![]() |
![]() |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I have been experimenting with some new mapping code I hope to integrate with the DC working groups future releases.
Working off the Czechoslovak Vehicle Guide i have build a very large map annotated with the units listed within. ORIGINAL LINK IS DEAD use this one https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bww...ew?usp=sharing Example below ![]() The full map is here Full Czech Map (913kb 3850x1950) The file size is larger than I hoped for but I needed a larger map to prevent the units from overlapping. Let me know what you guys think. Last edited by kato13; 07-09-2015 at 08:27 AM. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I assume since you're using military graphics, you're attempting to make them doctrinally correct?
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
I used FM 101-5-1 (October 1985 and September 1997) as the source for most of the symbols. I am using a font that I built to make the unit graphics. Fonts have some limitations but scale nicely so I chose those instead of overlaying images. I made some adjustments to the text around the units (vertical rather than horizontal) to allow for greater clarity when dealing with the complicated inner Poland map I expect will be my grand work. The problem is all my maps are dynamically generated. Overlap of symbols is going to be a problem. By reducing the unit footprint I minimize the issue a bit. Here is a example of what I am going for. http://games.juhlin.com/maps/map_unit.html The cluttering/readibility gets better as you zoom (top left) but gets worse on most of the other map options (top right). This is very much a work in progress. If you have any comments or suggestions I would appreciate hearing them. (edit oh you can click on the units for more information) (edit2 Another note I suppressed 4 small units which were collocated with larger units. Eventually that info will be accessible from the popup) Last edited by kato13; 04-25-2009 at 10:42 PM. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
If you want to be a little bit more "doctrinally correct" without going overboard, the enemy symbols need to be rotated to where they are diamond shaped, not rectangular.
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Edit. Is double borders for enemy units a acceptable option? Short term that might be an easier solution. Last edited by kato13; 04-25-2009 at 11:50 PM. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Trust me. I'm an active duty Lieutenant that is about to be promoted and go to the Captain's Career Course in the next few months. My Company Commander has made me an expert on doctrinal speak, symbols, and writing over the last eight months. I'm right.
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
I'll have to go to AKO and see if they'll let me download the new version of MIL-STD-2525... Didn't Captains-to-be go to Officers' Advanced Course? Did they change the name?
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
OBC and OAC became BOLC III and the Captain's Career Course for their respective branches. Infantry and Armor merged into the Maneuver Captains' Career Course about two years ago.
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Here you go, have fun.
FM 101-5-1, Operational Terms and Graphics http://www12.georgetown.edu/students...es/101-5-1.pdf
__________________
aka shrike6 |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I actually think the symbology changed between the 1985 and 1997 version of the Field Manual. In the current version you can see the details on page 235.
Honestly I don't like the change (surprise surprise a person focused on a 25 year old game does not like change ![]() |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
You know what would be fun is to find out what symbology the Soviets used to useand use that for Warsaw Pact units.
__________________
aka shrike6 |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Due to these complications it is way down my priorities list as things like nuclear effect overlays, user created markers and distance calculators (to nearest city, allied/enemy unit, resource, marker, or nuclear blast) will offer more of a "gee-whiz" factor from my time allocated. |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I think the most appropriate symbols (for T2K) would be those used by NATO, pre-1997. I'm sure Eddie knows what he is talking about for the US military circa right now but modern US symbology isn't necessarily what is most appropriate for this discussion.
__________________
![]() |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
There is likely a logical reason for many of the changes I have seen. For example my assumption is that photocopies or unintentional black and white printing necessitated the switch from rectangles to diamonds for enemy units. The increased use of color printers minimizes this problem so I will not tackle it immediately. I am modernizing the font to current US standards as I hope to share the font with others who might find it useful. I am also hoping to use the font for TO&Es, hierarchical structures, and unit wiki pages. Another factor leading to my going with a pure US version is also due to the fact that a font already exists for NATO units (though it is significantly less awesome than mine ![]() Last edited by kato13; 04-26-2009 at 11:17 PM. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
APP-6 was the NATO standard for map symbology in 1985. the US used a MIL-STD-2525 or something though. Basically, we updated our's every couple of years, while NATO stagnated. They didn't update theirs until 2000 or something (give or take a year or two). In that time, we had like six updates, with there being no real changes since 1989 or something like that. While NATO was using the same symbol, just colored red, the US was transitioning to the diamonds. That said, Kato is going for a T2K feel. I perfectly understand that and don't fault him for that. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I like the symbols as they are. I think you've got a pretty cool project going Kato. IMO the US may have updated their methods, but the US is only one part of NATO... so sticking with what you have IMO is more fitting for the masses.
|
#18
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
![]() |
![]() |
Tags |
countries, czechoslovakia, dc group, eastern europe, europe, locations, modules |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 guests) | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Military Vehicle Drawings | kato13 | Twilight 2000 Forum | 4 | 07-20-2011 09:11 PM |
Czech Mate | Raellus | Twilight 2000 Forum | 3 | 07-08-2009 12:38 PM |
Statting an Interesting Vehicle | Benjamin | Twilight 2000 Forum | 11 | 06-06-2009 06:20 AM |
OT - I <3 Czech Hind Pilot | Krejcik | Twilight 2000 Forum | 5 | 10-21-2008 04:24 AM |