*DAMN MapPack 3.0 testing feedback

[Vir2L@hotmail.com]

As for the name change issue of the supposed cartel map.  Well, I did not know that it was in another mappack.  In either event it does not matter because in this case we were using this specific mappack for the DAMN BL and nothing else.  The name we got it under was "traffic" and it was a compilation of 4 maps that were all created into a mappack by the creator.   Mind you again, we are aware that these maps are out in the PC world since that is where they came from.  i did not create them nor do anything but mod them for bettter useage for this mappack and took out all the extra bullshit to make it run smoother. =)


Saberian

no worries Sab, if you would have read my latter post you would have saved your breathe by not needing to write all that.  =)  

I stated I was mistaken.

[BTs_Lee.Harvey]

How do u compare them to the  1 & 2 BL mappacks harvey?

 I like some of the 1&2 maps.. but there are a few i would like to see in that didnt make it.. like the ones that are in the s1-s3 map packs ( i know some of those are in the dbl mp 1 &2.. I dont think that map pack 3.0 should have so many small maps like 1 and 2.. butwe dont need a map pack full of maps the size of wilderness.. these maps just feel like they are lacking something i cant quite put my finger on.. most of the maps are too open.. if you want to do something big.. find something like tank (even though i hate that map..) its open but still has enough cover to hide if you need to. We dont need maps where one clan can get into a good position on the WZ and just snipe the other team from a distance.

[BFG]

Interesting - one of the reasons i like the new mappack is because it feels like your playing closer to the original GhR rather than a weird version of Counterstrike. Also because severla of these maps demand some very different tatics - take Mosque for example, demands completely different tatics from say Embassy or Vilnuis.

Gotta spend some more time playing through the pack, really havn't played it enough.

[z][t-Neo]

80% Island Thunder Maps ... there are a lot better maps in the mappacks S1, S2, S3 ...

and maybe a guy who can make maps could make a new one of the original Embassy Map ...
and build an inside of the Embassy

[Revolt]

Some very noteworthy maps.....
http://www.ghostrecon.net/html/maps.htm

as well as...

http://www.ghostrecon.net/html/files-maps.htm

We should keep up with the jones///...

[Saberian 3000]

Aaaah yes Revolt,

There are many noteworthy maps to choose from in these listings.  Shade and myself have been going thru them as we speak, and thru that we might use a few of those maps as well.  Thanks again, for your insight on some maps to use for the mappack.  Always appreciated =)

Using 4 IT maps and 3 non-IT maps is not what I would call 80% Neo.  I think you might need to go back to Math class bro =)

The reason why we choose these maps is because not only are they mostly medium size to large size maps but because they were maps that not one team really had an advantage to another upon where they start.  That is what we have been looking for when we were building the mappack for #3.  

Below statement stated by Lee Harvey:
persoanly I dont realy like these maps myself... cant we find some better/cooler ones then this in the pc world to convert over.  

This above statement is not telling me issues with the maps.  So you can see why I would think that.  but thanks for being more specific this time on the issue with the mappack.  It's kinda sad Harvey that you are getting such bad FPS on your Mac because I have a mac that is 1/3rd the speed and get 58fps on Traffic constantly.  But the reason why this is happening is because you have all your settings on high.  Problem with that issue Harvey is that Ghost recon was not designed to run that high for graphics for the Mac.  even though you got this great G5 Harvey it will still suck ass for anyone who runs it on high.  Thinking that games play smoother on settings of high is not a good assumption in this case.  The reason again why it plays soo slow is because the game was not designed for the G5 and the processing speed that you have unlike other games like Raven Shield or SOF II which were primarily designed for OS10 only.  Therefore even if you linked up two Dual 2.5 G5's maxed out with both using ATI Radeon 9800 256 mb card and a total of 16gb of RAM it will still run slow as shit because of the bottleneck issue from the porting of this game thru the application.  Try running it on medium and I guarantee it will fix the issue.  Now if the game was actually carbonized right to optimize the OSX operating system then running it on high for everything wouldnt be an issue.  but running it on medium for me in this case I am able to rock on with great fps out of a dual G4.  Etiher playing or hosting.

