New Vehicle Icons

[CAS_ual_TY]

Hello!

I have been working on a small project: new vehicle icons. The reason is that some icons dont really have a real hierarchy or a system of which vehicle is supposed to use which icon, like the BTR-60PB sharing the same icon as the MEC BMP-2, even though they are obviously completely different in terms of strength.

EDIT: Well, this has gotten a whole new horizon. Not only am I suggesting a new distinction/system for icons now, but I am also working on 32x32 icons (4x the resolution of the current ones). Spreadsheet is updated.

All icons here:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... UhYZ1NMUUE

Dont scroll until icons finished loading or the page might display them wrong!
If it happens -> reload

[I can take down all icons I didnt make, if there are any copyright issues]

Main Changes:

• 3 different shitbox icons: Shitboxes now have their own icon type. Its easy to tell the difference from "real" APCs now. Shitboxes with gunner exposed also have their own icon.
• 3 different APC icons: Depending in strength/armor of the APC. As an example, BTR-60PB, BTR-80 and BTR-80A/BMP-2 (no ATGM) all have different icons
• 3 different IFV icons: Another example; BMP-1, BMP-2, BMP-3 all have different icons now with the icons looking similar enough to immediately see the thread of an IFV with ATGM
• 3 different Tank icons: Old/weak tank; Main MBT; Main MBT with ATGM
• 4 different logi icons: 1 crate, 2 crates, 1 crate + armored, 2 crates + armored; all icons sharing the same style once again - its easy to tell a logi on the map
• 6 different jeep icons: depending on wether or not they are a "cabrio", have a roof, or real AMRAP protection (soon!); and if they are armed or not. Another 7th icon just for the ammo techie
• Helicopter distinction between CAS and trans: CAS helis now have 2 rotors, trans helis have 4 o 6
• 3 different reconnaissance vehicle icons: Panther is not used as trans jeep anymore! Pubs will never ask for a ride in a scorpion anymore!
• And the most important part: Main team support vehicles all share the same icon base. Those vehicle types are Shitboxes, APCs, AAVs and ATMs (AAV and ATM only heavy version). With the transportation vehicles (APC and Shitbox) having an additional horizontal line at the back to signal transport capability.

This might be a little confusing at first, but after 1h of using these you get used to them quite quickly! A little credit to [R-DEV]Mr.VdHeide for giving me ideas for some icons!

Let me know what you think, I hope this will get considered!

[Wicca]

Nice effort. Makes sense when you there are alot of different vehicles sharing the same icon.

[QuickLoad]

i love the idea, hope it gets implemented.
one thing, might be a little bit pointless to have so many jeep icons, and instead could do something like:

m1151 mk19 is humvee icon + a 40mm grenade next to it.

cause open roof and non-open roof isn't exactly a GREAT distinction, however i don't mind if it's implemented as is.

[Rhino]

Nice work on continuing mine and Chuc's work, main reason I didn't go into this depth myself was that the team felt it was already too much going into 3 different types of APC let alone that many

I see some icons you've removed or at least, not accounted for, like the AAVP7A1, MV-22 or Chinook icons etc, and speaking of which, you're claiming a bunch of icons like they "Heavy Trans Heli" and "Light Tank" etc are new icons, where I made them and where used before?

When I did the icons, I tried to stick with the role of the vehicle and shape (although no idea how the BMP2 ended up with a medium APC icon?). You seem to mainly be going on weapon capability of the vehicle which might be somewhat better, but it will mean that all the different weapon loadouts of the Zhi-9WA for just one example, will be using visually very different minimap icons, where each of them are all the same shape and most importantly, play the same role as a light attack chopper? Not to mention your unlikely to find many different loadouts of this chopper on the same map layer, and are most likley to cause confusion when playing different map layers with these different load-outs, rather than help players see what loadout of the chopper is coming to help them (which isn't that important and can be determined over comms if needed?)


For the Falklands I tackled this problem of having many of the same jets having different load-outs and roles by instead of having very different icons between each jet of the same shape etc, to instead only have subtle diffrences to show this.
Harrier FRS.1 (ASF - also used on A-4Q)
Harrier GR.3 (Ground Attack - also used on A-4B and A-4C)
Mirage (ASF)
Mirage (Anti-Ship)
Dagger (Strike Fighter)

Hard to say how well this has worked without feedback from the players but I couldn't go off just of shape, or weapon loadout in these cases, as if I went off of just shape, then all the versions of the Harrier a.nd Mirage would use the same icons, even thou they play different roles, and if I went off just role or weapon loadouts, then the Dagger would share the same icon as the A-4Q, but both are very different in terms of speed and power and how they support the ground forces etc.

