Videogame Art: Planetary Annihilation

An 80x80 map resulted in t3 bombers to take minutes to get around over the map though. Totally different scales, as the units in SupCom were smaller compared to the map sizes.

I haven't played SupCom. I was merely repeating what I've heard people say on this issue. The reason I didn't research it more is because it is an insignificant distinction. If PA doesn't already support larger surface areas than SupCom, it obviously eventually will, so the complaints of the naysayers are shortsighted.

that's totally a missquote !

I highly doubt that summaries the differences between the two.

and also you made it worse!

not by unit size to terrain ratio.

I got the conversion wrong once, where am I going awry now?

80km * 80km = 6,400km^2

800m * 800m * 4 * 3.14 ~= 8,038,400 m^2 ~= 8km^2

Map size matters so much less than game pacing anyway. SupCom units traveled slow to make reinforcing armies hard. PA is all about throwing steady streams of units into the fight.

I am not summarizing their differences in that paragraph. I am merely saying what I am saying.

So 2,271 radius to have surface area equaling SupCom 80x80.

I wouldn't be so sure that the SupCom units are much smaller than PA units relative to the terrain...

A 5km map in Sup Com has 256 grid squares, so 1 grid = 19.53125m.
A T1 UEF tank in Sup Com has a range of 18 squares, so ~350 meters.
A T1 tank in PA has a range of 100 meters.

Can someone more familiar than I with both PA and Sup Com give an estimation compared to unit size as to whether the Sup Com T1 UEF tank has 3 times the range of that in PA? If not, you can then get a rough ratio between the two.

that's another one for the book of haikus,

I'm booking a signing tour for you and @MrTBSC you guys are gonna do a joint publication and go far.

they kinda freaking are.









I'm going skiing tomorrow, this one just makes me itch for skiing.

Continuing.





This one's very interesting as you can see (faded into pure white because of the distance) a snow capped peak that's on the extreme opposite of the map where we're standing. it's surprising that at this distance it's even rendered at all I think if we were to zoom out a bit more it would disappear entirely into the fog. ↓
here it is again.

I'm stopping there but I didn't even visit maps with half of the vertical offset that you can have in FA.

as Cola_colin pointed out some maps can take minutes to get across of. by minutes, you're supposed to understand 55mins using the commander, 10-15minutes using a fighter or scout

I wouldn't have made this thread otherwise : https://www.google.fr/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#safe=off&q=scale megathread

Just want to point out that most units in SupCom are as tall as a mature fir tree (10-80 metres). Assuming those trees in the game are in fact fir trees.

that's a good measuring stick.

Try a good map.

Heyo!

?

Well if you're having trouble finding trees, try a different map.

wow I'm getting the very strong vibe you didn't see the posts above yours.

and no I wasn't trying to illustrate difficulty in finding trees srsly WTF?

It illustrated my point even further because if the units are as big as a trees (and they're not as tall, only the commander and buildings or experimentals are taller) then the trees you see in that picture are a good measuring stick (as I said) and show you just how much the units are wildly insignificant compared to the terrain in FA.

@tatsujb

I think you're missing the point a bit, if a fir tree is 10 - 80 meters and the units are as big as the fir tree then units would be even bigger than the PA commander who is about 10 meters tall.

no you guys are missing the point.

trees only started bing in this conversation when geers popped in.
https://forums.uberent.com/threads/videogame-art-planetary-annihilation.67289/page-2#post-1056519
you got some catching up to do.

I don't care about trees. If you wanna use them as measuring sticks for the terrain, have a field day. but for the units, it really doesn't interest me.