View Full Version : Is elevation of the mountains correct?

11-05-2004, 12:43 PM
Just started a RAAF beaufighter campaign, and we had to fly over the Owen Stanley mountains to attack a Japanese base. The "mountains" seemed more like hills....is the levation modelled correctly?

11-05-2004, 12:47 PM
I was wondering the exact same thing.

11-05-2004, 01:00 PM
just dry the new dgen from the download section, this one solves the problem

11-05-2004, 01:16 PM
If this is the area the range shuld be from 4000m at Kokoda to about 3000m the rest.


11-05-2004, 03:47 PM
It's possible to cross them without being anywhere near that high

11-05-2004, 05:49 PM
The mountains get up to between 1500 and 2000m max.

Enable clouds and set clouds at 1500m...the cloud bottoms start at 1500m and the mountains eat the cloud bottoms so it looks like puffs of fog on the ground in some high places.

11-05-2004, 07:27 PM
That's pretty dodgy. The weather in the mountains, and the obstical of the mountains themselves played an enormous part in the air war in New Guinea.

11-05-2004, 07:45 PM
I am somewhat disappointed here, I believe I may have been the first to post on this in an earlier thread.
First, no Lae or Salamaua and then, no mountains. Kinda makes you wonder why 1C even bothered. There are online maps with mountains twice as high, why couldn't New Guinea be accurately mapped? It's gonna be **** near impossible to make a believable USAAF campaign in PF http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

11-05-2004, 08:00 PM
This is an amazing sim, but I have to say that this disapoints me as well - if this is a genuine problem (and it appears to be) what are the chances that this will get fixed in a patch ?

11-05-2004, 08:17 PM


Kokoda sat between to 4,000 metre peaks


(not an advert)


11-05-2004, 09:16 PM
I just verified, set cloud height to 1500 (high as it would go) and also flew an A20 over highest visible peaks.
Clouds were still visible above the mountains, and altimeter read about 2200 meters highest.
The Owen Stanleys approach 4KM at their highest elevation. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

11-05-2004, 09:44 PM
The sim has never been very good in this respect. I also compared some of the mountains of the Kuban map to a real map, it's not correct either. The map making tool doesn't seem to allow easy adjustments of elevations.

11-05-2004, 11:11 PM
That hurts
Any chance of getting the right heights put in.

11-05-2004, 11:57 PM
My guess is no, there is nothing more complex and time consuming than mapmaking in FB; it is unlikely in the extreme that they would replace the New Guinea map.
Verdict: we get to live with 1/2 the elevation.

11-06-2004, 12:13 AM
I wouldlike to add my 2 toea's worth by agreeing that the mountains between Port Moresby and Oro Bay are not accurate. Having lived in Papua New Guinea for some 45 years and flown around the country extensively this area of the Owen Stanly Ranges gets up to 4000 Mtrs. Highest being 4500 Mtrs. The sheer ruggedness of the mountains is certainly not correct and I doubt if they will ever get it correct without somehow lifting info from a proper topographic map which shows contours. Agree with Chris455 that we definately need a expansion of the PNG map to cover all of PNG and the Solomon Islands as some of the heaviest conflicts took place in PNG

11-06-2004, 12:25 AM
Mountains were never strong points of the IL2 series. I guess a complicated mesh based off say, DEM files would take a huge hit on the framerates. The following are snapshots I took while flying a Maule over a 3rd-party Philippine Mesh addon for Flight Simulator 2004, featuring Mount Kitanglad, 9000ft+ main peak. 30-meters per pixel mesh resolution, so quite good and very realistic looking. Its altitude is correctly modelled in the sim, unlike Microsoft's default Kitanglad mountain.




I bet if IL2:FB/AEP/PF had these kind of mountains, framerates would drop bigtime.


11-06-2004, 01:33 AM
The mountains have never been modelled correctly. I live in humenne, eastern Slovakia, which is a part of lvov map, but the surrounding mountains are in Il-2 something like 200m high(above the ground), but in reality they are from 400 and even 1200m above the ground, so it looks like a bit hilly environment in Il2 which in reality looks a way different as the mountains sorrounding our city are pretty much higher

11-06-2004, 01:36 AM
Mountains should be a strong point in il2 it's very important it's like flying a P51 with no wings.

DISAPOINTEMENT on maps and they should know it and stop to kiss Oleg's team behinds. pardon my French.

11-06-2004, 03:40 AM
I don't think there are enough resources to build the terrain this series should have. THe only way for us to see decent terrain is for the 1CM team to provide the tools, and let the job to third party developers.

11-06-2004, 04:11 AM
My understanding of the problem with terain is that if you want high mountains they have to have sharp changes in the surface and hence a higher detail mesh to make it smooth.

