Full MR Marianas pack uploaded to SOH!

Just about to wrap this up.

Just tweaking and playing right now. Got the harbor area on SW Tinian pretty much done. Standing by for a couple of new scenery objects.

These two screenies of Tinian and Saipan show what I worked on for a little while this evening.
View attachment 21296View attachment 21297

I toned down the LC on both. It just looked a bit too "busy" for my tastes.

Will do the same to Guam and Rota.
 
Top shelf stuff Chris. :applause:
I would imagine creating a single runway scenery after this project would be a real walk in the park. :rolleyes:

MaskRider said:
I spent the last couple o' days fooling with using a VTP1 poly linked to a custom_texture.bmp instead of the usual texpoly method.
Click to expand...
I'm just curious...were the VTP1 polys you tried for the runways only?
There was a thread a few months back that mentioned this. I think by leroy10. It sounded like it could be something really unique. :ques:

Dave
 
dvslats said:
I'm just curious...were the VTP1 polys you tried for the runways only?

Dave
Click to expand...

Well, it can be for the runways only- or for the runway "bed" anyway. You would still need to place an actual functioning AFD runway on top of it- with a visible or invisible surface- in order for it to work as a runway in CFS2.

More specifically. On this particular project- West Field, Tinian- I take this 512x512 textpoly_texture.bmp- the texture.bmp I normally use to texture a single standard ground texpoly-
View attachment 21316
and divide it into 4 256sq.bmp textures- nw, ne, sw and se corners. Then use G2Kv4 to "link" those 4 textures to 4 VTP1 polys.
View attachment 21317
So to answer your question. No, not really. The VTP1 linked polys I used were for the entire deal- runways, taxiways, roads- everything that you see in the texpoly.

Sorry for being so long winded about it!
MR
 
Hi Chris, I can see what you mean as far as that burned in look. There is a certain kind of "depth" in the end product.
Can I ask what didn't appeal to you about the VTP 1 method, or is it because of the size and surface of your Tinian and Saipan scenery? These are some huge fields.
Sorry for being so long winded about it!
Click to expand...
Hey, don't be...it was a good breeze.

Thanks, Dave
 
dvslats said:
Hi Chris, I can see what you mean as far as that burned in look. There is a certain kind of "depth" in the end product.
Can I ask what didn't appeal to you about the VTP 1 method, or is it because of the size and surface of your Tinian and Saipan scenery? These are some huge fields.

Thanks, Dave
Click to expand...

Hiya Dave,

The main thing that didn't appeal to me is it didn't return the results I was hoping for. The pluses didn't really outweigh the minuses. The biggest minus was that visually it didn't come out as clean looking as I wanted. I am thinking that if I play around with the layering I might be able to get the cleaner look that I want. And I will continue play with them. Plan to do a little this weekend.

It's also a bit more time consuming using the poly-with-linked-texture approach.

Another area that might help with the overall visuals too is if I can improve on the image creation routine I am using. I can't swear that the routine I use is optimal.

The textures for the texpolys are DXT3.Bmp 16-bit with an alpha channel mask.

The textures for the VTP1 linked polys start out as a regular bmp file (same as texpolys) then they have an alpha channel mask added (using DXTBmp), get save as a tga file with alpha. The the tga file gets opened in ImageTool, has mip maps added, format changed to 8-bit and then saved as a bmp file in ImageTool. I don't know if this methiod is optimal. Maybe someone else out there knows a more effective routine.

Thats it.
Chris
 
Yeah, I get your point Chris. From the bit of messing around I've done with bmps and alphas to 8 bit, the alphas are the real bugger. The tend to really degrade after the image tool conversion.

From the little experience I have...before sending the alpha to dxtbmp and still in the paint program I make the image size very large. 1024x1024 and even 2048. Adjust and enhance if needed. As I type this, starting at that size is even a better idea.

You know how dxtbmp doesn't care about the alpha image size.

It seems to help keep the soft edges better after going down to 8 bit.

That's my novice experience and I do not really know if this applies to tga textures, but thought that maybe there could be some similarities. :ques:

Thanks for taking the time in laying all of this out. I can really see how much effort and time goes into your projects. But hey, isn't that what hobbies are for? :)

Now...back to the normally scheduled program...
Dave
 
Hiya Dave,

Your novice experience is exactly the same as mine. All my alpha masks are 1024sq.

And, yes, that conversion to 8 bit color is a real detail killer.

BTW, as I am sure you are aware but maybe other are not, with texpolys CFS2 will use at full resolution any size texture file you throw in there- so long as it is an even multiple of 256sq (and no larger than 1024sq). But with VTP1 polys CFS2 automatically reduces the resolution of any texture file to 256sq. Thus the need to divide that original 512sq texture into 4 256sq- to avoid- hopefully- that loss of definition and gain the visual advantages of using a VTP1 poly.

Too bad that 8 bit conversion throws a monkey wrench into the works.

The only rules I can come up with are: the simpler and less complicated the masks and the texture the better; and of course the smaller the area to be covered by the 256sq texture the better.

Chris
 
Marianas pack construction drawing to a close!

marianas-cover2small.jpg


View attachment 21473View attachment 21474View attachment 21475View attachment 21476
Hi guys, working on the American version of Iwo at the moment. Its coming along nicely.

