Okay, I am going to do a total revamp of the moon map script and we need to figure out exactly what our maps will look like, what types of terrain we will have and what types of feature.

Edit:
Here is a patch to SotM024B including the new mapscipt. Just unzip into the mods folder(you must have SotM024B already in the mods folder):

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/50491/SotM024B.zip

Note: You no longer need to place the moon_map.py file in your public maps folder. (Thanks to Ellestar for figuring this out)



I know there are some related threads about these subjects but I decided to make a thread the brings all these ideas together since they are all involved in making a map script and It will make it easier for me to make sure I incorporate everything we want into the map script.

Here are a couple of things I have seen in the other threads that you guys mentioned what you wanted changed: (I know I probably missed plenty so please let me know what they are and if you have any new Ideas. I will try to keep this list up to date.)

-hills added back into the map.(how do you want this done and what type of terrain do you want on these hills?)

-fix the dust seas(do we want to keep the same ideas we had originally in that they are to act as a replacement for water?) Dust seas to be removed

-larger creators(what percentages should we see of each size of crater on the map?)

-craters as a feature(do they replace the crater rim terrain type if added)

-nerf He3(what do we want to do with He3? Do we want to keep it implemented as it is now?)

-polar ice(what do we want to change from the way it is implemented now)





Here is the list of terrain, features and resourses we want on the map what they will produce(I will keep this list up to date):

Terrain: Type(Food production/Hammer Production/Gold Production,Comments)

-Peaks(0/0/0, inpassible(sp?))

-Crater rim(0/1/1, 2 movement cost, +25% defence, sizes 2x2 or 3x3(maybe if I can get it to display properly))
152305

-Maria(0/0/1, flatlands)
152312

-Terrae(0/1/0, hills, 1 movement cost, +25% defence)
152311

-Polar(1/0/0,rare, above 80 degrees, surrounded by peaks or terrae, 4 squares max size)

-cratered(0/1/0,always coupled with craters or crater feature)
152306

-Rilles(0/0/-1, forms in a meandering line, bridges may be built across them when a certain tech is researched, impassible to wheeled/tracked units till a bridge is built)
152310


Features: Type(Food production/Hammer Production/Gold Production,Comments)

-Craters(0/0/0, on crater terrain, 1 movement cost, +10% defence)

-Crater(0/1/0, on crater terrain, 2 movement cost, +25% defence)

-Ejecta(0/0/0, on crater, maria, terrae or polar terrain, 2 movement cost, +25% defence, near craters or crater rim)

-Domes(0/1/0, on maria or polar terrain, 1 movement cost, +10% defence)

-Crater rim(0/1/1, on crater rim terrain, 2 movement cost, +25% defence, size 2x2, added as feature for 3d graphics)


Resources: Type(Food production/Hammer Production/Gold Production,Comments)

-He3(0/0/1, 1 by each start location)
(..to be updated later..)





Let me now what types over options you want for the map when you start up a new game.(such as size of dust sea and number of mountains)
Map Options: Default Option in Italics (I will keep this list up to date)

-the rilles/domes/cratered feature appearance on the surface , with a choice for 2 out of 3 features every time.

Rilles/domes combo (huge impacts option, lots of maria)
Rilles/cratered combo (tectonic option, standard distribution between maria and terrae)
Cratered/domes combo (small impacts, favors terrae over maria)
Rilles/Cratered/domes combo (similar to current moon)


-Size of Rilles (Small/Medium/Large)

-Peak Pattern (Scattered/Ridgelines/Clustered)

-Peak Density (Dense/Normal/Thin)

-Dust Sea Setting (Off/Small/Medium/Large)

-Dust Sea Size (Small/Medium/Large)

-Terrae Density (Low/Meduim/High)

-Crater Rim Density (Dense/Normal/Thin)

-Maria (Scattered/Clusted on one side)





Pics from here: NASA Apollo over the moon (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-362/contents.htm) (I have plenty more good ones but I am only allowed to have 5 per post)

To me, it sounds like the easiest tinkering would be to replace dustseas with the hills. I don't know if you have the time to start a whole new mapscript, or just adjust the current one here and there, but this is what I would like to see:

Terrain types:
Peaks, the current crater rim terrain (perhaps overlayed with hills), maria (flatlands), terrae (hills) and polar (flat) for the odd :food: yield. In addition perhaps a new terrain type called crater which depicts a single crater covering the whole plot, but see features also for that. O yes, I think the polar terrain should only be possible when it is surrounded by terrae/peaks or of course other polar terrain with a max size of 2x2 plots. And placed within 80 degree latitude.

Features:
Cratered (small craters all over the plot), Crater (single crater covering the plot, bit like the oasis feature), Rilles (lines following the edge of several plots meandering like rivers, inhibits movement), Domes (seems to be a circular shaped "dome" sticking out of the landscape, volcanic by origin).

Polar ice:
I prefer to bring this back to have a smoother looking map at the edges, but use another texture on it so it looks more like other moonterrain. I guess with less terrain types one of the existent ones could be used to replace it.

He³:
A little research learned me that He³ extraction would be a side-effect of processing the moon's regolith for ores. Personally I can't really believe the solar wind would "favor" some area's with a significant amount of the isotope being trapped over other terrain. In any case, if the vote is to keep it as a resource, I wouldn't put a food yield on it. And not on whatever type of resource anyway. Improvements could perhaps extract a surplus food from some resources, but He³ shouldn't be one of those.

