Pity I don't get money from Battlefront. ;-)

A valid concern, for sure, but from my experience elevation isn't a dominant factor here. Objects on the map, especially buildings, are more important. Things may look different on other machines, though, so I'll make all stages of the map available via the battlefront forum once they are done. Then you can try for yourself if you are interested.

@@derbutschi756 It will also depend highly on map size of course, but especially Cold War usually has bigger maps. But, be it what it is, even with this concern, your tool builds for an extremely good basis to create maps fast and efficient. Once they are made, they can be adjusted via hand.

You are right, of course, map size is a huge factor. Now, I have no clue how the engine ticks on the inside. But it seems to me that it doesn't really care if an elevation points was set by the user or calculated from other points. I guess it just saves a value for each square, anyway. And if you look at the title image, the map there is... I think... something like 4km x 3km. Believe me, loading the raw terrain is super fast compared to the map with several thousand buildings! ;-)

@MrFusselig Btw. did a quick test with a 1520m x 1920m: the loading time is *identical* for both a totally flat map and a map with all elevation points set. So this is really a non-issue.

@@derbutschi756 Really? I have problems with my map and the hight resolver. The map crashed on a regular basis. I deleted hight points, and then the map kept loading again, but had problems with the correct resolving of the height, made a threat with pictures about it on the official forum "height resolver is inconsistent bug report". But deleting even more elevation points solved the issue.