• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Final Map Orel Enhanced

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#221
2fisted said:
Thats the great thing about orel, it gets better w/ age. It takes time to re-learn OE even for people who have played Orel 88/76 a ton. Some say they don't like it, but I think many of us said that w/ the original version! ;) Thats a good thing imo.

My highlight in OE was calling arty (from hole by CE, SL side) on 3 German tanks rolling down the hill to attack SL , what a slaughter!
Click to expand...
Yeah I wanted not to just fix the bugs but also enhance, so it makes an old map new again and extends it's life/appeal to people who may have grown tired of it. Hardcore guys would still keep playing the 88vs76 & redux versions almost regardless of whether the bugs/problems were EVER fixed. But to most tankers you can only tolerate rampant bugs/exploits ruining the gameplay for so long before you finally "snap" and something had to be done about it. It was too ridiculous for too long.
 
Upvote 0
#222
Quietus said:
I think people should research some tank battles and find one that occured within the time span you want (late 43/44 whatever) and then either make a completely new tank map yourself or pester/enlist someone else who knows how.
Click to expand...

There are already tank battles Arad and Ogledow, but these maps in RO are just too small, it just need to make new bigger maps of Arad and Ogledow, I'm sure that these two battles were on much bigger area than current Arad and Ogledow in RO. I very would like to see now germans in defence, russians would have T34/85 and IS2 without any time of respawn but germans would have ofcourse those PzIV, StuGs but Tiger and panther should have some 5-10 time of respawn (if map has 90min like Orel), this would simulate that germans had much less tanks than russians and even this would be balanced, in defence can prepare for enemy and make some ambushes, also german tanks are better than russian. Then germans would be in trouble like russians on Orel and Black Day July.

Quietus said:
Really just find someone with the know how (and the time), or it could even be a collaborative effort of a few mappers (one does the terrain, one does the buildings, lighting, optimization etc etc) to ease the load off of one single person.
Click to expand...

That's why I suggested to make map Road to Orel in 1944 or 1942 beacuse it's hard to make new big map and also 1943 is not balanced for both sides. For me this is just overstatemnt that there are 3 maps only in 1943 and none some big map in 1942 or 1944/45. If you played Combat Mission in multiplayer, you know then that nobody want play in 1943 as a russian, this is certain that germans always win in this timeperiod everybody all the time are playing only 1942 or 1944/45. So it's a pity that another great tank map with nice terrains is for 1943.

http://www.redorchestragame.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=882&d=1168065682
http://www.redorchestragame.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=880&d=1168065682
http://www.redorchestragame.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=881&d=1168065682
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#223
The problem with making bigger maps is details. The engine is only capable of so much. You can have smaller highly detailed maps, mid-size moderately detailed maps, or huge low detail maps. (I am talking about landscape here.) The layout is vital to have a decent performance across the board for players without having to use fog to hide stuff and keep FPS up. It is a very tough balancing act. The easiest method is Ridge-Valley-Ridge-Valley etc. But every time you crest a ridge top, you are exposed to higher poly counts and more network traffic. Something like the 'Berezina' layout only more optimized is the best bet. What this wont' allow much of is long long range sight lines. I think it is another reason there are not many huge tank maps out there, it is a very big technical challenge. Plus the whining community makes it tough to get the point across that you can't have real forests of static mesh trees etc. or 580 dead, burning tanks, 377 fancy custom effects and so on. (over dramatized but makes the point).
 
Upvote 0
#225
Keystone said:
But Orel is a very big map and it's working fine. For me even could be a little smaller map than Orel, something like Black Day July and instead of long road from respawn to enemy's position could be just longer time of respawn. This would a little abbreviate the map.
Click to expand...

Sorry to say but we have tested Orel on the 50 player server with TWI present and it was without doubt the least optimised map we tested.

In fact it would take a huge amount of work to get Orel to run anywhere near running 50 players on a server.
It's sheer size is in fact it's downfall on a server with so many players.
Where as BDJ runs even better on the new Beta patch because of its broken landscape design and its creator put in the extra effort to ensure it made the grade at the extra player count.

