News | Forum | People | FAQ | Links | Register | Log in
Tyrutils-ericw V0.15.1
Hey, I got around to setting up a website for my branch of tyrutils: (complete with lots of screenshots of different settings of AO, sunlight, etc!)
http://ericwa.github.io/tyrutils-ericw
and making an "official" release of it.

Nothing major changed compared with the last snapshot (may 1st), but a couple new things:

* .lux file support from Spike, for deluxemapping
* gamma control with -gamma flag and "_gamma" key
* rename -dirty flag to -dirt for consistency
* fence texture tracing is now opt-in only with the "-fence" flag.
* light should run a bit faster


This doesn't have lit2. Not sure what to do with that, tbh.

If there's a demand for it, I was thinking I could make a tool that upscales all textures in a wad by 2x or 4x, and adds a "-2x"/"-4x" suffix to the names. You could then manually get the higher-res lightmap on certain faces by applying the upscaled texture, and lowering the texture scale to 0.5 or 0.25 in your editor.

The only real disadvantage of this hacky method over lit2 is more face subdivision by qbsp. This isn't great, but it shouldn't be an issue if the hack is used sparingly (and bsp2 can be used if needed for higher face/vert limits.)

Anyway, enjoy, I hope this is pretty bug-free.
First | Previous | Next | Last
New Version V0.15.9 
Download here

Changes:

- light: fix black fringes on bmodels that are touching against the world
- light: light passing through glass lights up the back side
- light: bmodels with "_alpha" < 1 and "_shadow" "1" set cast tinted shadows
- qbsp: support Quake 3 "Brush Primitives" .MAP format
- qbsp: save "_mincolor" for func_detail/group to the .texinfo file, now used by light
- qbsp: performance improvements


To elaborate on the "fix black fringes on bmodels" thing, v0.15.8 had a pretty severe bug where every func_door (or any bmodel) would have black edges wherever it touched the world, like an ugly/broken looking version of AO.

The reason I broke that in v0.15.8 was, I was trying to fix another bug, where bmodels (func_wall, etc.) that intersect the world, or have a face touching the world, would have broken lighting (usually all-black faces). Typical case where this would happen would be a large func_wall window that has a world brush slicing through it (or just touching the front).

So, that bug is back, because the "fix" I tried was much worse (black fringes on all bmodels). If you have a func_wall with black faces / broken lighting, the fix is to manually clip it against the world so it doesn't stick into the world anywhere. I'll see if I can come up with a better fix next version 
Fringe Of Darkness 
That's great to hear, I encountered the black fringe issue before and it is good to know it may be fixed on this release! 
 
Would it be possible to hit both bugs by having the compiler test if the bmodel intersects or not? Or would that require multiple passes or something like that? (Assuming extra passes would suck, which when it comes to speed they probably would :/) 
Qbsp 
Performance improvements - intrigued, my latest maps have been bottlenecked by Qbsp which is wierd since vis always took the longest until recent improved versions. Curious what improvements you've made. 
 
@Qmaster - performance improvements are from undoing some mistakes I made when C++-izing bits of qbsp (unnecessary std::map lookups). Qbsp could be made a lot faster, though. e.g. Quake 2's is multithreaded.

Pritchard, I'm not sure if knowing if the bmodel intersected the world would help. I think I need to do something like: test whether each sample point is in the void or not, and just not use the ones that are in the void. 
Dumb Question 
How do you do lit liquids? I tried the commandline flags people are talking about here (-litturb etc.) and it just gives an error and doesn't run light. Was it removed or something? 
 
-splitturb option for qbsp.exe should do it; light.exe will automatically detect this and save lightmaps for the water. Looks like that option is missing from the docs.

Engine support is fairly rare (?) - I don't know what supports it, off hand. 
 
Engine support is fairly rare (?) - I don't know what supports it, off hand.

So I can "bake" lightmap on the water and it will be still fullbright in some engines, or what? 
 
So I can "bake" lightmap on the water and it will be still fullbright in some engines, or what?

Yes. There is that one software render engine that mankrip is doing that supports it I think. That's the only one I am aware of.

