Mokomoko 10 Posted January 27, 2015 Hey guys, I have the following problem: I am using the Terrain Builder to create a map for Arma 3. I got it working to the point that I can create missions for the map in the arma3 map editor. Now I wanted to place some trees, houses, etc. and did so by adding every single object onto the terrain. When I wanted to test it, it worked fine and I could play the map normally. Suddenly - when I had placed a lot of objects (around 2000 maybe?) the bulldozer said "Too many objects in grid rectangle 13,8" when I tried to start it. I tried to pack the map anyways and when I tried to launch arma, the same error appeared. So I assume I have too many objects in the grid rectangle 13,8 -> My Question is: How can I locate that spot? And what is the maximum of objects that can be there? Any help is greatly appreciated! Edit: Here is a picture of it Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakerod 254 Posted January 28, 2015 Sometimes you get that error if you have an object outside the mapframe. I'm not sure how to track down that rectangle though. It's possible it means 13,8 in local coordinates but that might be wrong. That would be 13m over from 0,0 and 8m up. Probably something I should learn. Did you use any type of fill option anywhere? It's possible a bunch of objects can stacked on top of one another. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
badluckburt 78 Posted January 28, 2015 Was this before or after you changed the texture size from 640x640m to somewhere around 40m? You could export the objects to a textfile and look for a lot of objects with the same coordinates. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mokomoko 10 Posted January 28, 2015 You guys are amazing. Thanks for your reply! @BadLuckBert: That error appeared before and after I changed that texture size. I may try to take a look into that textfile. @Jakerod: Its not 13,8 meter - it was in the middle of the map and the map is 10km^2 and I don't think 0,0 is in the middle of the map but yes I used the fill option - and that was probably the problem... I resolved that problem by deleting everything and placing every object manually so I can track down after every object which cell is affected. Exhausting! But I've never been confronted with that error again... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bushlurker 45 Posted January 28, 2015 bulldozer said "Too many objects in grid rectangle 13,8" = "Too many objects in LAND grid rectangle 13,8" Landgrid size should be mentioned in your Samplers Tab... There IS a limit to the number of objects allowable per LandGrid, and - obviously - the bigger the landgrid, the easier it is to go over the limit with dense object placement... B Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mokomoko 10 Posted January 28, 2015 = "Too many objects in LAND grid rectangle 13,8"Landgrid size should be mentioned in your Samplers Tab... There IS a limit to the number of objects allowable per LandGrid, and - obviously - the bigger the landgrid, the easier it is to go over the limit with dense object placement... B http://img5.picload.org/image/ciaadoa/samplers.png This is my samplers Tab (ignore the last value, I changed that to 40x40 thanks to BadLuckBert) but you are saying I should change Grid Size to 512x512 and then cell size to 20? Then I'll still have the same Terrain size but I can place more objects? Why would you want that value to be high then anyways? And will I get problems with my terrain when I change those values? Last time I played with those values my objects changed their position randomly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
badluckburt 78 Posted January 28, 2015 It's Burt :P But anyway, Bushlurker didn't mention any numbers so how did you come up with 512x512 and 20x20m all of the sudden? :D Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mokomoko 10 Posted January 28, 2015 It's Burt :P But anyway, Bushlurker didn't mention any numbers so how did you come up with 512x512 and 20x20m all of the sudden? :D Sorry burt :D Well, he said I need a smaller Grid Size, and the next smaller one is 512x512 and If I want the same terrain size, I need to adjust the Cell size to 20m - that's just what I thought would make sense. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
