Jump to content
Gibsonm

4.157 - Legacy Map Conversion

Recommended Posts

To have the Blauheim.ter file you have to load the Hornfelt scenaries in 4.024 campaign editor and save the ter file in the map menu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Japo32 said:

To have the Blauheim.ter file you have to load the Hornfelt scenaries in 4.024 campaign editor and save the ter file in the map menu.

Ok, I will try to reproduce. Probably there is a some compatibility issue with map theme files  created in 4.0...

 

BTW, technically you don't need  to keep 4.023  for the maps and themes extraction- very same things can be done in the Mission Editor of v.4.1,  but if you need to extract maps from multiple scenarios, version 4.023  is just  faster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if the ter file is embed inside the mission, when you try to load it in 4.1 mission editor it says that it cannot do it. So the only way I found to make it was in 4.023.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, in this post...

 

 

...it covers the situation where you don't have the map that the scenario uses (I assume because someone else made the map and scenario).

 

If you don't have the map then you extract it from legacy scenario, and you would do that in 4.0.  Essentially you don't have the map as a TER file, so you have to extract it, which means you have to do it in 4.0 where the old legacy scenario loads. That is correct.

 

Also as it states, its recommended that you convert the map and put "sce_" in front of the name so you know the particular delta map is incomplete (it only has terrain data in the area of the scenario), and then name the map after the scenario name (ie. "sce_Guard the Lake").

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Japo32 said:

To have the Blauheim.ter file you have to load the Hornfelt scenaries in 4.024 campaign editor and save the ter file in the map menu.

This was in my archives.  Perhaps it might be helpful.

Blauheim.ter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark, we tested the map files that you sent, and they seem to convert just fine. We also can't see a swapping of tree types or things disappearing. This suggest that there was some error made which we cannot identify, and which, in all likelihood, is impossible to backtrack efficiently with a stream of forum posts.

 

Volcano offered you a meeting in Teamspeak. It appears to be easiest to go through this in a conversation. The biggest challenge may be to agree on a time, you being in Australia and him being in Texas. But nobody on the team is more experienced with legacy map conversion than he is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Mark, we tested the map files that you sent, and they seem to convert just fine. We also can't see a swapping of tree types or things disappearing. This suggest that there was some error made which we cannot identify, and which, in all likelihood, is impossible to backtrack efficiently with a stream of forum posts.

 

Volcano offered you a meeting in Teamspeak. It appears to be easiest to go through this in a conversation. The biggest challenge may be to agree on a time, you being in Australia and him being in Texas. But nobody on the team is more experienced with legacy map conversion than he is.

Thanks.

 

I am a little concerned that your team didn't see the tree swap (admittedly not as extreme as the tree to palm thing) when myself and two others in a multi player test did.

 

If its a case of the same tree modelled at better resolution of something, then I guess we have to live with it, but the consensus here last night was that the gum in the 4.023 screen shot looked more "local" than whatever the tree in the 4.175 screen shot was (both in the second email).

 

To our eyes, this (4.023):

 

1922227718_Scenario4_023SingleTree.thumb.png.ac8be81ea9543775aaa93018d79a4e2d.png

 

looks markedly different to this (4.175):

 

1739445482_Scenario4_157SingleTree.thumb.jpg.602d2b0ebf2053521df7b07ae319baaf.jpg

 

Yes I did acknowledge Volcano's offer (probably buried in the post stream).

 

But as flagged, I need to probably wait for the weekend here so that:

 

a. He might be available (or at least larger windows of time)

 

b. My frustration levels dial back down.

 

Thankfully we are still using 3.XXX at work so hopefully I can get a better understanding before we try and roll out 4.XXX at some point.

 

Edited by Gibsonm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

5 hours ago, Japo32 said:

if the ter file is embed inside the mission, when you try to load it in 4.1 mission editor it says that it cannot do it. So the only way I found to make it was in 4.023.

It is not obvious, but you don'need to load legacy scenario in 4.1 to extract the embedded map:

1) Start SB Pro PE v.4.1

2) Open the Mission Editor. Once in the Mission editor, do not open any scenario(simply no need to do this)

3) Click 'File' and  then select 'Export to map package...'

 

SS_10_24_47.jpg

 

4) Dialog 'Open' will pop. Select  legacy file, from which your wish to extract the map.

 

SS_10_25_11.jpg

 

-If legacy scenario  does not contain  embedded map, appropriate  message will be displayed. 

-If there is an embedded map in the scenario, 'Scenario map extraction wizard' will open'.  to  adjust name, coordinates and date  etc. Also  you can  select 'Publish' and  extracted map will be  immediately  published.

 

SS_10_25_18.jpg

 

It provides you  options to save  map as  the base or delta package...

