Roads and Trails Question

[georgerutherford1861]

Hello everyone,

Perryville progresses slowly, been working on the roads, agonizing at times over locations of roads, existence of roads, etc. Does Scourge of War mapping support different qualities of roads? In this case I am thinking of roads versus farm trails. Right now all of my roads and trails are one color (as you can see on the attachment), but they would in reality are not all of the same quality. It sort of looks like they are, based on a few of the rbg files I have seen, but am wondering how to make it work in practice. Just make them two different colors, then??? Thanks in advance.

Doug

[Davinci]

Does Scourge of War mapping support different qualities of roads? In this case I am thinking of roads versus farm trails.

Yes, you can have as many different roads as you like, but it is NOT done from the RGB files.

The different kind of roads would be done from the "mapname.bmp" file and the "mapname.csv" file.

Right now all of my roads and trails are one color (as you can see on the attachment), but they would in reality are not all of the same quality.

That is correct on the RGB as long as you plan on using the same "Texture" for the different roads.

If you are \ were planning on using a different texture for the main-road, or farm-road, you would use more than one color.

Basically, the "RED" color for the roads on the "RGB" will call on ONE texture whether or not you plan on using it for multiple roads.

Now, you can "use" a different color of "red" and it will affect how the road will be displayed in game.

A ( 255,0,0 ) Red - will display the road different than using a ( 80,0,0 ) Red.

Simple Translation - Main Road - ( 255,0,0 ) - Secondary Road ( 80,0,0 ) and the secondary road should appear slightly different in game.

But, the "mapname.bmp" file is probably the answer to your question!

davinci

[georgerutherford1861]

Ah, I see. Yes, that does help, I can now see the various options available.

So, if the mapname.bmp file working with the mapname.csv defines the textures that are displayed, then what purpose do the various rbg files have? I am just trying to get the different components that make up the map figured up in my head.

I have found Gimp to be great (to an extent) creating paths for the roads and such, but once I start exporting it out as a jpg it started to "blur" my pure 255-0-0 red, which messes with how it will eventually display I believe. I may have my gimp export settings wrong, which may be causing it. In the meantime, I'll work with paint.net, as the magic wand tool (and especially the earlier suggestion to "invert selection") has been helpful in clearing up my "close to" red areas.

Fall 1862 was very dry in Kentucky, so much of what would otherwise be rivers and streams would be dry. I am thinking of making those parts of the streams the streambank texture. How would one work with where roads/trails cross those areas? Does it mess with the pathmaking if the road/trail ends there, then picks back up on the other side?

Sorry for all the questions, and thanks as always.

Doug

[Davinci]

So, if the mapname.bmp file working with the mapname.csv defines the textures that are displayed, then what purpose do the various rbg files have?

The "mapname.bmp" and the "mapname.csv" does not define the textures that are used in the game, the "RGB" files tells the game which textures to load in the Power-Render-Program..

How to explain this.....

Think of it as two separate Programs that are designed to work together.

1) The Power-Render-Engine
Which will define the ground textures for the various maps.
Which will display the various items such as houses, barns, fences, etc...

2) Norb's Game
Which will tell the game to load the trees, grass, fields, etc...
Which will also tell the game what is a road, woods, fields, stream, etc...

SO, the "mapname.bmp" and the "mapname.csv" are a part of "Norb's Game" that defines how to display what the RGB files are used for.

Without those two files the RGB files would have absolutely no purpose other-than to create a display that the the game doesn't know how to interact with. So the game is programmed so that all of the different files work together, which means that the two-separate-engines work together.

I have found Gimp to be great (to an extent) creating paths for the roads and such, but once I start exporting it out as a jpg it started to "blur" my pure 255-0-0 red, which messes with how it will eventually display I believe.

The more times that you open the files the more that they will blur.

Try to find a way of Saving them in a different format while working on them to decrease them from blurring. Once you have the completed file than save it as "JPG".

Photoshop will use a format saved as "PSD", not sure what Gimp uses.

