Western Front Map

[czech693]

The latest download has the Western Front map.  Arras and Verdun, but separated into two maps.

[AndyJWest]

It's all one map. The two squares are the detailed areas. Outside of these towns, airfields etc aren't modelled, but you can still fly over them. I think there is a setting somewhere that governs how far details get modelled, but I've got it set to include everything on the whole map.

[Vastarien]

Still those generic, monotonous textures as in BoBP. No regional variability, no farms, just the same green carpet everywhere.

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, Vastarien said:

Still those generic, monotonous textures as in BoBP. No regional variability, no farms, just the same green carpet everywhere.

 

Patience. ? The map is still very much a work in progress.

[=LD=Brazo]

3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

Patience. ? The map is still very much a work in progress.

I really  hope so because it’s a massive disappointment, same 2d craters and low quality textures.

[ACG_Bussard]

On 11/23/2022 at 10:06 PM, 76SQN-Brazo said:

I really  hope so because it’s a massive disappointment, same 2d craters and low quality textures.

 

I sincerely hope so too. When FC 2 was announced in December 2020, a better quality map was planned. The reason given was that it was known that FC1 map had its weaknesses for budget reasons, because FC 1 must first prove itself on the market.

 

Anything other than a better quality map than FC 1 - and I mean 3D craters in no mans land - would be a disappointment for FC 2. 

 

Against the background that the FC 2 is 8 months later, since the release was already planned in the I. quarter 2022, the result is already a bit sobered. Yes, I know that the map is a work in progress and the developer had and probably still has problems because of geopolitical events.

 

P.S. No need to argue against  my fact based opinion, but you can share your own point of view in this matter, if you want

 

[US103_Baer]

On 11/25/2022 at 6:00 AM, 2./JG3_Bussard* said:

 

I sincerely hope so too. When FC 2 was announced in December 2020, a better quality map was planned. The reason given was that it was known that FC1 map had its weaknesses for budget reasons, because FC 1 must first prove itself on the market.

 

Anything other than a better quality map than FC 1 - and I mean 3D craters in no mans land - would be a disappointment for FC 2. 

 

Against the background that the FC 2 is 8 months later, since the release was already planned in the I. quarter 2022, the result is already a bit sobered. Yes, I know that the map is a work in progress and the developer had and probably still has problems because of geopolitical events.

 

P.S. No need to argue against  my fact based opinion, but you can share your own point of view in this matter, if you want

 

 

Actually I love that the devs have released the larger WIP map.  It's not like we've lost anything (except Puppy Lake, a tragedy tbh  ) but the opportunities for Misson makers have skyrocketed. 

With current planesets the Verdun section is massive for 1918 offensives,  and the southward extension below Amiens of the northern map, opens up opps for that critical Aug '18 battle. 

 

Yes,  hoping for improved tree, field and especially NML textures too.  But overall its a great decision to release it now as wip.

 

Edited November 27, 2022 by US103_Baer

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

On 11/24/2022 at 5:00 PM, 2./JG3_Bussard* said:

 

I sincerely hope so too. When FC 2 was announced in December 2020, a better quality map was planned. The reason given was that it was known that FC1 map had its weaknesses for budget reasons, because FC 1 must first prove itself on the market.

 

Anything other than a better quality map than FC 1 - and I mean 3D craters in no mans land - would be a disappointment for FC 2. 

 

Against the background that the FC 2 is 8 months later, since the release was already planned in the I. quarter 2022, the result is already a bit sobered. Yes, I know that the map is a work in progress and the developer had and probably still has problems because of geopolitical events.

 

P.S. No need to argue against  my fact based opinion, but you can share your own point of view in this matter, if you want

 

My point of view:

 

It's a flight sim, not an infantry sim. You should be in the air over NML, not in the mud.  In the air, it really makes no difference if the bomb craters are 2d or 3d.   I'd rather the devs focus on things that actually effect the air war and the in air experience.

 

 

[ACG_Bussard]

My complementary point of view:

 

The quality difference between the WW1 Western Front map and the WW2 Normandy map is obvious, even if it is still a WIP.

 

On the Normandy map there are ground bumps and many more ground objects, which I couldn´t detect on the Western Front map (if I accidentally missed them, I would be grateful if you can point me to the corresponding grid). The Rhineland map is different, as it is kept rather flat, but this is negligible there, as you are flying in late war WW2 at higher altitudes.

 

Therefore, the note that WW1 Western Front map isn´t a first person shooter map is flawed: In a biplane I´m flying at much lower altitudes than in a WW2 warbird. 

 

A look within the identical flight simulation engine helps to judge the situation

 

Cheers 

 

 

Edited November 26, 2022 by 2./JG3_Bussard*

[RNAS10_Oliver]

3 hours ago, 2./JG3_Bussard* said:

A look within the identical flight simulation engine helps to judge the situation

As you say that I’ve some questions. Where are there 3D craters instead of 2D ones on the other modules? What map in the Great Battles engine has the highest detail terrain wireframe? What was the downside in that map that made the higher detail possible?

