True Distances - Preface to 'True Ground'

[RebBugler]

Edit: These determinations proved incorrect because initially the map distances weren't synchronized with the LOS distances by editing the map.ini line 'UnitPerYard=30', see Post #7

Determining True Distances

True distances were established by scaling down soldier sprites until their height equaled two yards (6 feet - The average man during the American Civil War was around 5'6" or 5'7", according to Wiki). This criteria was established on the flat Kansas map by the following procedures:
1) the game was started and two infantry opposing units were set so that their engagement range was 100 yards (103 yards - Engagement Distance, attachment below)
2) screenshot - centered camera between both units wide enough to include the flags of both engaged units
3) opened screenshot in Paint.net (or any graphics program that displays pixel measurements)
4) measured the height of an infantry sprite in one of the engaged units (sprite height of 26 pixels, then divided in half, attachment below)
5) measured the distance between engaged units' flags (1294 pixels, attachment below)
6) divided height of infantry sprite in half (this establishes how many pixels per yard, figuring sprite height at 6 feet, or two yards), after dividing that number, now representing 1 yard, divided it into the distance between engaged units (1294 pixels divided by 13 pixels = 99.5, attachment below)
7) the goal then (by scaling down the troop sprite size) is to get that last divided number (now representing yards) as close to 100 as possible.

These seven steps result in a fairly accurate map distance of 100 yards in proportion to the size of troop sprites and map objects; end result setting for troop scaling is 46.5%. Note below the engagement range of 103 yards, the calculator readout of 99.5 yards, resulting in a 3.5 yards difference:

The attachment TrueDistances-FinalTestforSpriteReduction.jpg is no longer available

Determining Marching (walk) Speed for 'True Distances', resulting in 'Real Time' play

As noted by a recent post by MarkT, for centuries the accepted normal speed of marching infantry is three miles per hour. The following steps established this ‘walk’ speed:
1) edited the Kansas map to have no movement impediments, then added two objectives from the Devil's Den map, 'The Peach Orchard' and 'Little Round Top', which are one mile apart
2) opened the game and used this edited Kansas test map to march an officer between these two objectives
3) based on the 3 miles per hour speed, it takes 20 minutes to walk 1 mile, the officer’s journey was timed as so, tweaking the walk speed until the 1 mile destination was reached in 20 minutes
4) walk speed was established at 2.6 using this process
5) all other walk and run speeds in the unitglobal file were based on this established walk speed

Presently I'm going through the process of scaling down literally thousands of map objects on the Devil's Den map. If anyone sees a flaw in the above processes to establish 'True Distances', please weigh in to help this mod along, or to just convince me to stop the madness. :woohoo:

[Davinci]

Or to just convince me to stop the madness. :woohoo:

"Reb" if this Mod help you to Make or Redesign Maps, then it is still a worth while journey , considering that you will have knowledge in both redesigning the units heights, and the redesigning of the maps objects.

So, Carry On!

davinci

[RebBugler]

Making faster progress now that I found I could drag 'grouped' fence segments via CTR and RightClick hold. I was using LeftClick hold but it kept selecting other objects during the drag process. So, for folks moving around fencing groupings, RightClick hold is the fastest and safest procedure I've found. Also, you can keep the CTR button down the entire route, or release it when necessary to move the camera without consequence.

Question:
Is there any way to select connected fence segments rather than one at a time? Something like group selection between two points holding down the 'shift' button? Since we can't use the 'shift' button here, is there another button that would serve as a 'shift' button by selecting multiple fence segments between two selected points?

Or, can some adept coder out there configure a 'lasso' function in this app to select groups of objects?

[Davinci]

Question:
Is there any way to select connected fence segments rather than one at a time?

Yes, Just Click on one it will turn "Red" then just "Click" on another one, both will be "Red"...

This will work for "Multiple" Fences, even upwards to a Hundred...

This is Basically what I was trying to get you to do with the smaller fences, drag several together to create a gap between them, then just Click on Multiple fences select Duplicate, and then fill in the gaps.

This would have saved you from Opening the Menu to change the sizes, Just Click Duplicate, Move, Repeat..

