Project WOEMAC - You Are Being Given a Choice

[Guest Pfunk]

OK, my friends and colleagues here at CA are some of the most informed fans of the ThirdWire series, so I'm coming to you for help.

 

In light of what we've seen at ThirdWire regarding any completely new engine (SF3 will be a long time coming, if ever), I have been working hard on the preliminary planning stages of my next project. The aircraft I released earlier this year were an experiment to judge my comfort level at working with aircraft. I feel competent enough for the next project, a revival of the Black Sea terrain that has been dubbed Project WOEMAC (you can thank Kevin Stein for that name, he gave it to the first version of the Black Sea terrain).

 

There is one of two ways the terrain can go, and I am throwing it open to the people who going to play the game to decide kind of how they want this to go.

 

Option 1 - A terrain that includes only the Crimean Peninsula and the Western Caucasus, the farthest south it would go would be Georgia, the furthest west it will go is the west coast of the Crimean, the furthest east it would go is probably Volgodonsk. This is probably the most accurate terrain compared to LOMAC in terms of distance between points. The original terrain was probably 50% scale. This one would be closer to about 75-80%.

 

Option 2 - Much closer to the original Black Sea Terrain for the Gen 1 games. It includes the northern half of Turkey. It will have shorter distances and will probably be around 60-66% scale.

 

The bottom line is, do you want Turkey in there or not? Please discuss and I will review what the community has to say over the weekend.

[+Dave]

Option 1

[+Wrench]

It all depends, realisticlly, on how much time you want to spend targeting the map.

 

Blue and Red (no pun intended!) sides still need to be represented (ie: NATO/WarPac). After 1990, the Nations.ini could possibly change them (the republics of the USSR) to FRIENDLY.

 

Personally, I'd need to see a 'basic' map (an bmp/jpg of the HFD) to see if that would be a problem

 

So, no help from me!

 

but option 1 sounds good

 

wrench

kevin stein

[Guest Pfunk]

Option 1 would very likely mean a Ukraine vs. an enemy sort of scenario. It's the one I like more. This is a terrain that's really meant for a 1980-present scenario. It's definitely not a 70s sort of situation unless you think the Ukrainians would be pissed off enough to go it alone.

 

 

[+Stary]

Option 1 seems more apealing -better map size factor. For Turkey scenarios we have great map by Umut.

[+NeverEnough]

I'd vote for Option 1!

[Slartibartfast]

I vote Option 1 as well... as the Anatolia Terrain covers Turkey et al...

[+EricJ]

Option 1, and in agreeance with everybody that Umut pretty much has Turkey well done...

[+allenjb42]

Option 1 please, though I'll take whatever you release with thanks.

[xclusiv8]

Option uno

[+Heberth]

uno too

[+Brain32]

My favorite terrain, old version is a constant in my WoE install

 

I say option 1 too

[Guest Pfunk]

The majority has spoken.

 

 

You may notice that there is some of the north coast of Turkey still remaining, I had to do that in order to have a workable terrain that avoided the wall. There probably won't be anything useful down there. Probably. Maybe an airfield if it'll fit.

 

It goes all the way to the west coast of the Caspian, but that's not usable either. Volgograd about as far east as it'll go. Please ignore the blockiness of some of the water. Tiling will add more detail.

 

Anyway, that's what mission planners and aircraft modders will have to work with. Thoughts and comments welcome.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Pfunk

[dsawan]

Option 1

[+Wrench]

The Wall is an easy fix....

 

from FlightEngine.ini

 

 

[WorldSettings]

SectorWidth=20

SectorHeight=20

SectorMaxObject=256

Border=35000.0

MinHeight=1.0

MaxHeight=35000.0

[Lexx_Luthor]

Wrench, what horizon distance are you running with Wall=35E+3 *and* can you see beyond the north-south map edges?