[RealDarko]

My machine is pretty new not a year yet. But I get 25 sec for the FMB and 5 sec for the mission ( only one plane and a carrier )

[Skunkmeister]

Skunk, have you messed with those (slovakia, i think) objects that are just flat shapes on the ground with city streets on them?

Why on earth would you want to use static objects to define coast lines?

I know that this sim has limitations, and while building this map I have accepted this fact. The player is essentially nothing more than a spectator, and things only need to look like they should, even if vaguely so. So far if you compare this map to Luthier's rendition of Guadalcanal, its already ten times better IMO. The average player isnt going to go "Ooh look at how accurate that coast line is", he's just gonna fly over it and not even care. I'm sorry, but I just dont see the point. We arent building a 1:1 scale representation of the real thing, the sim just wont let us do that. As long as the coast lines are defined within map_c to the best that it (and I) can do, I'm gonna be happy with it.

[Dixiecapt]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nYB6DbSAsM

Wowie Wowie Wow Wow..... Gah!

Between the Slot Map, the NE France, and NEI Maps.... YOU PEOPLE AMAZE ME!

I am now official a super fan of AAA! As if the Aircraft weren't enough, This is Simply Amazing!

I can't wait to see the Finished Project and fire up a P-40/B-17E/or F4F on this map!!!

These maps are by far better than anything I'm seeing in the stock game!!!

[spud]

I didn't say all the coasts, only places where it might actually get noticed.

Take the simple example of the WOOD textures overlapping the water. In many places you are 100% right, it doesn't matter. Right next to a runway where you will see it at stall speed from 30ft up, it might look pretty crappy. The current alternatives are to eliminate the WOOD texture and try and make it look right with trees (it won't unless it's a palm grove, and that has other issues), or to use the wood and let it go over the water.

With this idea, you could place 1 or 2 of these objects and you have the wood, AND it has ground under it.

Probably 0.00001% of the map would get such treatment, and each application would be a handful of 1-5 triangle objects.

Lotta bang for the buck, IMO.

[Skunkmeister]

Take the simple example of the WOOD textures overlapping the water.

Now I'm confused. I thought that was exactly what you wanted with regards to trees in the water to simulate mangroves and have places to hide barges.

I'd like to put this map out with the least amount of modded objects in it as possible. If other people want to add stuff into it after it's release, I really could care less, but right now adding custom objects into it is something I'm not too keen on.

[spud]

No, in retrospect I agree about that (modded objects). It's far better for this map (any map) to have as few modded objects, if not simply none at all.

It could be made into an FMB object for mission builders.

As for the trees, yeah, over the water here and there beats never gettign anywhere near the water like stock. By a wide margin.

The only places where it might be nice to doll it up is where you are low and slow. Kinda like there is little reason to place palm trees on random small islands that a player will only see if he ditches there, but it might be nice to place them in areas where he WILL see them like airfields, minimum alt target areas, etc.

Just brainstorming.

tater

[spud]

Another idea (again, just brainstorming, most more suitable for FMB objects, not on the map itself):

You make such a tile(s) with a coconut grove from above on it. You set the mat file so it draws very far, but perhaps not very close. Give it transparency so you see the ground below, the texture on it is the palms/shadows. Place real palms on top. At long range when the palms are invisible, you'll see little rows of dark dots... while we could make a texture like this, we'd have the same limitations of where the texture lands we have with woods, etc. This would allow them exactly where the builder wants them.

Dunno, might work.

Such an object might be made with craters all over it and with a single object a mission builder could show that the target area was hit last time. Yeah, we could make a crater object, but a huge sheet of them would be far easier to apply.

Another possibility (again for campaign building) would be to make a semi-transparent layer with airfield camo on it. They painted swirls on some with oil, others had faked palm trees (greenish sployches about the size of the crown of a palm tree), etc. Again, one mission you bomb it, then you come back later and they've tried to camo the field, etc

For Rabaul I was also thinking of the whole surf vs no surf issue. Areas with ports and facilities shouldn't have surf. Presumably this can becontrolled in toher ways since it seems to vary on maps I've built ports on.

tater

[Huxley_S]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nYB6DbSAsM

Amazing!

[VFS-214_Hawk]

I have an older Dell and it takes a good two to three minutes to load some maps. It takes a good two minutes at times just to start the game. Once the game is loaded several times with no file changes, it starts and loads in less than a minute.

My computer just isn't good enough for constant work. Even when the game is off, it takes a while for the computer to run smooth again.

I am still playing "catch-up" with all that AAA has to offer. I had hoped to contribute by helping out but my contributions may be little

[badaboom]

A call to the original Beta testers, especially those with lower end machines.

Could you give me approximate loading times along with a couple system specs? I need loading times for both the FMB and when loading up a mission. I know Avala reduced the size of the 2D map and got loading times to reduce, but I'd like to know if others experienced long loading times just to see if I cant make this map more "low-end system friendly" when it hits the downloads section.

Takes me about 2:30 min to load The Slot map,takes less than 30 sec to load simple mission on,OLD OLD system
P4-2.5 gig
1 gig ram
nividia 6800gt

[VFS-214_Hawk]

Oh sorry, I am referring to the map I just got started, the Hawaii Map and QMBPlus. I forgot I was reading about The Slot stuff. Nevertheless, once messing with the files is done and I load the game a few times, it speeds up to normal load times I had been getting before AAA.

[Bwf.]

A call to the original Beta testers, especially those with lower end machines.

Could you give me approximate loading times along with a couple system specs? I need loading times for both the FMB and when loading up a mission. I know Avala reduced the size of the 2D map and got loading times to reduce, but I'd like to know if others experienced long loading times just to see if I cant make this map more "low-end system friendly" when it hits the downloads section.

Still running 408m with Sound mod 092, haven't had time to play around
with the new "wrapper" setup yet. These are the loadup times I've been
getting with the Slot map.

In QMB:
Takes 80 seconds for map to load 1st time, after that about 35 seconds.
Test mission with 38 aircraft(all custom skins-markings off) plus 12
added ground objects(Artillery-AAA) takes 45 seconds.

The same test mission takes 85 seconds to load in the Single missions
selection. Reload time after exiting mission and selecting Refly is the
same, 85 seconds.

Not sure why it takes longer to load up in Single missions than in QMB.
No complaints, once loaded up it "runs" very smoothly.
Vidio Options set at perfect.

System:
Windows XP Pro SP2
MSI K7N2 Delta2(NVIDIA)
1536MB RAM
AMD Athlon™ XP 3000+, MMX, 3DNow, ~2.2GHz
NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GS 256.0 MB
SB Audigy 2

[fabianfred]

where are all these people getting the slot map to do their testing on?

I didn't think it was available yet.....

[Bee]

where are all these people getting the slot map to do their testing on?

I didn't think it was available yet.....

I was wondering that too :?

[Steve T]

where are all these people getting the slot map to do their testing on?

I didn't think it was available yet.....

I was wondering that too :?

I think they might be the original Beta testing group, as per Skunkmeister's post on the previous page:

"A call to the original Beta testers, especially those with lower end machines.

Could you give me approximate loading times along with a couple system specs? I need loading times for both the FMB and when loading up a mission. I know Avala reduced the size of the 2D map and got loading times to reduce, but I'd like to know if others experienced long loading times just to see if I cant make this map more "low-end system friendly" when it hits the downloads section."