THR Creator

Phoenix711 · Post by **Phoenix711** » 2009-02-07 12:09:41

EDIT: Link updated with the 64 / 128 version of THR Creator.

Hi.

Here's the first version of my THR Creator. I use it for Aegean theater, since Neither Terrainview, nor Pathmaker can calculate my THR correctly (due to newly added tiles etc).

http://92.45.21.211/Web_Yayin/Yarasa/PM ... 64_128.rar

This tool can create your THR file, and gives you some options like NO RIVERS, NO ROADS, ONLY ONE TILE TYPE etc.

Please check the tool, and use it if you find it useful.

It creates c:\MyTHR.thr file. Use this file as TacEdit relief map to see the result. If it is good, rename it to your theater name and put it in the campaign folder.

Regards.

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » 2009-02-07 18:27:40

Sweet! Nice work!

ccc · Post by **ccc** » 2009-02-11 13:56:25

hi Pheonix711,

since you've created this nice thr tool..could you tell us how it improve the ground unit movement in Agean campaigns? and, did you edit tile-definition with pathmaker tool/ and re-linking objectives?

Phoenix711 · Post by **Phoenix711** » 2009-02-12 06:46:55

Sure.

First and most important, I dont use Pathmaker for road definitions, but I copy the definition lines form other tiles I know the roads go along the same. For example, I copy the definitions for the LEFT-RIGHT Farm road tile, and paste it to my new City Left Right road tile, in the TEXT version of my texture bin, which you can extract using perl. Then I compile it back using perl again. Path maker doesnt do it good for me. This is the same for area definitions.

Links, roads and terrain work together. If an unit reaches an objective, AFAI experienced, if this obj. is not on a road (in THR), the unit cannot go further and stuck there. But it can go back, to where it came from. Since units move from obj to obj using links, this is very important.

To achieve good movement, objects should be placed on roads, and the road network must not be broken. For best results, you can use the NO RIVER option. This tool helps when placing objectives in TacEdit. I use, Plains Only, and No Rivers options to have a good roads only view of the THR, so I can manually move objects to the nearest roads.

Falcon calculates the route of an unit, using tile types, and X3 value (slope), to calculate COST. But even so, units move from obj to obj, using links.

My work is stepped like:
1. Use no river, only plains options and create a THR
2. Using this THR, Check your road network, repair any broken roads etc (In TACEdit)
3. Show all objectives and move objectives to nearest roads (In TACEdit)
4. Link all objectives using this THR and not the tactical map from Pathmaker etc. Most of the time, I hand tile too many roads, that my DEM information roads are changed a lot.
5. Create Parent links, using mostly Real life information. Villages tied up to Towns, Towns and SECONDARY cities tied up to Cities (PRIMARY).

What I cant do for now is to create my PAK MAP image. I hope, after I finish all the linking (parents), it will show up.

Regards.

ccc · Post by **ccc** » 2009-02-12 09:00:38

i see, thanx for sharing your experience.

so.. no wonder i "feel" Pathmaker tool not do the tile definition edits well..hmmm... need more test..

ccc · Post by **ccc** » 2009-04-11 08:31:39

@Phoenix711

more questions..

1. i've created a [no rivere] thr, and check it in TacEdit, yes, river lines are gone! > does it mean the river tiles in [3D world] are removed? i guess no - this tweak only affect [2D world], right? the tile placement and tile definition remain untouched, right?

Say, use the new THR file, the ground unit movement is still limited/choked by [brigde objective] in 2D world => if i remove bridge obj manually, and re-link objectives, all ground units should be able to move freely in [2D world], as in the [flight planning map page] in sim, right? then, theoretically i can monitor the progress of ground war in [flight planning map = 2D world] till the end of campaign, right?

