Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

[stormrider_sp]

As with every new updates and upgrades, Id like to renew my longtime wish for the map importing functionality in SB Personal.

 

All the repetitive arguments against it have already been proved wrong like "its too difficult" or "you need super computers..." or "gis software are too expensive...", so the only real barrier is an artificial product segmentation marketing strategy, separating top tier military consumer from long time personal users which imo is dubious. I dont think a military organization will skip the classroom functionality of the mil version opting for the personal because now it has map importing functionality. I might be wrong.

 

Please, think about it.

Cheers

[Ssnake]

I did. Still No. Sorry.

[Hedgehog]

Are we ever going to get shiny new maps that really go all in with this new terrain engine?

And are they likely to be released in this decade?

[Major duck]

3 minutes ago, Hedgehog said:

Are we ever going to get shiny new maps that really go all in with this new terrain engine?

And are they likely to be released in this decade?

Why are you asking that question you just got the answer for from 1 post above.
Since we aint got a program for doing the import ourselves and since nobody does it for us then you got the answer right there so why ask that's just being annoying !

Best regards
MD

[Hedgehog]

11 minutes ago, Major duck said:

Why are you asking that question you just got the answer for from 1 post above.
Since we aint got a program for doing the import ourselves and since nobody does it for us then you got the answer right there so why ask that's just being annoying !

Best regards
MD

It's called a rhetorical question.

[stormrider_sp]

2 hours ago, Hedgehog said:

It's called a rhetorical question.

😂

[12Alfa]

3 hours ago, Hedgehog said:

It's called a rhetorical question.

"since nobody does it for us".......No. We do ask for the data to work with, and return PM's and such, otherwise one would think -we-are not not really needed, and wasting our time, and effort.

 

You can get the maps you want, however, there must be some work from the request to help the map builders. Is it to much to ask for a map request?..........:)

 

The sequence to have a map built.

1. Determine the area needed.

2. Find the southwest corner of the map in lat/long.

3. Gather the Lidar/Dtem data for the area

4. If avail the shape files for roads/rivers,water, etc.

5. Obtain pics/google map views of said area.

6. Place in a package and request on this thread, or ask for area telling map builders you have the necessary data.

7. Establish comms between you and map builder throughout the process with feedback.

8. Most importantly, rodents must be sacrificed till project is complete to keep the GODS happy...this may ,or not work all the time,,it never hurts.

 

 

 

Hope this clears up the process.............:)

Edited February 2, 2021 by 12Alfa

[Gibsonm]

4 hours ago, Hedgehog said:

Are we ever going to get shiny new maps that really go all in with this new terrain engine?

And are they likely to be released in this decade?

 

You already have one - assuming you read the Release Notes????

[stormrider_sp]

1 hour ago, 12Alfa said:

"since nobody does it for us".......No. We do ask for the data to work with, and return PM's and such, otherwise one would think -we-are not not really needed, and wasting our time, and effort.

 

You can get the maps you want, however, there must be some work from the request to help the map builders. Is it to much to ask for a map request?..........:)

 

The sequence to have a map built.

1. Determine the area needed.

2. Find the southwest corner of the map in lat/long.

3. Gather the Lidar/Dtem data for the area

4. If avail the shape files for roads/rivers,water, etc.

5. Obtain pics/google map views of said area.

6. Place in a package and request on this thread, or ask for area telling map builders you have the necessary data.

7. Establish comms between you and map builder throughout the process with feedback.

8. Most importantly, rodents must be sacrificed till project is complete to keep the GODS happy...this may ,or not work all the time,,it never hurts.

 

 

 

Hope this clears up the process.............:)

I have to partially disagree here. It's not that simple. I could give a top tier user all kinds of data, but can I really ask for his time to import everything as I would have done myself and, like everything, nothings goes right on the first few attempts. There is always the trial and error factor to take into account, not to mention the time spent on pre and post-processing the data itself, when you can never be sure until you have actually done that it will work out. Let's take this simple example:

 

Top tier user can with a "few clicks" import 2 kinds of area features (forests) plus 12 surface features. On top of that, one can have virtually unlimited number of line and point features (roads, fences, buildings...) Each of those 12 surface features to be effective and time productive must be imported respecting the standards of themes, for example, area feature number 1 is dirt, area feature number 2 is grass, otherwise, one will have to use the at best very clunky map editor UI to reset the surface types to match the imported vector area features. On top of that, if the top tier lad commits an error, and imports that 2 paved lane road as a dirt trail, me, to be very honest, I wouldn't dare asking him to do it all over again. The other option is to ask the top tier user to import only the heightmap and we will finish it using the map editor.....No wonder after 20 years, there are only a few quality made maps done. I feel sorry for those guys who spent years there knowing that with the right tools it should have taken no longer than a week!