 

SS_10_25_33.jpg

 

...to  adjust name, coordinates and date  etc. Also  you can  select 'Publish' and  extracted map will be  immediately  published

 

SS_10_25_53.jpg

 

SS_10_26_02.jpg

 

...Better tactic would be not to load   scenario  directly  after the map extraction, but to proceed to the  map  editor, and  making some final  touches to extracted  map there.

Edited by Jartsev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gibsonm said:

To our eyes, this (4.023):

 

1922227718_Scenario4_023SingleTree.thumb.png.ac8be81ea9543775aaa93018d79a4e2d.png

 

looks markedly different to this (4.175):

 

1739445482_Scenario4_157SingleTree.thumb.jpg.602d2b0ebf2053521df7b07ae319baaf.jpg

Since you mentioned it...

 

These two trees are the same type. Obviously they look different, but the entire tree catalog was reworked to look more realistic. They weren't modeled to be exactly the same, in stead they were modeled off better photos, and given much more polygons than before.  So, the tree type is the same, but of course many of them look different. That is feature, and trees are just going to be a little different in appearance in general.

 

The issue would be that some eucalyptus or gum trees are turning into palms (from one of your previous posts), this is what we said we are not seeing. Also, the palm trees don't necessarily look nearly like the old ones, because two of the old ones were pure fantasy so again, we tried to make more realistic trees.

 

Hopefully that better explains what was meant by 'the trees weren't changed' (referring to type, not exact appearance). There is no way around the different appearance, just like when the buildings were updated.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, not directed at anyone here, but I just remembered that when converting maps then map theme bumpiness values should be inspected (as generally 4.0 maps had bumpiness values that were way too high, and now that bumpiness values do affect physical bumps, its work a look - usually a 50% reduction).

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Volcano said:

Hopefully that better explains what was meant by 'the trees weren't changed' (referring to type, not exact appearance). There is no way around the different appearance, just like when the buildings were updated.

 

Perhaps Gums in Tasmania look different?

 

It looks like, I'll now need to edit the maps anyway to find a better proxy (I'm, assuming there is no way to use the 4.023 models any more)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

 

Perhaps Gums in Tasmania look different?

 

It looks like, I'll now need to edit the maps anyway to find a better proxy (I'm, assuming there is no way to use the 4.023 models any more)

 

Sorry, but the modeler who made them was not from Tasmania. We have about 5 or 6 modelers, and the talented guy who remade the trees reworked everything (rocks, trees, bushes, grass) and spent about four to six months working on them. We are pretty happy and satisfied with his work.  If someone looks at both images and can't see that they are essentially the same triple trunk gum tree, then I don't know what to say. 

 

But OK, that is fine. So you aren't happy with that exact tree, then yes, you will need to change the tree type in the theme.  That is your choice of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Changing the theme won't help. They are tree objects by the look of them not forest trees. Don't think there is an easy way to replace those. Changing the theme apart from the African themes probably won't change them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Volcano said:

Sorry, but the modeler who made them was not from Tasmania.

 

Ah OK I take that back then.

 

My problem more broadly (and perhaps not for this public forum) is that in a class room I'll be asked by a bunch of soldiers "What sort of XYZ tree is that meant to be?" and they will all laugh when I tell them its gum.

 

Whilst a peripheral issue, it does tend to undermine the whole accurate simulation thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

My problem more broadly (and perhaps not for this public forum) is that in a class room I'll be asked by a bunch of soldiers "What sort of XYZ tree is that meant to be?" and they will all laugh when I tell them its gum.

 

Whilst a peripheral issue, it does tend to undermine the whole accurate simulation thing.

 

This might be of interest to you, Mark. If I am successful in my efforts, I just might be able to restore the look of your old gum trees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can say is, the first artist made the original tree. The second artist looked at the same images, and made a better tree with much more detail later.  The first artist wasn't a botanist, and neither was the second, but they were based on the same images.

 

I personally can't see how someone would come to the conclusion that they are totally different trees based on the two images, but I am not a botanist either. The rest of your reply seems like a gross exaggeration to prove a point, but that is just me.

 

What I am interested in is helping you convert your maps. Outside of this, I don't really have time to debate the tree models. So please let me know if you would like assistance in Teamspeak and I will make myself available.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

My problem more broadly (and perhaps not for this public forum) is that in a class room I'll be asked by a bunch of soldiers "What sort of XYZ tree is that meant to be?" and they will all laugh when I tell them its gum.

 

Whilst a peripheral issue, it does tend to undermine the whole accurate simulation thing.

If you can send us good references of specific Australian trees that you would like to see, I'll try to have a few more tree models made (Ed will hate me for this) that we can then deliver in a future update.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Lt DeFault said:

 

This might be of interest to you, Mark. If I am successful in my efforts, I just might be able to restore the look of your old gum trees.