As on options, the rilles/domes/cratered feature appearance on the surface could included linked with a general map setup, with a choice for 2 out of 3 features every time.
Rilles/domes combo (huge impacts option, lots of maria)
Rilles/cratered combo (tectonic option, standard distribution between maria and terrae)
Cratered/domes combo (small impacts, favors terrae over maria)

Super undertaking. Thanks matthewv.

I think He3 can be nerfed to 1 per city area now. But we want some, I think.

I will be useing the current map script as a base but I hope to redo most of it.

Thanks Geo for those detailed description. I will incorporate all of those into my map script unless there is any disagreement.

For now I will limit He3 to 1 per start location (with a rare chance there will be more than 1) and have it generate 1 gold instead of food.

Note on rilles:
I will probably add these as a terrain type and thus they will be on the tiles as opposed to being in between them. They would be simular to peaks except they would follow meandering lines and can be crossed by engineers (after certain tech) and all units when a bridge is built.

Does everyone agree that dust seas should be removed completely or should we just change they way they are implimented?

For now I will limit He3 to 1 per start location (with a rare chance there will be more than 1) and have it generate 1 gold instead of food.

Cool. But since the latter (1 gold yield) is determined in one of the terrain xml files, chances are I put this in before you come to that.

Note on rilles:
I will probably add these as a terrain type and thus they will be on the tiles as opposed to being in between them. They would be simular to peaks except they would follow meandering lines and can be crossed by engineers (after certain tech) and all units when a bridge is built.

Mostly as I intended. Tho I would make it only impassible to mobile units prior to bridges. Oh yes, rilles are a feature (IRL) mostly on Maria's, not on Terrae.

Does everyone agree that dust seas should be removed completely or should we just change they way they are implimented?

Remove the buggers!!! :mad:
Pretty please? :mischief:

:lol:

Bye-bye dust seas.

If we absolutely need transporting ability we'll just have units that carry other units and have a high movement/turn range.

Remove the buggers!!!
Pretty please?

Okay, I will remove them and If someone still wants them I will add them later as an option so that people that hate dust seas can play without them. Hopefully that will make you happy:p

mobile units
aren't all units mobile?

If we absolutely need transporting ability we'll just have units that carry other units and have a high movement/turn range.

Well, there's still the Eagle... ;)

aren't all units mobile?

I meant wheeled/tracked units.

I liked the dust seas :(.

I liked the dust seas :(.

I think matt plans on making it an option in the map setup.

I think matt plans on making it an option in the map setup.

I will be doing that right away (probaby tonight with all the new terrain), but I likely won't fix the problems we were having with dust seas for a little while (unless there is a large demand for it).

What problems were that again?

What problems were that again?
The way you could have cities that were undefeatable because you could travel on dust seas if they where in your borders and you could not build skimmer units that where ment to travel on dust seas.

Oh that. I guess as long as we made dustseas unwalkable by the normal units, even if within your borders, it shouldn't present a problem? It's not like I ever saw a faction start on an "island" surrounded by dustseas.
And even if it happened, there's a "air unit" planned that can transport land units on such places.

Oh that. I guess as long as we made dustseas unwalkable by the normal units, even if within your borders, it shouldn't present a problem? It's not like I ever saw a faction start on an "island" surrounded by dustseas.
And even if it happened, there's a "air unit" planned that can transport land units on such places.

It might be simple but I will have to figure out how to do it. You were never supposed to be able to walk on dust seas in your borders. It happens to be a weird bug a never tried to figure out.

Oh, I see.
Might it be because you used a secondary set of terrain to circumvent this food bug?

Oh, I see.
Might it be because you used a secondary set of terrain to circumvent this food bug?

Its likely related to the way dust seas are created. Originally the are created as ocean (with ocean plot_type) and then later they are switched to dust seas. The bug likely arises in that switch as dust seas are a land plot type.

So by the end of all of this we might want to keep Dust Seas as a terrain type, but have them not start out as Ocean tiles. Having a terrain type that can't be traversed (by tracked units) or settled and that is completely useless works IMO.

So by the end of all of this we might want to keep Dust Seas as a terrain type, but have them not start out as Ocean tiles. Having a terrain type that can't be traversed (by tracked units) or settled and that is completely useless works IMO.
Since dust seas don't actually exist on the moon, I would only be adding them to act as special terrain. I see no point in adding them if they do not have a peticular purpose to add more functionality to the game(like act as a replacement for ocean's as before).

Unless you guys really want to drive on dust seas and put cities on then, I see no reason to add them as a land like terrain type.

If I am starting to sound too hostile and disagreeable, let me know.:mischief:

Not too hostile and your point is well made. I don't know much about Lunar terrain to be honest. Is there any type that would be unsafe to settle on and tough to maneuver through?

Not too hostile and your point is well made. I don't know much about Lunar terrain to be honest. Is there any type that would be unsafe to settle on and tough to maneuver through?
The main ones woud be peaks and rilles. (which already plan to have)

Most lunar terrain is difficult to maneuver through. Ever try driving through land full of craters? :p The only terrain I think should not have a movement cost before they have roads on them is maria since it is reletively flat.

Here's my thoughts on Moon terrain:


Base terrain types:
(Food/Hammers/Commerce)

Polar (1/0/0)
Scarce, found only in polar regions, only existing to fix the no food bug.