Anyways something to keep in mind here and loving the initiative and keep up the good work!

[CAS_ual_TY]

I see some icons you've removed or at least, not accounted for, like the AAVP7A1, MV-22 or Chinook icons etc, and speaking of which, you're claiming a bunch of icons like they "Heavy Trans Heli" and "Light Tank" etc are new icons, where I made them and where used before?

Light tank has been re-made. Looks very similar, but the size of the main part is smaller, the barrel is smaller and the turret looks different. The heavy trans heli had a few open pixels and I basically closed those gaps. Small edit.

When I did the icons, I tried to stick with the role of the vehicle and shape (although no idea how the BMP2 ended up with a medium APC icon?). You seem to mainly be going on weapon capability of the vehicle which might be somewhat better, but it will mean that all the different weapon loadouts of the Zhi-9WA for just one example, will be using visually very different minimap icons, where each of them are all the same shape and most importantly, play the same role as a light attack chopper? Not to mention your unlikely to find many different loadouts of this chopper on the same map layer, and are most likley to cause confusion when playing different map layers with these different load-outs, rather than help players see what loadout of the chopper is coming to help them (which isn't that important and can be determined over comms if needed?)

Please check how I determined which AHe+loadout is going to get what Icon. There are only 3 AHe icons:

Heavy: Hydras + Hellfires (2 seats requirement guaranteed)
Medium: Hydras OR Hellfires (although it would most likely be better to make a hydra only version and a hellfire + x version since hellfires are definitely a bigger and different threat than hydras)
Light: Guns only

The sheet also shows the Z-9WA in the ahe_medium field (except for the 23mm version being only in the light field). This means that on the map where this counts (Black Gold) the 2 loadouts would have 2 different icons, while on all other maps the icon is constant.

Rhino;2172012']For the Falklands I tackled this problem of having many of the same jets having different load-outs and roles by instead of having very different icons between each jet of the same shape etc, to instead only have subtle diffrences to show this.
Harrier FRS.1 (ASF - also used on A-4Q)
Harrier GR.3 (Ground Attack - also used on A-4B and A-4C)
Mirage (ASF)
Mirage (Anti-Ship)
Dagger (Strike Fighter)

Talked with Heide about this. Really dislike it! I would rather use the main jet icons and add small differences in there, so you know the overall role but can still see the difference between small loadout changes. Its a good idea but the icon differences are overall to small to be able to call in the right jet for help.

Anyways something to keep in mind here and loving the initiative and keep up the good work!

Thanks! I hope this will be discussed. I can do changes to it if needed

[Rhino]

Talked with Heide about this. Really dislike it!

If you have a better idea I would like to hear it? We talked about it quite a bit in the team and after much debate, found this to be the best solution. Players also seemed to grasp the differences pretty quickly and had no complaints etc?

Here are all the PR:F jet load outs (all of which are featured on the same map/layers):

I would rather use the main jet icons and add small differences in there, so you know the overall role but can still see the difference between small loadout changes. Its a good idea but the icon differences are overall to small to be able to call in the right jet for help.

That is basically what I did? Other than the Mirage/Dagger which is a new icon in itself (but was used before this change for them too) but the Harrier icons were just a slightly modified from the original "Light Attack Jet" icon, which itself was based off the Harrier.

[Mr.VdHeide]

I do like the PRF icons, they are good.

The main thing with this new system is that it will be easier to identify a vehivle by its icon. Another great thing is the recon class. I am fed up with Fenneks being taken as a jeep. With this new system we can count the recon vehicles towards apc squads.




D.J.

[CAS_ual_TY]

You used the main jet icons, but you basically took one icon and then added small differences. I would assign one icon out of all (which is fitting the most) and then probably add some differences, like this:



I dont even think that small differences are really necessary. In pub gameplay its more like the general role people prefer, while in a more serious environment players will know exactly which jet is going to spawn where, who is going to take what etc.

[Rhino]

Ye but IMO, that's worse than the current setup

Visually just from the minimap icons, it looks like a vastly different jet is coming to your aid than the one coming, and for someone not familiar with the vehicles on the map, could even be expecting something like a Su-27 coming to their aid instead of a Sea Harrier or Mirage based solely on their minimap icon, etc

Also, there are no distinguishable differences between the Daggers and Skyhawks, where their speed and movability is actually more important than their weapons, which the only way you leave to tell that from the minimap icons, is the speed they are moving at, which can be very deceiving if they are in an attack dive or climbing for an attack, or performing tight turns etc.