Let's say that you have a sort of straight length on the left or right side of a road, Once you finish either side, you can Click each fence that you placed on the left or right, Click Duplicate and then use the "Delete" or "Page Down" to turn them and place them on the other side of the road.

The attachment 5_2019-08-19.png is no longer available

You Move all of them the same way that you would Move a single fence.

Once you have them in Place, Right Click to bring up Menu and Select "None" - which will deselect them.

davinci

[RebBugler]

Davinci,

Well, that's a good tutorial for other folks, but that wasn't my question as I'm moving multiple selections with no problems. My question is a selection question - How to select multiple fence segments at once, eliminating the "one at a time" selection process.

Still, thanks for the tutorial

[Davinci]

Davinci,

Well, that's a good tutorial for other folks.

OK, My Bad!

My question is a selection question - How to select multiple fence segments at once, eliminating the "one at a time" selection process.

NOT Possible, that is the Only way that I have ever done it, there is No Lasso Option in the "PR" that I am aware of.

davinci

[RebBugler]

True Distances has evolved to the 'True Ground' mods.

Managed to get all the fences and buildings replaced by last week, followed up with scaling down the multitude of rocks, spending most of that time rebuilding Devil's Den, the suspended 'Table Rock' being the main challenge. Finally figured out how to lower it for the smaller scale, details to follow if anyone asks.

Then, after play testing some Devil's Den map scenarios, saw the necessity of lowering the height and density of the smoke effects, editing the efx.csv file.

And then, another eureka revelation, I messed up!

Went back to double check map distances and assigned a 1760 yards (one mile) movement to an officer's toolbar. When this movement was initiated from LRT to the Peach Orchard (one mile) it was three minutes too long. It was then I realized I messed up by not synchronizing the map distances with the game distances; i.e., Move Forward 100 yards...This is done by tweaking the 'True LOS' key function - 'UnitPerYard=30'. After tweaking it down to 'UnitPerYard=26', the 1760 yards (one mile) movement test synchronized with the LRT to the Peach Orchard one mile distance. Along with this map change came the necessity of the marching speed change, up to 3 from 2.6 to achieve the real time of 3 miles per hour.

Now, we have 'True Ground', with almost true distances, the battle distances being off about 30 yards; i.e., engagement distances displaying 160 yards will actually be 130 yards (hopefully most folks won't notice, or better yet, find this a negative). Can't fix this without scaling down everything again about 25%. And since my little finger is still numb from moving fences (holding down the CTR button), I'll leave this mod as is. Not as accurate as promised, however, this mod still represents The Big Picture of True Ground and Real Time, and, can still be used as a setting for SR1 play.

[Davinci]

I was wondering how this was coming along!

The "Rocks \ Boulders " will present another problem that you may or not be aware of!

They have a feature of having the units stand on top of them, but this has a lot to do with the position of the camera, by changing the camera angle, they will or will not be standing on the rocks.

All in All, this is still some good practice for you to indulge in!

davinci

[RebBugler]

I was wondering how this was coming along!

The "Rocks \ Boulders " will present another problem that you may or not be aware of!

They have a feature of having the units stand on top of them, but this has a lot to do with the position of the camera, by changing the camera angle, they will or will not be standing on the rocks.

All in All, this is still some good practice for you to indulge in!

davinci

Yeah, the "stand on top" feature is even uglier with the smaller scale. I've tried to turn this off in the rock properties to no avail. Suggestions?

[Davinci]

I'm at Work, so can't give you exact details, but it is listed on the same page as the Radius Adjustments, or the page after the Radius Adjustments. The Object Menu Pages when you Right Click it.

On the top of the Page it will have something like ( OnTopOf ) in a line all by itself.

But, I don't think that you would want to turn it off, it is controlled by adjusting the Radius Settings.

You have Multiple Settings such as height and something else, ( can't remember ) that can be lowered to the size of the rocks, or boulders.

But, the problem that you are going to run into is that depending on the Camera Angle, the units will appear to be standing on the rocks from one angle, but not at another angle. There is nothing that can be done about that.

BTW - All of the Boulders do not have the Setting of ( OnTopOf ) applied to them.

davinci