Maria Bassalt (0/1/1)
This is why we are here, the He3 from the bassalt gives the 1 gold.
Most of the open plains near the start points would be this.

Bare Rock (0/0/0)
Weak terrain (like deserts are in Vanilla), usefull only after an improvement is built there.
Found more often in mountainous regions

Ejecta (0/1/0) found near crater features and Terrae, but tend to be clear of any features of their own.
Darker in color than Maria.

Elevations:

Hills (Terrae) (0/+1/0) +1 movement Impassible by early units.

Peaks 0 yield, impassible forever


Features:

Cratered (0/+1/0) Feature found in broad swaths and scattered, with 3D modeled craters scattered in varying sizes.
The concept craters feature I posted earlyer, but finished. +1 movement
Must be removed (as like forest) to allow most improvment options.

Crater (0/+2/0) single tile feature having one large crater that fills the tile.
Impassible by early units. +2 movement
Unremovable. Restricts improvement options

Large Crater (0/+1/+1) Appears as a larger low crater rim extending into neighboring tiles, flat internally due to lava flow.
Impassible by early units. +2 movement
Unremovable. Restricts improvement options

Rilles replace rivers and give a (0/+1/0), not commerce. Impassible to heavy vehicle units.


I think it would be desired for the broad structure of the surface to add strategic depth to locations.
Impassible terrains should be a major part of this. With so many impassible or only partially passible terrains one will have to consider the layout of the land when planning wars or expansion.
Also this should alow areas of the map to be left unsettleable until later in the game, maintaining expansion untill later in the game; similar to ocen faring ships on earth opening new areas to settlement.

Long, impassible mountain ranges should be commonplace.

One thing to consiter for this would be having some general form to terrain. That is, having most of the maria located on a single side of the moon, which would also be where all of the factions start the game. Something that emulates the Moon's near side/far side differences.

Alazkan, the Terrae I proposed are basically hills. It's so to speak highland terrain and quite rolling because it doesn't has a lava history which tends to flatten things out when it was in its liquid state.
Essentially bare rock would be part of one of the main terrain types (Terrae), and has no use anymore.

Ejecta (but as feature then) is a good thought. Perhaps this could be turned into a difficult to traverse feature, and more likely to have metal resources if it can be xml'd that features dictate the chance of resource appearance.

With a mix of craters, rilles and mountain ranges (and for the willing dust seas on top of that) scouting around will be difficult already, at least for mobile (wheeled/tracked) units. Which reminds me, how do we see foot units? When they walk around all over the moon do we think of having them a mobile base with them on which they can re-supply and sleep? Or would we give them a sort of limited radius outside borders where they can venture outdoors of cities and transport units? This might be too much micromanagement for a player of course.

For foot units - Maybe only 1 tile outside of cultural borders or on roadways? Enemy cultural borders might require a promotion? Or maybe outside of cultural borders at all require a promotion?

And Ejecta sounds like a winner!

Alazkan, the Terrae I proposed are basically hills. It's so to speak highland terrain and quite rolling because it doesn't has a lava history which tends to flatten things out when it was in its liquid state.
Essentially bare rock would be part of one of the main terrain types (Terrae), and has no use anymore.

Ejecta (but as feature then) is a good thought. Perhaps this could be turned into a difficult to traverse feature, and more likely to have metal resources if it can be xml'd that features dictate the chance of resource appearance.

With a mix of craters, rilles and mountain ranges (and for the willing dust seas on top of that) scouting around will be difficult already, at least for mobile (wheeled/tracked) units. Which reminds me, how do we see foot units? When they walk around all over the moon do we think of having them a mobile base with them on which they can re-supply and sleep? Or would we give them a sort of limited radius outside borders where they can venture outdoors of cities and transport units? This might be too much micromanagement for a player of course.

I was assuming that Terrae would be the name used of what in vanilla are hills, but hills arn't a base terrain, they are an overlay like features are. (same with mountains)
In vanilla there are grassland hills, plains hills, desert hills, tundra hills, and ice hills.
If we reduce there to being only a single type of hill terrain we lose a lot of the terrain variation allowed by the game engine.
I think that we should have 3-4 types of base terrain; the three land elevations(flat, hills, peaks) and a large number of features.

I agree though, that ejecta may make a better feature than base terrain.

As to foot units, I see them as containing an implied suficient logistics supply chain for wherever they go, payed for with maintenace costs as usual. Similar to units in Vanilla that can keep using their guns without ever running out of ammo.
To simulate the added expence of exploration in lunar terrain I would recomend a change to how unit supply costs are calculated. Currently units in enemy territory incur the "supply" cost, I would make any units outside of your and friendly territory generate this additional cost.

Rilles replace rivers and give a (0/+1/0), not commerce. Impassible to heavy vehicle units.

Its easy enough to replace rives with Rilles. The difficult part would be making it impassible to units as a river replacement. Thus I am proposing to add then as a terrain type instead (making them impassible to certain unit would still be difficult, but alot easier than if they where like rivers)


Long, impassible mountain ranges should be commonplace.
mountains will be simular to the highlands map, with the following map options to control peak placement:

-Peak Pattern (Scattered/Ridgelines/Clustered)
-Peak Density (Dense/Normal/Thin)


One thing to consiter for this would be having some general form to terrain. That is, having most of the maria located on a single side of the moon, which would also be where all of the factions start the game. Something that emulates the Moon's near side/far side differences.