The reason why I'm picking out just jets is they are really the most important, and hardest things to show via minimap icons in my experience since they are often not in visual range to get visual confirmation on what they really are, and they vary so drastically between different shapes and roles, but mostly on the Falklands.
The advantages of the way I had the icons setup is you could tell the basic aircraft type at a quick glance (really the key thing when dealing with aircraft), and then if you knew the finer details, what role that aircraft was performing with its finer details which you can still tell pretty quickly if you know what you're looking for, although yes, no real indicators and hard to be consistent between lots of different jets.


PS. Once the Super Etendard comes in then it can have its own unique Anti-Ship jet icon based on its shape.

[chupachup]

What should be the maximum size of an icon? 16x16?

[B4rr3l]

nice! Download link?

[Rhino]

What should be the maximum size of an icon? 16x16?

If sticking with the vBF2 standard and the standard of every other icon, then yes. But it is possible to go higher rez than that.

[chupachup]

Made these heavily based on OP's icons for the jets cus I felt like it. Do with it whatever your heart desires.

jet_sf


jet_fb


jet_asf


jet_la


jet_ha


jet_ttp

[B4rr3l]

If sticking with the vBF2 standard and the standard of every other icon, then yes. But it is possible to go higher rez than that.

keep in mind that most bf2 small icons are actually in ARGB 32-bit and not DXT5,. DXT5 screws all the gradient and introduces a lot of noise. Best way to go is to double all it's size (32x32) or even 48x4 and put them all at a 2.048x2048 atlas sheet DXT5. we are talking about 4MB for all the small icons at future proof HD resolutions since you guys are going though all this work make it all twice the size! you can always downscale some stuff if running out of memory, but you can't upscale them in te future

[B4rr3l]

Sights are another problem, 128x128 ARGB 32Bit sights are usually much better than a 512x512 DXT5 sight because it needs smooth gradients to look sharp on the alpha.

[TBob]

Stuff like this with only black and white doesn't take a quality hit from DXT compression, these also only need 1 bit alpha so you can even use DXT1. In theory you could upscale them to 32x32 uninterpolated so they appear sharper and fit them all on 32KB worth of texture.

[Rhino]

Ye never had any compression issues with the minimap icons as TBob said, but yes doing them in 2x the size does make them a lot "smoother" but would require a total overhaul of the current icons but if CAS or someone is keen on that part, might be an idea, but wouldn't go above 32x32px unless someone can really notice the difference, maybe they might be able to on 4k?

[PBAsydney]

Ye never had any compression issues with the minimap icons as TBob said, but yes doing them in 2x the size does make them a lot "smoother" but would require a total overhaul of the current icons but if CAS or someone is keen on that part, might be an idea, but wouldn't go above 32x32px unless someone can really notice the difference, maybe they might be able to on 4k?

The icons seem to scale fine at higher resolutions as they are. I run the game at 2560x1440 and I've never had an issue with the icons, even relative to my original vBF2 resolution of 1024x768 back in 2005.

[B4rr3l]

Stuff like this with only black and white doesn't take a quality hit from DXT compression, these also only need 1 bit alpha so you can even use DXT1. In theory you could upscale them to 32x32 uninterpolated so they appear sharper and fit them all on 32KB worth of texture.

I must disagree, greyscale stuff are the ones who suffers most from DXT5 compression. I've found out that by my self with the water, even an 8K water texture will look pixelated in game while an 1k 32bit won't.

Icons don't have elaborated alpha so DXt3 might be enough, I can notice a lot the difference between an 16x16 for an 32x32 or 64x64, that on 2560x1080.

[TBob]

I must disagree, greyscale stuff are the ones who suffers most from DXT5 compression. I've found out that by my self with the water, even an 8K water texture will look pixelated in game while an 1k 32bit won't.

Icons don't have elaborated alpha so DXt3 might be enough, I can notice a lot the difference between an 16x16 for an 32x32 or 64x64, that on 2560x1080.

We're not dealing with greyscale here though, literally full black and full white. You can try it for yourself - take some black and white noise, compress it with DXT and look for any differences.

The icons here also only use 1 bit alpha, so using DXT3 or DXT5 would just double the size for no benefit.

The icons seem to scale fine at higher resolutions as they are. I run the game at 2560x1440 and I've never had an issue with the icons, even relative to my original vBF2 resolution of 1024x768 back in 2005.

Here's a comparison between 16x16 and 32x32 at 2560x1440. I just doubled the resolution of the atlas and saved it as DXT1 to test.