I have wierd gray bumps all over the campain map, I think there meant to be trees but I can't be sure. Any way to get rid of them?
Printable View
I have wierd gray bumps all over the campain map, I think there meant to be trees but I can't be sure. Any way to get rid of them?
Screenshot please, I don't know just what you mean by gray bumps. Perhaps a video driver upgrade would help though. Did earlier versions of EB work fine?
I have them too, but I'm not really bothered by them. They're found in the Desert areas, like Africa, Arabia or India. I'll get a screenshot in a minute.
I think I know what you mean: [parts of] the map don't have a properly rendered texture (there isn't any rendered at all). Not a real fix, but try it anyway: save the game, close RTW, restart RTW, reload the game.
Do you guys mean those odd gray bumps that behave like trees and are found in desert provinces? The ones that move like trees in the wind and the ones where an army can set up an ambush? Those are a bit weird in my opinion.
Oh, those. I though you meant elephants.
This isn't very helpful behaviour, and considering you want something of us not the right way to go about that either. But nevermind: why on earth would the OP see elephants on the campaign map ? Merely taking into account that EB has redone the resource models.
And the gray bumps that 'behave like trees' could very well be the "Snow in Arabia"/"Not working RTW campaign map sprites" problem. Chances are you're one of the lucky people who'se GFX card doesn't render the RTW sprites properly (or conversely: the sprites are incompatible with the GFX card).
Me I'm talking about (patches of) map textures suddenly being no longer rendered. Typically after a (re-)load, or exiting a battle.
So are those supposed to be some kind of trees that my NVIDIA graphics card cannot render?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Yes. Remember the saying: "If it looks like a tree, sounds like a tree, and walks like a tree..." ? :shrug:
"... you should probably duck and take cover"?
Sorry for taking so long, but I got distracted by the Ptolemaoi ^_^`
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I've always had that "problem", since 0.8
Oh, and yes, I know that the Seleukid Beast has developed quite nicely.
Oh, those! I always thought those meant that the battle map of the area would be rocky.
Have you ever had a battle where the field was just covered with large boulders, one or two men in height? That's what I mean.
That or "... lower your axe". :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by bovi
Yep, that's what I have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
EDIT: You can set up an ambush in those. They act exactly like trees. If you right click the area in which those grey bumps appear, it will even say "Woodland".
They even wave like "real" trees. Maybe a texture is missing?
I can't see them waving :inquisitive:. Still, it's a good enough stratmap texture for a rocky desert, and that is good terrain for ambushes too. I haven't played in desert area for a long time though, does it turn out as trees when the battle starts?
Oh, you meant the rocks! So they act like trees, then? Even going so far as to be able to set up ambushes in them? Heh, I never noticed that. That's pretty cool, I always thought they were like this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by desert
Btw, you were claiming my behaviour wasn't helpful, TA? :inquisitive: What about this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bovi
A bit hypocritical. No offence intended, but it's just something I noticed.Quote:
Originally Posted by TA
They do actually. They move just like normal RTW trees, in a motion that suggests the wind is blowing at them.Quote:
Originally Posted by bovi
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by bovi
Nope. Just sands. Oh, and about sands - they're pretty inaccurate. it is a common misconception that most of the world's hot deserts (as opposed to ice deserts) are nothing but Saharan-style sand dunes. even Sahara itself is only 10% sand dunes and 90% small and large rocks mixed with sand and clay. Saharan-style sand dunes are actually very rare.Quote:
Originally Posted by bovi
Once again, I absolutely agree. As I have said before:Quote:
Originally Posted by Methuselah
Quote:
hypocrisy worthy of Bush when he remarked on Russia's invasion of Georgia as being "unacceptable conduct in the 21st Century." and "being an unprecedented violation of the rights of a sovereign nation such as Georgia" .
That is also a huge oversimplification, but ok.Quote:
Sahara itself is only 10% sand dunes and 90% small and large rocks mixed with sand and clay.
Yes, it was quite a sizeable oversimplification. The actual percentage is something between 16 and 13 %.Quote:
Originally Posted by desert
No, what I meant was that there is a lot more to the Sahara than rocks and sand.
Like what? I meant the terrain of the Sahara desert is roughly 90% rocks and 10% sand dunes, which it is, right? You aren't really counting an oasis as part of Sahara, are you? They probably make up .000001% of the total area. There are grasslands in that area, but not in Sahara Desert itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by desert
@ moderator: please delete if this is off-topic - don't close the thread
Oh, I see. What I'm trying to get across here is that there are many terrain types in the Sahara, and that calling them rocks won't do them justice, even if they technically are rocks.
In retrospect, I can't understand why I got so fired up over this...how silly.
It would be beautiful if we could have desert battlefields looking anything like this.
I don't know how to either change the vegetation (or the tile to not be "woodland" for that matter), so I don't think this is going to be changed however. It looks well enough on the stratmap, and it's not a critical bug that it fails to show a decent battlefield I think. Actually I seem to recall having something that is a bit like the first picture in certain battles, but I guess it's not due to the "woodland".