 

Now to be even more practical, I invite you to check the Suwalki gap map. I don't want to sound rude, but it's horrible. And I can't blame the author. Mainly because despite all the evidence, all the sources are wrong and are not DTM: they are all DSM, which means that you're importing a data thinking that the height of buildings and forests and trees and water wells and everything above the ground was removed from the data only to discover that it was not and a virtually flat area is now filled with bumps and lumps exactly where buildings and forest area. The right procedure should be to process this data using a mask to remove the height from the forests and building effectively converting it from DSM to DTM, but once the map is imported, not by me, the damage is done and I wouldn't dare asking the person to waste his time doing my job, again.

 

Now, more than ever, it is the time for us to have this functionality. Free high quality data, that is, 1m-5m resolution heightmap exists. Free quality vector data, exists. Free quality software exists. People like me, volunteers who love doing these things, exist. In a couple of years, we could bin all the current maps (and its currently a mess!) and replace them with quality community made projects, free of charge and not time wasted from developers or top tier users.

 

[DarkAngel]

1 hour ago, stormrider_sp said:

Now to be even more practical, I invite you to check the Suwalki gap map. I don't want to sound rude, but it's horrible. And I can't blame the author. Mainly because despite all the evidence, all the sources are wrong and are not DTM: they are all DSM, which means that you're importing a data thinking that the height of buildings and forests and trees and water wells and everything above the ground was removed from the data only to discover that it was not and a virtually flat area is now filled with bumps and lumps exactly where buildings and forest area. The right procedure should be to process this data using a mask to remove the height from the forests and building effectively converting it from DSM to DTM, but once the map is imported, not by me, the damage is done and I wouldn't dare asking the person to waste his time doing my job, again.

 

 

Hmmm... wonder who that could be.. 

 

I made that map knowing full well that it was DSM data but it is better than any of the other public data sources. The options are 90m srtm which is too low res. SRTM 30 which is incredibly noisy especially in low lying areas and where there is sand or exposed water. So for me the best data of the bunch currently available for free is JAXA.

 

Now you can start crowing about LIDAR data. Believe me I have looked at a lot of this data and it is SHIT. It is just as noisy as the JAXA or SRTM 30... In some ways worse as the point spacing is much closer together so you get high frequency noise. Then of course you have all the erroneous data from solid objects, buildings, parked cars.

 

Then your next problem with a lidar based map is vector data. Sure there is a nice free source in OSM which I use a lot but it is WAY too inaccurate to use with a LIDAR based map.

[stormrider_sp]

19 minutes ago, DarkAngel said:

 

Hmmm... wonder who that could be.. 

 

I made that map knowing full well that it was DSM data but it is better than any of the other public data sources. The options are 90m srtm which is too low res. SRTM 30 which is incredibly noisy especially in low lying areas and where there is sand or exposed water. So for me the best data of the bunch currently available for free is JAXA.

 

Now you can start crowing about LIDAR data. Believe me I have looked at a lot of this data and it is SHIT. It is just as noisy as the JAXA or SRTM 30... In some ways worse as the point spacing is much closer together so you get high frequency noise. Then of course you have all the erroneous data from solid objects, buildings, parked cars.

 

Then your next problem with a lidar based map is vector data. Sure there is a nice free source in OSM which I use a lot but it is WAY too inaccurate to use with a LIDAR based map.

I trust you and as I said, I don't blame you, also because for the vector data, I usually prefer to spend the limited free time I have and build them myself either by using semi/unsupervised classification of landsat/sentinel multispectral data, findi similar (color) to vector of high res ortho imagery or simply drawing them from scratch. That's exactly my point. You, as a developer, is a busy person. Me or we as community, as volunteers, can afford to spend our pleasure time doing something like this, for pleasure. Note that I said spend and not waste. Waste would, imo, to spend a year using the clunky map editor to the job of a week in one year.

 

Its when you come across data like the one below, with a resolution of under 5m/px, available for free, its difficult to not wonder why after 2 years since the new map engine was introduced and along with that, all the hassles of the new format, we don't have anything like that and can't make do ourselves.

 

Edited February 2, 2021 by stormrider_sp

[DarkAngel]

Just looking at the picture i can tell you a lot of that data is erroneous.

[12Alfa]

3 hours ago, stormrider_sp said:

I have to partially disagree here. It's not that simple. I could give a top tier user all kinds of data, but can I really ask for his time to import everything as I would have done myself and, like everything, nothings goes right on the first few attempts. There is always the trial and error factor to take into account, not to mention the time spent on pre and post-processing the data itself, when you can never be sure until you have actually done that it will work out. Let's take this simple example:

 

Top tier user can with a "few clicks" import 2 kinds of area features (forests) plus 12 surface features. On top of that, one can have virtually unlimited number of line and point features (roads, fences, buildings...) Each of those 12 surface features to be effective and time productive must be imported respecting the standards of themes, for example, area feature number 1 is dirt, area feature number 2 is grass, otherwise, one will have to use the at best very clunky map editor UI to reset the surface types to match the imported vector area features. On top of that, if the top tier lad commits an error, and imports that 2 paved lane road as a dirt trail, me, to be very honest, I wouldn't dare asking him to do it all over again. The other option is to ask the top tier user to import only the heightmap and we will finish it using the map editor.....No wonder after 20 years, there are only a few quality made maps done. I feel sorry for those guys who spent years there knowing that with the right tools it should have taken no longer than a week!