However, give other engine authors a slap and a tickle in the right place and I'm sure this feature can be adopted elsewhere (it bloomin well should be because it's coolbeans) 
 
I just checked my Jam 7 map to be sure I was remembering correctly, and Darkplaces supports lit water too, at least version 15:49:13 May 13 2014. Incidentally, I discovered the final version of my map is apparently broken in that engine for a different reason, which is just fantastic, but the lit water works as expected. It's easier to see the effect with r_wateralpha 1, of course. 
Crazy Idea 
All this talk of lightstyles in the AD thread got me thinking...

Say you had a moving object with start and end positions in radically different lighting conditions.

Imagine you could tell the light tool to light this object in position 1, assigning all light on it to lightstyle "x", and then light it again in position 2, assigning the light to style "y".

Then in the QuakeC you could fade lightstyles x and y in and out as the object moved.

Just an idea, but it struck me as interesting that this sort of cheap dynamic light effect boils down to being a compiler thing + a bit of QC.

You could even go nuts and leverage the fact you can have up to 4 lightstyles on the object, so can specify up to 4 different positions to light it in, allowing much more accuracy in the blending as the object moves around.

I may be missing a few "gotchas" but, does the theory sound basically correct? 
 
there are only 64 lightstyles total, and 32 of them are used by light.exe for switchable lights, the other 32 for "styled" lights (flickering/pulsing) -- of which about 11 are actually used in id1 progs. So I think this would work if you were willing to dedicate 2-4 styles just for that one moving object, and write a quakec modification as necessary to do the proper fading. 
It Is Intriguing 
I guess it would be something that could become an attractive idea when you have situations like in Hrimfaxi's rrp map, where there is a large section of a big room that moves up through several floors.

Wouldn't be worth it for run-of-the-mill platforms and what not, but for big setpiece movers I can see it having the potential to look quite sexy. 
 
There are 64 lightstyles, but Quake's BSP format only supports 4 different styles per surface.

IMHO, a more practical solution would be to use the "Lit BSP models" feature from the Makaqu engine 1.6 (used to adjust the brightness of the ammo boxes to the ambient lighting) and add an option to make it also work on internal BSP submodels. 
#637 
I only suggest the idea because it struck me as interesting that it doesn't need a custom engine.

I'd be happy to use up a handful of lightstyles on a moving room setpiece.

How is the "ambient lighting" determined in Makaqu? 
Cool Idea! 
I think the challenge is working out a standard between the mapper, light.exe, and the QC. light needs to have a copy of the logic for the func_door/train or whatever is moving. Func_door would be pretty easy, func_train would be trickier (unless the mapper marks which path_corner's to calculate lighting at, up to 4 per train?).

Also, things like making sunlight/sunlight2 use a lightstyle other than the default of 0 are certainly possible without too much work in the light tool. Easiest way might be for the mapper to specify a lightstyle number with a worldpawn key like "_sunlight_style" - light would then use that for the sunlight, and know not to assign that style number for a switchable light. 
 
I guess one implementation could be...

I would suggest light.exe should not need to know how the object moves - it only needs to know the positions to light it at - these could be specified in the map with "info_lightmodel" entities - they would mark the various positions (mins?) of the brushmodel. The info_lightmodel would target the brushmodel (to let light.exe know what to light, obviously), and also specify the "style" number to use. 
Also 
your sunlight suggestion is cool.

Question: what happens with bounce light coming off a surface with styled lights? Is there a bounce for each style? 
 
Mmm - yes the info_lightmodel sounds good.

Currently styled lights don't bounce at all, this was something I limited to make the first version of the code simpler, but I want to support it eventually. 
 
Yeah I guess bouncing styles would have a similar problem to styles on lights with 1/x or 1/x^2 falloffs: you could propagate styles to tons of surfaces everywhere and it could get out of control.

I think for most styled lights, you won't really notice the lack of bounce, but if you start doing styled sunlight, then I think sunlight bounce would be noticeable and you'd expect it to change like the direct sunlight does. 
Kinn 
How is the "ambient lighting" determined in Makaqu?

Nearly the same as in MDL models, using R_LightPoint and the entity origin, offset by the relative model position.

As for a pure QC + assets workaround... How about this:

- Make one model on origin A (start), and another on origin B (end).

- Set the B model to non-solid, and enlarge it by 1 unit (not 1%) on each direction.

- In the QC code, make the B model follow the origin of the A model.

- Implement code to fade the .alpha of the B model according to how far it is from the end position.