[Zooropa_Fly]

I've never come across anyone else who saw it, but there was/is a ww1 mod for the old IL2.

It's the best NML I've experienced.

[SYN_Vander]

1 hour ago, RNAS10_Oliver said:

As you say that I’ve some questions. Where are there 3D craters instead of 2D ones on the other modules? What map in the Great Battles engine has the highest detail terrain wireframe? What was the downside in that map that made the higher detail possible?

As far as I know all maps have the same height map resolution, with the exception of a small section in the Tank Crew map (can’t pronounce it by heart).  This resolution is simply not high enough to depict craters in the landscape or cliffs ( which is why Normandy has 3D objects for the cliffs). Normal mapping has been tried but this currently doesn’t work for the no-man’s land textures.

[RNAS10_Oliver]

9 hours ago, SYN_Vander said:

As far as I know all maps have the same height map resolution, with the exception of a small section in the Tank Crew map (can’t pronounce it by heart).  This resolution is simply not high enough to depict craters in the landscape or cliffs ( which is why Normandy has 3D objects for the cliffs). Normal mapping has been tried but this currently doesn’t work for the no-man’s land textures.

 

Thanks Vander, that was my understanding also, the questions were more rhetorical for Bussard to answer. To use his own advice and judge the situation with having physical craters in NML based upon other modules in the same identical flight simulation engine.

Edited November 26, 2022 by RNAS10_Oliver

[Vastarien]

18 hours ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

My point of view:

 

It's a flight sim, not an infantry sim. You should be in the air over NML, not in the mud.  In the air, it really makes no difference if the bomb craters are 2d or 3d.   I'd rather the devs focus on things that actually effect the air war and the in air experience.

 

 

Not advocating for 3d craters but having better and more varied textures/landscapes helps a lot in navigating when flying. I find it much easier flying the inland of France on the Normandy map than the copy/paste flatness of BoBP and the new 1918 map. So it’s not just eye candy.

[ACG_Bussard]

1 hour ago, RNAS10_Oliver said:

 

Thanks Vander, that was my understanding also, the questions were more rhetorical for Bussard to answer. To use his own advice and judge the situation with having physical craters in NML based upon other modules in the same identical flight simulation engine.

No applause from me for the solution presented for the NML, but if you're happy, you'll have to live with what you're given. As a supporter of FC2 from day one, I am mildly dismayed at the outcome regarding the Map (even if it´s WIP).  If I had known that nothing would improve in that regard, I wouldn't have bought FC2 in early access. Lesson learned.

 

About your "rhetorical question": please note that in my first post I expressed my desire not to start an argument here, and I'm sticking to that.

 

Cheers and have a nice day.

[RNAS10_Oliver]

5 hours ago, 2./JG3_Bussard* said:

No applause from me for the solution presented for the NML, but if you're happy, you'll have to live with what you're given. As a supporter of FC2 from day one, I am mildly dismayed at the outcome regarding the Map (even if it´s WIP).  If I had known that nothing would improve in that regard, I wouldn't have bought FC2 in early access. Lesson learned.

 

Imagine taking the Arras map and sorting out the broken up the rivers. Then removing the unhistorical modern features such as the so-called Fokker Lake. Then adding some more historical population centers, roads/rails, aerodromes, rivers etc. Then expanding the area to cover more than given in the Arras map. That is my vision for being happy with the FC2 map.

 

The maps are meant to represent an area of the world at a given point in time. My main concern is that the map (as far as can be reasonably expected given time and performance constraints etc) accurately does that. Having actual shell craters is an insignificant requirement in comparison IMHO.

 

To start with I was quite excited when the WIP map was released due the expanded map area (for same reasons as Baer) and the fact that the rivers appeared to have been (slightly) cleaned up. Not to mention the fantastic images that players have posted showing the various points of interest on the map such as slag heaps etc. But as I'm spending more time examining the map, I'm seeing that (at least in its current WIP state) the woodlands are much less accurate (in shape) compared to the Arras map and a mounting number of schoolboy errors (names, locations, whether they even existed etc) with population centers.

 

When the various development teams that are involved with Great Battles create WW2 vehicles, I've very little doubt that they do their research (collecting images and obtaining pilot manuals etc) in order to try to make an accurate representation of the aircraft. So I kind of have the same expectation with regards to the maps. But at least for those involved in the creation of WW1 maps I very much have my doubts.

 

So to conclude, no, I'm afraid to say I'm starting to wane onto the side of being a tad disappointed with the state (so far given WIP) of the Western Front map. 

 

5 hours ago, 2./JG3_Bussard* said:

About your "rhetorical question": please note that in my first post I expressed my desire not to start an argument here, and I'm sticking to that.