2. So, if your cool tool solve the frustrating river stuff in 2D world, we still have to overcome the true river in 3D world.. you've mentioned Pathmaker tool can not change/edit tile feature definition properly.. do you have a better tool to change/remove [River] and [Bridge junction] definition data, or replace the two with [Road] definition? if not, i have to try Pathmake again.. hmmm my last try is not successful.. or, simply replace [road-river tile] with pure [road] tile by hand-tiling work..which may cause ugly-broken-river looking, but allow ground unit passing river freely in 3d world.

Phoenix711 · Post by **Phoenix711** » 2009-04-13 05:08:06

1. Correct. No change in tiles, no change in path info. It is just the THR file not having any river info.

2. I'm not sure how Falcon uses the Path/Area info. If it is used in the 3D world, then as you said, we need to remove the path info, and water area info from the tiles. For that, I've got no tool ready, but I may be able to create one.

By the way, another way to remove the info, is extracting your texture.bin to a text file (with perl), remove the path / area lines manually from river tiles, then compile it back. Of course this is some pain.

I think the most important part is

- Having a connected (unbroken) road network (tiles, so its THR)
- Having your objectives "over" the road network (check Korean tac and relief map), and linked using the THR road info.

Since any unit in Aegean Theater's oncoming version can move (on the 2D map) from Athens to Istanbul, or Dalaman to Ankara etc, it will be a good idea for me to test it in the 3D world by using 64x time, then go back to 2D and check if the unit is moevd the same amount on the road as it does in the 2D world.

Regards.

Post by **Snake Man** » 2009-04-13 05:55:06

Would you consider releasing the source codes of your tools like under GPL license or something so we could have perhaps someone else to join to improve them?

Phoenix711 · Post by **Phoenix711** » 2009-04-13 08:24:32

No problem. I'll send PM to you as soon as I reach home.

They are VB6 coded.

Luk · Post by **Luk** » 2009-05-31 12:47:13

Hi.
Some news about 128 theater version?

Luk

Phoenix711 · Post by **Phoenix711** » 2009-06-01 05:48:40

Just released v4 so maybe I can take a look into it. I'll let you know.

Regards.

Luk · Post by **Luk** » 2009-06-01 10:01:55

Ok, thanks PHOENIX.

Phoenix711 · Post by **Phoenix711** » 2009-06-06 10:41:48

128 theater support added. Check first post.

ccc · Post by **ccc** » 2009-06-06 10:48:58

Excellent!

Phoenix711 · Post by **Phoenix711** » 2009-06-06 10:54:30

ccc, can you please check this post:

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=21957

Luk · Post by **Luk** » 2009-06-06 11:04:06

Thanks!
I have just created 128 thr file. I can say it is excellent - I can see my new roads, and the road color is different compared to all other terrain types. I can see roads clearly even with "standart" function. Very good work Phoenix.

BTW - what is the purpose of "BinText.txt" file, created in system root?
I am just curious..

ccc · Post by **ccc** » 2009-06-06 11:06:04

Phoenix711 wrote:ccc, can you please check this post:

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=21957

i am not terrain expert.. i've asked master Fred to check it. be patient.

Phoenix711 · Post by **Phoenix711** » 2009-06-06 12:16:13

bintext.txt is the extracted texture.bin file. It is not being used, It is just info. Like the one extracted via PERL scripts.

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » 2010-08-04 05:35:11

Does anyone have Phoenix711's THR Creator available for download? It isn't on the PMC Falcon downloads section and the original link at the top of this page is dead. I think I can put it to use. Thanks!

Luk · Post by **Luk** » 2010-08-04 06:21:30

I can send it to you Sherlock. Just PM me your mail - I have it somewhere in my archive, but need refresh

Luk

Post by **Snake Man** » 2010-08-04 08:09:56

Send it to me and I'll put it up for our download page.

Luk · Post by **Luk** » 2010-08-04 09:00:33

Check the email subject "thr creator" SnakeMan.
It is 84kb packed only. Great util.
Luk

Post by **Snake Man** » 2010-08-04 12:10:24

Was there no readme included in this release?

Luk · Post by **Luk** » 2010-08-04 13:01:55

Was there no readme included in this release?

