And you think we have problems of scale!

Col. Gibbon · Post by **Col. Gibbon** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 12:21 am

http://www.simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.p ... 41&fpart=1

They really need to get a life! :lol:

Wudpecker · Post by **Wudpecker** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 3:00 am

Each of our once-expert specialists in EAW has been forced into unfamiliar coding territory with this source code--so they don't think they know everything there is to know.

Consider ourselves lucky to be so short-handed! :roll:

sydbod · Post by **sydbod** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:36 am

What an impressive thread....i want some of the action.....

Col. Gibbon · Post by **Col. Gibbon** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 12:28 pm

Hi Syd.

I hope you have you flame retardent underware on. :lol:

But maybe, just maybe for 1.3 we could consider going to one scale for everything, as in my test exe. :wink:

sydbod · Post by **sydbod** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 2:17 pm

Hi John,

Well at the moment I am in the nuddy after a nice late swim in the pool.

I also wonder why the scales were actually changed within EAW between the various objects.
I suspect there has to be a good reason.
It is something worthy of a trial, but who would want to redo all those models and in the end find that there really was a necessary reason the original developers went down the path they did.

Col. Gibbon · Post by **Col. Gibbon** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 2:40 pm

Hi Sydbod.

As we proved a long tine ago, all the models are built to near enough the same scale, 1/48.

The exe manipulates the scale, and makes things look bigger or smaller by type, so changing everything to the same scale is easy. Just things like flight files, gun flashes, ect have to be changed to take account of the new scale.

rotton50 · Post by **rotton50** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 9:24 pm

Syd,

Were you trying to give new meaning to the phrase "hunt and pecker"?

sydbod · Post by **sydbod** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:08 am

"hunt and pecker"

OHHHHH I like that.

I suppose it come a close second to a similar saying where the "h" is changed for another letter.

rotton50 · Post by **rotton50** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:26 am

punt and pecker?

I don't get it.

Shreck · Post by **Shreck** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:02 am

jeez,Ray,dont you "c" it? :roll:

Iron Mike · Post by **Iron Mike** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 5:09 am

Hunt for a Kegger?

rotton50 · Post by **rotton50** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:02 pm

Oh, okay, now I get it:

Punt and Kick' er

Iron Mike · Post by **Iron Mike** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 6:25 pm

You're too cool Ray. It's like you know it all. BTW, how did the French Maid airdrop go?

rotton50 · Post by **rotton50** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 6:26 pm

The only thing to get stiff was my neck, from looking up in the sky!

Pobs · Post by **Pobs** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:53 pm

well, just to get back to the original point here for a moment ( boring I know !!).... the basic problem seems to stem either from a problem with the 3dz editor or 3dz format that didnt allow the construction of very large 3dz's so they were built smaller then 'zoomed' on display in the 3d world.

there is also the basic problem that the ground tiles are 4Km wide but only have a 256x256 pixel image to skin them, so in theory a pixel is approx 4 metres wide on the ground... on that scale most roads would only be 1 pixel wide and most buildings only a couple of pixels across, so the ground scale of the default terrain is way out of scale, and the designers then rescaled ground objects to fit the ground scale rather than the true scale of the 3d world....

If we want a realistic ground and true aircraft scale we would need to address the problem of the terrain resolution first I think...

cheers,

Pobs