The Rheinland map

[CastorTroy]

1 hour ago, Uufflakke said:

 

I hear the echo of Bob Ross... 

 

I bet Bob Ross smoked mad weed...…..

[CountZero]

Just now, Danziger said:

I think it is pretty obvious it hasn't been developed as much as the the other maps. Hopefully they can add to it over time like with other maps. The Stalingrad map was retextured, the moscow map forests were reworked, and Kuban came out amazing from the start because they took forever working on it. I really wish we could get a summer map of the Vieliekee Loki. That one is amazing. The railyards, tree placement, village and buildings placement, as well as attention to detail with the textures is just awesome. 

Velki Luky was build by moders if i remenber correctly, thats why its higher standard, and thats why im more excited to see Leningrad map build by moders then any map devs plan to make, as moders have all the time in the world to make it and work for free, devs dont.

[S10JlAbraxis]

I am really at a loss regarding the comments indicating that adding a few more towns and farms in the empty areas of the map will cause huge performance issues.  In 1998 European Air War had randomly generated small farm buildings on the map, to populate the empty areas between city's, which really added to the feel of being there.  And this was before dedicated GPUs and computers with less then 1MB memory and a CPU thousands of time less powerful than today.  There are parts of the Rhineland map where not a single town or city is visible.  I think we all know this is not how this part of Europe looked in 1944/45.  Will adding a few small generic towns and or farms to these areas bring the frame rate to it knees.  Really?  I am sorry but this line of thinking is pure nonsense.

 

The reason the map is not more fleshed out in empty areas is simple and for one reason only.  Resource and time constraints.  That is it.  This was a big project that may have been a bit too big in terms of the timeframe and resource available.  It has little or nothing to do with FPS.

 

Clearly there is a problem here.  When Kuban was released the response was almost universal praise from the customer base.  Why?  Because the devs did an outstanding job of producing a first class beautifully crafted map product.  With Rhineland the product is unfinished (not of poor quality just unfinished) which is why there is less than stellar feedback from the customer base.  Work done so far is very good but incomplete.  When customers complain there is a reason for it they are not all crazy or out of touch with reality.  Look closely at Kuban then Rhineland if the differences are not obvious see an eye doctor.

 

I am not critizing the devs as they do fantastic work and with respect to Rhineland they did the best they could with the resources they had until time ran out.   I hope that over time as Normandy is developed some additional work can be done to bring Rhineland to the standard of Kuban .  And I think it is important for the future success of the series that they find a way to make this happen.

 

At any rate I whish the best to the team as the passion they put into their work really shows and I for one greatly enjoy the results even it not always perfect.

 

   

Edited December 11, 2019 by S10jleffert
corrected date

[Danziger]

Just now, 77.CountZero said:

Velki Luky was build by moders if i remenber correctly, thats why its higher standard, and thats why im more excited to see Leningrad map build by moders then any map devs plan to make, as moders have all the time in the world to make it and work for free, devs dont.

True. But modders also have no obligation to complete or release anything. Every mod map project since then has been abandoned (apart from the now top secret Leningrad project by the Finns). There was a summer version of the Veilke Luki map started and abandoned. There was an Odessa map started and abandoned.

 

Liz Lemon has been dabbling in map making but I have no idea of what progress he or she has made. 

[352ndOscar]

I like the BOBP map.  What we should ask for is a “full” map editor - not just a mission editor, or even something like the Map Builder made by Ankor for RoF..... then we can model specific areas for our missions.... that’s all we really need.  If I’m doing missions at St Vith, give me the capability (and objects ‘cause I’m greedy) to populate that area so my missions have some realistic looks.  Other folks can populate their areas likewise as needed.  We can put building objects on the map, but can’t put in the roads, the railroads, etc to make it believable.  That’s all we are really talking about.

[CastorTroy]

For performance issues, would it be possible for the devs to include a 'town density" setting. That way, us who have the hardware to run such settings, could, and the others, could slide the setting down to whatever FPS they find acceptable.  Just a thought......

 

The argument of what detail is or isn't there because of an excuse of performance for lower hardware, could be solved with a slider.