I added a Map option to have Maria Scattered all over the map or clustered on one side (like earth's moon).

Ejecta (0/1/0) found near crater features and Terrae, but tend to be clear of any features of their own.
Darker in color than Maria.
added

I was assuming that Terrae would be the name used of what in vanilla are hills, but hills arn't a base terrain, they are an overlay like features are. (same with mountains)
In vanilla there are grassland hills, plains hills, desert hills, tundra hills, and ice hills.
If we reduce there to being only a single type of hill terrain we lose a lot of the terrain variation allowed by the game engine.
I think that we should have 3-4 types of base terrain; the three land elevations(flat, hills, peaks) and a large number of features.


The moon has alot less terrain types than earth, so to get that many terrain typs we would have to use our imagination a little

As to foot units, I see them as containing an implied suficient logistics supply chain for wherever they go, payed for with maintenace costs as usual. Similar to units in Vanilla that can keep using their guns without ever running out of ammo.
To simulate the added expence of exploration in lunar terrain I would recomend a change to how unit supply costs are calculated. Currently units in enemy territory incur the "supply" cost, I would make any units outside of your and friendly territory generate this additional cost.

I was completely unaware of this maintenace cost. I completely agree with this and we could tie it to civics somehow as well.

I assure AA says the truth. It is something which can hurt early or in the caravel age.

I was assuming that Terrae would be the name used of what in vanilla are hills, but hills arn't a base terrain, they are an overlay like features are. (same with mountains)
In vanilla there are grassland hills, plains hills, desert hills, tundra hills, and ice hills.
If we reduce there to being only a single type of hill terrain we lose a lot of the terrain variation allowed by the game engine.
I think that we should have 3-4 types of base terrain; the three land elevations(flat, hills, peaks) and a large number of features.

My mistake, I forgot hills are an overlay.
Maria, Terrae and Polar are the by me proposed base terrains then. On top of that will still the Dust Sea terrain exist so that makes four. Is this sufficient for you?
Since Terrae is intrisically a terraintype that is highland by nature, I propose to put hills on this terraintype only, except where the crater feature makes a "dip". So the only terraintype where a wheeled unit will be able to move fast will be on the Maria. Terrae will usually have the hills overlay which impedes movement on its own.

As on your fear of losing alot of variance, it is somewhat inevitable since IRL lunar terrain is of only a few types. But those extra features should make up alot: single crater overlay, cratered overlay, rilles overlay, domes overlay, your ejecta overlay proposal on top of that.

Since Terrae is intrisically a terraintype that is highland by nature, I propose to put hills on this terraintype only, except where the crater feature makes a "dip". So the only terraintype where a wheeled unit will be able to move fast will be on the Maria. Terrae will usually have the hills overlay which impedes movement on its own.

This is exactly what I intend to do.

I am now complete determined to figure out hight maps and won't give up until I do. I will be changing the hills hightmap as well as making some new hightmaps for craters and rilles.

I am now complete determined to figure out hight maps and won't give up until I do. I will be changing the hills hightmap as well as making some new hightmaps for craters and rilles.

A guy on the SMAC modding forum (don't search, it's private ;) ) has figured out some basics about heightmaps in civ4. It wasn't very useful in the SMAC mod due to graphic limitations (raising and lowering terrain by terraforming) but could be handy here. I'll ask if he wants to share his findings with you.
Basically, the latest he showed us was the whole plot raised or lowered compared to a base level like in the Age of Empires III game.

Modifiying heightmaps isn't a problem, that can be done with Gimp, the issue I had when looking at them is not being able to add any new terrain types, just modify the existing ones. There don't seem to be any XML tags that reference the heightmap data.
Did your unnamed source manage to add additional heightmaped terrain types beyond hills, peaks, and oceans?

Erm... his nick is Gerikes, and I didn't look that deep in his explanation.
I PM'd him. Waiting for a response.

Modifiying heightmaps isn't a problem, that can be done with Gimp, the issue I had when looking at them is not being able to add any new terrain types, just modify the existing ones. There don't seem to be any XML tags that reference the heightmap data.
Did your unnamed source manage to add additional heightmaped terrain types beyond hills, peaks, and oceans?

If only!

Yeah, I think we've run into the same troubles. The heightmaps are done for plot types (not terrain types), which are set in stone at four, so I wasn't able to find out any way to add more. Had I been able to, I definitely would've continued on that path to making Planetfall have elevation, but with only three heights to work with (four counting water) it just wasn't worth it in the opinion of the group. As with most things graphical, the SDK didn't shed much light on this. There isn't even a PlotTypeInfo file or XML dealing with plot types, only an enumerator:


enum DllExport PlotTypes // Exposed to Python
{
NO_PLOT = -1,

PLOT_PEAK,
PLOT_HILLS,
PLOT_LAND,
PLOT_OCEAN,

NUM_PLOT_TYPES,
};




The other thing I looked at with the LandscapeInfos file, which had something dealing with heightmaps. However, I think this is just used for generating a true heightmap for an entire map, and then the type of plot that is put into a certain plot is determined by the value of that plot's height, so if it falls within the "ocean" range, it's an ocean, if it falls within the "land" range, it's flat land, if it falls within the "hills" range, it's a hill, etc. I really didn't too much experimenting with it, however.

Edit: Note: I believe that when you use plot.point().z, you'll end up with the value for the plot. That doesn't help us graphically, although could be used as a way to affect gameplay anyway.