Almost every custom engine supports .alpha, so this shouldn't be a problem unless someone really wants to target vanilla WinQuake/GLQuake. 
Bmodels With _shadow 1 Lighting Problem 
Does light do simplified calculations on bmodels with _shadow 1? I get weird squares of shadows on solids from complex bmodels (in places, not everywhere). Splitting a big bmodel into a few smaller ones doesn't change anything. Any suggessions? 
 
There have been problems with _shadow 1 bmodels intersecting/touching each other, or the world. The faces that are touching can have artifacts, either black fringes or solid black or other artifacts.

I forget what the current status is, because I've been swapping in and out hacks to try to combat that.. but I'm working on a more correct fix.

Other than that, there shouldn't be any problem with shadows from bmodels. Check your version is 0.15.9, or feel free to email me screenshot/map if it seems like a different bug. 
So 
If the bmodel doesn't touch another solid, the problem should be gone? 
 
Yeah, if they're not touching the problem should not occur (at least a 2 unit gap. The light sample points are 1 unit above the face, having these sample points blocked is what causes issues) 
Thanks 
that was very helpful 
Ericw 
does "-bounce 1" bounce lights with negative values? 
Nope 
Negative lights are ignored by bounce 
Hexen 2 Rotating Entities Broken 
The use of an origin brush for rotating entities doesn't work with -hexen2. The origin brush is visible ingame and the brush still rotates around the map origin 
 
Yeah, there is no origin brush support at the moment.

Current behaviour is (designed for Q1 hipnotic rotation):
If a brush entity classname starts with "rotate_", qbsp looks at the "target" key, and searches for the targetted (point) entity. That point entity's origin becomes the origin of the brush entity.

I'm not sure if that is compatible with Hexen 2 rotation? 
Probably Not 
Hexen 2's is more like half-life, though it uses the "flags" key for how many degrees it should rotate. I think you can manually enter the origin to specify where it should rotate but that doesn't seem to work right in trenchbroom 
Figured Out A Sort Of Workaround 
You can actually manually put the origin in, but you have to place the brush at the map origin or it ends up outside the map.

Kind of a pain to light it properly but it works otherwise. 
 
lmao that sounds like an editing nightmare 
 
Tried implementing it, download available on the github issue

It might be handy for Quake too.
Hope I did it right.. if there is a brush in a brush entity with the "origin" texture, the center of that brush is used as the model origin (qbsp translates the model so that point is at 0 0 0, and sets the "origin" key).

Also light no longer cares about the classname starting with "rotate_", if the brush entity has an "origin" key set to something other than "0 0 0", the faces will be translated to that position during lighting (hopefully doesn't break anything?) 
Im Wondering 
Is there a standard for final compile settings? I assume people leave BSP and VIS parameters alone, except maybe -bsp2 for BSP? Is that something everyone uses, or only if the map somehow doesn't compile as a regular BSP? Is there any reason not to use BSP2?

For light, judging by the doc page on Eric's site, I'd guess people use -extra4, -gate 1, -bounce 1, and maybe some -soft? 
Final Compiles 
Yeah, the main thing is to use -extra4 on light; the other tools can stay with the default settings.

-gate 1 is probably fine but it's actually a faster/lower quality option than the default. -bounce 1 is something you want to use from the beginning if you are going to use it, since it'll change the entire look of the map. -soft is personal taste, it will make the final lightmap softer.

Is there any reason not to use BSP2?
It's best not to use the -bsp2 flag unless it's needed so the map will run on the widest range of engines (including vanilla ones). qbsp will print an error if the map exceeds limits so that it requires -bsp2. 
Also 
-bouncescale .8 or so? What about sunlight and dirt settings in the worldspawn? 
 
Tougher to generalize as those are more artistic choices. The screenshots / settings on the website give some starting points, you can also check map sources for ideas. 
Yeah 
I did check out some of the AD maps and was surprised to find very little dirt is used. Judging by the 1000 Cuts screenies I'd expect a lot more dirt, but maybe that's because of the greyscale. Sock seems to use 96 dirt, I'd think an intermediate between 256-512 would look nice. 
 
Sock seems to use 96 dirt, I'd think an intermediate between 256-512 would look nice.

