 31-December 03
From: Home
Member No.: 48



Moving to "Mapper's Delight" since this relates to mapping.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cataly63
post Mar 11 2017, 12:22 PM
Post #6


Private
**

Group: Soldiers
Posts: 28
Joined: 13-February 17
From: Brussels
Member No.: 12,093



Ok MasterChiefRulZ,

It has been a long time since there is a persistent demand for very large maps: of course this type of map only makes sense for aerial combat since, over long distances, we have more chance of To meet by being in an air vehicle rather than by foot: my idea of finding a way to improve the relief of the secondary lands goes in this direction; Because, you know that, in LAN or in MP, there is a trick to pass the combatarea without being killed; And from this moment, the playable part goes from 4 km of side to 12 Km .......

If the visual quality of the surrounding terrain could be brought close to that of the primary terrain, the graal should not be very far ... ph34r.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2017 - 12:16 AM