Camp Hornfeldt for 4.1

[Haferja]

I loved that training scenarios. But can't play them with 4.1 cause the .ter-map "Blauheim" is missing. Only the .hgt-map "plain" is in the map-package.

 

Is there anything i can do to get them working with the right terrain?

 

Cheers,

Hafer

[stormrider_sp]

14 minutes ago, Haferja said:

I loved that training scenarios. But can't play them with 4.1 cause the .ter-map "Blauheim" is missing. Only the .hgt-map "plain" is in the map-package.

 

Is there anything i can do to get them working with the right terrain? 

 

Cheers,

Hafer

If you can't get hold of that particular terrain file, you can always create a delta map from the HGT that you found, and map edit from scratch the terrain so it looks similar. Or you can get the Legacy maps from esimgames website and convert the legacy map from there.

 

Edited August 17, 2019 by stormrider_sp

[Haferja]

Thank you stormrider, it worked!

 

1. I downloaded the legacy map installer (https://www.esimgames.com/?page_id=1607)

2. I followed the instructions by Jartsev "Export to map package..." 

3. I opened the Hornfeld-scenarios in the Editor

4. Opened the map in the Map Editor and published it

5. Bingo

 

Cheers.

Hafer

Edited August 17, 2019 by Haferja

[tungstenfall]

And if I'm missing the .hgt file instead and it's not in the legacy package, I guess I can forget about the mission?

[Gibsonm]

Well arguably in 4.159 you don't need the height map, just the map package.

 

Are you seeing some sort of error message in 4.159 suggesting you do need a height map?

 

I'll send you a link to the package in a PM.

 

Edit: PM sent.

 

Edited August 24, 2019 by Gibsonm

[tungstenfall]

From how I understand this, every legacy mission needs both. I guess that terrain data is simply "painted" over the actual landscape presented by the height map. If you don't have the .ter file, you could still theoretically have the mission on the barren land. However, if you don't have the height map, the units won't be placed correctly in the geometrical sense. Of course this is something I speculate while not knowing for sure.

 

As I said in the PM I mostly meant missions in general, not this particular one. But thank you for replying.

[Ssnake]

Every legacy scenario contains the TER map of the section of the map that is being used for the scenario. To that extent both HGT and TER are not "required" just to play the scenario. But usually it's better to convert the full TER map in one go rather than creating multiple variants from different scenarios that may be partially overlapping.

In many cases it's even possible to convert a scenario without having either the TER nor the HGT map, as the elevation data would often (but not always) be embedded in the SCE file as well. But in that case you'd need to extract both the height map and the TER map from the scenario first before converting the result, and then use the "replace map" option to pick the new map package.

 

Details are described here, and there:

 

 

[Gibsonm]

You can't have "legacy" missions.

 

You need to open the old mission in the Mission Editor and update the information regarding the map to be used to the new map package.

 

Then save it as a 4.159 version.

 

Say "Camp_Hornfelt(4)-Support_by_Fire" becomes "Camp_Hornfelt(4)-Support_by_Fire 4_159" or similar.

 

If you don't want to run it in something prior to 4.159 you can just save the new file over the old one.

 

There's even a thread in the Support area devoted to this:

 

Edited August 24, 2019 by Gibsonm

[Gibsonm]

Ah Ssnake beat me to it.

[tungstenfall]

Indeed, turns out most of the maps were converted already and the rest was solved by installing 4.023 back again. Speaking of which, while choosing Extract map in its mission editor, does that also extract the .hgt one as well? Because with the mission I tried I was only asked for the .ter file name upon extraction.

 

So far I ran into several problems. Looking for the new terrain or height map (even though they are not called that anymore, some of them provide the coverage whereas the others only give you a barren landscape) has proven rather difficult. Why not include the possibility to look for a map by coordinates within a certain range?

Searching for coordinates is how I located CMTC Hohenfels for Camp Hornfeldt, for example. If you just choose plain41, you'll get pretty much a green desert, while there is nothing even remotely called "Blauheim" in the list.

 

Then again, there is a worse scenario: you choose a map from the list and after the terrain and the mission have loaded, you are prompted for the password for one of the sides... Is there no way to replace the map in that case?

 

And lastly, I came across some weird editor behavior. In one case it said it couldn't load the scenario because of something like artwork missing or something similar (couldn't replicate that after the second time, but maybe I simply couldn't pick the right scenario), while in the other the map would load showing only the terrain and the editor would stop responding to the mouse at all, apart from the overview window on the lower right. In that second case, however, when I press Esc it asks me whether I want to save the scenario or not and allows to me to least click either or the three buttons of the dialog. Weirdly enough, the same happens in the 4.023 editor as well. But at least after choosing a Yes the map choice is saved and I can finally start the scenario (it's called Battle of Donesk, by the way).