Sock's 96 dirtdepth is not a bad value actually. A dirtdepth of 256-512 is something that works when looking at a distant shot of an otherwise fullbright map, like in the preview image on ericw's page. For a normally lit map, it means surfaces 256-512 units away will be darkening your target surface, which can just suck all the light out of interior rooms quite easily. 
Kinn 
I know it's probably a good value; Sock chose it. I have no Quake experience so all I have to go on are Eric's pics and various worldspawns. I need to jump in and make myself a test map. 
 
I prefer to set things like bounce in worldspawn and keep my compilation configuration as "universal" as possible. I just use -extra4 and -soft on my light config, and I usually use bsp2 for qbsp because what current engine doesn't support it, anyway? 
Lol... 
Don't use bsp2 if you don't need it. 
Pritchard 
You can use the bounce parameters in the worldspawn? It doesn't say that on Eric's site. 
 
Yeah, i'm pretty sure. Also, because of otp, i'm only going to release my maps in bsp2 from now on. (Not that I release any maps...) 
#665 
Same. I only use in my compilation setup are the ones that can ONLY go in there. Otherwise the rest go in worldspawn.

Actually, speaking out loud, I need to add those to my .fgds. 
Derp. I Meant #668 
 
#669 
I have .fgd with all Tyrutils-ericw options for my JACK setup, should be easy to transfer to TB2 if you want. 
Wait 
You can put this stuff in the fgd? How are you doing that? 
#672 
Open the .fgd with a text editor and add/edit worldspawn fields like you would with any other entity. 
 
You can use the bounce parameters in the worldspawn? It doesn't say that on Eric's site.

Good spot. Looks like the "Worldspawn Keys" section needs updating http://ericwa.github.io/tyrutils-ericw/doc/light.html 
So Then 
Which fgd are you guys using? I have a quake.fgd that came with JACK and then the AD fgd. 
Dirty Choices 
I did check out some of the AD maps
Every mapper did their own thing and there are some who did not use detail brushwork or utilize lit files. Personally I compiled all my maps in AD with dirt parameters which are setup on the worldspawn so everyone can reproduce the results for themselves.

Sock seems to use 96 dirt
Its dangerous to take that parameter in isolation because the dirt AO system has several parameters which all play key roles in how the dirt is applied. You also need to remember the dirt parameters work with 2 other key systems, architecture and light entities!

I did countless tests with the new dirt AO system and found I wanted a strong dirt in corners that worked with finer brushwork detail. I also only added dirt to strong light source (excluded from all small/ambient light sources) and excluded it from most func bmodel entities.

There are many examples of different ways to setup lights and I would highly recommend anyone to look at Honey by CZG and The Hell that's coming by warrenm because both have source files included.

Honey uses strong point lights with many low fill (delay5) ambient lights and THTC uses many strong fill (delay5) lights for large windows and subtle fill lights for the rest. Both systems have different advantages and both create a different atmosphere. They are both pre dirt AO options, but they are useful for understanding lighting.

The final piece to the puzzle is architecture and in my AD maps I often have _dirt and _minlight parameters on bmodels and certain architecture to correct the overall dirt parameters I use. Its impossible to expect one global setting will fix all light issues and that is why I requested Eric add the ability to all map entities to switch lighting features on/off.

I also recommend everyone stop using the compiler for options and use the worldspawn instead! Why you might ask? Well so that everyone can learn from your source maps and try to understand how you did things.

I usually use bsp2 for qbsp
As I have said to Eric, this parameter should be on the worldspawn, it is really annoying to have to keep switching stuff around for different maps. The more parameters on worldspawn the better.

Which fgd are you guys using? I have a quake.fgd that came with JACK and then the AD fgd
Just edit/update either file with all the extra stuff you want. You can open a FGD in a text editor and cut and paste stuff around. Jack will run an error check on the file for you when it loads up a map, so its easy to spot errors. The format is not overly complex, the AD version should have plenty of examples of how to use the 'base' function and syntax formats for entity key types. 
Back To Front 
I also only added dirt to strong light source (excluded from all small/ambient light sources)
Sorry it is the other way around, I have not checked my parameters in a long time because I just use the same setup each new map.

Strong source lights = no dirt
Ambient source lights = AO dirt

The dirt is excluded from the strong light sources so that you get the hotness effect around lights. Remember Dirt AO will make every surface look darker and make strong lights sources feel dull.

Here is some more lighting tips to think about. 
 