All that I did in the end was modify the heightmaps to different heights and get water, flat land, and two elevations, by using the hill and peak plot types as separate elevations. You can see the results attached. That's the best I was gonna' get.

Yeah, I think we've run into the same troubles. The heightmaps are done for plot types (not terrain types), which are set in stone at four, so I wasn't able to find out any way to add more. Had I been able to, I definitely would've continued on that path to making Planetfall have elevation, but with only three heights to work with (four counting water) it just wasn't worth it in the opinion of the group. As with most things graphical, the SDK didn't shed much light on this. There isn't even a PlotTypeInfo file or XML dealing with plot types, only an enumerator:
I read this, and hoping to do something none else has done, I took a serious look at all the code we got with the SDK. Unfortunately it appears you are right and that there is no way to add new terrain types since it appears height maps a directly referenced from the graphics code(which we unfortunately can not access). Even if we could, by the way plot types are specifically referenced in the C++ code it would be very difficult to add a new plot type.

Suddenly the way I dreamed how a maps would look are dashed to peices.:sad: :cry:

The other thing I looked at with the LandscapeInfos file, which had something dealing with heightmaps. However, I think this is just used for generating a true heightmap for an entire map, and then the type of plot that is put into a certain plot is determined by the value of that plot's height, so if it falls within the "ocean" range, it's an ocean, if it falls within the "land" range, it's flat land, if it falls within the "hills" range, it's a hill, etc. I really didn't too much experimenting with it, however.
Ya, I know (most map scripts work this way. Or at least the ones I looked at). The terrain on a map is also done in a similar way.

Don't give up matthewv! But it does suck that they made this inflexible.

Since we are limitid in what we can do, we should be sure to use all we can.

What if we used the coast plot type for riles? We don't have coast/ocean doing anything right now do we?
I'm sure we can remove the water and waves from the ocean, and retexturing the ocean floor shouldn't be a problem.
That would immediatly make them impassible to most units. The functionality of allowing some units to cross it shouldn't be too difficult, Kael had his "the drown" units in FfH walking across water tiles the day the SDK was released. It should be a simple thing (for an SDK modder) to add that code into SotM.

Graphically a line of the tiles would look like a trench, and we can modify the heightmaps to look narower and more rile-like. The only problem I know of is that any units moving on that tile would hover at the level of where the ocean would be.
As long as the only (or most) units that are allowed to move there before building a bridge could be imagined as flying/hovering to get over it, even if they don't hover most of the time it should look ok. We just need out bridge improvement artwork to be at exactly the level that units will walk on it (not difficult) and it will look nice for that as well. I think it will take sdk to make the rile-bridge work also.

Don't give up matthewv! But it does suck that they made this inflexible.
Oh, I'm not giving up. I just have to be a little more inventive. This means people who later look at my work will go crazy trying to figure it out.:crazyeye:

Since we are limitid in what we can do, we should be sure to use all we can.

What if we used the coast plot type for riles? We don't have coast/ocean doing anything right now do we?

Wow, you must be reading my mind this morning. I can up with all kinds of good ideas on my drive to work this morning, including hijacking the ocean plot type and using it for our own purposes.

I'm sure we can remove the water and waves from the ocean, and retexturing the ocean floor shouldn't be a problem.

Retexturing the ocean floor is easy. Removing the water and waves my prove to be a little more difficult. I looked at the ocean graphics before and I have yet to figure out exactly how they work.

That would immediatly make them impassible to most units. The functionality of allowing some units to cross it shouldn't be too difficult, Kael had his "the drown" units in FfH walking across water tiles the day the SDK was released. It should be a simple thing (for an SDK modder) to add that code into SotM.

Thats good news. This is one thing i was a little worried about because I had treid to do this before the SDK came out and I got nowhere.

The only problem I know of is that any units moving on that tile would hover at the level of where the ocean would be.
Ya, this could be a problem. I am hoping to be able to ajust to ocean height somehow.

Well, units adapt their altitude when moving on hills and while crossing mountains in the game, so maybe its just a case of extending this to "below".

Well, units adapt their altitude when moving on hills and while crossing mountains in the game, so maybe its just a case of extending this to "below".

True, But I would like my units to walk over the bridge not under it(as the terrain drops down into the rille):crazyeye:

There's also the little problem of drawing the bridge on the right spot. ;)

I just sucessfully removed the ocean surface and waves from the game. I think that it will look quite nice once the ocean floor and beached get new textures.

The waves are controled by .nif files in art\terrain\waves so I replaced them all (28) with empty nif files. (Attached)

In GlobalDefines.xml this tag value changed to 0 from 1
<Define>
<DefineName>RENDER_WATER</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>0</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>

And in CIV4ArtDefines_Misc.xml the water entry changed to:

<MiscArtInfo>
<Type>ART_WATER</Type>
<Path>None</Path>
<fScale>1.0</fScale>
<NIF>None</NIF>
<KFM>None</KFM>
</MiscArtInfo>

For the bridges we could make them only allowed at streight crossing points, where a single tile of rile has on two opposite faces a non-rile plot type. We would only then need two models for the bridge, one north/south the other east/west. Python can be used to select which one is built.

Thanks alot AlazkanAssaissin. This saves me alot of time trying to figure it out myself.:goodjob:

For the bridges we could make them only allowed at streight crossing points, where a single tile of rile has on two opposite faces a non-rile plot type. We would only then need two models for the bridge, one north/south the other east/west. Python can be used to select which one is built.