badluckburt 78 Posted January 28, 2015 Sorry burt :DWell, he said I need a smaller Grid Size, and the next smaller one is 512x512 and If I want the same terrain size, I need to adjust the Cell size to 20m - that's just what I thought would make sense. Unless I misunderstood Bushlurker, he was talking about the Land grid in the middle pane: http://i.imgur.com/fhFvt67.png I drew a red square around it. With your old settings, it was 16 meters. If you could make a new screenshot we can compare the values but I'm pretty sure your map is fine now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bushlurker 45 Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) obviously - the bigger the landgrid, the easier it is to go over the limit with dense object placement... Equally obviously, I got this wrong...! :o I should have said... "obviously - the SMALLER the landgrid, the easier it is to go over the limit with dense object placement... Small LandGrid + many objects = overload Larger LandGrid + same number of objects = OK LandGrid isn't a parameter you can set directly, its size is influenced by the other sizes you CAN choose, such as Sat & Mask Tile Size, overall terrain size & resolution, etc... The basic concept is (vaguely) explained in The BI WIKI... Example: Assume world size 10240 x 10240 m with 40 m grid (i.e. 256 x 256 grids) , satellite texture with resolution 7680 x 7680 (one landscape grid needs to be covered by a whole number of texels, therefore satellite texture size needs to be a multiple of world size in grids). We want to achieve segment size 512 x 512 texels, and given the 16 texel overlap wanted, one segment will cover 496 x 496 texels. Size of one texel is 10240 m /7680 (1.3333 m) in this case, 496 texels give around 661.33 m. With 40 m grid we get 661.33/40 = 16.5, which rounded down gives 16. (If the texture grid is different from the terrain grid, rounding down is not enough - we need to round down to the nearest multiple of the number of terrain grids in the texture grid. With terrain grid 10 and texture grid 40 the satellite segment size needs to be a multiple of 4. Pretty confusing, huh? Be assured that nobody actually understands precisely what TB does exactly when it "Slices the Layers into tiles". However, even from the above explanation you can see why some of the parametrs you have control over are considered to have "reasonably safe values"... Notice... given the 16 texel overlap wanted ie: keep "overlap" around 16 if possible, and... With 40 m grid Texture layer (grid) size will vary, depending on other factors, but "close as possible to 40x40m" is a good rule-of-thumb for that one... In general, your posted terrain parameters are a little... odd... 1024x1024@2m = 2048 meters Thats a VERY small terrain, smaller than the range of some weapons, and compared to maximum viewdistance it's very small indeed... Arma doesn't like terrains that are excessively huge, but it also doesn't like terrains which are just TOO small... 2x2km is getting into "too small" territory, and - for an experimental first terrain, 4x4km or 5x5km might be a better choice 5120x5120@0.4m/px is an odd resolution for a sat image too - even with the above terrain size, 2048x2048@1m/px, or 4096x4096@0.5m/px would probably make for easier tiling and divisions Your map should still work in-game OK, but due to the small size and consequently non-standard parameters, you may run into occasional issues - like the "too many objects" one... And - 2048x2048 for Texture Layer size - given that your terrain is only 2048x2048 - doesn't really allow for "tiling" of the sat at all - were it not for the stated overlap. B Edited January 28, 2015 by Bushlurker Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mokomoko 10 Posted January 28, 2015 Equally obviously, I got this wrong...! :oI should have said... "obviously - the SMALLER the landgrid, the easier it is to go over the limit with dense object placement... Small LandGrid + many objects = overload Larger LandGrid + same number of objects = OK LandGrid isn't a parameter you can set directly, its size is influenced by the other sizes you CAN choose, such as Sat & Mask Tile Size, overall terrain size & resolution, etc... The basic concept is (vaguely) explained in The BI WIKI... Pretty confusing, huh? Be assured that nobody actually understands precisely what TB does exactly when it "Slices the Layers into tiles". However, even from the above explanation you can see why some of the parametrs you have control over are considered to have "reasonably safe values"... Notice... ie: keep "overlap" around 16 if possible, and... Texture layer (grid) size will vary, depending on other factors, but "close as possible to 40x40m" is a good rule-of-thumb for that one... In general, your posted terrain parameters are a little... odd... 1024x1024@2m = 2048 meters Thats a VERY small terrain, smaller than the range of some weapons, and compared to maximum viewdistance it's very small indeed... Arma doesn't like terrains that are excessively huge, but it also doesn't like terrains which are just TOO small... 