While I don't know the extent of what you are doing, my reply in that other thread was about the old abatis (which you specifically asked about).  I wasn't talking about swapping out textures on trees, or swapping out models.  In general this would create an alternate reality in situations where users are playing a simulation together.

 

For a community game this would not be allowed. For a classroom, that is fine - as long as all the computers are the same.

 

But beyond that, replacing models in a classroom version with 4.0 tree model could come with a host of issues - namely the fact that tree MRF files contain script data, which contains behavioral data about the tree itself, which may or may not be compatible to 4.1 (but at the very least is certainly surpassed and not applicable at this point).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

If you can send us good references of specific Australian trees that you would like to see, I'll try to have a few more tree models made (Ed will hate me for this) that we can then deliver in a future update.

To be clear, my mission here (in this thread) is to help convert maps. I have typed up extensive and detailed information about this directly in response to this thread here:

 

 

I have also offered to personally help with map conversions.

 

Then the discussion moved to the exact appearance of tree models, which is entirely subjective and seems more based on general frustration.

 

Whether someone wants to have an artist to redo a specific gum tree model, I don't care - but I am going to bow out of this thread and move to more productive issues unless or until someone PMs me that they would like some assistance in Teamspeak. 

 

(Speaking of which, weekends are not good for me to assist since I get as far away from the PC as possible).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

 

If its a case of the same tree modelled at better resolution of something, then I guess we have to live with it, but the consensus here last night was that the gum in the 4.023 screen shot looked more "local" than whatever the tree in the 4.175 screen shot was (both in the second email).

For what it is worth, I agree the tree in the 4.023 screen shot looks more Aussie. It may just be too much foliage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Volcano said:

While I don't know the extent of what you are doing, my reply in that other thread was about the old abatis (which you specifically asked about).  I wasn't talking about swapping out textures on trees, or swapping out models.  In general this would create an alternate reality in situations where users are playing a simulation together.

 

For a community game this would not be allowed. For a classroom, that is fine - as long as all the computers are the same.

 

But beyond that, replacing models in a classroom version with 4.0 tree model could come with a host of issues - namely the fact that tree MRF files contain script data, which contains behavioral data about the tree itself, which may or may not be compatible to 4.1 (but at the very least is certainly surpassed and not applicable at this point).

 

 

Yes, I was going to note in the other thread that I had only done this mod as an addition to a mission I created to be used by all participants. I wouldn't use such mods in any other situation. I never even considered the MRF files, it was just a "vis-mod".

 

I started to look into it again thinking it could be applied to other objects, but if it's going to interfere with the mechanics of the game I'll abandon the idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have finally made it through another 60-hour work week (almost, I have a short 4 hour day tomorrow) and had a chance to do a little more that just ascertain that 4.157 opens and I can run Tank Range.  I have not had much time to peruse the forums, but have noted that many of the legacy maps need conversion to the map packages.  Understood...

 

My problem lies in that I followed the installation instructions which said to delete all previous installs of SB.  So, I no longer have any files in the Map folder located in my ProgramData folder.  My questions are, do I need to reinstall 4.0 to find the missing .ter & .hgt files and is there anything that I might do while reinstalling which will mess with my 4.157 install?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the next patch will include the legacy TERs and HGTs (they were removed unintentionally), and your own TER and HGT files should have survived the uninstallation in any case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Rake said:

I have finally made it through another 60-hour work week (almost, I have a short 4 hour day tomorrow) and had a chance to do a little more that just ascertain that 4.157 opens and I can run Tank Range.  I have not had much time to peruse the forums, but have noted that many of the legacy maps need conversion to the map packages.  Understood...

 

My problem lies in that I followed the installation instructions which said to delete all previous installs of SB.  So, I no longer have any files in the Map folder located in my ProgramData folder.  My questions are, do I need to reinstall 4.0 to find the missing .ter & .hgt files and is there anything that I might do while reinstalling which will mess with my 4.157 install?

To answer your question, you can get the 4.0 legacy HGT files here:

 

 

Beyond that, you don't need the TER files. Anything you might have made would still be there, not removed by the installer, and any thing that was official should already be a map package in the map install, unless it wasn't used. We are looking at a way to either make a 4.0 legacy map installer, or to put them back in the next full installer (whenever that is).

 

We are also looking at setting up a server from SB.com to host maps that the community converts and creates, where SB will retrieve the map automatically when you try to play a scenario that uses a map you do not have on your end. This will take some time to get up and running though (days or weeks, hard to say at the moment).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

I think the next patch will include the legacy TERs and HGTs (they were removed unintentionally), and your own TER and HGT files should have survived the uninstallation in any case.

Just to clarify, user own created maps survive the un-install, but anything official does not (4.0 added them, so 4.0 uninstall takes them away). As Ssnake said though, we will iron it all out...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...