So things we can count out to break it down for Lee Harvey:
1) Not a frlontside bus issue cause if you have a dual 2.0 or higher the frontside bus is 1.0ghz or more per processor, so that wont be an issue
2) Not graphics card cause you have the ATI Radeon 9800 Pro with 256mb.  So that definitely isnt the issue.
3) Not the system itself because it runs on OS10, although originally was done for OS9, so that is part of the issue.
4) Not the processor(s).  Obvious answer on this issue.
5) Most people when playing the game when it came out did not play the game with all settings on high, and when they did it was done so on a dual G4.  The issue with this is the application that was made by Aspyr to run the game.  The game came out before the G5 was set into place so the application itself was not designed for the G5 to run it any better in this case.  You would think that it does not make a difference for this issue and why would SOF II run better when the game was released at the same time as Ghost Recon.  Well the answer for that is because SOFII was ported to the Mac specifically for OS10 and not OS9 because the game porting company knew that the game did not run too well with the slower Macs and wanted to make it to where the game would run better for the faster Mac's so that one day the game would be played to it's full potential.  Ghost Recon was not made for that issue sad to say =(  And since the game ran pretty well for slower Mac's they did the exact opposite when they ported this game to the Mac originally.  so in the end I dont blame so much Aspyr for the porting because when this game came out most of us were running on slower Mac's at that time, and the game was able to run well with those slower Mac's

Saberian

[BTs_Lee.Harvey]

But here in lies the prob.. I play with most (not all) the setting on high.. I find its easier to play this way... most of the maps that we curently use are fine for FPS (i think only one dips down in FSP... but its still not that bad) FPS was just one thing i didnt like about the map pack. I do know that the IT mapos were bad about FPS.. on my old card.. with settings on low.. I could barly run the IT maps.

part of that i dont like about the maps is the fact the even though you said it does not give one caln an advatabe over another.. what they do imo is give the clan who can set up the better camp/snipe points an advantage. and then on other maps.. (the one wit h all the moutains with the passages in between) even though its not all wide open... it takes soo long to get anywhere on that map. I just feel we can find some better maps out there then these.. If we wanted to use IT maps.. then we sould just use the whole IT map pack. Lets find something other then these IT maps to use.. sence (according to BL rules) we can use the IT maps pack right now if both clans want to anyway.. so the maps are curently available to us.. lets go for something diff.

[Saberian 3000]

Srry, I added those comments after you obviously posted yours hehe.  My bad.  That's what I get for working and replying to forums at the same time hehe.  In any event I dont blame you for wanting to play your games on high.  BFG is the same way and he likes doing that.

As for the camping issue, well, sad to say with sensors that can be done on any map for that issue.  I wish that there wasnt a map that could not have that issue but because sensors are part of the game it creates that always being an issue.   I am assuming that we are talking about the traffic map.  In any event I have been talking with :cO: who has also been helping me with these maps and we are thinking of replacing that map even though that is such a sweet map in my opinion.  If too many people complain about an issue with a map we will definitely take it into consideration and use some other possible map choices.  BTW, if you have an option for that, feel free to post it here and we will test it out.  We have no issues with anyone offering good choices for map repalcenments if the maps that we provide for this mappack are not suitable to the situation or the mappack. thanks again for the info big guy =)

Saberian

[v142]

Testing maps on high settings isnt a bad idea, I test the maps I build on high settings on everythin but human shadows.
If I get good fps on my mac at 1024x768 with high settings, the maps usually gives good fps too most ppl (the 128mb players will allways get low fps/bad lagg)

U can check out my maps @ http://vipmod.webhop.net/

-V-
(aka: -ViP- Gatling)

[BFG]

hey v142. Yeah ive played both your maps (i belive *AGT* Cell was hosting them) and although they are both huge (especially the urban one ) they were both great fun

BFG is the same way and he likes doing that.

Yeah im a complete whore - won't play with a res any lower than 1600 by 1200

[v142]

Nice u like my maps
I posted a new one yesterday (Mog City), its smaller 200x200m. its  a bit hard on siege (4 the defending team), but WZ is good.

Desert City is 330x330 in comparision.

-V-

[BTs_Lee.Harvey]

Im not even talking about camping with sensors on these maps.. if you get your team right.. you can camp w/ out sensors on most of these maps.. and have the whole WZ covered and all flanks.

[Saberian 3000]

Well Harvey I would love to hear some suggestions again on what maps you would like to incorporate into the mappack if you had a choice on it.  I mean part of this is what it is all about.  Otherwise telling me that you dont like the maps isnt really solving the issue.   What it sounds like you are saying is that  people can develop strategies for the game thru the maps.  Well, it does happen, what we are trying to resolve here is the issue of taking most of the issues out of the maps before the game starts.  Other then that we cannot take the strategies out of the maps Harvey.  There isnt a map out there that you cant make a strategy for at this time no matter where you start.  The problem here is that we are looking for maps that will be good for GHR.  If you cant gimme some idea to what you are referring to then I dont see why you are responding in here bro.  Gimme an example and I would be happy to talk about it as well as check it out.  Other then that what we are doing is not a debate.  We are just trying to get a feel for maps that we can play for a good mappack.

Saberian

[80_Proof]

When you make the command maps please make them grided and coordinated in evry square. So ppl like me and z][t dont have to

[Revolt]

I have a grided command map file that opens in photoshop
its a layered .psd
anyone want it hit me up

u can pretty much throw your clan icon on it
all the mpas are prel;ayered in there too