I also recommend everyone stop using the compiler for options and use the worldspawn instead! Why you might ask? Well so that everyone can learn from your source maps and try to understand how you did things.


That's a really good point. 
Also 
Having as many compile settings as possible inside the map file makes it much more portable.

Imagine working on the map on different PCs (cheeky bit of lunchtime mapping at work anyone?) or on different editors, or after upgrading editors.

If as many settings as possible are properties of the map file, then it should reduce the time it takes you to sync up your settings across different environments.

That would be ideal anyway. 
 
It seems the only ones that ARENT worldspawn are things like -extra/-extra4, -lux, -onlyents... things that arent followed by some sort of value.

is it possible to convert these to be usable as worldspawn as well? 
Well... Not So Fast 
If the idea is that you find a good value and keep it for that map - no matter what sort of compile you are doing - then it's a property of the map and it should be a worldspawn value (sunlight, dirt blah blah)

If it's a setting that you keep changing to do different types of compiles (e.g. fast / final / onlyents /dirtydebug etc. ), then it's not a property of the map, and thus should remain as a commandline switch 
 
Do -extra and -extra4 gamma-correct when downsampling, or is that even relevant with lightmaps? It is something which makes a huge quality difference when generating mipmaps for diffuse textures. See http://filmicgames.com/archives/327 for something of a discussion. 
Thanks Sock! 
I did countless tests with the new dirt AO system and found I wanted a strong dirt in corners that worked with finer brushwork detail. I also only added dirt to strong light source (excluded from all small/ambient light sources) and excluded it from most func bmodel entities.

I did notice several maps in the ones I've checked out that disable dirt on some bmodels, like func_doors. Why would you do that? Is it just because they move and their lighting changes enough that they look bad?

Just edit/update either file with all the extra stuff you want.

I know how to edit the FGDs, I just figured there would be a "standard" stock FGD that people use, like how everyone uses Eric's compile tools now.

Strong source lights = no dirt
Ambient source lights = AO dirt


So you sometimes apply different dirt setting per-light? I take it that's usually for indoor areas?

Honey uses strong point lights with many low fill (delay5) ambient lights and THTC uses many strong fill (delay5) lights for large windows and subtle fill lights for the rest. Both systems have different advantages and both create a different atmosphere. They are both pre dirt AO options, but they are useful for understanding lighting.

I come from Source multiplayer (TF2, CS) where almost all maps take place primarily outdoors, so we don't really use "phantom" fill lights much since the light_environment and indoor sourced lights take care of most of the playspace. 
Dirty Buggers 
Talking of dirt, I've always felt lights should have optional dirt "falloff" controls.

It struck me when playing around, that I'd want a bright light source to not apply dirt within a certain small radius, and then after this radius, ramp up until it's subject to the full dirt settings. Something like (on the light entity):

_dirt_off_radius
_dirt_on_radius

Should be self-explanatory, but if not:

From 0 to _dirt_off_radius units, no dirt.
From _dirt_off_radius to _dirt_on_radius, the dirt linearly ramps from 0 to full, and after _dirt_on_radius, it's full dirt.

What I currently do is use two lights in the same place: a bright light with dirt 1, and then a smaller light with dirt -1 so that it stops the immediate geometry around the light looking unrealistically dirty. The suggestion above means you can do basically the same thing but with just the one light entity. 
Hmm 
I'm still trying to visualize what the dirt actually looks like on point lights. It sounds like the light actually casts shadow at its outer reaches, but that doesn't make sense. I'm not at my PC or I'd make a little test. 
 
I'm still trying to visualize what the dirt actually looks like on point lights. It sounds like the light actually casts shadow at its outer reaches, but that doesn't make sense. I'm not at my PC or I'd make a little test.

Point lights don't "cast" dirt, so to speak. Imagine lighting a level with no dirt, then dirt is applied afterwards as a second pass. This dirt is applied over the existing light, so those lights are said to have "dirt on them".

For lights that have no dirt (dirt -1), I assume those lights are applied after the dirt pass, not before it, so the light can illuminate the dirty creases.

Caveat: the above is a guess, only ericw can confirm whether that's actually how it's done, but I'd be surprised if it's not the case. 
Kinn 
That makes more sense, thanks. 
Hmmm 
ericw - is my assumption correct re: 3 passes (1: dirty lights, 2: dirt pass, 3: non-dirty lights)?

If so, where does bounce lighting fit into this? I assume bounce must be subject to dirt. 
@kinn + Sevin 
Yep, the 3 passes explanation is correct.

It's implemented slightly differently, but the result is the same: each light is rendered, possibly multiplied by the dirtmap (if dirt is enabled on that light), then summed.

Also, interesting idea about the dirt falloff. I don't think it'd be difficult to do.

I did notice several maps in the ones I've checked out that disable dirt on some bmodels, like func_doors. Why would you do that?

I'm guessing it's the same reason shadows look bad on doors; the shadow should be stationary when the door opens, but in Quake the shadow moves with the door texture. 
Mh 
No, there's no gamma correct downsizing, that's something to try! 
Hmm 
I'm guessing it's the same reason shadows look bad on doors; the shadow should be stationary when the door opens, but in Quake the shadow moves with the door texture.

So it's just to lessen the effect? Disable the dirt so the moving shadow is less noticeable? 
 
Also, interesting idea about the dirt falloff. I don't think it'd be difficult to do.

For me, that would be really lovely as it would cleanly preserve the 1/x^2 falloff characteristics of my point lights, whilst also giving me precise distance control over when the dirt kicks in, as well as simplifying the whole setup. 
Isn't It About Time For A New Map Standard? 
I feel like the introduction of all these new features etc is being held back a huge amount. 
Fifth 
What new map spec do you have in mind? 
Something With Surface Flags For A Start 
 
From The Rumblings Around Here 
higher def light maps sound like they'd be useful 
Go Map For Q3 Or UE4 Or Whatever The Hell Then 
 
 
Higher res lightmaps have been talked about and we actually had an implementation at one point. Turns out they're one of those things that it's nice to talk about but when reality hits nobody really seems to want them. See the comment about "lit2" in the opening post of this thread, even.

This is something that came up a lot when I was doing the original BSP2 design. There is a degree of conflict between what people want and what's practical to implement. One of the overriding design goals of BSP2 was that it needed to be something that people would actually use. It needed to be quick and easy to implement and with a high degree of compatibility.

That's why it doesn't have all of the additional features that people might wish for. If you ask 10 different people you'll get 10 different answers, and any given 5 of those answers will probably be incompatible with the other 5.

So it doesn't have coloured light built-in, it doesn't have 32-bit textures, it doesn't have high-res lightmaps, it doesn't even change the .map format so you can continue using your favourite editor. Implementing it is just a handful of functions and structures and even software engines get to join the party.

That's why it's been successful where previous "let's design a new map format by committee" attempts have failed.

I think that I've a good idea of the kind of map/bsp format that people actually do want however, and I think it looks a little like Q2 BSP but with embedded textures, BSP2 extended limits and a Q3A lightgrid. 
Higher Res Lightmaps 
Yes, what mh said. See here for the start of a discussion on it when it was trialed: http://www.celephais.net/board/view_thread.php?id=60967&start=382

Feedback was rather mixed.

I'm in the "meh" camp. It's funny how, once you start to increase the lightmap resolution, how quickly your thoughts seem to shift to "hmm looks a bit too crisp actually, how can I make this softer?" Heh. 
 
I'd be curious to know what Fifth is thinking about with surface flags. 
 
My experience is that people asking for a feature typically have a very specific problem right now that the feature they're asking for would solve.

For example: "can I have high-res lightmaps?" - meaning: "I'm shining a light through some grating and I'm not seeing the detail I'd like in the shadows".

Thing is, they can sometimes get so caught up in the specific problem they wish to solve that they forget about the knock-on effects of the feature they want.

So "can I have high-res lightmaps?" turns into "everything looks like crappy hard-edged Doom 3 shadows".

Fence textures were another example. I was asked could player movement be clipped by sprites, but it turned out that the problem was that sprites were being used for gratings/etc. Fence textures were an easy addition, everything works the way it should, and the end result is more generally useful.

There's more mileage in asking about what you wish to solve than there is in asking about how you wish to solve it. 
More Thoughts 
It's interesting reading my post on higher res light maps. I think I would still be interested in 2x detail (4x at a push) but it would have to be surface-dependent (specific areas only). I think when I did those tests I might have just done it on all surfaces (wasnt needed).

When I said surface flags that was certainly one example. Lots of features have been added to the compilers already that cover functions (_phong on groups, this is done by surface flags in Q2, same with alpha textures and scrolling surfaces). Maybe something that will allow terrain in the future and curved surfaces.

I dunno, I was just riffing ideas tbh. My next mapping projects will not be grandiose ones like with ad_tfuma so I am not in the market for new toys and gizmos just yet. 
 
I don't think it would look good if a 4x surface was beside a 1x surface. Unless you set things up very carefully there would be quite a jarring effect where the surfaces meet. 
 
One thing that I would like to see added is a way to project textures at full resolution. I wanted to do that with my noirjam map to get a smooth, natural transition between grass and dirt but was unable to due to the low resolution lightmaps.

I agree with the issues that high-resolution lightmaps raise, but better texture projection would be a nice feature to have. It would be a niche addition though, and like mh said, design by committee rarely works out... 
 
Sorry I can't get my head around why you'd want to fake texture blending via some kind of textured light projection.

Opening up photoshop and making some transition textures would be by far the best option.

If there was enough demand for proper texture blending, it would have to be an engine thing, perhaps done in a similar way to how Quake 3 does it. 
@Kinn 
I got _dirt_on_radius / _dirt_off_radius up and running, if you want to check it out here is a snapshot.

For now the feature is only active if you set both keys, and there is no safety check that the _dirt_on_radius is larger than _dirt_off_radius.

This does seem like a cool feature.. here is an (ugly) screenshot with:

"_dirt_off_radius" "100"
"_dirt_on_radius" "500"

http://i.imgur.com/zWQAOtS.png

The light is in the upper left of the screenshot, and the dirt is only really visible on the back wall to the right 
@Kinn - Not Necessarily ... 
Blend it manually! tool screenshot results screenshot

I never knew I turned that into a tool, but a month ago I noticed someone talking about that tool.

I guess Spirit saved off a copy. 
Ericw 
Wow :) Thanks, that was fast! I've had a play with it and it makes a big difference - that will practically cut in half the number of lights I need. It looks great - torches in corners and alcoves now look correct, and the dirt nicely fades in as the light diminishes. A great addition imo :) 
@kinn 
I've never had much success with tools designed to blend textures; in general, my experience with working with .wad files has been pretty awful. So far the only hassle-free, bug free experience I have had has been with (our lord and saviour) ericw's defullbright tool, which actually does what it says on the tin without refusing to load half the formats it "supports" or failing to save changes properly...

Quake Texture Tool is nice, but in my experience it mangles the colours from time to time. I had to get some blended textures for my current map made by hand because everything QTT produced wouldn't match up when put next to either source texture.

In any case, projecting/blending textures is a much simpler, less painful experience that can easily be achieved with a map editor and the requisite format support. If it worked like it currently does, all you'd need to know is the names of the texture you want and how to set up a spotlight. No messing around with buggy tools from the 90s/early 2000s and no messing around with things like GIMP or Photoshop. 
 
@baker - looks useful!

@pritchard - sorry still not seeing it - leaving aside the issues associated with having an uber-high-res lightmap, you're still just projecting coloured light - it will just glow, like a stained glass window effect surely? 
 
Why would it glow? If you're projecting a texture, not a light, you're not projecting coloured light. Perhaps that's how it works now?

To be honest I just miss being able to paint textures in Cube 2. As far as I know that was done through some kind of "map" of the level, but I don't know the specifics of how it worked. But if you're familiar with that, that's the sort of functionality I'd like to have. Probably a pipe dream... 
 
In any case, projecting/blending textures is a much simpler, less painful experience that can easily be achieved with a map editor and the requisite format support. If it worked like it currently does, all you'd need to know is the names of the texture you want and how to set up a spotlight. No messing around with buggy tools from the 90s/early 2000s and no messing around with things like GIMP or Photoshop.

What are you smoking? 
 
Why would it glow? If you're projecting a texture, not a light, you're not projecting coloured light. Perhaps that's how it works now?

When you project a texture with a spotlight, you are adding positive light to the lightmap. Let's say you project a green grass texture onto some gravel - all that will happen is you are adding some greenish light to the gravel texture - you'll see the gravel texture brightened up a bit and tinted green 
 
You can project a texture and set up any blend func you wish. Do it before lighting, do it after lighting, whatever.

Just because it's commonly used for spotlights doesn't mean it can only be used for spotlights.

