It's alot more powerful than the nvidia normal map filter, check ou the tutorial for more info, most of this stuff would take ages to do with just the nvidia filter.
http://philipk.net/tutorials/ndo/ndo.html

necros, nDo should merge them (mm, have to double check exactly what he's doing).
You were probably using this one :
http://www.rodgreen.com/?p=4
Crazybump's way is still probably the best, but kind of annoying having to use an external app. I still just use overlay mode sometimes, depending on the kind of normals I'm blending.

More information here:
http://wiki.polycount.com/NormalMap?action=show&redirect=Normal+Map#Blending_Normal_Maps_Together 

yeah, that's the one. :) i didn't like using the crazybump program either.

that nDo thing looks pretty awesome though. i don't do much work these days that requires normal maps though, but i totally grabbed it for the next time. thanks for that link :) 

just got an email from a guy asking for some mapsources - he said he is making an engine which loads quake .map files (and lets you play the .map file). Sent me a couple of screenies. They were of e1m1 with reliefmapping and ambient occlusion. Which was nice. He said he would post about it here once he has a website up and running. Was weird to see shots of quake maps with the clip brushes visible in-game. 

yeah i just got one too. the weird thing is i got pretty much the same email back in may where i explained i don't give out my map sources and then pointed him to the thread here on GPL'd quake map sources (http://celephais.net/board/view_thread.php?id=60094). creepy. o.o 

oh bah, http://celephais.net/board/view_thread.php?id=60094 but you guys know the thread i'm talking about. 

I dont mind if people wanna use mine for stuff.
Its nice to be asked though, I mean im sure there are some of mine kicking around...... There's not much to stop people from using it if they find it. 

http://forums.thinkingwithportals.com/maps-and-modding/october-10-mapping-contest-t2044.html

Ends November 30th or somesuch. 

but is there some sort fo trick to widescreen browsing in firefox?

I have my first WS monitor and apart from using the zoom feature, I'm stumped as to how to make it look right.

Although it seems to vary from website to website, some are fine, but Func looks particularly narrow as if for a 4:3 monitor. 

what is widescreen browsing? apart from browsing internet sites on a widescreen monitor?

i imagine it's just like an optical illusion. func is like 500-550 pixels wide? if you're on 1440x900 or even worse, 1680 x 1050, it's going to look downright tiny. 

yeah browsing on a widescreen monitor. It's a 24" screen at 1920*1080.

So there's no way around it apart from zooming? 

That's about the best advice I think, maybe up the text size as well, even if it looks weird at first. 

zoom or lower res, i guess. :S 

 

I will play around with some settings to see what can be done.

Can Func be made wider at all or is that a deliberate design choice? 

I have windows 7, and just dragging the window to the side auto fits it to the right half of the screen, which is how I prefer to browse the web on my 24" wide screen. I don't know why you would want to make func fit the entire screen, that seems silly. 

but more than it currently does :) 

I open 3 windows each with Func in, and resize them so they fit 1/3 the screen each. Side by side, they fill my monitor with Func. If I've feeling really brave, I have a different thread / news item in each one. 

So do widescreen monitors have any advantage over regular ones after all - or does the awkwardness prevail? Every now and then I check them out in stores but they just seem weird to. 24" only because they are so wide, the actual height seems lower than with 4:3 ones. Of course it would help if they showed some actual stuff, desktop, programs, maybe games, and not fucking widescreen movies all the time... 

They're wider. 

trust me, func's width is perfect for reading. You don't want http://s1.image.gd/o/f2/f2d147b44fe4ed86e9de526b05fd4d965f63e071.png (how I would like kick all the idiotic forums with full-width width layouts in the nuts...).

You can use Opera with its user stylesheets or Stylish for Firefox if you want to fix sites. I do it to set a width of 600-800 for forums, maybe you have fisheyes and actually like lines with 250 characters.


negke: I like mine (1680x1050). You get a higher fov in games that support it. For websites and documents tallscreen would make much more sense. If you like having multiple windows of something open, it is very handy. 

But non-widescreen monitors are TALLER. 

Never mind the width, feel the ratio!

Two A4 pages, full size, side by side; two web windows side by side, Photoshop with all tools on screen and loads of space for the image; BspEditor with all four views on screen and big enough to see without squinting; learn a new application with the program open in one window and the tutorial running next to it in another window. But do not watch porn on it, it'll have your eyes out. 

It really works for displaying Goatse in all it's glory \o/ 

There are widescreen monitors you can rotate onto their side so you get one giant newspaper-like effect while browsing websites. Seems silly to me though.

And being taller doesn't really matter, since most people keep their eyes around mid screen, and it's easier to scan across a horizon than scan vertically, which means being able to fit more stuff side by side is useful.

I like to keep my erotic stories on the left, and my xvids on the right. 

spirit, i have to ask, what's up with you?
your example is 1660 � 877 pixels. no one is asking for that.
that's the second time you use the argument that a full width func would look shit when the suggestion was just to increase it slightly.

we get that a full width func looks like shit because it's true. why not address the actual suggestion. would an 800 pixel wide func look shit? even 1024?

iirc, qmap was wider than func is... i'll have to dig up the qmap backup to check.

as for widescreen lcds...
if i could pick up a 4:3 lcd, i'd prefer it. even nitin's huge 1920x1080 is still slightly shorter than 1600x1200. imagine a res like 2048x1536.
the way i see it, wide screens are better for movies and games but 4:3 is better for reading and working in general. i remember there were a lot of 4:3 lcds when lcds first started becoming popular, but these days, they seem to have all disappeared in favour of 16:10s.