 

It would save a lot of time and pain if choosing the mission editor from the main menu would yield a choice of either a new mission or an existing one, leading to either the map list dialog or to the open file dialog, respectively.

[Grenny]

Yes, when the scenario maker has put a password in, you can not modify the mission file without the password.

[tungstenfall]

11 minutes ago, Grenny said:

Yes, when the scenario maker has put a password in, you can not modify the mission file without the password.

That's a huge inconvenience, since it prevents me from converting the missions into the new format and as a consequence - from running them either, at least in 4.159.

[Gibsonm]

4 hours ago, tungstenfall said:

That's a huge inconvenience, since it prevents me from converting the missions into the new format and as a consequence - from running them either, at least in 4.159.

Perhaps, but you need to respect the designer's decision.

 

I used to post non password protected scenarios but then people would complain to me about changes they have made.

 

e.g.: "I've swapped the M113s for Bradleys and now its too easy for Blue. Its a broken sh*t scenario!" - as if somehow I should have been prepared for Blue now no longer having just a 0.50" MG but now having TOW, 25mm, and Thermals.

 

If its password protected I know it hasn't been played with and can respond to reasonable questions.

 

If you know who made it, perhaps send them a PM requesting they update it?

 

I know several designers are currently doing just that. Either a "simple" conversion to use a new map, or a more detailed "update" to use the new map, adjust the bumpiness, adjust to take into account new features, etc.

 

Edited August 24, 2019 by Gibsonm

[Grenny]

4 hours ago, tungstenfall said:

That's a huge inconvenience, since it prevents me from converting the missions into the new format and as a consequence - from running them either, at least in 4.159.

Which scenarios?

[tungstenfall]

14 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

Perhaps, but you need to respect the designer's decision.

 

I used to post non password protected scenarios but then people would complain to me about changes they have made.

 

e.g.: "I've swapped the M113s for Bradleys and now its too easy for Blue. Its a broken sh*t scenario!" - as if somehow I should have been prepared for Blue now no longer having just a 0.50" MG but now having TOW, 25mm, and Thermals.

 

If its password protected I know it hasn't been played with and can respond to reasonable questions.

 

If you know who made it, perhaps send them a PM requesting they update it?

 

I know several designers are currently doing just that. Either a "simple" conversion to use a new map, or a more detailed "update" to use the new map, adjust the bumpiness, adjust to take into account new features, etc.

 

I just hoped the map and the battle plan could be separated. I mean, I fully understand it if the mission designer doesn't want me to tinker with the units, waypoints and so on in his mission, but is it really necessary to also prevent me from swapping out the map?

 

As for the case of people complaining to you about your scenarios they have modified and didn't like the result, I hope we both understand just how ridiculous their claims are and you can simply reply to them that their own edition of the mission is solely their own responsibility. Once even a single symbol in the file name is changed by a 3rd party they can go build their own missions and absolutely shouldn't bother you with anything. In fact, I wouldn't bother the mission designer at all even with an unmodified mission unless there is some glaring design problem in the mission that is plain obvious.

 

PM'ing them? Well... I don't really know anyone here, so bothering them out of the blue doesn't look like a good idea to me. I just assumed that if they are interested in it, they would have already updated their scenarios a while ago. Then again, you said that several designers are already working on that and they are doing more than just slapping a converted map on, so it's best to wait after all...

14 hours ago, Grenny said:

Which scenarios?

Actually, I'm not even sure whether the scenarios were what I needed. Just wanted something small enough to have a little LAN co-op mission for two people (got myself a second license after 4.1 was out) or just a quick battle for myself, so I decided to look for exactly that: small co-op missions. I can't recall all the names right away, but these are some of them: Fluss, FMV Air Strip and Loch Ness (I prefer Leos) and Sandpoint. Again, I'm not even sure if they are something what I need. But I guess now that I have installed 4.023 back I could check that myself without complications. Speaking of which, now I wonder if I should reinstall 4.159, seeing how 4.023 has overwritten some of the files (even though I put it into a separate folder).

 

By the way, if you know any good small-scale (platoon or several platoons sized) tanker scenarios that can be played either coop with someone who can barely be anything but a gunner/driver, or single player for that matter, please let me know.

I am personally also not very keen on investing several hours on a scenario juggling companies all by myself, but hopefully one of these days I'll make enough time to do exactly that, since that aspect is mighty interesting as well.

