...inside crates! 

Absolutely wonderful stuff! I love the details here, so authentic and personal. Love the Far Side calendar, and all the games and tapes. Zork! Bards Tale! Slayer mixtapes! Coffee rings on the dungeon map. Great attention to detail.

Also I guess all the fingerprints and griminess was substance painter? Looks like a sweet tool.

Probably a bit too late for construction criticism, but if not, I thought the empty cans looked a bit sketchy, and I would've preferred the carpet if it was dirtyish and more of a subdued colour. Also where the hell are the cheeto crumbs?

Overall though, amazing composition and really shows off your modelling / materials skills. Makes me want to get an oculus rift and just sit there.

You should make the full house and set a whole game there. 

make the commodore playable obviously ;) 

Thanks a lot!

Yeah, it was all done with Substance Painter, actually. It's all I want to use for texturing these days... 

do it... 

 

Soon.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/161473/Misc/OBJ2MAP_A.jpg 

so stoked! 

Instead of a trailer, I'll offer you a trailer for a trailer!

Why not a screenshot for a screenshot? 

Awesome.

related to that, I've been playing with qbsp a bit and trying to get it to load .obj's directly, like the q3 utils could do with misc_model, and it seems pretty promising. the disadvantage is there's no collision against the model, since I don't reconstruct brushes like you are. 

Too bad Quake doesn't have a weapon clip etc, because I wouldn't mind having to make my own collision.

Guess you'd need to do something funky with skip textured func_walls to make the collision for a misc_model? 

ericw - That sounds more useful than what I'm doing. :P Honestly, I tried that at one point as well - inserting model triangles directly into the BSP but I didn't understand the code well enough to get any real headway on it.

That code is ... well, let's face it, it's a mess. 

ericw - that sounds awesome - does lighting work with them? I can see that being a good way to get things like decent dead trees and whatnot 

I tried an experiment like that a while back - I wrote a program that took a bunch of triangles and stuck an extra vert on the back, pulled out a little to create a tetrahedron, which I then wrote out as a brush in a .map. An optimisation could be used when, depending on the topology, pairs, or trios of model triangles had a convex relationship and could be used in a single tetrahedron brush, which brought the complexity down a little bit.

It worked very well, but I found that when used on a large-ish scale, e.g. to create big cave systems, all those funky planes would caused the bsp compiler to go bananas and generate microleaks. Made no real difference even if i made sure all tetradedron verts were snapped to grid.

In these days of detail brushes however, it might not be so much of an issue... 

Yeah, that's the "spikey" option. It usually sucks but sometimes it works so ... might as well include it. 

Sorry Ericw, I'll get back to that soon - got sidetracked with the Qonquer Jam. 

It worked very well, but I found that when used on a large-ish scale, e.g. to create big cave systems, all those funky planes would caused the bsp compiler to go bananas and generate microleaks.

I wonder if the next enhancement to the engine and tools should be increasing (or removing) the maximum number of unique planes. 

I wonder if the next enhancement to the engine and tools should be increasing (or removing) the maximum number of unique planes.

Don't know if this was an issue.

I just think the compiler wasn't really designed to handle that sort of geo. When it tried to make a bsp tree from several hundred non-orthogonal triangular faces, everything ended up being sliced and diced with floating point inaccuracy stacking up until it eventually plopped a great big Welsh salad on the table.

I haven't tried it though since detail brushes became available. It probably works a bit better now. 

maybe at that point it really is time to move on to bsp3. :S 

Close ...

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/161473/OBJ2MAP/PreviewA_01.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/161473/OBJ2MAP/PreviewA_02_Standard.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/161473/OBJ2MAP/PreviewA_03_Extrusion.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/161473/OBJ2MAP/PreviewA_04_Spikes.jpg 

does the "standard" option simply take all the polygon planes in the obj model and define a brush with them? So that option would only work if the obj model is convex? 

Right, it treats each mesh in the OBJ file as if it's a set of planes and converts it into Quake MAP format.

It doesn't do any kind of automatic decomposition. The meshes need to be convex already or you'll get weird results.

I WANT to do some sort of automatic convex brush breakdown but ... it's a seriously tricky topic. 

maybe at that point it really is time to move on to bsp3. :S

I'd rather people bite the bullet and just embrace q3bsp, rather than add more cruft to the q1 bsp format. 

I'd rather people embraced UE4, rather than add more cruft to Quake. 

Right, it treats each mesh in the OBJ file as if it's a set of planes and converts it into Quake MAP format.

It doesn't do any kind of automatic decomposition. The meshes need to be convex already or you'll get weird results.

I WANT to do some sort of automatic convex brush breakdown but ... it's a seriously tricky topic.

Yeah, that would be the holy grail, but it's a massively tricky problem :/