 News | Forum | People | FAQ | Links | Search | Register |
Log in |
|
|
in standard Quake, it is 32768, but the true maximum you can have is 65536 (this is the one i was referring to). after that, you must change the bsp format itself.
Final screenshots of my library scene
http://www.simonoc.com/images/design/concept/library_f01hd.jpg http://www.simonoc.com/images/design/concept/library_f02hd.jpg http://www.simonoc.com/images/design/concept/library_f03hd.jpg http://www.simonoc.com/images/design/concept/library_f04hd.jpg If you need more pixels and a larger download size, try these http://www.simonoc.com/images/design/concept/library_f01wd.jpg http://www.simonoc.com/images/design/concept/library_f02wd.jpg http://www.simonoc.com/images/design/concept/library_f03wd.jpg http://www.simonoc.com/images/design/concept/library_f04wd.jpg If you are interested there is the usual waffle about what happened http://www.simonoc.com/pages/design/concept/library.htm Willem is right insofar as, indeed, Quake tech isn't designed for large open areas with lots of detail. Not only can the compile time grow exponentially, there's also the chance the map will not run as smoothly on some machines - from what I understand, the engine is not optimized to render so much at once so it can it will choke in situations of excessive polycount and run poorly on machines that can run more modern games just fine. Case in point: this happened to me when playing the unvised versions of Arcanum on a P4. So the claim that nowadays VIS is irrelevant is wrong. DirectQ (and RMQ) apparently use improved rendering techniques that allow for more excess than standard Quake does.
Of course, it doesn't mean people should refrain from making large areas if they think the map benefits from them. Many of the excellent maps in the past were pretty large and open, and it worked. People who tend or like to go large aren't mapping for the wrong game, of course - they just have to be aware that it comes at the cost of (sometimes greatly) increased VIS time. Kinn: I don't think there's a new concensus. Couple years back people would say 800-1000, at least in non- or low-action areas. Today I'd say 1500-2000 maybe, even though many maps surpass this by far. Real skill shows where maps look great and detailed (and not overly constrained) but still keep r_speeds within a relatively low margin. Case in point: this happened to me when playing the unvised versions of Arcanum on a P4. So the claim that nowadays VIS is irrelevant is wrong.
But I would wager that it's for the wrong reasons. If an engine is parsing the VIS data lumps and using those to determine what to draw and blah blah, rather than just throwing every poly in the BSP into texture sorted buckets at the card - it's probably going to run slower than it optimally could. A map should be sealed, no question, so the extra cruft outside gets removed but I still question the need for the VIS structures on modern machines. Is there any consensus on what wpoly count is acceptable these days?
If I can get hold of a Raspberry Pi, I'll try using that as my low end test system. If it runs well on that, ship it! @Scampie, it is looking good, I love the attention to detail. I just wish the rivet shadow on the pipes was the right way and the metal seam was on the poly edge (pipe in foreground) not in the middle.
Scampie: it's looking good, but the theme *seems* wrong. Industrial or metal would be much better, those base textures and pipes don't fit together.
looks great, i wish 90% of the surfaces weren't covered in the same brown color though. (i realize this is idbase.) Maybe the pipes were textured with a contrasting color (like the quake2 red pipe texture, or maybe a darker grey metal color) it would pop more.
Agree with metlslime, you do have too much of the same colour. Maybe try the white that's goes with that set? Plus you don't have to bother with the texture stuff I mentioned, it is only me that gets bothered by that stuff.
I will try and reduce the brown... not on the pipes though, I was finally happy with that texture after searching and trying a million other textures!
Personally, I though the pipes in the first screenshot were MUCH better. Infact, I prefered the first screenshot more. Sure there's a lot of brown, but it actually looked really nice and had a better 'feel' to the room. Kinda warm and I wanted to be there. Current shot loses that. Too much contrast perhaps and now it feels very cold. Texturing also feels 'tacked on' this time.
I think the texturing on the first pipe was spot on, the seam down the middle works. I love idbase, but I love them even more when the texturing is done well like you originally had it. Personally, I would stick with the previous version but try to ensure that there's some other kind of style variety/contrast in other types of sections (ex. cold and wet lower work areas with more contrast, maybe using the style from the current screen?) ...who has to cut the angles on those tiny bits of floor tile where they meet the edge-trim ;)
...so make sure it's not your money.
"Straight bits, guv, I can do pdq, but those nasty angly bits, well... special tools, two man job, sharp-pointy-bits, health'n'safety; all adds to the time, and you know what time means, guv'nor..." those pipes look nice, though I agree with Quakis on the first shot looking somewhat nicer. I think I'd reduce the texture detail on the pipes and revert the floor back to the old one. The other changes look good though.
last night I wanted to work on something to take my mind of apsp3, which is a bit stuck at the moment, so I started making an sp remix of Romero's(??) dm7.
http://i.imgur.com/J5nnc.jpg Looks shit at the moment, but I wanted to avoid the dm4 style textures and try something more similar to e1m5. Very very very rough atm :)
|
|
| You must be logged in to post in this thread. |
|
| Website copyright © 2002-2024 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors. |