Altair_Crossing_v3 map

Back to List

Altair_Crossing_v3

By Quanto

Rating:

Geo Vents in center, take those hills! Map by Quanto. Skybox by Smoth, Updated by [teh]Beherith

Size:

8 x 8

PLAY ON THIS MAP

Downloads: 36907

Manual downloads:
https://zero-k.info/content/maps/altair_crossing_v3.sd7
http://zero-k.info/content/maps/altair_crossing_v3.sd7

Last battles

B2024660 1 on Altair_Crossing_v3

B2011038 1 on Altair_Crossing_v3

B1929131 2 on Altair_Crossing_v3

B1904864 2 on Altair_Crossing_v3

B1877957 2 on Altair_Crossing_v3

B1832331 2 on Altair_Crossing_v3

B1830276 2 on Altair_Crossing_v3

B1815475 1 on Altair_Crossing_v3

B1790254 1 on Altair_Crossing_v3

B1786997 3 on Altair_Crossing_v3

Filter: Player:

Page of 2 (27 records)

sort

Saktoth

12 years ago

Replaced v2 with this in featured list.

+0 / -0

[GBCoW]FlorisXIV

12 years ago

Does this one have a symmetrical slopemap and tree layout?

+0 / -0

GoogleFrog

12 years ago

No.

+0 / -0

SinKitty

12 years ago

What changed?

North west needs no terra to mex with kbot while south east does.
South hill/base is vehicle save, while north hill/base isn't

The pathing form the middle north-west hill to west is worse than the mirrored hill to east.

Is all of this still true?

+0 / -0

Saktoth

12 years ago

Sigh. Looks like not. I thought that would be why this version was made! I'll talk to behe about fixing it.

+0 / -0

Skasi

12 years ago

Could you also ask him to put geo spots a tiny little bit further apart? I think their locations are just a tad too risky and a shorter distance to home bases would make games more interesting and increase variety on this map. Not too short though, only a few tiles, 'cause risk is FUN!

+0 / -0

Saktoth

12 years ago

I don't have to ask him to do it I can edit the heightmap easily in spring map edit, just need his OK.

+0 / -0

TheSponge

11 years ago
(edited 11 years ago)

Why are map textures so low res? ZK would look amazing if maps could have 8k (or higher) textures.

+0 / -0

TheMooseIsLoose

11 years ago
(edited 11 years ago)

they don't have to be any higher res if detail tex splatting is used correctly, you have /advmapshading on?

bigger texture=more memory usage on gpu, and bigger maps (20x-ish) can already use ~300mb

ssmf in comparison is only a few 1024x images, even smaller usage if .dds is used

+1 / -0

TheSponge

11 years ago

I don't know actually. When I turn it on in springsettings.cfg it turns itself off after 1 match. Would having shadows on objects and units but not the map be a symptom of no advmapshading?

+0 / -0

TheMooseIsLoose

11 years ago

I lose all shadows when I turn off /advmapshading, this is an example of the difference between the 2 settings:

+0 / -0

TheSponge

11 years ago

I don't have advmapshading then. Is there a way to turn it on ingame? I tried "/advmapshading 1" but that did nothing. I tried turning it on in springsettings.cfg but it kept turning itself off during map loading.

+0 / -0

TheMooseIsLoose

11 years ago

it should toggle just with /advmapshading ingame, if not then your video card may not support it

+0 / -0

Anarchid

11 years ago

quote:
I tried "/advmapshading 1" but that did nothing.

Requires GLSL, which means "not on modern linux intel".

+0 / -0

TheEloIsALie

11 years ago

Seriously, why can't intel man up to having the standard shader language implementation?

+1 / -0

TheSponge

11 years ago
(edited 11 years ago)

/advmapshading did not work. GLSL is really badly broken with Intel. Did it start using GLSL "recently"? I used to be able to use advmapshading fine, back in 1.1.3.6 or something.

+0 / -0

Anarchid

11 years ago

quote:
I used to be able to use advmapshading fine, back in 1.1.3.6 or something.

Advmapshading is engine. 1.1.3.6 is same engine as we're using now.

+0 / -0

TheSponge

10 years ago

Units get stuck on the hills in the middle and start doing stupid things like walking backwards and forwards without doing anything. You have to micro your cons to get the mexes.

+1 / -0