Bridges should be easy to do (even with diagonal crossing points).

I am currently taking a break from the map script/terrain and am creating a new unit instead. I hope to have the new map script and terrain art finished by the end of May.

Oh... :(





;)

Don't look so sad. Creating a unit takes a small amount of time compared to the map script and a complete redo of all the terrain art.

I know that, hence the ";)".

No real rush matthewv. I'm spending more time with SMAC then SotM at the moment, but unless we get momentum there I'll be back here more again.

In GlobalDefines.xml this tag value changed to 0 from 1
<Define>
<DefineName>RENDER_WATER</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>0</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>


Where did you find that in the global defines XML?

Okay, I have mad some major breakthroughs on the map script.

First of all I figured out our Dust Sea problem (I must have spend at least 50 hour altogether trying to figure this one out).

appearentaly this (in CIV4UnitInfos) is bugged somhow:
<TerrainImpassables>
<TerrainImpassable>
<TerrainType>TERRAIN_DUSTSEA</TerrainType>
<bTerrainImpassable>1</bTerrainImpassable>
</TerrainImpassable>
</TerrainImpassables>

and does not work for land terrain in your borders. We will have to do almost all of our right of passage controls with the SDK.

I also figured out why we weren't able to get rid of all the old terrain, features, bonuses, and improvements. There are a whole pile of references to the old improvements, etc. in the xml\buildings\CIV4PlotLSystem.xml. This file controls how the map artwork is drawn (orientation and location of buildings, etc.). This is a huge file and will take a long time to adjust it to suit the moon map.

Note: We can also use this to control building placement so that their is no conflicts with 3d route system. Thus we will be able to have 3d maglev tracks and roads(imagine 3d glass walkways for roads:D)

Edit: I still need to figure out exactly how this file works.

In this file, I only tinkered with the cottage system. And I know any new improvement (graphic references) must be added in it too.
I suppose with the building placement part you mean on what spot in a tile we can put an improvement? Be warned, as far as I know this file doesn't regulates the building placement in city tiles.

Nice work matthewv.

I suppose with the building placement part you mean on what spot in a tile we can put an improvement?

Yes, from the looks of it.

Be warned, as far as I know this file doesn't regulates the building placement in city tiles.

Yes, I know that. There is a seperate similar file for cities.

First attempt at terrae hightmaps:
153308

That doesn't look too shabby? It has a recurring pattern tho.
Actually, it looks better then what Gerikes achieved in smacmod.

Ya, I know It still needs some work. That was only my first attempt.

Complex hight maps and terrian textures are difficult to do because you have to make sure each block matches with (edit: 4) other blocks for each side the matches the same terrain.

Right now it also looks funny when units go over it since it so so bumpy and steep.

Is this something you're simply messing around with for the fun of it or do you plan on putting it into the mapscript?

As we need art to match our new terrain I will also be doing the terrain artwork (including hieght maps).
Unless of course you are volunteering.:rolleyes:

If we do have volunteers for terrain artwork here is a list of things we need artwork for:

-Rilles terrain texture and hightmaps
-Terrae terrain texture and hightmaps
-3d .nif for Crater Rims (as well as new terrain texture)
-3d .nif for Crater feature
-3d .nif for Craters feature
-New texture for cratered terrain
Edit: forgot to add
-3d .nif for Ejecta feature
-3d .nif for Domes feature

Anyone willing to do any of these let me know.

I can have a decent working new mapscript by the end of the month but it will take me longer to finish all the artwork (I will do rough placeholder artwork till all the new terrain artwork is done.)

No volunteering from me matthewv. I'll leave terrain artwork to the experts. My modeling time is focused on getting a working mindworm.

That doesn't look too shabby? It has a recurring pattern tho.
Actually, it looks better then what Gerikes achieved in smacmod.

What do I need to do to be in the secret club that gets to see what Gerikes has achieved in smacmod.:please: ;)

I am jealous of all you privalaged people. (I might even make you guys a mapscript if you let me in your secret club.)

You can ask to be included in the SMAC mod. For a mapscript we might let you in!

What do I need to do to be in the secret club that gets to see what Gerikes has achieved in smacmod.:please: ;)

You have already seen what Gerikes achieved for heightmaps. He came over here and discussed his results a bit with you. Since then, nothing new on that topic. You're still the forum expert on the matter? ;)

You can ask to be included in the SMAC mod. For a mapscript we might let you in!

Sign me up please.:) Of course the Song of the Moon mapscript will get first priority, but making SMAC mapscript to suit SMAC won't be to difficult as I will have overcome most of my difficulties developing a mapscript for the moon.

You have already seen what Gerikes achieved for heightmaps.
From the screen shots he posted in this thread it looks like he just had flat terrain at a higher elevation. I was thinking that he had done something more substantial done for the SMAC mod.

You're still the forum expert on the matter?
I can hardly claim to be an expert. I just happen to explore areas that only a few have explored in the past.

You need to sign yourself up by asking to join in the Group Memberships area. After that Gerikes needs to add you.

Of course the Song of the Moon mapscript will get first priority,

I'll take your word on that! :trouble:

but making SMAC mapscript to suit SMAC won't be to difficult as I will have overcome most of my difficulties developing a mapscript for the moon.