No, it was without readme file.
But you can perhaps extract some basic info from this thread and add it to txt.

Luk

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » 2010-08-04 14:00:28

Thanks Luk!

I'll wait for you to post it for download SM. Appreciate it

Post by **Snake Man** » 2010-08-04 16:41:28

Now with readme, available at downloads page. Thanks guys.

ccc · Post by **ccc** » 2010-08-09 16:30:04

Some test results about THR files affecting [move cost value]..

i pick a sample [A town -- bridge -- B town ], a river crossing between A and B town, A-bridge-B linking has a road running thru.
I re-link objective A and B directly ( no link to bridge) to check the differences between move cost..

foot wheel track
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
normal THR 60 182 121
no river THR 95 255 190
no river+road THR 128 255 255

another similar sample, differenet location in Afghanistan theater.

foot wheel track
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
normal THR 101 255 215
no river THR 180 255 255
no river+road THR 249 255 255

Well..the result is quite different from what i expected..
theoretically when i use [normal THR] for this crossing-river/not via bridge linking, wheel type should be unable to cross it, track and foot type can move with higher cost. Then with [no-river THR], all [move cost values crossing a river] should be lowered and able to move easily. And with [no road no river THR], all types should have higher cost values, yet can move between the linking.

With tweaked THRs, you can see all cost values increase..wheel type jumps to uplimit 255 . foot type has tougher cost to move.
then check no-river-and-road THR.. oops..it's so hard for all types to move!

errr...

demer928 · Post by **demer928** » 2010-08-09 19:40:10

Your getting close CCC..............................very close!!!!!

You may now want to look at the Tile Type's in that Area that you want to cross.

demer

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » 2010-08-09 19:48:14

demer928 wrote:Your getting close CCC..............................very close!!!!!
You may now want to look at the Tile Type's in that Area that you want to cross.

demer

In other words, movement doesn't depend on the .thr file. It's completely dependent upon the type of paths laid out on the terrain tiles with Pathmaker and the type of terrain defined for that tile.

demer928 · Post by **demer928** » 2010-08-09 20:11:34

Sherlock wrote:
demer928 wrote:Your getting close CCC..............................very close!!!!!
You may now want to look at the Tile Type's in that Area that you want to cross.

demer
In other words, movement doesn't depend on the .thr file. It's completely dependent upon the type of paths laid out on the terrain tiles with Pathmaker and the type of terrain defined for that tile.

demer

ccc · Post by **ccc** » 2010-08-10 01:57:17

<sigh>
The first time i got THR creator, i vaguely remember.. the improvement in reducing move cost value test is not that noticable. But i did not compare the test values closely.

With latest PMC mod release, i fired up THR again on Libya, try to link missing parts.. well this time i noticed that [no-river THR] does not help much as expected.. my first quess as you said, tiles.. Too bad my TerrainView does not work for a while, missing some dll file, so unable to check tile type.

Last night i fired up TacEdit with Afghanistan mod..this time i can't resist doing a write-down comparsion with THR files.. the result is quite distressing.. it seems Tile type play a more important role in calculating move cost!!

Post by **Snake Man** » 2010-08-10 02:59:59

We can make texture.bin with terrain types only of "plains" or whatever and perhaps cheat and add road data to every tile. Dunno if that road on every tile works though, engine might go crazy with all that road info.

Changing the terrain types to plains is very easy. Shall we try it on some theater?

ccc · Post by **ccc** » 2010-08-10 03:17:46

Snake Man wrote:We can make texture.bin with terrain types only of "plains" or whatever and perhaps cheat and add road data to every tile. Dunno if that road on every tile works though, engine might go crazy with all that road info.

Changing the terrain types to plains is very easy. Shall we try it on some theater?