[S10JlAbraxis]

1 hour ago, DD_Fenrir said:

Put ALL the houses and farms in!!! Then no-one except Mr Moneybags with his Eight-core CPU, 128Gb RAM and quad SLI 2080Ti setup can even hope to load it, let alone get good frames; and forget about trying to host a multiplayer server with anything more than 1x AAA gun in it.

 

What about the mid-low end or even entry user who's PC is not gonna run even Kuban above 20fps but desperately wants to try BoBp out cos he loves ETO?

 

Um...  that is why PC games have that thing where levels of detail can be selected to suite the capabilities of the computer.  If unfamiliar I can help you find the graphics options in IL2.

[Gambit21]

1 minute ago, S10jleffert said:

 

Um...  that is why PC games have that thing where levels of detail can be selected to suite the capabilities of the computer.  If unfamiliar I can help you find the graphics options in IL2.

 

Um...it’s not that simple.

[S10JlAbraxis]

3 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

Um...it’s not that simple.

I know but neither is the statement by the poster just trying to add some balance.

[BraveSirRobin]

40 minutes ago, S10jleffert said:

I am really at a loss regarding the comments indicating that adding a few more towns and farms in the empty areas of the map will cause huge performance issues.  In 1992 European Air War had randomly generated small farm buildings on the map, to populate the empty areas between city's, which really added to the feel of being there.  And this was before dedicated GPUs and computers with less then 1MB memory and a CPU thousands of time less powerful than today. 

 

Lol

 

It’s obviously been a really long time since you played EAW.  That map map mile after mile of duplicated textures.  It looked like crap compared to what we have in BoBP.

[S10JlAbraxis]

8 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Lol

 

It’s obviously been a really long time since you played EAW.  That map map mile after mile of duplicated textures.  It looked like crap compared to what we have in BoBP.

Lol - I know it looks terrible compared to what we have now and I sure would not want to go back to that!  My only point was that even with that ancient tech they were able to add in some small farms villages without creating performance issues.

[Dakpilot]

Kuban ran like crap when it first came out, there were quite a few updates to it, if I remember properly, mountains, and smaller settlements, etc. same with Moscow map, it was not just the forests there were many updates, airfields had a lot of issues that took time to resolve. 

 

People say it would be easy to populate the map more. 

 

I think it was Jason saying it was pushing the limits, obviously these people know better than the developers,

 

am confident that after a couple of updates many of the issues will  be sorted and solutions found (just like previous maps) 

 

The people who can't wait should go and play a combat flight sim with faster development (or perhaps read Jason and Han's posts) 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[Gambit21]

4 hours ago, CastorTroy said:

For performance issues, would it be possible for the devs to include a 'town density" setting. That way, us who have the hardware to run such settings, could, and the others, could slide the setting down to whatever FPS they find acceptable.  Just a thought......

 

The argument of what detail is or isn't there because of an excuse of performance for lower hardware, could be solved with a slider.

 

A slider and building the entire "full" template with all those villages, then another with less, then another with less, then another with less, then coding in those choices in the GUI, and then, and then, and then...

 

Imagining a setting the game is not the same thing as getting it built...which I know you guys know in theory, but some of you post like it's as simple as adding a slider/setting in the interface - not the case.

 

 

As it is I have to watch the proximity of villages to mitigate frame rate/stutter issues when there's a lot going on, I don't want a map that's stuffed with buildings and no respite from that.

[BraveSirRobin]

4 hours ago, S10jleffert said:

Lol - I know it looks terrible compared to what we have now and I sure would not want to go back to that!  My only point was that even with that ancient tech they were able to add in some small farms villages without creating performance issues.

 

Maybe using an example of a map that looks terrible compared to what we have isn’t the best argument, no matter what point you’re trying to make.  There are 2 likely reasons for why the map seems “unfinished’.  Either they can’t fit more objects on it or they ran out of map budget.  Either way there isn’t really an easy “fix” right now.  But they revisited almost all the other maps, so maybe they’ll do the same for this.  

 

In any case, EAW?  Lol.  No.