It maybe that Orel could one day be the same but it will take a huge amount of work and testing to get it play smoothly on a 50 player server.:)
 
Upvote 0
#226
Keystone said:
But Orel is a very big map and it's working fine. For me even could be a little smaller map than Orel, something like Black Day July and instead of long road from respawn to enemy's position could be just longer time of respawn. This would a little abbreviate the map.
Click to expand...

You may need to find someone that can make maps (or wants to try to anyway), and wants to make a large armor map like that. If all the people who are currently map makers are working on something else, or really don't want to make a map like that, you may be hard pressed to get it done without doing it yourself.

There seems to be enough people who like playing large armor maps, but a lack of those who want to spend the time to make them. Other than MOZ's BDJ and Resevoir Dog's Valley of Death (not as large), I have only really seen variations of Orel and no new (mostly) armor (only) maps. Not knocking you KEYSTONE, it just seems that most of the creative talent aren't that interested in doing it, and after all, why spend time making something you don't have interest in?
 
Upvote 0
#227
Slyk said:
The problem with making bigger maps is details. The engine is only capable of so much. You can have smaller highly detailed maps, mid-size moderately detailed maps, or huge low detail maps. (I am talking about landscape here.) .
Click to expand...

I think Slyk has hit the nail on the head (and he should know), it's the current engine that is the limiting factor preventing large quality maps on the Eastern Front designed for truly long rang shooting armor engagements. Perhaps in a desert setting given the fact of few terraine details will not be such a critical limiting factor and one of the new mods (Mare Nostrum?) will be able to do a large tank map justice (maybe El Alamein)? We will just have to wait and see.

Like Moe said, and given the engine issues why would a mapper waste his effort and time creating a map that they know is not going to be up to snuff no matter what effort they put forth. In the mean time the Orel varriants, Black Day July, Valley of Death, Muddy Tigers, as well as many of the stock RO armor maps are not bad and you can get in some relatively long range shooting if you know where to set up.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#229
The main thing that kills performance is a huge amount of static meshes (the 2nd Orel, "road to Orel" is proof of that). It's possible to optimize Orel enhanced even further by completely redoing the trees and their placement (trees usually grow in clusters rather than sprinkled all over). But like I said I have other things that are taking up my time right now.

To anyone considering making a HUGE tank map if you keep some design principles in mind you will have a very good chance of having a perfectly playable & HUGE tank map. #1 group trees in clusters like real life. Use low poly "tree sheets" in the center to depict the "bulk" of the tree mass and then use mostly low poly single static mesh trees (there's one in Arad Static mesh pack thats only 4 polygons). Also you will have to use SOME high poly trees of course but use them sparingly and just enough to create the illusion of a good looking tree mass. Or you could just use the pre fab tree grouping which look very good, but don't get carried away and use them smartly. Also stick to using ONE (2 or 3 MAX) high poly tree type if you can, don't go using every different static mesh tree you can find. Also some trees use the same texture, stick with trees that share a texture as it'll be better for performance.

#2 Use BSP for houses and all other simple structures. You want to share the load between your CPU and your Video Card. Too many static meshes will overload your video card so use BSP WHENEVER YOU CAN!!! I've yet to see a map with enough BSP to even dent your CPU. It's tempting to just use pre-fab static meshes for your houses but don't (unless you want an unplayable tank map) See "Road to Orel" for the consequences of doing that. Limit the bulk of your static meshes to trees.

#3 terrain. Use 512x512 size terrain and scale it up. ALSO don't go using 8 billion different textures in your terrain. THAT will be bad for performance. All you really need is 1 base texture (say grass) then 1 dirt texture for the roads/river bottoms then MAYBE one other texture (like worn grass or something) then THAT SHOULD BE IT!

Of course there are a ton more things to cover but these are just the core basic things that you want to get right to have a good chance at success.