 

Now to be even more practical, I invite you to check the Suwalki gap map. I don't want to sound rude, but it's horrible. And I can't blame the author. Mainly because despite all the evidence, all the sources are wrong and are not DTM: they are all DSM, which means that you're importing a data thinking that the height of buildings and forests and trees and water wells and everything above the ground was removed from the data only to discover that it was not and a virtually flat area is now filled with bumps and lumps exactly where buildings and forest area. The right procedure should be to process this data using a mask to remove the height from the forests and building effectively converting it from DSM to DTM, but once the map is imported, not by me, the damage is done and I wouldn't dare asking the person to waste his time doing my job, again.

 

Now, more than ever, it is the time for us to have this functionality. Free high quality data, that is, 1m-5m resolution heightmap exists. Free quality vector data, exists. Free quality software exists. People like me, volunteers who love doing these things, exist. In a couple of years, we could bin all the current maps (and its currently a mess!) and replace them with quality community made projects, free of charge and not time wasted from developers or top tier users.

 

1-''but can I really ask for his time to import everything as I would have done myself

''....I have offered many times on this board, some have asked, and recieved their map. So yes.

 

2- ''There is always the trial and error factor to take into account, not to mention the time spent on pre and post-processing the data itself, when you can never be sure until you have actually done that it will work out.''

So, this is why I offer, my experience when actually done that it will work. Why would you want to add a feature that would take many hours to master, when a source(s) are readily available?

3- I always offer a detail level for the end user, be it a hight-map blank, to a full edited terrain. The call is yours, depending on the detail determines to time to complete. 

Now if you really want to work, a height-map can be developed, and you can fill your free time, and love of creating to finish the map, 

Bottom line-You have options right now.

[stormrider_sp]

Thank you for the responses. There is no point in continuing arguing now. The point was made and the arguments were placed but the answer, unfortunately, is still the same 'no'.

 

Cheers

[Rad]

 

[Mirzayev]

Request: micro-UAVs automatically return to the point of launch when the connection is lost/broken. Currently they obey the last command transmitted, meaning if your infantry team moves out of range, the UAV forever flies forward (if that was its last command) meaning you can't recover it. 

[Hedgehog]

22 hours ago, Mirzayev said:

Request: micro-UAVs automatically return to the point of launch when the connection is lost/broken. Currently they obey the last command transmitted, meaning if your infantry team moves out of range, the UAV forever flies forward (if that was its last command) meaning you can't recover it. 

Further to Mirz's request.

Alt T = UAV returns to Inf team

(Like inf teams mounting up into a vehicle.)

[Grenny]

23 hours ago, Mirzayev said:

Request: micro-UAVs automatically return to the point of launch when the connection is lost/broken. Currently they obey the last command transmitted, meaning if your infantry team moves out of range, the UAV forever flies forward (if that was its last command) meaning you can't recover it. 

That already is BUG #8960

[Bond_Villian]

It would be helpful to have the name of the currently applied theme file available in the mission editor, on the 'Map Info' screen.

This would make it possible for the scenario designer to easily identify the theme, load and edit it on a 'Flat' map, then apply it to the map in use with the scenario (without having to load the actual map/delta map- these can be very slow and prone to crashing when road leveling etc has been applied).

Cheers

 

 

[Bond_Villian]

Also; the option to turn off the theme colours in the Map Editor, so as to better see the contour lines

[Ssnake]

That's a per-scenario setting, you'll have to edit that in the Mission Editor (Map menu).

[Bond_Villian]

39 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

That's a per-scenario setting, you'll have to edit that in the Mission Editor (Map menu).

There is no option in the Map Editor to disable the theme colours within the Map Editor.

As it is, when you are working on a map there is no option to turn off the theme colours, so that you can see the contour lines better in the map editor.

Edited February 16, 2021 by Bond_Villian

[Ssnake]

Well, yeah, for that you'd have to change the colors in the theme itself to be less "light-grey like".

[Bond_Villian]

Well, its not just light grey coloured themes that obscure the contour lines. In my experience, its much easier to see the contour lines with no theme colours on the map.

[Ssnake]

I'm not trying to tell you that you have no problem. All I'm saying is, just in case you didn't know (because, Steel Beasts is complex), this is where you can change things right now - irrespective of your duly noted and perfectly legitimate desire to make such changes easier.