GH_Lieste Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 I've recently begun work on a map. The terrain is fairly sparse, with some significant relief, and low population. The villages that are present are connected by a few predominantly level roads running along the contours. This causes a problem as the road has a cross-slope of approximately 45 degrees, making traction interesting. When the road runs through a number of houses located at flatish bits of this terrain, but still steeper on average than say 10 degrees, the road degenerates into a chaotic mess, as each house claims a large flat plot for itself, regardless of proximity to the road or to each other, and indeed with little relationship with the building size.. the SB1 carry overs seem to have larger than average plot sizes (or are smaller buildings?) I was somewhat dismayed by the inability to use roads correctly in this type of terrain, as the road should give a nice smooth, flat and stable surface for fast driving (so long as you don't miss the corners or drive too fast ), and therefore excellent (if overly predictable) BP with no appreciable trunnion cant. As a temporary expedient, I have added a chain of bridge elements along the line of the original road, and with some provisos the effect is similar to what the roads should be. The bridge deck merely joins the two elevation points at each end in a straight line, and doesn't visually modify the underlying terrain (so partial intrusions of the underlying hill side occur to approximately the centre line of the road section). It does however give a nice flat driving surface, good BPs. It isn't possible to get good junctions with adjoining sections or particularly side-roads, and SB doesn't chain them together. Care needs to be taken not to collide with the walls near corners, as collisions with the ends/outsides of the wall are effective, even though it is possible to drive through them when leaving the road... Despite looking a bit rough round the edges, and obviously being an abuse of the designed function of these objects, I think it is a significant improvement of the driving experience on this type of road. Very early WIP: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted August 27, 2007 Members Share Posted August 27, 2007 Well, a creative solution I have to admit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GH_Lieste Posted August 27, 2007 Author Share Posted August 27, 2007 Well, I noticed how the bridges over the streams didn't follow the slope, and thought to myself can I place bridges just anywhere... and it grew from that..But it is, and looks a bodge.. so:How far down THE LIST is proper 3d roads, with embankments and cuttings as required, and an overhaul of the town flattening? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daskal Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 How far down THE LIST is proper 3d roads, with embankments and cuttings as required, and an overhaul of the town flattening?The idea of 3D roads has been haunting me ever since PE came out. Especially since its likely to be never implemented - however it would be AWESOME to have 3D roads (especially railroads) that are not just a flat textures on the ground. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Sean Posted November 4, 2009 Administrators Share Posted November 4, 2009 It's more complicated than it looks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted November 5, 2009 Members Share Posted November 5, 2009 The idea of 3D roads has been haunting me ever since PE came out. Especially since its likely to be never implemented...Can't confirm that assertion. It has been identified as an "important" and "desirable" element. It's just that the change isn't trivial, so timing is essential in the context of a proper development plan. (see the other thread for details) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabot_ready Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 @ Ssnake and DarkAngel.....How hard would it be to create a sculpting tool that could shape features at a smaller scale than current map resolutions used to generate height maps.Is SB locked to reproducing only what is publicly available ....DTEDs and such or can it go 1M or smaller and deal with shorter elevation distance changes? Guessing since we have vehicle emplacements that can change size and bumpiness and trenches in the old SB ...it is possible to make custom features..we just need to make a palette of "terrain" feature like we have for houses.Engineered roads would be a first start great!Instead of Height/Terrain...what would be needed is Height/Engineered/Terrain 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daskal Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 Can't confirm that assertion. It has been identified as an "important" and "desirable" element. It's just that the change isn't trivial, so timing is essential in the context of a proper development plan. (see the other thread for details) Yes I think that's clear to everyone, I just wished you guys would just wake up one morning with a feel of a gigantic enthusiasim & desire to go further than it's "required" and raise the bar not contemplating wheter some new feature is being payed for or not. I know I'm a bit carried away with this as I am viewing things from a personal customer view - if I would be in your shoes I would manage things probably the same way. But still, some "F*ck it, lets do this anyway" mentality would be cool from time to time 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 (edited) Sure, but a what price?Even if the guys could do the modelling "now" what are the impacts?Does the size of the map need to shrink to something nearly useless (say 2km x 2km) so the "average" user's PC can do all the computations required, or do you put on the system requirements "Cray required" and then get a tsunami of complaints that no one can use it on their existing machine?There's a trade off required for this sort of detail. Edited November 6, 2009 by Gibsonm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GH_Lieste Posted November 5, 2009 Author Share Posted November 5, 2009 Some of that trade off might be to wait until the 'entry-level' machine(s) can cope with the required number of calculations... It would still hurt those with 'existing' low and mid-range machines, but it is more likely to be successful than requiring top-end(-or-above) machines today. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgehog Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 No point in having kick ass software if you need a superubercomputer to run it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tacbat Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 And certainly no point to having a superubercomputer if there isn't any kick ass software to run on it. :wink: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
congo Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 And certainly no point to having a superubercomputer if there isn't any kick ass software to run on it. :wink:No point in having kick ass software if you need a superubercomputer to run it.__________________Pong anyone 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabot_ready Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 If you build it...they will come! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Well I congratulate you on your financial security. Personally I can't afford a few hundred thousand dollars for a Cray, let alone whatever the software would cost (US$125 a copy wont recoup the R&D required). Its easier for me to arrange some dry training on the real thing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dejawolf Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 No point in having kick ass software if you need a superubercomputer to run it.__________________ Pong anyone And certainly no point to having a superubercomputer if there isn't any kick ass software to run on it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgehog Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 I refer you to my previous post.:biggrin: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daskal Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 jeez I had to sum this up Hedge: No point in having kick ass software if you need a superubercomputer to run it.Tac: And certainly no point to having a superubercomputer if there isn't any kick ass software to run on it. Congo: No point in having kick ass software if you need a superubercomputer to run it. Deja: And certainly no point to having a superubercomputer if there isn't any kick ass software to run on it. Hedge: I refer you to my previous post. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgehog Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Pong anyoneDaskal, thats the joke. ^Seems like we have a doubles game going 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tacbat Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 A quote from the revered Floridia: "You Spin Me Right Round Baby Right Round." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgehog Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 A quote from the revered Floridia: "You Spin Me Right Round Baby Right Round."Round Right Baby Round Right Me Spin You.Sounds better, No?:biggrin: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
congo Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 Hey, I got a question Which came first the chicken or the software? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgehog Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 Hey, I got a question Which came first the chicken or the software? Don't you mean which was implemented first? :biggrin: Guess that answers your question. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.