2x2km is getting into "too small" territory, and - for an experimental first terrain, 4x4km or 5x5km might be a better choice 5120x5120@0.4m/px is an odd resolution for a sat image too - even with the above terrain size, 2048x2048@1m/px, or 4096x4096@0.5m/px would probably make for easier tiling and divisions Your map should still work in-game OK, but due to the small size and consequently non-standard parameters, you may run into occasional issues - like the "too many objects" one... And - 2048x2048 for Texture Layer size - given that your terrain is only 2048x2048 - doesn't really allow for "tiling" of the sat at all - were it not for the stated overlap. B You looked at the settings of BadLuckBurt not mine. My map is actually 10.000m² take a look at my settings here: http://img5.picload.org/image/ciaadoa/samplers.png I understand your explanation anyways, it clears up a lot of questions I had about those values and I never found a good documentation or manual for the terrain builder. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
badluckburt 78 Posted January 28, 2015 Equally obviously, I got this wrong...! :o I should have said... "obviously - the SMALLER the landgrid, the easier it is to go over the limit with dense object placement... Small LandGrid + many objects = overload Larger LandGrid + same number of objects = OK LandGrid isn't a parameter you can set directly, its size is influenced by the other sizes you CAN choose, such as Sat & Mask Tile Size, overall terrain size & resolution, etc... The basic concept is (vaguely) explained in The BI WIKI... Pretty confusing, huh? Be assured that nobody actually understands precisely what TB does exactly when it "Slices the Layers into tiles". However, even from the above explanation you can see why some of the parametrs you have control over are considered to have "reasonably safe values"... Notice... ie: keep "overlap" around 16 if possible, and... Texture layer (grid) size will vary, depending on other factors, but "close as possible to 40x40m" is a good rule-of-thumb for that one... In general, your posted terrain parameters are a little... odd... 1024x1024@2m = 2048 meters Thats a VERY small terrain, smaller than the range of some weapons, and compared to maximum viewdistance it's very small indeed... Arma doesn't like terrains that are excessively huge, but it also doesn't like terrains which are just TOO small... 2x2km is getting into "too small" territory, and - for an experimental first terrain, 4x4km or 5x5km might be a better choice 5120x5120@0.4m/px is an odd resolution for a sat image too - even with the above terrain size, 2048x2048@1m/px, or 4096x4096@0.5m/px would probably make for easier tiling and divisions Your map should still work in-game OK, but due to the small size and consequently non-standard parameters, you may run into occasional issues - like the "too many objects" one... And - 2048x2048 for Texture Layer size - given that your terrain is only 2048x2048 - doesn't really allow for "tiling" of the sat at all - were it not for the stated overlap. B Sorry for spoilering it but since MokoMoko already quoted you, I didn't want to make the page even longer. Hm, I thought everything was fine with my settings but apparently not :/ The terrain is very small but I didn't think it would be a problem. It's actually true to scale but I can make the area bigger, the source data is a much larger tile so I'll just crop it less and make it 4x4km. The 2m horizontal resolution is the same as the original, I didn't think it necessary to rescale it. I figured since I didn't need the other stuff, I'd make it lean and mean but apparently thought wrong. The satellite image size is what I ended up with after screenshotting Flash Earth, since it generated and showed the tiles fine in-game I assumed I was in the clear. I don't fully understand your comment about not allowing for tiling though. When I generate the tiles I get 3x3 tiles so 9 total. It made sense to me because dividing 5120 / 2048 = 2.5 and that has to be rounded up to get the complete sat layer (and then some apparently :/). I'm not too far into the project thankfully and I'm very grateful for your spontaneous feedback :) It's better to run into this early on, I should head off to bed now since that was where I was headed before I came back to this thread. I may have to PM you with my plan of action later on if you don't mind, just to make sure I set off on the right foot this time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