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » 2010-08-10 05:25:24

Today I stripped out all the rivers and bridges in the Iran texture.bin/texture.zip using Pathmaker and left only road data in the texture.bin. I also rebuilt the .mea and .thr files after I revised the texture.zip/texture.bin files. I am still not seeing any easier movement by ground troops yet. I am going to try deleting the ground troops and recreating some to see if they behave differently and I am open to ideas of other things I can try. Indications from the ground troops is that there may not be enough quantity of them to mount a full offensive but, of course, I can't be sure. They are immediately going into reserve and retreating to a point behind the front lines. I did not change the tile set types yet.

Luk · Post by **Luk** » 2010-08-10 06:17:51

Wild thaught - I did not read it carefully yet - but there is already function to convert everything to plain in thrcreator. You can choose "no road or/and no river" and overall terrain type as well (seen in rollout menu).

Luk

Post by **Snake Man** » 2010-08-10 08:21:28

Sherlock wrote:I am going to try deleting the ground troops and recreating some
Indications from the ground troops is that there may not be enough quantity of them to mount a full offensive but

Check the new release of PMC Korean TCL Campaigns, there is division creation scripts, add that to few selected objectives and you should have plenty of ground units

ccc · Post by **ccc** » 2010-08-10 14:01:43

i check another two obj linking in Afghan.. no bridges between the two obj.

Code: Select all


                            foot       wheel        track
========================================
normal  THR               104        255         208
no river THR               123         255       247
no river+road  THR      204         255        255

the result is the same...so i will drop THR for lowering move cost. try different tile type.

demer928 · Post by **demer928** » 2010-08-10 20:24:20

Snake Man wrote:We can make texture.bin with terrain types only of "plains" or whatever and perhaps cheat and add road data to every tile. Dunno if that road on every tile works though, engine might go crazy with all that road info.

Changing the terrain types to plains is very easy. Shall we try it on some theater?

That's the ticket!!!
There are several relationship's going on here.
1. Tile TYPE, there are several tile type's that are inpassable to GU's.Maybe a kind PM to Baldeagle will help.
2. Link's,you need to have a Low Movement Cost backward's and forward's on your link.If you set a link between two objective's,say AL Kut and Ilam,then you need to edit that link in both objectives to reflect the lowered Move Cost.
3.Elevation,there is a certain % of Grade that a GU just will not attempt to climb.
4.Road's,I don't think they are needed for GU's to move,though nice when the Path is defined.
5.Initiative,Very important for the engine to create the kind of movement we desire.
6. Supply,though there is still some debate over this,what I have found in the past, is that it doe's influence the GU's initiative.What you see in Force Level's, I believe, is a derived %'tage of the available supply.For example:At camp. start you are at 100% of 1000,then you lose a few supplied objective's,OK now your at 100% of 950 not much difference there.Now in 2hr's you get resupplied back to 1000......That is why I believe the Graph barely move's over the life of the campaign.The only true way to check it is in TacEdit with the Autosave.cam file

Just Some Idea's,
demer

Luk · Post by **Luk** » 2010-08-10 23:30:16

I did also some tests ccc. I think it is not so bad.
I tested small area between 2 objectives - village and SAM site, placed on the new road. There is also bridge between them.
Depends, what you wanna achieve. If you want it as simple/easy/fast as possible, remove bridges, use no river thr(with all plain/farm option!) and link you objectives (situation 3). Dont care about situation 2.

situation in terrainview:

Luk

ccc · Post by **ccc** » 2010-08-11 02:01:24

Demer928: That's the ticket!!!
There are several relationship's going on here.

yes, i think tile type and slope are key factors..

Luk: I did also some tests ccc. I think it is not so bad.

thanx for testing.. your test result also confirms..
- use no-river.THR, the foot/wheel/track move cost values are ALL increased! since your test terrain seems to be flat/no slope, the difference is not that prominent.. Theoretically no-river should have lower values!

- you also do a no-river(plain) test.. i assumed you use plain type tile? your test confirms [plain tiles] significantly lower the move cost..
for foot/wheel/track type unit , it lowers 58-62% of move cost!! A good hint for speeding up ground unit movement.