[sevenless]

Hey give them some time. They have shown to care for their maps in the past. I see no valid reason why that would have changed. I bet they had to met a deadline and where forced to prioritize things to get the package out of the door.

[S10JlAbraxis]

8 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

Maybe using an example of a map that looks terrible compared to what we have isn’t the best argument, no matter what point you’re trying to make.  There are 2 likely reasons for why the map seems “unfinished’.  Either they can’t fit more objects on it or they ran out of map budget.  Either way there isn’t really an easy “fix” right now.  But they revisited almost all the other maps, so maybe they’ll do the same for this.  

 

In any case, EAW?  Lol.  No.

 

8 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

In any case, EAW?  Lol.  No.

 

All this discussion about it is making me want to try it again!  For the day it was state of the art (sad though that may be).

[Feathered_IV]

One of the good things about representing a 1944-45 map where the majority of towns and cities were flattened is that it would have been much less resource hungry than a pristine version with individually tailored buildings and blocks, each with their own damage model.   With barely one stone standing upon another, it leaves some extra time and resources for detailing those spaces in between. 

[CanadaOne]

8 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Um...it’s not that simple.

 

There is some truth to it, no?

 

I posted the other day about testing FPS by lowering everything to off or as low as it would go, and flew over a winter map. Solo I hit a high 282FPS on an i5-6500/1060 3GB. Dogfighting was 150+FPS. When I turned everything up and flew over a city my FPS died a horrible painful death.

 

The point being that I could range from 28 to 280 FPS in the game by choosing the map and the settings. Isn't that what the other fellow alluded to?

[Gambit21]

1 minute ago, CanadaOne said:

 

There is some truth to it, no?

 

The point being that I could range from 28 to 280 FPS in the game by choosing the map and the settings. Isn't that what the other fellow alluded to?

 

I just said it wasn't that simple is all. 

[CanadaOne]

8 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

I just said it wasn't that simple is all. 

 

It's technology!

[Jade_Monkey]

Other than the empty countryside, one of the things that bother me about the new map is the use of modern data to represent the 1944/45 era.

 

Using Veghel as an example, it makes no sense to have those waterways and not have any docks or industry around them. If those are post-WWII then they just need to be removed.

This is just one example but it happens all over the map.

 

 

[Jaegermeister]

10 hours ago, 352ndOscar said:

I like the BOBP map.  What we should ask for is a “full” map editor - not just a mission editor, or even something like the Map Builder made by Ankor for RoF..... then we can model specific areas for our missions.... that’s all we really need.  If I’m doing missions at St Vith, give me the capability (and objects ‘cause I’m greedy) to populate that area so my missions have some realistic looks.  Other folks can populate their areas likewise as needed.  We can put building objects on the map, but can’t put in the roads, the railroads, etc to make it believable.  That’s all we are really talking about.

 

I'm not going to say I don't like that idea, but with the number of people that complain how difficult the ME is now, I can only imagine how well adding in a complicated feature like map editing would go over. I bet not 10 people would ever take the time to use it. It would take a solid 2 weeks of work just to build St. Vith where there is empty countryside now. Do you spend 2 or 3 weeks building a single mission now with what we already have in place...?

 

I would be happy with a destruction filter like we used to have, where you could go over an area and highlight the destruction level from 0 to 3 and the whole town would be a blackened ruin. That would be particularly appropriate on the Rhineland map in Aachen and some other areas, instead of trying to do it block by block, building by building. That's way too much time spent to put into something you only see for seconds, but notice instantly when it's not done.

 

 

Edited December 11, 2019 by Jaegermeister

[Lusekofte]

I figure I flown this map less than most here. Because my impression of it is good. I flew a JU 52 in combatbox very low in valleys and found it beautiful. Easy to navigate and all that. But most of the few times I flown it I am at 5 k or higher. I found that I like early war better. I am a bit disappointed in P 47 peculiar way to disintegrate when shot at. And prefer not to get reminded of it. 

But I am surprised about peoples dislike of the map

[Lofte]

On ‎12‎/‎7‎/‎2019 at 8:22 AM, Dakpilot said:

forest types reflect the real forestation

Does anybody have such forest-type map for Rheinland map?

Edited December 11, 2019 by Lofte

[apollon01]

A little heads up on this topic:

 

I have just created a Poll in the Poll section regarding the Rheinland map. Feel free to participate.

 

 

I hope the questions are clear.

 

 

 

 

22 minutes ago, Lofte said:

Does anybody have such forest-type map for Reinland map?

Yes - there are freely accessible data produced by the EU on regular basis: Copernicus Land Monitoring Service.

 

1) CORINE Land Cover 2018 (vector data; depicting broadleaf, coniferous and mixed forests)

https://land.copernicus.eu/pan-european/corine-land-cover/clc2018

 

2) Forest Type 2015 (raster data 20 & 100 m; depicting broadleaf and coniferous forests)

https://land.copernicus.eu/pan-european/high-resolution-layers/forests/forest-type-1/status-maps/2015?tab=mapview

 

Even though this data is recent, I suppose it might be used as best approximation of the situation some 75 years ago ?

 

Milan

Edited December 11, 2019 by apollon01

[Picchio]

31 minutes ago, apollon01 said:

A little heads up on this topic:

 

I have just created a Poll in the Poll section regarding the Rheinland map. Feel free to participate.

 

 

I hope the questions are clear.

 

 

 

 

Yes - there are freely accessible data produced by the EU on regular basis: Copernicus Land Monitoring Service.

 

1) CORINE Land Cover 2018 (vector data; depicting broadleaf, coniferous and mixed forests)

https://land.copernicus.eu/pan-european/corine-land-cover/clc2018

 

2) Forest Type 2015 (raster data 20 & 100 m; depicting broadleaf and coniferous forests)

https://land.copernicus.eu/pan-european/high-resolution-layers/forests/forest-type-1/status-maps/2015?tab=mapview

 

Even though this data is recent, I suppose it might be used as best approximation of the situation some 75 years ago ?

 

Milan

 

Generally (although this should be examined case by case) forested areas have been reduced dramatically due to the growth of cities, industrialisation and decrease of agricultural activity. The landscape you look at now can be barely recognizable even 25-50 years ago. Actual data can be good for approximating the forest's species but for understanding their size historical aerial photos are the way to go. Same goes for representing cities and the countryside.

[Juri_JS]

8 minutes ago, Picchio said:

 

Generally (although this should be examined case by case) forested areas have been reduced dramatically due to the growth of cities, industrialisation and decrease of agricultural activity. The landscape you look at now can be barely recognizable even 25-50 years ago. Actual data can be good for approximating the forest's species but for understanding their size historical aerial photos are the way to go. Same goes for representing cities and the countryside.

I don't know the situation in Belgium and the Netherlands, but in Germany the forested areas have considerably grown over the past 70 years, because of changes in agriculture and because wood is no longer needed for heating. So the forested areas on the Rhineland map are probably too large and not too small.

[apollon01]

33 minutes ago, Picchio said:

Generally (although this should be examined case by case) forested areas have been reduced dramatically due to the growth of cities, industrialisation and decrease of agricultural activity. The landscape you look at now can be barely recognizable even 25-50 years ago. Actual data can be good for approximating the forest's species but for understanding their size historical aerial photos are the way to go. Same goes for representing cities and the countryside.

Oh yes, absolutely. The size and shape of the forests now and then probably differ to a considerable extent.

 

What I had in mind was to actually intersect the layers - meaning to take the Rheinland forest vectors for size and shape of the forested areas and intersect that with the Copernicus data to "impring" the coniferous / broadleaf attributes to the Rheinland layer (obviously resulting into cut polygons in cases one Rheinland vector would be splitted into multiple vectors with different confierous / broadleaf attributes).

 

That being said, it is also important to understand limitation of the Copernicus data. As far as I know the level of detail is coniferous / broadleaf (and mixed for the vector layer) - so it does not tell you anything about an exact type of tree (pine, spruce...).

 

I am happy to run a test, should the dev team wish so. @Jason_Williams, just let me know if you think it is an endeavor worth trying.

 

Milan

Edited December 11, 2019 by apollon01

[Picchio]

24 minutes ago, Juri_JS said:

I don't know the situation in Belgium and the Netherlands, but in Germany the forested areas have considerably grown over the past 70 years, because of changes in agriculture and because wood is no longer needed for heating. So the forested areas on the Rhineland map are probably too large and not too small.

 

I see. That's precisely what I meant with case by case, as some places show different trends, even opposite.

[JV69badatflyski]

Topographical maps from thirties/forties are available online, covering the whole rheinland map in scale 1/25K.
All the data is already available, even the forest type.

[sniperton]

1 hour ago, Picchio said:

I see. That's precisely what I meant with case by case, as some places show different trends, even opposite.

Re-forestation seems to be the trend for Belgium as well, 700 hectares now against 500 before 1970.

https://pureportal.inbo.be/portal/files/14212508/Tallier_stateforestry_uncorrectedprintproof.pdf

 

1 minute ago, JV69badatflyski said:

Topographical maps from thirties/forties are available online, covering the whole rheinland map in scale 1/25K.
All the data is already available, even the forest type.

The problem is not that forests are slightly under-represented or slightly over-represented on the Rheinland map IMO.

 

It is not the accuracy, but the general character of the landscape that most people find inadequate: instead of a densely populated industrial or agricultural area we have a cultivated steppe here (so to say).

 

I'm pretty sure it could be changed by replacing some textures (e.g. for roads and farmlands) and by adding some generic farmland or small industry buildings scattered all over the map. And I'm pretty sure we'll see some improvements sooner or later.

 

 

[Diggun]

... I think it looks great in winter... 

[Georgio]

All things come in time and I'm sure the Rhineland map tweaking will be part of that.

Personally with extreme clouds I find the landscape very good for the limited time I spend looking at it between dodging swarms of bandits.

I've flown above it for real a couple of times and certainly through broken cloud it looks very similar to what I remember.

[dburne]

1 hour ago, [_FLAPS_]Diggun said:

... I think it looks great in winter... 

 

Agree, currently in winter in my PWCG campaign and looks pretty darn good to me.

[Semor76]

47 minutes ago, Georgio said:

I've flown above it for real a couple of times and certainly through broken cloud it looks very similar to what I remember.

LooL...no..sorry. I live here and the map in its current state has very little to to with how it looks here. Not in summer and not in winter.

 

Good to see this thread going on without senseless fighting eachother.

Edited December 11, 2019 by Semor76

[Picchio]

Is anyone aware of what would precisely be the German equivalent of a regional geoportal or a national institution/archive that collected and published historical aerial photographs?

[sevenless]

24 minutes ago, Picchio said:

Is anyone aware of what would precisely be the German equivalent of a regional geoportal or a national institution/archive that collected and published historical aerial photographs?

 

For the Ruhr area this would be the place you want to look: https://luftbilder.geoportal.ruhr/

 

Then go to > Luftbilder 1934-1939 and you get an idea how the area looked back then.

 

 

[Juri_JS]

32 minutes ago, Picchio said:

Is anyone aware of what would precisely be the German equivalent of a regional geoportal or a national institution/archive that collected and published historical aerial photographs?

I don't know any German geoportal that has made historical aerial photos available. For my own research I use this British site:

https://ncap.org.uk/

 

[Autobahnkurier]

On the map, except for cities, there are no objects. Western Europe cannot look like we see on this map. Need farms, at least one for 10-20 square kilometers. Need small towns and villages, let at least partially and randomly. I do not believe that these static objects will load the system. There are more highways and railways in this part of Europe. I understand that you can’t display everything, but still.. It is also unclear why the cities of Germany are displayed on the map without destruction?  By 1944, many cities in Germany were already destroyed.

We do not see anything like this on this map. I hope that this map will be corrected and supplemented after some time.

[Bremspropeller]

9 minutes ago, Autobahnmeister said:

It is also unclear why the cities of Germany are displayed on the map without destruction?  By 1944, many cities in Germany were already destroyed.

 

Because the level of destruction can be set in the mission-builder.