BTW I'll let you all in on a little secret: Orel-Enhanced view distance is 1100 meters. I kicked it up an extra 100 meters from original and the performance hit was minimal.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#231
Xendance said:
Quietus, I tried Orel with the 4000m viewdistance and I didn't see any performance hit :p

But I have a quite good comp.
Click to expand...
Yeah well you have a good PC, I don't;) But really I think it's very important to have a map that performs good on mid to low range PCs because we all know that most people don't have killer PC's. The 2nd Orel "Road to Orel" is a primary example of a map that only runs acceptable on high end rigs while people without mega PC's don't even bother with that version and consequently it doesn't get played. A map has to be playable for as many people as possible. About the 4000 meter view distance, I really think it's overkill actually (even if many people can run it fine). At a certain point you don't need anymore distance between yourself and the enemy because Russian tank guns become inaccurate @ 800 meters anyway (of course I'm talking with AB enabled). So German tanks with more accurate & powerful guns really only NEED a standoff distance of maybe 1600 meters MAX. At that point the superior accuracy & optics of German guns will be very apparent and anything more will be overkill and an unneccessary hit to performance. Another factor is Orel really isn't that big for say 1600 meters because what will happen alot of the time is the 2 teams will just exit camp the other right from their 1st spawn since they can see them a huge distance. So basically someone needs to make another HUGE tank map and maybe have a MAXIMUM view distance of 1600 meters at the most IMO. Of course if the map is well designed and optimized 1600 meter view distance should be do-able and playable for those with low end PC's.
 
Upvote 0
#233
Slyk said:
The problem with making bigger maps is details...The easiest method is Ridge-Valley-Ridge-Valley etc..... What this wont' allow much of is long long range sight lines..
Click to expand...

It seems to me that this problem defeats the object of having a large map, with extended viewdistances.
A terrain can only be so interesting, it needs to be a pretty high res or it will look crude scaled up to a large map-and to make it interesting you need peaks a variation of relief. As you say ridges allow long viewing distance, which is what you want for a large tankmap but it kills performance, especially if overlooking areas of trees, buildings or other visual interest- yet you need these areas to break up the terrain.

The ridge/valley approach as you say i can see as the best approach, but this map would have to be pretty linear and long (unless you had atificial 'rice paddy' style ridges at angles too each other). You would end up with a series of setpieces, fine for bere but on a huge map it would be like a bizarre long obstacle course. This affect would appear even more artificial with long viewdistance because the ridges also have to be of a similar height to prevent overlooking too large a distance. (Though I appreciate you can place occluding planes in treelines on ridges)
I am of the understanding that there are only so many 'antiportals' it is advisable to use in a map- about a dozen maybe less? I gather theres a point at which their non rendering benifits are out weighed by their own demands on the engine?

Keeping a map interesting, semi-natural looking looking and running well it seems like you cant get away with a map much bigger than orel anyway.
As pointed out in Orel- even using mearly 2000m viewdistance (never mind longer) you can still just about plug away at the enemy spawn from the central heights area.
Huge tank map's clearly aren't impossible, but I doubt it would live up to the maker's vision to the extent a smaller map would.
It appears to me like a vicious circle when planning a ultra large map- tank or not, with the extended view distances there simply to tease.

BTW, I strongly agree with the opinion that these maps may only realy be suited to n. africa setting- after all when I've played around with huge maps in the editor they always look like the desert whether I like it or not!


Sorry for off topic discussion- quietus, I look forward to checking out your latest version when I have more time.
 
Upvote 0
#234
The ridge-valley approach, as I noted does create the ridge top view issue but it is generally not advisable for tankers to stop on the top and snipe as they are now easy, highly visable targets. It is still preferrable, I think, because you can break the map into a variety of segments. Each 'zone' can have it's own features and details presenting a different tactical or strategic challenge for both teams. Working through the valleys can be pretty detailed but the ridge lines really need to run the full length of the map or damn near it with gaps on the outer edges.

The other option is what BDJ does with some center ridge/tree lines to create visual blocking. There are other options that may work well or at least improve some abilities like doglegs for example or 'S' layouts that are logical. Mix these with the ridge-valley and you might be able to pull off some good stuff.

The final thought, I think up to 1,500 meters would be plenty. Think about this, 'Berezina' is just about 1,100 meters end to end of play area. You know how long it takes to walk or drive that map. Most Russian guns should not be effective one-shot kills over 800 meters anyway and most guys would be shocked at how far 1,500 meters is in the first place when you can actually see that far. Orel I think is the only map offering that now. So, to me, a ridge-valley, modified layout with a view distance of no more than 1,500 meters should be a good combination. It will take some creative planning but should be an efficient map design that would allow a lot of detail. I have a 'Kursk' plan in mind to try this theory based on actual battle reports and detail maps. Probably won't be until late this year though, two other projects to get out the door.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu