Niptium
Warlord
Interesting, I'll look into it tonight. Are the few bugs ironed out? is it working with the latest Firaxis patch? Is multiplayer working a-ok?
[MAPSCRIPT] FaireWeather.py for Colonization
- Thread starter cephalo
- Start date
Androrc the Orc
Emperor
Niptium
Warlord
Hoi ! Small world isn't it!
Colonization has to be my favorite videogame franchise : up there with Secret of Mana (SNES) and the Legend of Zelda (SNES too). This map script is exactly what I'd been looking for. I'm so surprised I didn't get to it before.
Colonization has to be my favorite videogame franchise : up there with Secret of Mana (SNES) and the Legend of Zelda (SNES too). This map script is exactly what I'd been looking for. I'm so surprised I didn't get to it before.
cephalo
Deity
Wow, haven't had a post here in a while. Yeah that most recent bug is actually not a mapscript bug. That bug is in Colonization I believe.
This script should work for Mac and multiplayer. If it doesn't, let me know.
This script should work for Mac and multiplayer. If it doesn't, let me know.
... so it's time to 
I wanted to increase map sizes.
These are the values which I changed.
Unfortunately, the increase only works in x-direction (east - west). In y-direction (north - south) it seems to be capped at 100 (or actually, at 99, if my counting was correct).
Is there any way to get rid of this?
I wanted to increase map sizes.
These are the values which I changed.
Code:
self.hmWidth = 129
self.hmHeight = 129
...
WorldSizeTypes.WORLDSIZE_HUGE: (200 + mc.distanceToEurope * 4,100)Unfortunately, the increase only works in x-direction (east - west). In y-direction (north - south) it seems to be capped at 100 (or actually, at 99, if my counting was correct).
Is there any way to get rid of this?
cephalo
Deity
... so it's time to
I wanted to increase map sizes.
These are the values which I changed.
Code:self.hmWidth = 129 self.hmHeight = 129 ... WorldSizeTypes.WORLDSIZE_HUGE: (200 + mc.distanceToEurope * 4,100)
Unfortunately, the increase only works in x-direction (east - west). In y-direction (north - south) it seems to be capped at 100 (or actually, at 99, if my counting was correct).
Is there any way to get rid of this?
I haven't looked at this for a really long time, I notice that your world size is set to 100 in the Y direction. If you use that code, it will always be 100.
Also, its been a while but I think that the height map dimensions have to be equal to or larger than the largest map size. The exact rules should be written in the comments... I hope.
Thanks very much.
I didn't realize that the comma in the expression was a separator, not the decimal point as it is in the German notation.
Changing the ",100" to a ",200" did the trick.
Now everything works as I want it to work.
AlessandroPozza
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 19, 2010
- Messages
- 13
I see that everyone praise a lot this script...
..I'm afraid I have to dissent.
Enabling a way bigger mapsize is for sure a very good thing.
The same thing goes with the simulation of rainfalls' shadows (and the less erratic terrain ...
..but there are a couple of things (that, at least are happening to me using this script) that really don't have any logical sense or realism:
1- the total absence of cold latitudes:
no tundras or snow near the poles.
you might have even grasslands or plains that overrid ice in the top or bottom cells.
the vanilla script handled this in a extremely good way.
I cant' see why changing it and deleting it.
2- the presence of tundras or even SNOW cells ON THE EQUATOR LINE, just because there're peaks nearby.
I don't really see what's the point in it.
It doesn't have any logical sense.
...or at least there's a very bad misunderstanding of what tundra and snow are:
the only explanation I can see is that you wanted to recreate alpine climate in mountain ranges...
but, sorry, if this was the case, this kind of climate is already implicit in the peak terrain.
putting a snow or tundra cell near a peak only means that as the mountain range finishes suddenly appears a region with artic/tundra climate, covered entirely by snow... that, at some point, suddenly changes in.. plains or grasslands.
It would be like saying that the regions around the Rocky Mountains (like Montana, Oregon and Nevada) are fully covered by snow or tundra... and this is clearly not how things really are.
Mountain ranges doesn't mean snow.
Snow is on very high altitudes (=mountain peaks; on them, not in the regions around them) or high latitudes (=the nearer you get to the poles the more snow there is).
That's a pity, because it seems that you had done a very good work about rainfall shadows.
..I'm afraid I have to dissent.
Enabling a way bigger mapsize is for sure a very good thing.
The same thing goes with the simulation of rainfalls' shadows (and the less erratic terrain ...
..but there are a couple of things (that, at least are happening to me using this script) that really don't have any logical sense or realism:
1- the total absence of cold latitudes:
no tundras or snow near the poles.
you might have even grasslands or plains that overrid ice in the top or bottom cells.
the vanilla script handled this in a extremely good way.
I cant' see why changing it and deleting it.
2- the presence of tundras or even SNOW cells ON THE EQUATOR LINE, just because there're peaks nearby.
I don't really see what's the point in it.
It doesn't have any logical sense.
...or at least there's a very bad misunderstanding of what tundra and snow are:
the only explanation I can see is that you wanted to recreate alpine climate in mountain ranges...
but, sorry, if this was the case, this kind of climate is already implicit in the peak terrain.
putting a snow or tundra cell near a peak only means that as the mountain range finishes suddenly appears a region with artic/tundra climate, covered entirely by snow... that, at some point, suddenly changes in.. plains or grasslands.
It would be like saying that the regions around the Rocky Mountains (like Montana, Oregon and Nevada) are fully covered by snow or tundra... and this is clearly not how things really are.
Mountain ranges doesn't mean snow.
Snow is on very high altitudes (=mountain peaks; on them, not in the regions around them) or high latitudes (=the nearer you get to the poles the more snow there is).
That's a pity, because it seems that you had done a very good work about rainfall shadows.
cephalo
Deity
What I'm trying to do here is use the climate to give a sense of altitude apart from the premade mountain, hill, flat paradigm. Though the game did not intend for this use, I'm using mountains as differences in altitude rather than absolute altitude. For example, the 8000 ft. Olympic mountains near Seattle looks like a giant mountain and it does seem to leap right out of the Earth, but put that altitude in Tibet and it is lower than the deepest valley. There is perma snow near the equator in the Andes mountains. You have to use your imagination a little. It's just a different way to interpret the graphics, not a mistake.
First post to this thread for nearly a year, I see.
Anyhow... I just started playing Col again after a couple of years absence, and wondered if there was any parameter in Faireweather I could change, to reduce the likelihood of endless hills/mountains along the eastern coast? I've lost count of the number of times I've had to generate a new map because of it.
Thanks.
Anyhow... I just started playing Col again after a couple of years absence, and wondered if there was any parameter in Faireweather I could change, to reduce the likelihood of endless hills/mountains along the eastern coast? I've lost count of the number of times I've had to generate a new map because of it.
Thanks.
Similar threads