The main "difficulty" thus far for a smac mapscript is to put some new features + ensure that fungus replaces jungles and has a random chance to appear almost everywhere on the map (latitude wise) when it is generated.

But if your terrae heightmaps and rilles depressions are succesfull I can see some of that ported to smac too. :D

The main "difficulty" thus far for a smac mapscript is to put some new features + ensure that fungus replaces jungles and has a random chance to appear almost everywhere on the map (latitude wise) when it is generated.

But if your terrae heightmaps and rilles depressions are succesfull I can see some of that ported to smac too. :D

Np, that would be very easy.:cool:

You need to sign yourself up by asking to join in the Group Memberships area. After that Gerikes needs to add you.
Hmm.. the only SMAC mod listed in Group memberships is "Mod: Civ4 SMAC" lead by Wodan. I thought Gerikes was the leader. Is this the correct group or is you group closed ATM.

Oops, Wodan is now the leader.

Wodan is in the team Gerikes and Woodelf started to assemble. I think it's still responsibility of Gerikes to decide if you can come. Wodan is lead manager now IIRC.

Wodan is in the team Gerikes and Woodelf started to assemble. I think it's still responsibility of Gerikes to decide if you can come. Wodan is lead manager now IIRC.

Ok thanks, Request sent.:D

Did Matthewv missed his deadline? :D

Shh, I was hoping no-one would realize.;)

Don't worry I have be hard at work on it. The mapscript is pretty much ready to go. The only main thing left to do is features and coast hightmaps(for rilles). The coast highmaps have been driving me crazy since they don't work the same way hills do and when I look at the default hightmaps for coasts, most of then seem to be empty files.

I would say I could have it done this weekend but I don't want to miss my dealine twice. (you can blame SMAC for distracting me)

No worries matthew. RL and a much needed break from modding have made me miss many recent deadlines. ;)

Here is a patch to SotM024B including the new mapscipt. Just unzip into the mods folder(you must have SotM024B already in the mods folder):

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/50491/SotM024B.zip

Note: You no longer need to place the moon_map.py file in your public maps folder. (Thanks to Ellestar for figuring this out)

Please excuse the poor graphics. I was originally going to finish all the graphics before releasing this but I don't have the patience ATM to do them. Anyone willing to work on the graphics you are more than welcome to go ahead. I will likely not be working on the graphics for a long time as I would like to start working on the map scripts for SMAC.

There is also currently only one option for the terrain features setting as I am still confused of exactly what Goemodder wanted with this setting.

Feel free to post comments on the map script, especially what is wrong with it and how it can be improved.

Thanks matthew. I'll let Geo incorporate the patch into whatever he has. I'm not sure what he's worked on in the last month or so, but he has the most recent build.

Well well, seems like my vacation absence wasn't missed. ;)
Thanks Matthewv, I'll look into your work the soonest. :)

Welcome back, Geo !
Did you get the HRE club card ?

Holy Roman Empire? I was born in one of its former territories, snipper. ;)

Please excuse the poor graphics. I was originally going to finish all the graphics before releasing this but I don't have the patience ATM to do them. Anyone willing to work on the graphics you are more than welcome to go ahead. I will likely not be working on the graphics for a long time as I would like to start working on the map scripts for SMAC.

There is also currently only one option for the terrain features setting as I am still confused of exactly what Geomodder wanted with this setting.

Feel free to post comments on the map script, especially what is wrong with it and how it can be improved.

Quite a shame, I knew it was a bad idea marshalling you into the SMAC-camp. :shake: ;)

I'll try to explain later what I meant with the terrain features setting, once I figured out all the changes you made.

The rilles look basically good, except for the blue "floor" in it. Don't know if this is my graphics card playing games with me?
I definitely will look for replacement graphics for the craters and cratered terrain features (for the time being ;) )
The domes look interesting, I'll have to find a setting which will put quite some on a map to see how they look.
I'm quite happy with how the terrae look at this stage. Only have to see how placing bases and improvements on this terrain type look.
The edges of the map are still abrupt. Can you tell me which parameter would allow to see the "icecaps" on a globemap in the pythonscript? I can try to adjust it myself then...

The edges of the map are still abrupt. Can you tell me which parameter would allow to see the "icecaps" on a globemap in the pythonscript? I can try to adjust it myself then...

Thats not a map script parameter. In order to remove the icecaps I simply modified Art/Terrain/Features/WorldCap/WorldCapIce.dds. If you want to remove the icecaps simply remove this file (or edit it to what you want ice caps to look like)

Quite a shame, I knew it was a bad idea marshalling you into the SMAC-camp.

It is getting rather dead here at SotM since everyone working on SotM is also on the SMAC team.

It is getting rather dead here at SotM since everyone working on SotM is also on the SMAC team.

Well, SMAC has more of a future IMO, but at some point I'd like to get this buttoned up in Vanilla and see if there's a desire to go into BtS.

Guess it has all the earmarks of becoming a solo-project. :(

Guess it has all the earmarks of becoming a solo-project. :(

:confused:

Solo?

I honestly thought there would be more than just 4-5 people excited about the mod being reborn. Hence, the lack of motivation lately. I know that AA is keen on continuing this for BtS, as am I.

Guess it has all the earmarks of becoming a solo-project. :(

Im not giving up on SotM. I will just be dividing my time between SotM and SMAC. Any changes you want to the map script I still intend to do.

