This topic contains 7 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by  imported_gcamp 8 years ago.

  • Author
  • #7201


    Due to the recent and much appreciated ability to drive in the water (Thanks again BOY)
    the need for thicker sea beds was proposed in another thread.

    This suggestion seems sound but the topic needed it’s own thread so as not to get lost in the
    the other discussion. There was also the fact that I am not Mr. Camp and can not in good
    conscience post in that thread.

    Thickening the sea bed of the existing maps, if deemed a worthwhile project, can be easily
    accomplished by most anyone proficient with photo editing software. However, depending on
    the map being modified, this may require Gavin to make changes to the water height, rename
    the file, update the list of contributing authors or other unforeseen changes.

    Perhaps several of you have a favorite map that you would like changed. If so and you have
    some time to devote to it, consider editing the height map and submitting it to Gavin for his

    If the sea bed can be thickened sufficiently with out disrupting the shore line or making the
    water too shallow, your editing tasks should be simple.

    If you choose a map that provides more of a challange, you may want to consider
    increasing the brightness of the entire map.

      Note : In order to maintain the profile of the original maps, do not increase
      the brightness past the maps maximum overall brightness level. This can
      be determined by checking the color level of the highest peak and ensuring
      that the brightening process does not attempt to brighten the peak past the

    A submission template for modified maps for your consideration :

    Original Map Name : icebergs003.bmp
    Modified Map Name : my-icebergs003.bmp

    Modification Submitted : Overall brightness increase.
    Sea Bed Elevation Increase : 0 to 56.
    Shore Line Elevation Increase : Unknown *
    Top Peak Elevation Increase : ~131 to ~187.
    (All elevations increased evenly)

    * Suggested Water Level : Increase current value by 56 units.

    Note : Should this sea bed alteration be deemed
    to be an unacceptable thickness, I will be happy to
    resubmit this map with whatever increase seems
    most appealing.



    P.S. – Before any of you get too carried away with this, please wait for the discussion to be completed.

    The thin sea bed and a heavy riot bomb provide excellent protection from sand hogs.



    I like. Goes well with my idea to decrease weapons damage to landscape.



    Ok Ive made the depth of the sea floor a game option.



    Hi Gavin :

    Won’t be needing my modification submission template eh?
    Curses, foiled again !

    The server side and map specific option seems like a much
    better way to implement this idea than reworking the maps.

    Kudos !!!

    Point of Concern :

    Will the method provided maintain the original appearance of the maps?

    Shore texture elevation is based on the declared water level.
    If the water level is increased the shore texture will be elevated.

    If the textures above the shore line are compressed to fit the availabe
    space the original appearance of the map seems likely to be altered.

    I suspect you will reply with, “Got that covered, M8” but I had to
    mention it, just in case.

    Thanks for the update,




    Actualy it does it slightly differently, it lowers the minimum allowed height. It doesn’t raid the land height. So the landscapes all look the same but can have deeper craters.



    I follow you. The bed rock has been lowered leaving the sea floor and everything above it intact.






    @gcamp wrote:


    I still have yet to re-shape my existing maps to have a surround-hight that
    matches the play-field, but i’m assuming this Cratering would extend outward
    from the playable area like always? i suppose it’s really up to the power
    required.. not really feasable to have it tracking craters a mile out to sea.

    Probably only 50% larger than the play-field is important.



    Thats up to the level designer I guess. Its currently possible for the playing area to be smaller than the map. Don’t know if that should be automatic. Guess we can see what it looks like.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.