[Ssnake]

Basically any small single player scenario that you like can also be played in network mode with the other player being in the role of your gunner or driver.

That these scenarios are filed under "single player" does not prevent them from being selected by the session host, it's just that picking any party other than Blue may actually not work very well for the session participants.

[tungstenfall]

13 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Basically any small single player scenario that you like can also be played in network mode with the other player being in the role of your gunner or driver.

That these scenarios are filed under "single player" does not prevent them from being selected by the session host, it's just that picking any party other than Blue may actually not work very well for the session participants.

I figured that with the Niinisalo mission, which was the only one we could run successfully during the LAN session (I failed to replace the maps for the other missions I wanted to try at the time for some reason, probably that was before acquiring of the legacy pack). Still, I wanted to be sure the missions are meant for co-op. Not to mention I'd still need to replace maps in single player missions as well. That said, I can't remember doing that for Niinisalo, but it still worked...

But thanks for mentioning that, I need to give SP missions a try too. I don't mind if only the Blue side will work properly, since we were only doing co-op anyway.

[Gibsonm]

1 hour ago, tungstenfall said:

As for the case of people complaining to you about your scenarios they have modified and didn't like the result, I hope we both understand just how ridiculous their claims are and you can simply reply to them that their own edition of the mission is solely their own responsibility. Once even a single symbol in the file name is changed by a 3rd party they can go build their own missions and absolutely shouldn't bother you with anything. In fact, I wouldn't bother the mission designer at all even with an unmodified mission unless there is some glaring design problem in the mission that is plain obvious.

 

 

Except of course that it takes up time and usually several exchanges. Password protecting the file removes the problem.

 

1 hour ago, tungstenfall said:

By the way, if you know any good small-scale (platoon or several platoons sized) tanker scenarios that can be played either coop with someone who can barely be anything but a gunner/driver, or single player for that matter, please let me know.

I am personally also not very keen on investing several hours on a scenario juggling companies all by myself, but hopefully one of these days I'll make enough time to do exactly that, since that aspect is mighty interesting as well.

 

In the morning I'll zip a collection and send via PM.

[tungstenfall]

2 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

 

Except of course that it takes up time and usually several exchanges. Password protecting the file removes the problem.

Then again, nothing prevents them from pestering you about your own unmodified scenarios with some other ridiculous claims if they are so inclined.

Then there are people like me who can barely handle the way M1's GPS applies lead. To the point I'd rather drive a T-72 instead (if only it had a TIS). Swapped them out for 2A5s, and I'm happy enough. 

2 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

In the morning I'll zip a collection and send via PM.

That would be really nice, thank you in advance.

[Gibsonm]

2 hours ago, tungstenfall said:

Then again, nothing prevents them from pestering you about your own unmodified scenarios with some other ridiculous claims if they are so inclined.

 

Then I just ignore them. Life is too short to waste on those people.

[ht-57]

@tungstenfall

if you were unable to get camp hornfelt operational, I've updated most of the missions to 4.1.  If you want them let me know

[tungstenfall]

20 hours ago, ht-57 said:

@tungstenfall

if you were unable to get camp hornfelt operational, I've updated most of the missions to 4.1.  If you want them let me know

I was able to swap out the terrain without a hitch, but if you also edited some other things like terrain bumpiness or maybe fine tuned waypoints/battle plan, I would definitely want the updated versions. Thank you for the offer either way.

[ht-57]

    I made a couple tweaks thus far-

All sce's got an updated theme  which in turn gave them the new terrain and bumpiness

-"attack by fire"-  I had to change the CO's BP so he could actually spot the enemy to set off the trigger to send the fire mission and radio the platoons to  advance to their BP's from their hiding positions.

-In "support by fire" and "assault" I changed the start time to match the start time in briefing as it called to start at daybreak

-"destroy an inferior force" no change

-"tactical movement"  Is the next one on my hit list

[tungstenfall]

15 hours ago, ht-57 said:

    I made a couple tweaks thus far-

All sce's got an updated theme  which in turn gave them the new terrain and bumpiness

-"attack by fire"-  I had to change the CO's BP so he could actually spot the enemy to set off the trigger to send the fire mission and radio the platoons to  advance to their BP's from their hiding positions.

-In "support by fire" and "assault" I changed the start time to match the start time in briefing as it called to start at daybreak

-"destroy an inferior force" no change

-"tactical movement"  Is the next one on my hit list

Then I would certainly like to receive the "attack by fire", "support by fire" and "assault" missions. Also looking forward to the updated "tactical movement" when you feel it's ready for use.

[ht-57]

@ tungstenfall

rodger, I’ll zip’em up when I get home from work tonight.