#13675 posted by - on 2014/03/26 19:28:09
Well, I think it's a moot argument. 'Subtractive' maps in UDK were really just additive maps, except with a huge brush covering the entire world to begin with, which meant you wouldn't do that if streaming the maps together. So in making a map, you really just have both methods, and they work fine together. You just add brushes as you do in Quake, and can do subtraction because it's handled gracefully without excessive polygons being generated. Any you aren't limited to convex brushes. It would honestly be great if something like that could be handled in Quake, but I realize that would be a huge change to how maps are even handled in Quake to be done right.
#13676 posted by metlslime on 2014/03/26 19:39:02
then there's the quake3 method where you build a caulk hull and then fill it will detail brushes. I guess that is closer to the unreal method? I remember that being a lot of work, though, tagging the back of every detail brush with nodraw shaders... a lot of tedious work. You're basically making one brush per poly at a certain point, or using flat 3x3 patches to mimic quads... i don't miss that.
#13677 posted by Spiney on 2014/03/26 22:33:13
Edge extrusion looks like a nice method, then merge vertices with the same location.
http://youtu.be/IpQelCVPPZg?t=6m50s
Yeah
#13678 posted by necros on 2014/03/26 22:39:36
box modelling workflows are pretty good for mapping.
Subtractive Mapping
for me meant working inside this sold block and generally meant carving out a lot of very boring shapes. There are some things in Unreal ED I would love to see for trenchbroom (2d shape builder yes please!!) but I find working with an open space is more creatively freeing than trying to carve out something interesting.
I made a lot of UT maps back in the day and it felt restrictive.
that probuilder app looks awesome.
10 Years Later ...
#13681 posted by Cocerello on 2014/04/02 21:47:23
http://www.celephais.net/board/view_thread.php?id=23978
Does any of you know where to get the tutorials that are mentioned in here? At most i can only find the one by Metlslime, after checking Quaddicted webarchive and other places
It would be nice too if we could revive that thread or make another similar ...
#13682 posted by Spirit on 2014/04/02 21:58:09
"Infinite" Map Approach
#13683 posted by Chip on 2014/04/11 17:57:43
How would you approach a huge, huge map, something like all original levels combined into one?
Is it possible? Does Q3BSP or BSP2 offer this?
BSP2
#13684 posted by ijed on 2014/04/11 18:02:13
All original maps in 1 wouldn't actually be that big.
There Is ...
#13685 posted by Cocerello on 2014/04/11 19:01:57
... episode 1 maps joined together into a single map in normal bsp format, with the version of e1m6 that wasn't used too in there. If you use teleporters, i think it would be posssible to put the four together.
Ne_qep1 is its name, from the mod ne_dynamic, made by necros.
#13686 posted by mfx on 2014/04/12 22:39:33
Hi, i am experimenting with some hollow pipe bw,
and when it comes to light the scene, i get this:
http://www.quaketastic.com/files/screen_shots/hollow_odds.jpg
Tyrlight 0.14 with -soft 1 extra 4 set.
minlight value 10.
and thats one light only in this shot, value 300, delay 2.
Moving it around, and adding more light doesn�t change this significantly. Any clues anyone?
#13687 posted by necros on 2014/04/13 00:10:56
can you take another screenshot with r_showtris 2? the face topology looks messed up.
Necros
#13688 posted by mfx on 2014/04/13 00:26:19
Well
#13689 posted by mfx on 2014/04/13 00:46:59
i forgot to mention, i used an experimental build of txqbsp_xt, which has HL facesplitting algorithm implemented (and is incredibly fast).
Switching back to older version fixed it:)
#13690 posted by necros on 2014/04/13 06:26:33
those faces are split ok. this is actually the way it usually ends up looking with any qbsp compiler.
Problem Wasnt One
#13691 posted by mfx on 2014/04/13 21:59:54
Except you don�t count my dumbness as one.
Those lighting oddities were caused by a abandoned .lit file with same filename.
Took me ages to figure that out(well, actually it was rebb who had that guess). Sorry for the disturbance, i go now standing in the corner for a while.
Sorry.
Auto Flagellation Is Demanded!
#13692 posted by ijed on 2014/04/13 22:22:06
I Already Feel The Pain, Ok?
#13693 posted by mfx on 2014/04/13 22:29:19
#13694 posted by ijed on 2014/04/13 22:30:35
Heh, I did this myself a couple of days ago, but caught it quick. Drag and drop from the build to project folder.
Yeah
#13695 posted by mfx on 2014/04/13 22:35:58
sometimes it the simple things.
Man, i really got rebb to sweat on this, i can tell you!
Sorry rebb!
Optimizing Quake Maps
#13696 posted by killpixel on 2014/04/15 15:35:00
Hi, can anyone point me in the direction of some literature that covers proper brushwork and bsp optimization?
In other words, I'm looking for ways to get the most (most being brushes, models, etc) out of bsp1.
I think max verts is around 65k, not sure about models and other things.
I'm thinking about converting a majority of the complex geometry into static meshes giving me more room for brushes. Is this a bad idea? What are the drawbacks?
Also, is there any way control how faces are split?
As I said, I just want to find the best way to maximize every little bit of space in bsp1, completely fill it to the brim in the most efficient, optimized way possible.
Any input would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
#13697 posted by necros on 2014/04/15 16:35:24
I'm thinking about converting a majority of the complex geometry into static meshes giving me more room for brushes. Is this a bad idea? What are the drawbacks?
Sort of a bad idea. Static meshes in quake don't really blend in with the rest of the level the way they do in modern (or even semi modern) games. They also don't have any collision.
You can use .bsp files as models though. This is a better solution as you get proper collision and it will blend in with the map but the lighting will not match unless you light the bsp model in a way that matches the area in the map in which you're placing it. Also you can't rotate them without breaking collision (eg: if you rotate a bsp model, you loose collision)
Also, is there any way control how faces are split?
Nope.
:(
#13698 posted by killpixel on 2014/04/15 19:38:25
Ah, thanks necros, I was afraid that's how static meshes would behave.
I'm trying to avoid going bsp2 simply because I want maximum compatibility with the variety of ports that are currently used...
...however, having 120k+ verts in a single map would be pretty sweet...
After running around with r_wireframe 1 I noticed some faces are split in undesirable ways. I'm pretty sure many brushes could be reshaped in such a way that I get better splits...
Things To Try
#13699 posted by negke on 2014/04/15 20:28:40
Merge textures on large faces; upscale the textures on bigger surfaces that are out of sight; separate intersecting geometry (ever so slightly) and/or turn things into brush models - both situation-dependent, may help or actually be counterproductive; use hacks to clone often-used detail brush entities; try -forcegoodtree with rebb's txqbsp mod; don't get carried away when making a map.
|