So project a green grass texture onto gravel and set up the blend as GL_ZERO, GL_SRC_COLOR and you get a straightup modulation of grass and gravel. Set it up as GL_ONE, GL_ONE and you add grass to gravel. Set it up as GL_ONE, GL_ONE_MINUS_SRC_ALPHA and set up the alpha channel of the grass texture and you get a masked overlay - kinda like Quake's sky. 
Mh 
All my comments are assuming we're just using the existing system but with just a higher-res lightmap. 
EricW, Baker, Spike And Other Engine Devs 
So it seems obvious to me that the people who work most on the engines should drive any changes they want to see / would see to be beneficial to the community. So Baker / EricW / Spike... What would you want to see in any future map format?

Regarding the screenshots from the upscaled lightmap experiment.

The jaggies were gone, which was nice... But the sharp shadow edges were a bit much. It seems that some quantity of blending is nice. 
 
The "jaggies" disappear in regular resolution lightmaps when you compile light with -extra4. 
 
Lately I've been learning lots of simple shit that I should already know.

Thanks OTP. 
#716 
Any changes you make to the map format are useless if noone ever uses them
until them we have bspx, to embed optional stuff that noone else even realises is there. 
 
So, leading off of my post in the Mark V thread, is there any particular issue with these compiler settings that might cause lit water not to work?

http://i.imgur.com/q1gWtTZ.png 
 
Aha, should be "-splitturb" without the "s"..
qbsp should be printing an error about unknown option I think? 
-onlyents And Strings 
Really obscure, odd thing that had me stumped for quite a while! Posting in this thread because it seems to be something to do with the compile.

AD mod - create a misc_textbook and just put (for example) "\\bTest Message\\b\\n\\n" in the "message" field, and "\\bTest Message 2\\b" in the "message2" field (without quotes).

If you do an -onlyents compile, the \\b gold lettering breaks and you see the backslash character in the text. If you do a normal compile, then the gold lettering appears properly. Does this happen to anyone else or is it just me? 
Erm 
This board treats backslashes different when you preview a post versus actually posting.

In my above post, please ignore the double-backslashes.

They are supposed to be single-backslashes (so in my example above I am actually typing single-backslash-b etc. in the message field in the quake editor.

How confusing is that! 
 
Try doing an onlyents light compile (after the qbsp -onlyents); I think that'll fix it.

the \b handling is in done in light.exe for some reason; it probably should be moved to qbsp. 
Thanks! 
That did the trick :) 
Strange Lighting 
http://i.imgur.com/1poBXfp.png Some of my func_detail gets really dark in the middle and has obvious seams with the nearby brushes. Here's how it looks in the editor: http://i.imgur.com/y6JHK4r.png

Any ideas? I can mask the effect by adding another nearby light but the seam is still visible. Changing the geometry works to fix it as well, which is what I've chosen to do. 
 
Hmm, it's tough to say. It could be a few things:
- try a light compile with "-phongdebug" and set "r_lightmap 1" in engine.
- try adding "-novisapprox" to light. This disables some light culling that can be over-aggressive and can cause artifacts like this, although it shouldn't be messing up in this case. 
Pritchard 
I'd also say your geometry is overly complex on the floor. You're more likely to get lighting errors and such when the detail is so high. I'd also say high detail on the floor is not always desirable because of Quakes quirky physics. 
 
In my experience with the floor so far it's has worked out well, but I could easily change from func_detail to func_illusionary and use flat clip brushes for movement if it becomes a problem.

I'll try your suggestions soon Eric. 
I Wouldnt Do That Tbh 
as you may encounter similar lighting issues etc. Just keep it clean and simple, Quake doesnt need to be super high poly :) 
>:-( 
I like me some polygons, dangit! I'm well aware of the func_illusionary lighting problems, but they all have workarounds and should be minimal in the first place considering my minimal amount of brush overlap. 
First | Previous | Next | Last
Post A Reply:
Name:
Title:
Body:
message
question
exclamation
idea
flame
noflame
error
skull
beer
moon
pent
rocket
sheep
pacman
pig
cheese
worldcraft
gauntlet
crate
pitfall
pimp
smile
cool
sad
frown
oi
yay
tongue
evil
wink
neutral
q1
q2
q3
ut
hl
cs
doom
dkt
serious
cube
Website copyright © 2002-2017 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors.