tbd_"underpark"

[Mandrad]

Hey guys,

For now i only have this preview. - I hope i can set a simple test file by the end of the week , just to allow us to check how it plays. Map will be available to play in at least 1 of Maimers servers (ill post it here when it hapens).
At a later fase, after deciding final objects positioning, i will enhance/finish graphics, and try to make it 2 layers parallax. For those im thinking to use 102% for background, and 104% for layer 1 - foreground is of course 100%.
All comments are very welcome!

For a slightly better quality image download here:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/xyninf...rpark_test.jpg

Tx Maimer for advices/suggestions

________________

EDIT:
Final file here
________________

[Stormich]

Looks pretty good, hopefully it will play good It's not neutral bomb, is it?

[Mandrad]

No, its not.

[number 3]

it looks good, however, have you thought about making bases? where are they going to be? Thier might be too many ways to bomb it if its a spawn to team base. In my opinion a nutral bomb would be awesome, it looks like a good ffa map. So make it a nutral bomb and let the peeps fight to the death for it... This is just my opinion

[Stormich]

Neutral bomb maps take forever to finish with all the wasting.

[Mandrad]

Was faster than i thought, heres the link to playable file:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/jdrtkz...underpark.altx

Please share your opinions!
Tx

EDIT:
Available on server "ACE COMBAT - 6v6 TBD"

[nobodyhome]

played on this for a little bit. it's good, the layout is solid, there are multiple areas of control throughout the middle, and there are 2-3 viable final bomb run routes.

the only issue i'd like to point out is that the bomb spawn is low. while it doesn't hurt the game much, i don't think it adds to the game either, it just makes it slightly annoying to have to go down there to get the bomb and then afterburn your way up.

[Mandrad]

This map is finished and can be played at *ACE COMBAT* 6v6 TBD.
Link to the file at the head of the thread.

Tx Maimer, for all the support

[nesnl]

Here is an updated screenshot of the map.

[[Y]]

I kind of like the gray rocks better than this sandpaper-colored one. I was hoping the rocks would be different shades of gray. The current version looks like the cave was dug under a beach.

[Radium]

I would put the spawns below the rock instead of on top, like how cave is.
And i agree with [Y], i like the gray better

[Mandrad]

"Asteroids" rocks are grey, i had to step away from that - 'underground' went gold. I agree texture is a bit sand alike.
The spawns; it would be crowded at the bottom, but the main reason, is that "top lob" is easy if no oposition or turrets! Spawn points near that top gap help defenders a bit and spices up the throw moment!

Tx for comments

[nobodyhome]

Map has been posted on ladder. While playing, we noticed something odd--the background parallaxes faster than the foreground haha.

Might want to fix that. Let me know when you update the map and link me to a downloadable version.

[classicallad]

very well done mandrad, i have yet to try it but i look forward to.

We are lucky to have map makers like you, thanks =]

[nesnl]

Originally Posted by nobodyhome

Map has been posted on ladder. While playing, we noticed something odd--the background parallaxes faster than the foreground haha.

Might want to fix that. Let me know when you update the map and link me to a downloadable version.

Isn't that how parallax is supposed to work? The objects farther away move faster left to right so they appear to actually travel less distance. Think of looking out the window when you drive your car, the tree on the side of the road seems to "fly by" but the building far off in the distance barely moves.

[[Y]]

Originally Posted by nesnl

The objects farther away move faster left to right

So wouldn't the building in the distance move faster than the tree on the side of the road?

[nesnl]

Originally Posted by [Y]

So wouldn't the building in the distance move faster than the tree on the side of the road?

Okay, two things. First, if you continue to add white text to every post you make i am going to first give you an infraction and then delete your entire post. Second, you obviously have no idea how the map editor works. The perception of how fast something is moving as compared to how fast it is actually moving are different.

[[Y]]

Originally Posted by nesnl

Okay, two things. First, if you continue to add white text to every post you make i am going to first give you an infraction and then delete your entire post. Second, you obviously have no idea how the map editor works. The perception of how fast something is moving as compared to how fast it is actually moving are different.

You're right. I don't know much about the map editor, and since you do, I can't really make an argument against your map making knowledge, so whatever you say.

And what is it about white text that bothers you so much anyway? Was it that specific incidence in which I attacked your analogy? Would it have been better if it was black text?

[nesnl]

It had nothing to do with what you specifically said in this thread. I just noticed that it has been a trend recently and that you have been using it. It isn't nearly as clever as people want to think it is and it is only used to either dodge the intended filters or take underhanded digs at people. Seeing as I moderate the forums it makes it a lot easier to moderate when I can actual read what's written without having to highlight posts looking for secret messages.

As for the map, I opened Underpark in the editor and the parallax layers are working exactly as intended. The background layer moves faster (thereby giving the perception of moving slower) and the midground moves slower (thereby giving the perception of moving faster). What exactly do you see happening nobo?

[nobodyhome]

That's exactly what we're seeing and that's exactly what's wrong. How does having the layer move faster give it the perception of it moving slower? That doesn't make sense.

[nesnl]

Originally Posted by nobodyhome

That's exactly what we're seeing and that's exactly what's wrong. How does having the layer move faster give it the perception of it moving slower? That doesn't make sense.

It's best to think of maps like lost city. The buildings in the far background are on the back most layer. However, those buildings appear to move slower (think less distance) than the midground buildings and clouds. However, that layer is actually moving faster than the midground layer. This is because it must cover more ground when it is moving in order to appear to be moving less.

If that doesn't make sense, think conceptually of a map that is 2048 pixels wide. (I say this assuming you have a 1024 screen width resolution). Now let's say we put a background in that is 1024 pixels wide. The background will appear to never move when you fly around the map, however the background is actually moving very fast with respect to the game layer. Just think about how it has to continually "slide" left and right in order to stay exactly centered on your screen.

Anyway, this might not make any sense, but believe me when I say that the underpark map is working exactly as intended. The background is moving faster in the game and thereby appearing to move slower on your screen. (Again, think about how objects farther away from you move less distance when you are traveling by them).

[nobodyhome]

I'm not sure what's wrong with the map then. When we played it, multiple people mentioned that the background was "dizzying" and redshift said that it was because the background was parallaxing faster than the foreground.

[DiogenesDog]

Originally Posted by nesnl

It's best to think of maps like lost city. The buildings in the far background are on the back most layer. However, those buildings appear to move slower (think less distance) than the midground buildings and clouds. However, that layer is actually moving faster than the midground layer. This is because it must cover more ground when it is moving in order to appear to be moving less.

Since I don't think this is clear, what he means here is that the background is moving in the SAME DIRECTION as the player, kind of like if you were walking next to a friend vs walking by a stationary object.

[nesnl]

Originally Posted by nobodyhome

I'm not sure what's wrong with the map then. When we played it, multiple people mentioned that the background was "dizzying" and redshift said that it was because the background was parallaxing faster than the foreground.

I think it may be because they are parallaxing so slowly. Maybe if they both parallaxed at the same rate then it wouldn't be causing these problems. I had a similar problem with asteroids at first because the planets move so slowly they almost stutter at times.

Originally Posted by DiogenesDog

Since I don't think this is clear, what he means here is that the background is moving in the SAME DIRECTION as the player, kind of like if you were walking next to a friend vs walking by a stationary object.

This is exactly the case. Like driving in your car and being next to another car. While the other car seems to be moving very slowly, it is actually moving very fast, it is only the perception due to your own speed that makes it look as though it's going slowly.

[[Y]]

Originally Posted by nesnl

I think it may be because they are parallaxing so slowly. Maybe if they both parallaxed at the same rate then it wouldn't be causing these problems. I had a similar problem with asteroids at first because the planets move so slowly they almost stutter at times.



This is exactly the case. Like driving in your car and being next to another car. While the other car seems to be moving very slowly, it is actually moving very fast, it is only the perception due to your own speed that makes it look as though it's going slowly.

Oh, so that's what you meant when you said background images that move faster appear slower. In my defense, though, in your analogy with the tree on the road and the building far away, the tree and the building are stationary =/

[nesnl]

Originally Posted by [Y]

Oh, so that's what you meant when you said background images that move faster appear slower. In my defense, though, in your analogy with the tree on the road and the building far away, the tree and the building are stationary =/

Yah I know, but the principle still applies, just in a different way. Think of the buildings and the tree drawn on pieces of paper and then having to move them so that they stay in the correct perspective to your car. That's basically what an Altitude map is, different layers that are moving at various speeds in order to "appear" to be moving slower or faster to your eye. It just brings us back to the original issue which is layers that move faster appear to be moving slower to your eye. I know it's weird, but when you think about it it makes sense.

[nobodyhome]

Just went on and checked the map on the ladder server, there's definitely something wrong with the parallaxing. I think there's several layers of background, and the frontmost background (if that makes sense) moves too fast (or too slow, depending on what point of reference you're thinking of) relative to the other layers.

If you want to see the problem go on the ladder servers and play that map out.

Or maybe the ladder is running an older version of the map that's bugged?

[nesnl]

Originally Posted by nobodyhome

Just went on and checked the map on the ladder server, there's definitely something wrong with the parallaxing. I think there's several layers of background, and the frontmost background (if that makes sense) moves too fast (or too slow, depending on what point of reference you're thinking of) relative to the other layers.

If you want to see the problem go on the ladder servers and play that map out.

Or maybe the ladder is running an older version of the map that's bugged?

I just went on the ladder servers as well. You have the most updated version and the speeds are correct. The midground moves slightly faster than the background, not sure what you are seeing, but if there is that much of a problem then it can be fixed so that there is only one parallax layer.

[Mandrad]

Im sry ive been away from this discussion but, no forum yesterday... and as always, nesnl had it very well covered for us alti players.
I checked it on ladder and everything is correct.
Im glad we decided - no vertical movement))))

My english isnt "supperb" so maybe i wont add much but still, im gonna try...
1st top layer is foreground, consider it has a hole, you can see 2nd layer behind that hole, and you can sneack pick (heres the english problems) imagine, 2 extra inches of image that was behind the rocks when you move to the oposite side of the rocks.
2nd layer (middle layer) has hole too, you can see the background layer behind that hole, But, due to the fact that its further away from us (viewers) now we cant sneack pick as much, now we can only see 1 inch.

This is why middle moves faster than background.
Hope this helped.

The less the movement the less the confusion... we can consider reducing middle layer width but i think its ok as it is.

The eye is tricky

[Mandrad]

Today i played tbd_underpark in non official 3... i dont wanna get cocky (i prefer gays to cockys) but i was thrilled...
Maimer told me this would be good but i think this turned to be awesome!!!

Hope to see it tbd_top4favourite )))

Tx KarlamMaim for making this official