 

Despite that in your first post, the part that I quoted in the second post, read to me as being condescending. That's the catalyst for the rhetorical question. Perhaps just a case of the intent being lost in text and translation. I've not got the desire to have an ongoing forum argument either as time is too short and there are better things to do with that time.

Edited November 27, 2022 by RNAS10_Oliver

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

If it were possible, and not a resouce hog, I think it would be great if the trees that sometimes surround the tanks in NML (and also arty guns, trains, trucks, etc..) could be destroyed with successive bomb drops.  Ie..clear them out so they can be more easily bombed.

 

But I would image it would be very costly resource wise, and certainly not a high priority imo.

Edited November 27, 2022 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[J2_Trupobaw]

It is port of Rise of Flight map, with all the legacy ahistorical errors and all simplifications coming from map being made for less sophisticated engine . Feels like going 10+ years back, in time and technology. Even the "straight angled forests on edges of the mud" RoF bug is ported over. I hope that further development of the map will deal with geography rather than just populating legacy map with more objects, but my hopes are low. Looks like we are stuck on the same old map as always, and Arras map was actually closest to the breath of fresh air we get.

Edited November 28, 2022 by J2_Trupobaw

[Trooper117]

So, a long wait for nothing...

[ACG_Bussard]

3 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

It is port of Rise of Flight map, with all the legacy ahistorical errors and all simplifications coming from map being made for less sophisticated engine . Feels like going 10+ years back, in time and technology. Even the "straight angled forests on edges of the mud" RoF bug is ported over. I hope that further development of the map will deal with geography rather than just populating legacy map with more objects, but my hopes are low. Looks like we are stuck on the same old map as always, and Arras map was actually closest to the breath of fresh air we get.

 

That´s a real pity.

 

I would like to point out in this context that in Jason's Briefing Room and Officers thread on 15.12.2020 it was stated that for the reproduction of ROF in the current GB engine the "latest technology" should be applied:

 

 

 

9 months later, on 03.10.2021, it was pointed out that there were delays in the creation of the map, as well as asked for understanding, since it was supposed to be a "very good" map:

 

 

 

Since Ugra Media has already shown what maps they can create for other simulations and have recently been commissioned there again, the question arises for me why this quality claim cannot be implemented at FC.

 

P.S. I´ve collected here only facts and I expressed in this thread my desire not to start an argument here, and I'm sticking to that.

[TG-55Panthercules]

3 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

 Even the "straight angled forests on edges of the mud" RoF bug is ported over. 

 

Do you mean the old zig-zag edges are back?  It took me several years and a lot of work to figure out how to mod those out of the RoF map - hard to believe they would bring them back

Edited November 28, 2022 by TG-55Panthercules

[kendo]

3 hours ago, 2./JG3_Bussard* said:

 

That´s a real pity.

 

I would like to point out in this context that in Jason's Briefing Room and Officers thread on 15.12.2020 it was stated that for the reproduction of ROF in the current GB engine the "latest technology" should be applied:

 

i

 

That's just a little bit cheeky and misleading don't you think?

 

The exact quote from that link by Jason is below. He's talking specifically about whether Paris may possibly be included on the map:

 

"Some of you will ask if Paris will be on the map? The answer right now is no it will not be, as it was not crucial to the air war in WWI and building large cities is difficult and time consuming. However, we’ve given Ugra the option to make it if it proves feasible and they have the resources and desire, but only after the rest of the map is complete. Even so, it is likely special technology will have to be built to support a large city like Paris and we do not have it in the schedule at this moment and it may never be."   

 

[ACG_Bussard]

I was referring to this quote, which can be found in the second paragraph:

 

"First, as many of you know, my main goal has always been to essentially re-produce Rise of Flight inside our current engine with all our latest technology and then expand it further with new planes and mission content." 

 

Your quote was in reference to whether the City of Paris will be included on the map.

 

If I wanted to be a bit cheeky or misleading I wouldn't have posted the links. Everyone can read all the content there and can make up their own minds. Maybe my interpretation is demanding, but I can't see anything wrong with it.

 

Cheers

[kendo]

Ok.

 

It could be argued they've done exactly that with the upgraded engine, VR, clouds, lighting, etc, etc.

 

Not saying the map couldn't use an extra 'polish' but it is WIP so will give benefit of doubt for now.

[ACG_Bussard]

As already written in at the beginning of this thread, I also hope that we will all not be disappointed in the end because of the new FC map. 

 

It is absolutely far from me to criticize FC or the developers. On the contrary, I own all parts including GB and TC and like them very much. I can also confirm that the developers have not disappointed me with their work so far. Sincerely, I love their work that fills countless hours of my free time.

 

But with the current WIP map, doubts are growing in me that we will get what was promised mentioned as "goal" according to my understanding. And that's the only reason why I'm writing here.

