Number of features limited to 254 ?
-
Is the Number of Features which can be added to an Airbase limited to Max. 254 ?
Just wanted to ad some Taxi Signs to an Airbase but no more than 254 are possible.
-
Yes, you’ve reached the max.
Not just airbases though, all objects are restricted to that feature limit!
C9
-
Create another Objective with a deagg Distance of 6Nm … Set it type “Hill Top”, set no icon, on .te/.cam, co-locate it with the airbase (same coordinate), put all small objects in it.
-
Create another Objective with a deagg Distance of 6Nm … Set it type “Hill Top”, set no icon, on .te/.cam, co-locate it with the airbase (same coordinate), put all small objects in it.
Good Call, have caught the Idea, but have no Idea how to do it.
Is there a tutorial about this anywhere ? -
Just look in campaign file (with MC) how the “Airbase Scenery” was built , then check those “scenery” objectives in DBEditor - all shall be clear
-technically we are talking about 2 (or more) objectives , one close (onto) another , so with every feat count 254 - that’s = 2x 254 … enough feats ?
- now , One thing I don’t get it still, - Are those “scenery” objectives should be LINKed to the top-level one , eg airbase - I mean, is there a need to have a connection between the two?
DeeJay ?
- now , One thing I don’t get it still, - Are those “scenery” objectives should be LINKed to the top-level one , eg airbase - I mean, is there a need to have a connection between the two?
-
I mean, is there a need to have a connection between the two?
It is is just Taxi Sings or Fire Extinguishers … etc … how care if no link or Priority value. So no, link is not needed.
-
Aaah, no … my friend , it is not what I meant.
I’ve meant (the travel/cost) LINK between 2 OBJECTIVES (not features) , so , eg airbase is LINKED to city and then …
So is it “imperative” that - “scenery” objective is linked to “airbase” objective… for something … dunno what, maybe the code requires that objectives with “shared” features are linked together… for vehicles or other?
Thanks
-
Mhhh… what if i duplicate the Airbase Objective (f.e. LGBL)
- remove all unneeded Features, (leave Only the Run-/ Taxiways)
- place the needed Features (Taxi Signs etc) to the proper place,
- remove anything unneeded
- remove Links
- remove Point Data
will this work ? and what is to change else ?
-
Aaah, no … my friend , it is not what I meant.
I’ve meant (the travel/cost) LINK between 2 OBJECTIVES (not features) , so , eg airbase is LINKED to city and then …
So is it “imperative” that - “scenery” objective is linked to “airbase” objective… for something … dunno what, maybe the code requires that objectives with “shared” features are linked together… for vehicles or other?
Thanks
You’re over thinking the process. Why would a scenery objective need to be linked to anything? It has no military value!!
There is no requirement about objects with shared features?
C9
-
WEll. I’ve tried , seems nothing bad happens… at least it looks like , certainly no ctd. - it is little tricky to link 2 objectives close to each other, but objective filter trick in MC helps
Meh, it could be overthinking, but this feat sharing is still kind of uncharted territory for me. - and I always forget that in BMS engineers don’t have to enter objective to repair its features , contrary to the AF, where that was really “imperative” -that is if you wanted your objective repaired. - so, No link = not accessible …
Anyway, I’ll keep an eye on this - but I’m certain , nothing bad can happen.
Cheers
-
@Cloud:
You’re over thinking the process. Why would a scenery objective need to be linked to anything? It has no military value!!
There is no requirement about objects with shared features?
C9
This is partially correct.
Yes its correct to say these extra objectives son need to be linked. However this is not due to military value, but the fact that they are co-located at the same position.
Links are needed as soon as battalions need to travel to and from an Objective. This does not need to be because it has a importance (mil) but just for travel purpose.Gr Falcas
-
WEll. I’ve tried , seems nothing bad happens… at least it looks like , certainly no ctd. - it is little tricky to link 2 objectives close to each other, but objective filter trick in MC helps
Meh, it could be overthinking, but this feat sharing is still kind of uncharted territory for me. - and I always forget that in BMS engineers don’t have to enter objective to repair its features , contrary to the AF, where that was really “imperative” -that is if you wanted your objective repaired. - so, No link = not accessible …
Anyway, I’ll keep an eye on this - but I’m certain , nothing bad can happen.
Cheers
If 2 (or more) Objectives have the same location, a battalion can travel there if only one Obj has a link.
And so all the other Objs on the same position are occupied by the battalion once it gets to the location.This use of multiple Objs on the same position has been used from the beginning of Falcon already. Wonsan is a good example.
Gr Falcas
-
Links are needed as soon as battalions need to travel to and from an Objective. This does not need to be because it has a importance (mil) but just for travel purpose.
Gr Falcas
Well of course, but if there are multiple objects at the same general area, only one of them needs a ground link to complete movement. They all don’t have to have a ground link. You can see that in all high objective populated theaters, especially the cities. Best case, Israel.
Weird thing is in your next post you say that??
C9
-
Ok, HOW FAR is that “general area” ?
Eg. we have few objectives with shared feats , NOT on same X Y , but next objective is X+1 ; Y+1 … max X+3 ; Y+3
… is that too far ? how many X’s and/or Y’s can we get WITHOUT links ? (I know it depends on move type and terrain/road , eg tracks can move without road)
Cheers
-
General area is 1 tile.
To travel from tile to tile the Unit must have a reason to move that direction. And so a link is needed.
As written before, if the Objs are at the same location as in exact X/Y you don’t need a link for the secondary Obj.
But if its outside this you must consider adding a link.
With consider this mean you need to think about if a Battalion needs to travel there or through there.For example a extra Obj with taxi signs on an airbase does not need to be traveled to and can be ignored.
But if this is a village for example, yes you want to add a link. Even if this is only 1 KM away.EDIT:
If you have Objs so close together, you really need to think if that is needed or not.
Or if you are creating the theater correctly.
Do remember that we still have a limit of max 8000 Objs in the code for campaigns. Some theaters have more than this and are going to have troubles.gr Falcas
-
I know it depends on move type and terrain/road , eg tracks can move without road
Links is what make battalions move or make them able to move from A to B.
The cost in the links is used to calculate the best route to take.
So no link and a battalion will not move from A to B. -
Links is what make battalions move or make them able to move from A to B.
The cost in the links is used to calculate the best route to take.
So no link and a battalion will not move from A to B.Significant role also plays thr file and how the paths/areas set on the tiles right? Cause ive seen on my “adventure” with Nam… units not using the alternative link to an objective simply cause i had forgotten to update the thr file. Although some times they tend to stuck a lot of time to a specific link even if you do present them an alternative.
-
Significant role also plays thr file and how the paths/areas set on the tiles right? Cause ive seen on my “adventure” with Nam… units not using the alternative link to an objective simply cause i had forgotten to update the thr file. Although some times they tend to stuck a lot of time to a specific link even if you do present them an alternative.
Tiles, links and costs are all important for movement in my experience. Not sure what thr update can do actually but will take extra notice.
What I did see was sometimes units look like to stay put somewhere but the actual problem was further down the path. So be aware of that, the units look and calculate ahead in my opinion.Cheers Obi1
-
Tiles, links and costs are all important for movement in my experience. Not sure what thr update can do actually but will take extra notice.
What I did see was sometimes units look like to stay put somewhere but the actual problem was further down the path. So be aware of that, the units look and calculate ahead in my opinion.Cheers Obi1
If you see with the monster’s tool the theater preview in THR mode you will get what i mean it seems like the THR is a “stamp” of available areas in a theater as well as the paths as well. In the pic im uploading Brown is the road paths,blue rivers etc… in a all-pathed theater besides the water paths everything els you will see it at the color the road paths have. And as Demer said here: https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?10721-Theater-developmental-notes-The-Tile-s after a change in paths and tiles always update THR
The areas also are defined in the thr file as you can see with brownish orange beeing the plains and green the forest etc… even though i think that the color on the land mass based more on the tile set name rather the area but this i have to figure out better yet…