Fall 1862 was very dry in Kentucky, so much of what would otherwise be rivers and streams would be dry. I am thinking of making those parts of the streams the streambank texture. How would one work with where roads/trails cross those areas? Does it mess with the pathmaking if the road/trail ends there, then picks back up on the other side?

You are still not understanding the difference of the RGB and the "mapname.bmp", just because a stream or road ends in one, doesn't mean that it will end with the other one.

I'm probably not explaining it correctly, so find a map that is already created and look at how it was done, which should give you a better visual answer.

davinci

[georgerutherford1861]

Perryville is still progressing slowly, the last month has been pretty busy! Attached is a WIP. RGB1 should be about complete now. It took quite a while, but most of that was figuring out how Gimp could be best made to work, never having used it before. On to RGB2, and hopefully it will take less time.

Doug

The attachment PerryvilleWIP2.jpg is no longer available

[Davinci]

So, You are using two different "Graphics" for the roads and what appears to be the outer bank of the streams.

If you have already completed the the "Mapname.bmp" the rest is very simple, just use Copy and Paste to complete the other three RGB files.

Also - the "mapname.bmp" is 4096x4096 - So, if you use the same sizes for the RGB files it goes a lot faster.

davinci

[georgerutherford1861]

Sorry for the delay, I am back again.

I believe I may have misinterpreted some of your steps in the "map converter" discussion. Whereas you were copying from the mapname.bmp to create the separate RGB files, I have sort of inverted that and have been making them (well, only one so far) one at a time, then at some point I was going to combine them together to make the mapname.bmp file. Is it possible to recover from this, or do I need to stop, complete the mapname.bmp first, then go about breaking them out into the RGB files?

Working on fields now, been a busy last few weeks, and will probably be a few weeks until I get these fields done. I have some information on historical fields and vegetation for the major conflict parts of the battlefield, but for the rest I have nothing.

I am going to try for an educated guess for the other parts of the battlefield, based on current landcover to a certain extent. Based on some of the historical accounts, the area seems to have been more open than parts of it are now, so if I err it will be on the side of having fewer woods.

Doug

[Davinci]

I believe I may have misinterpreted some of your steps in the "map converter" discussion. Whereas you were copying from the mapname.bmp to create the separate RGB files, I have sort of inverted that and have been making them (well, only one so far) one at a time, then at some point I was going to combine them together to make the mapname.bmp file. Is it possible to recover from this, or do I need to stop, complete the mapname.bmp first, then go about breaking them out into the RGB files?

There is really NOT a simple one-step-answer here, considering that there really isn't a "Right" or "Wrong" way of doing this!

Now, there probably is a faster way and a slower way, but it's "Your" map and its "Your" time, so the choice is really up to you.

Bear in mind that no two people create maps in the exact same format considering that everyone learnt Map-Making-Slightly-Different.

A completed "mapname.bmp" file would allow you to line up everything correctly and to ensure that the "Road-System" is working correctly, which is sort of important.

The "Road-System" is probably the most important part of the "mapname.bmp" file.

Once that file is completed, the four RGB files would only take several hours since you are using the "bmp" file to "Copy and Paste", basically transferring the Colors from one file to the next.

The file that you posted above looks good, so if that is the approach that you are going to take by completing the four RGB files first, and it works for you, that is great!

I will add this and its probably just My way of doing it, but the standard "mapname.bmp" file is 4096x4096.

If you make all of your RGB files 4096x4096 - it is a lot easier to use the Copy and Paste since all of the coordinates will align correctly.

Also, I have not noticed any slowdown in the game by using the larger RGB files.

davinci

[georgerutherford1861]

Sorry it has taken me so long to get back onto this.

Does the "mapname.bmp" size determine in any way the size of the map being made? I am going off the TC2M > SOWGB map conversion thread, and am aiming for a 5 by 5 mile map.

Thanks!

Doug

[Davinci]

Does the "mapname.bmp" size determine in any way the size of the map being made? I am going off the TC2M > SOWGB map conversion thread, and am aiming for a 5 by 5 mile map.

Perhaps, Not really absolutely sure!

But, the "height.tga" found in the "lsl" does determine the Map-Size!

So, for a five mile map make the "height.tga" 512x512.

davinci