 

Cheers

 

Edited: Posting was edited after the advise of RNAS10_Mitchell below. Thank you, for being so attentive. This sliped me through, sorry.

 

Edited November 29, 2022 by 2./JG3_Bussard*

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

You understand the differences and significance of the words "goal", and "promised"?  In English?  No offense intended, but perhaps there are some language difficulties that are causing confusion?

 

When I read this "

 

"First, as many of you know, my main goal has always been to essentially re-produce Rise of Flight inside our current engine with all our latest technology and then expand it further with new planes and mission content"

 

The word "Goal" jumps out at me.   Goals are not " promises",  they are targets.  Loosely defined targets.  Something to aim for.  Not sure what "promises" you are talking about.  Can you provide details on promises?

 

Cheers

Edited November 29, 2022 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

5 hours ago, 2./JG3_Bussard* said:

As already written in at the beginning of this thread, I also hope that we will all not be disappointed in the end because of the new FC map. 

 

It is absolutely far from me to criticize FC or the developers. On the contrary, I own all parts including GB and TC and like them very much. I can also confirm that the developers have not disappointed me with their work so far. Sincerely, I love their work that fills countless hours of my free time.

 

But with the current WIP map, doubts are growing in me that we will get what was promised mentioned as "goal" according to my understanding. And that's the only reason why I'm writing here.

 

Cheers

 

Edited: Posting was edited after the advise of RNAS10_Mitchell below. Thank you, for being so attentive. This sliped me through, sorry.

 

No worries Mate.  Salute!

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Meybe in the next project as devs name it  we gonna see significant difference between maps made since ROF. Improvements were made  in map technology but to much things are missing or look just bad. If technology limitations prevent adding hedges, autobahns , proper objects visibility, objects scaling,  terrain details and resolution into the map it seriously limitis degree of fidelity of the map.

Edited November 29, 2022 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

5 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Meybe in the next project as devs name it  we gonna see significant difference between maps made since ROF. Improvements were made  in map technology but to much things are missing or look just bad. If technology limitations prevent adding hedges, autobahns , proper objects visibility, objects scaling,  terrain details and resolution into the map it seriously limitis degree of fidelity of the map.

I think so.  Certainly sounds like they are working on it, and making careful revisions.  

[=LD=Brazo]

Craters have been mentioned a lot I see but no need to focus on that alone as there are so many poor quality textures and items drawn onto the bland landscape. 
 

I understand that it’s a combat sim and once up in the air I will acknowledge the lighting effects do help smooth things over but it’s seriously behind the Normandy map which in turn is seriously behind the DCS channel map and such low quality textures and bad graphics do break immersion and if they can be bettered by other sims or even within il-2 itself then it’s starting to look like shoddy work. 
 

[ST_Catchov]

19 minutes ago, 76SQN-Brazo said:

shoddy work.

 

Yeah it looked okay 12 years or so ago back in the RoF days but not so flash now. I think the devs know this. Perhaps that's why they're talking about a new engine.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

Are there any texture mods for the Arras/West Front maps?

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Give AI current textures with real samples to produce new . 

[Picchio]

On 11/29/2022 at 2:18 PM, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

I think so.  Certainly sounds like they are working on it, and making careful revisions.  

 

On 11/29/2022 at 8:56 AM, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Meybe in the next project as devs name it  we gonna see significant difference between maps made since ROF. Improvements were made  in map technology but to much things are missing or look just bad. If technology limitations prevent adding hedges, autobahns , proper objects visibility, objects scaling,  terrain details and resolution into the map it seriously limitis degree of fidelity of the map.

 

It all depends on time and resources though. I can't avoid suspecting that the pricing model will also have to change, or this technical evolution would be very unlikely to happen.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

On 1/4/2023 at 2:25 AM, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Give AI current textures with real samples to produce new . 

Anything is better than what's there. The FC/Rheinland textures are simply awful. Flying low over NML looks like a 2005 game.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

On 11/28/2022 at 6:33 PM, 2./JG3_Bussard* said:

As already written in at the beginning of this thread, I also hope that we will all not be disappointed in the end because of the new FC map. 

 

It is absolutely far from me to criticize FC or the developers. On the contrary, I own all parts including GB and TC and like them very much. I can also confirm that the developers have not disappointed me with their work so far. Sincerely, I love their work that fills countless hours of my free time.

 

But with the current WIP map, doubts are growing in me that we will get what was promised mentioned as "goal" according to my understanding. And that's the only reason why I'm writing here.

 

Cheers

 

Edited: Posting was edited after the advise of RNAS10_Mitchell below. Thank you, for being so attentive. This sliped me through, sorry.

 

To all: FC map textures and No Man's Land are greatly enhanced in my modpack, along with a few other FC relevant mods made by Avimimus: