View Full Version : Normandy Map Mistakes

11-22-2005, 10:15 PM
On coordinates 49.8, 72.2 there is a railway bridge where there must be a road bridge.

On coordinates 56.13, 27.5 there is a tree in the middle of the road.

11-22-2005, 11:13 PM
ah OK good to know, not to land on this road http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

11-22-2005, 11:40 PM
Which Normandy map? The one I use (island, pre-invaasion) has no road tree at those coordinates.

In fact, (27.5 , 56.13) is a bending city street, so you don't land there anyways. Although a tree or building mistakenly placed in the road can bar passage to AI ground vehicles and can totally Pork a battle scenario by delaying ground forces. Something that always must be tested.

Rolf, czech your tree coordinates, I don't see a tree there.

11-23-2005, 05:41 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif I inverted the coordinates, now I have corrected them.

The three maps of Normandy look the same.

We have been playing a FOF campaign in Normandy since April, and this is the first time I see this.

I won't flagelate myself for this, nor complain of an 1C conspiracy against the world http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif.

Jut communicated it.

11-23-2005, 03:01 PM
There's also a church on a road somewhere and so on and so forth. The map, although one of my favorites, has a bunch of little errors on it.

Completely forgiveable but on occasion annoying.

11-23-2005, 04:00 PM
The tree in the road is just a sprite.You can taxi through it.

11-23-2005, 06:44 PM

The biggest issue with the Normandy map is that it does not represent what is typically encountered in the real Normandy.

There are none of the omnipresent penny packet fields, with either hedgerows or stone fences, with groves of trees at frequent intervals.

None of the roads have the typical row of trees along either side, and the stone wall borders.

This terrain was extremely dense with farm buildings and little independent cottages. Line of sight was very restricted.

The IL-2 terrain engine was designed for a Russian countryside enviroment, with big open spaces, and very few walls and not a lot of stone buildings. It does that pretty well. It does not do Western Europe well.

Hopefully BoB gives us a much more dense enviroment.

Rowan's BoB attempts this, and there are the hedges and tree rows separating fields. Unfortunately the terrain is so crudely done, especially the cities and towns, that it lacks immersion down low.

11-23-2005, 06:57 PM
I know that tree. It is a Delta wood tree. Avoid it. It is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay overmodelled.
Take you out in a heartbeat. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

11-24-2005, 05:14 AM
BTW, never thougt about landing there in the first place... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

11-24-2005, 07:03 AM
personally, I accept the limitations of the engine with regards to rivers, trees and such and find errors like the placement of hangars the wrong way round on some of the ALGs as more obvious and correctable errors.

11-24-2005, 09:05 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Wheeler Field AAF base in the wrong position relative to Schoffield Barracks on the Hawaii map? I looked at a map of the area and something seemed wrong about the lay of the land between the two landmarks and the water detail.

11-24-2005, 11:57 AM
It's like the guy who made the Pearl map never heard of "google" or even "books." With only the objects in PF, and the methods used in other existing maps, it was more than possible to make a very accurate Pearl Harbor. It's astounding that they even bothered., I mean Pearl is the ONLY mission that map is good for, and aside from the obvious lack of actual targets, it's abysmal in layout. Ford Island would have been easy to do---even with the poor shape they gave it I could do a fairly accurate Ford Island if all the **** the mapmaker put on it was expunged (including the taxiways, etc).

Guadalcanal is similarly FUBAR.