Plan on getting this thing out the door in the next 72 hours of so. West Field, Tinian and Tinian Harbor are all done.

MR
 
Hiya GR and all.

Didn't get much done over the weekend. I have made the decision to keep this Iwo Jima American version down and dirty though- its always tempting to go beyond. There will be a very simple VTP1 ground textures (as opposed to poly-linked-to-custom texture) at each airfield- South and Central.

South Field (originally Japanese Airfield No1) has a single 6000 foot runway and was the fighter strip. Central Field (originally Japanese Airfield No2) has a single 8500 foot runway for the B-29s. Initially there was going to be another parallel B-29 runway. It was graded and prepped but never paved. Likewise goes for what would have become North Field (Originally unfinished Japanese Airfield No3). It too was never developed into a flyable strip by the Americans.

My version of Central Field has a 8500 foot runway. By the end of the war it had been lengthened to 9800 feet.

Here how she looks so far- no scenery objects.
View attachment 21633View attachment 21634
MR
 
Wulf190 said:
Looking good Maskrider! Are you going to be combining all of these packs in to one when your done?
Click to expand...

Yep it will be named simly MR_Marianas.

The only difference between MR_Marianas and the latest beta-4 pack will be the addition of West Field, Tinian; Tinian Harbor, Iwo Jima-American version and a few additional tweaks and massages here and there. All previous versions have been cumulative beta versions built one upon the previous leading to this upcoming final version.

MR_Marianas should be released in a couple of days.

MR
 
A few changes to what I posted above about which runways were actually operational at Iwo and how long they were- and where they were located.

Change 1: I was under the impression from everything I had read that the B-29 runway at what the Americans named Central Field (Japanese No2) was merely an extension of the original main 5225 foot Japanese runway. But the pre and post US occupation diagrams and maps were not jibing with each other.

The Japanese main runway had a heading of 57/237 and was nearly parallel to the Airfield No1 main runway (later to become the US South Field). Problem is that all of the diagrams and photos of the US airfields show a marked changed in the heading of the main runway at Central Field- 10 degrees: from 57/237 to 67/247.

The screenies I posted earlier show the sirfields as I had them laid out going on the assumption that the new runway at Central fields was just an extension of the old Japanese runway at No2 Airfield on the same heading. I came to the conclusion that this just couldn't be true.

Change 2: Which US runways were actually operational? Earlier I was operating under certain assumptions, based on information from certain sources, that only the 6000 foot runway at South field and an 8500 foot runway (eventually paved to 9800 feet) at Central Field were ever operational. Turns out that new information and images convinced me that actually 3 runways were operational and paved. And that the 8500 main runway at Central field was actually very quickly paved to 9800 feet. And that the runway at North Field (unfinished Japanese Airfield No3) was an operational fighter strip paved to 5000 feet.

So, I went back and basically started over again and this time I am pretty sure that while not perfect we have a fairly accurate representation of what was happening with the American airfields at Iwo.

Screenies below show the current situation- drawn in only with FSSC so far with a very basic scenery object layout. Notice how much better the Central/North Field layout fills in the space when the main runway is lengthened to 9800 feet. Mush more like the photos.
View attachment 21673View attachment 21674View attachment 21675

Haven't decided yet whether to do a texpoly ground texture or just a simple VTP1 with G2Kv4.

Still need to add roads also.
MR
 
Iwo fighter strip? Ohhh that is nice. :jump:

I was hoping for this one to be part of the package.
:ernae:
 
Sunken and capsized ships!

OH YES! Almost forgot! Turns out that getting supplies off loaded from ship and to shore was an ongoing problem at Iwo from day one. There were no decent landing beaches or places to build docks or piers. HOWEVER- what they did try was putting in a sort of artificial harbor using "blocking" ships. Blocking ships were/are ships that are sunk to block channels and approaches to harbors an such. Well at Iwo on the central W shore they made a little breakwater harbor using blocking ships. You can still see them to this day if you look at Iwo in Google Earth. I read about this little harbor and then found a diagram that showed where it was and then found them in Google Earth. Anyhow I want to include the blocking ship breakwater harbor in this scenery. I am pretty sure that sometime recently some one made some capsized half sunk ships didn't they? Was it you Sully?

Map showing the blocking ship harbor
View attachment 21676
Google Earth image
View attachment 21677

Cheers,
MR
 
Another Picky

I stole this one off the web. You can just make out the sunken ship harbor.

Geez, this place really became developed! All of this on a volcanic rock. I don't think an inch was wasted.

So are you going to do all of these roads? :icon_eek: :icon_lol:
You know I'm just pulling your leg MR. That would be a month of Sundays and then some. I'll shuddup now. ;)
 
So are you going to do all of these roads? :icon_eek: :icon_lol:
Click to expand...
Hehe. Only in my worst nightmares! Nope I am only doing the roads that show in that diagram above. Simple pimple.

That is a great photo! When I went to save it to my Iwo info folder it turns out that I already had it but had never noticed the blocking ship harbor before. Up to this point I have pretty much ignored everything that doesn't show the airfield layouts.

Thanks Dave
MR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top