Well, okay, I'll try to incorporate the new stuff before the end of the month then. ;)

Thanks Geo. I've honestly forgotten what new stuff we have so I'm eager to see it now. :p

The citysets look awesome.

Did we ever figure out the tga gamefonts issue?

I think it was solved. Snipper's graphics for the ideologies and stuff are visible now. :)

I think it was solved. Snipper's graphics for the ideologies and stuff are visible now. :)

Not in my version it isn't. ;)

I'm glad you're keeping track Geo. You make a much better leader than I do.

:lol:
I know what you're heading to, sneaky one. ;)

:)

And I'm a better helper than a leader...

Connect the dots. :p

Quite a shame, I knew it was a bad idea marshalling you into the SMAC-camp. :shake: ;)

GeoModder and woodelf are going to start hating me. :scared:

GeoModder and woodelf are going to start hating me. :scared:

Nah. Ideally these two projects are interconnected. One is moon based and the other on Alpha Centauri. Whatever isn't usuable for one can be ported to the other. We need to share. :)

Testing the mapscripts functionalities a bit. Need to recheck the intended stuff in it again before I can give usefull feedback.

On the graphics themself: Maria -and polar terrain is of course perfect. And the polar terrain appears on the spots where I asked it to: surrounded by mountain/terrae terrain. IMO, the "stubbed" look of the terrae terrain is nice, but it gives problems with the cityset buildings as they exist now. The hightdifference is too pronounced for the buildings size so either the terrain must be made more like a hill or we use bigger looking buildings which have a "basement" part as recommended by the cityset creators.
Personally, I'm in favour of the latter because the first-era cities will look more "digged" in the landscape then.

The craters and ejecta, well, I hope they're only filler terrain. :mischief: In any case I feel there's too little ejecta but since 2 features can't be on top of one another I guess their use is limited.
The rilles snake around just fine on the map, but I still wonder if the blue bottom is a result of my poor graphics card or a bug in their creation? Matthewv?
The domes look basically good, but I would "flatten" them a bit like a regular hill so they occupy the whole tile.

Btw, Matthewv, what sort of experiments were you doing with the resources? I noticed a whole bunch of new graphics but appearantly not used yet?

Do I need to redo some models Geo for the basements? Ugh, it's been a long time since I did these.

Do I need to redo some models Geo for the basements? Ugh, it's been a long time since I did these.

Better a decision is made first on how we want the terrae terrain to look. If it stays as it is, most models would need to be redone, yes.
Is it much effort creating such pretty much square-looking structures? I could always attempt to use bigger leafs first...

Not a ton of effort, but most likely I'd need to re-UVmap them, re-texture, and then re-export. Not a thrilling day by any means. :p

What happens if we make it so colonies can only be founded upon flat terrain? Would that help?

What happens if we make it so colonies can only be founded upon flat terrain? Would that help?

It would limit the habitable parts of a map alot, since terrae make up a large portion of the map. Not to mention it isn't very real-life. ;)

It would limit the habitable parts of a map alot, since terrae make up a large portion of the map. Not to mention it isn't very real-life. ;)

:hmm:

Well, let me know what I need to do Geo. I haven't messed with citysets much lately and this lunar set wasn't really designed to be a cityset originally.

Do these have basements that need to be extended or no basements at all?

Testing the mapscripts functionalities a bit. Need to recheck the intended stuff in it again before I can give usefull feedback.

On the graphics themself: Maria -and polar terrain is of course perfect. And the polar terrain appears on the spots where I asked it to: surrounded by mountain/terrae terrain. IMO, the "stubbed" look of the terrae terrain is nice, but it gives problems with the cityset buildings as they exist now. The hightdifference is too pronounced for the buildings size so either the terrain must be made more like a hill or we use bigger looking buildings which have a "basement" part as recommended by the cityset creators.
Personally, I'm in favour of the latter because the first-era cities will look more "digged" in the landscape then.

The craters and ejecta, well, I hope they're only filler terrain. :mischief: In any case I feel there's too little ejecta but since 2 features can't be on top of one another I guess their use is limited.
The rilles snake around just fine on the map, but I still wonder if the blue bottom is a result of my poor graphics card or a bug in their creation? Matthewv?
The domes look basically good, but I would "flatten" them a bit like a regular hill so they occupy the whole tile.

Btw, Matthewv, what sort of experiments were you doing with the resources? I noticed a whole bunch of new graphics but appearantly not used yet?

Yes, all crater, dome and ejecta, and rille artwork are fillers. All the features need to be "flattened" IMO to about half their current hight and proper textures made. I would also like to make the crater models more random looking (more like forests in vanilla civ)

The blue bottom rilles can easily be fixed with BtS. I could also fix it now but I would have to find the art file the is causing the blue bottoms (they appear fine on my computer).

I have done nothing with resourses yet.


How much building artwork has been done? If we already have a significant amount of buildings, don't bother adding basements. we'll just modify the terrea hight maps in order to get get the buildings to display nicely.

Heres some tiled craters I set up. The corners all mesh up. you may have to scale them down. There's dds files here. (http://www.1morerun.net/Civ4/SotM/Crater%20texture.rar)

http://www.1morerun.net/Civ4/SotM/crater1.jpg

http://www.1morerun.net/Civ4/SotM/crater2.jpg

http://www.1morerun.net/Civ4/SotM/crater3.jpg

Thanks,:goodjob:

I will have a look at then to see which one looks best in game.