In combat flight simulators everyone has to have the same mesh. There can be no control over terain detail. Otherwise people could fly undergroundhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif So the mesh has to be minimised for everyone and hence the mountains aren't as high.

Still it's the Owen Stanleys. Even a tiny amount of research would reveal the importance of their height.

11-06-2004, 05:04 AM
Kuban Mountains in south~east Kuban map show they can make steep sided great looking mountains. Onwhine Summer 4 map shows they can make 4500m mountains if they want to.

Even if it costs exact "accuracy" -- and its not anyway look at Volga River -- make the maps STUNNING for the 95% offwhine play simmer/simmerette. If tall mountains effect onwhine dogfight they can use flat 30km wide internet dogfighter Ace Maps. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

btw, rodion that SF2004 mountains, is that example of photo-correct puke? If so, WretchFest Maximus.

Here is how I judge map accuracy in terms of eye appearance. If it looks pretty and beautiful, then its correct. And FB/FP maps are very beautiful. Other sims with Photographic Puke (PP) are ugly--or the screenshots are ugly, never tried those sims. Just climb up radio tower or TV tower elevator and you see nothing but pretty all around you. That is the measure of proof of visual accuracy in flight sim maps. If you don't want to look at it, its done wrong. If you want to look at it, then its done right.

What I'd love to see is 400km x 400km map with Onwhine Summer 4 style mountains, some flat regions, just for a generic campaign map that could represent some exotic China terrain for example. Maybe for BoB and Beyond.

11-06-2004, 05:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by slarsson:
... the Owen Stanley mountains ... seemed more like hills....is the levation modelled correctly? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The highest point, just NE of Port Moresby, should be 3990 m, and the central part of the range at a bit lower.

11-06-2004, 06:42 AM
I guess it has to do with the rivers going inland. The Il-2 map engine only supports one level of water (sea-level). So, because of the rivers going in-land remaining flat all the way in, it is hard to get up to the correct altitude of the mountains...

I hope a future engine will support several altitudes of water, maybe some graphic evidence of flowing water, even rapids. That would be cool.

11-06-2004, 07:22 AM
It's a bit more like this
Perth IA





photo realistic?


11-06-2004, 09:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:

btw, rodion that SF2004 mountains, is that example of photo-correct puke? If so, WretchFest Maximus.

Since FS2002, Microsoft had long abandoned the photorealistic style of rendering ground textures, and opted for something called "Landclass", which is indeed superior when it comes to applying textures on large DEM-based meshes. BTW to the uninitiated, DEM stands for Digital Elevations Maps, which are data files from the US Geological Service (USGS) based from data accumulated from satellite photography AND known contour maps of certain parts of the world. The Landclass method works on the principle of vegetation patches based on satellite photos, and the effect is pretty much like what IL2/FB/AEP/PF has right now, so I don't know where you're getting your "puke" analogy. BTW in case those screenshots aren't very convincing to you, that's actually off a 25mb WMV video of my hop in the Maule, which I will gladly send to you if you want. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And FB/FP maps are very beautiful. Other sims with Photographic Puke (PP) are ugly--or the screenshots are ugly, never tried those sims. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How can you conclude that something is ugly when in fact you haven't even gone into the sim to find out if it's really ugly or not? There are certain video effects which screenshots don't do justice of...one good example are Pixel Shader Model 3.0 effects found in the latest patch of the game called FAR CRY (v1.3)...you cannot appreciate the effects via screenshot alone, you have to be in-game to truly appreciate the impact the effects has on your gameplay and ambience. It seems that you, my friend, have a lot more to learn about other simulations you have been avoiding http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


11-06-2004, 09:19 AM
LEXX_Luthor great say..

I'm not for photo real etheir.

11-06-2004, 09:39 AM
Addendum to what LEXX_Luthor posted earlier:

It all depends on one's reasons why they want accurate (and not necessarily "beautiful") terrain meshes. For example, in civilian flight simming, accuracy of terrain meshes are important in VFR flying in VMC, otherwise, you'd find yourself in a CFIT. Thus, a seasoned flight simmer who finds himself in a combat flight simulation that lacks a VOR radio or even the simplest type of navigation radio like an NDB would really find an inaccurate mesh simply frustrating to deal with (for he will be forced to fly VFR) and assuming he is indeed familiar with the area in ANOTHER sim that features an accurate mesh of the SAME area.

Don't get me wrong--I love PF, and the entire IL2 series, but claiming that it is THE BEST flight simulation out there because of "beautiful" terrain is simply stretching it. For instance, one reason why Falcon4+SP4.1 can still claim to be among those that can boast being a cutting edge flight sim, despite an ugly landmesh, is because at least it has the very basic navigation radios (VOR/TAC)implemented (apart from the obvious complex comms it has being a contemporary fighter sim) and thus one can truly simulate realistic inflight navigation.