Torch_test
#4058 posted by Mike Woodham on 2005/08/14 14:07:31
Thanks aguirRe, I have sent you an e-mail with a sample map showing the problem.
Don't panic, the file is only 9K.
Metlslime
#4059 posted by Mike Woodham on 2005/08/15 05:22:14
Yes, same effect in WinQuake.
Small map e-mailed to you showing a row of torches.
A Sympathetic Post
#4060 posted by bambuz on 2005/08/15 09:13:45
hi.
Phait:
Who was it that said it that you aren't supposed to try to do too realistic stuff in quake because once you start looking at it, everything's out of proportion in the quake universe. Compare the rocket launcher model on the ground to the guy and see that it's probably as tall as him. The buttons are huge. Etc etc.
Quake is like a comic made with heavy wide brush strokes. There's certain things that are functional in that style and some that are not. Probably an almost infinite set of working styles out of the infinite set of all styles.
I think the spaceship cockpit and other stuff you've shown in screenshots look really good but in general they are really lying on the edge - you can't go smaller or more detailed from there. Then you'd have to map for a completely different game and engine etc...
Don't worry too much. Maybe you could use some vacation from mapping or even computers on the whole. Like I did.
Your site seems a bit messed right now... Don't tell me you've deleted everything and started from scratch. Please don't do it! Release stuff and don't worry too much about the evil-sayers. There will always be those and like rpg said maybe you have to release stuff too to learn and not just ponder on your own for too long.
Keep the faith. (pun intended)
Dark Grey Rock
#4061 posted by bambuz on 2005/08/15 10:00:40
http://community.webshots.com/photo/78584309/78584725YMmLti
Hint where to get some remotely similar texture? (Not the one from lunsp1 / lundead.wad). I'm willing to do some porting. Someone mentioned tribes textures?
I honestly recommend all mappers... or just anyone visiting northern Sweden to check out Storforsen (in Bredsel, near �lvsby, south of Jokkmokk).
Gutta cavat lapidem
Is The One In RPGDM1 Similar To What You Want?
#4062 posted by R.P.G. on 2005/08/15 10:32:21
Bamb
#4063 posted by . on 2005/08/15 15:15:42
Yeah well I've learned this:
you can't build maps without a solid concept and layout. My layouts were completely spontaneous and I hoped for the best. Then I get to building and realize it sucks and well... with the recent inspiration and kick-in-the-face that is RPG's 'and all that could have been', I'm starting over and putting some more thought into this.
The ironic thing is RPG probably built it spontaneously. Am I right RPG?
Phait
#4064 posted by Jago on 2005/08/15 16:47:01
DO NOT start over from scratch. One valuable skill you will learn as a mapper is to rework the parts of the map you are not satisfied with until they look good and fit together. Having layout problems? Rip out a part, rework it and put it to use elsewhere in the map. Rince and repeat. Yeah, it seems "so much easier" to just start over but 1) you are less likely to finish the map and 2) you will learn A LOT by reworking your old map.
Well
#4065 posted by . on 2005/08/15 17:06:12
I think this is such a subjective issue as well. Like when I stated you can't build a map without a good, well thought out layout and progression. Not everyone would agree with that. But it seems to work better that way with me.
I feel like, reworking is more work. When you have a blank canvas, so-to-speak - it's easier to see things come together - rather than this work I'm dissatisfied with. Of course I am bound to hit the wall again, and what am I gonna do - start over again? I'd hope not.
So I see where you're coming from, but I also feel if I put more thought into this, it'll show - and I'll be more satisfied as I build. For me, once I have a layout - the paths are there and it's easy for me to build along it. Whereas without something predefined, I think "what next?" and then I take 2 weeks off thinking about it.
Phait
#4066 posted by R.P.G. on 2005/08/15 17:21:48
The main central area that the player keeps coming back to--including the outdoor area and the indoor corridors at the silver key door--were a copy of the incomplete layout I made for the original RPGSP2, which died from QBSP errors when I tried to make the terrain out of tetrahedrons. (Little known fact: it was IKBase, and featured yet another Shambler reference.) The rest of the layout (i.e. inserting a room at each branch of the layout) was built spontaneously.
For serious, layouts are over-rated. After I finished RPGSP1, I built several DM maps and didn't release them because I thought they had dodgy layouts, but when I went back and looked at them a few months ago I didn't think they were that bad.
You act like you might finally make a perfect map--one you're totally satisfied with. It isn't going to happen. People are so superficial that bad layouts really don't make that much of a difference; even to a lot of the people on this message board. And despite all this self-deprecation from you, we still have absolutely no evidence that your SP layouts are bad in the slightest.
Precisely
#4067 posted by R.P.G. on 2005/08/15 17:25:51
once I have a layout - the paths are there and it's easy for me to build along it. Whereas without something predefined, I think "what next?" and then I take 2 weeks off thinking about it.
Planning out layouts and rooms beforehand is the best way to map. RPGSP1 took 9 months to build because I didn't plan it well. But that's not to say you can't plan out the rest of the map around what you already built.
RPG
#4068 posted by . on 2005/08/15 17:30:22
Yeah I agree, you can build along side the plans. This is quite inevitable and happens when I build as well.
I'm just worried about putting out shitty maps that look good but play like shit. That's about it.
Maybe You Could Produce Something
#4069 posted by HeadThump on 2005/08/15 18:00:59
small first; on the lines of an e3m2 The Vault of Zin, or e1m6 first. Take several days to get it just right and release it. It beats the hell out obsessing over the big picture.
Head
#4070 posted by . on 2005/08/15 19:59:42
I've got plans for medium-sized maps, but they require entirely new texture sets. I actually can't wait to get around to that but I've got to get this done first.
I just drew a new layout for map 1. While it retains the general idea and progression of the map that I've worked in, it now has a more interesting layout and start-area. I feel reworking it now has definitely been worth it. I'm more sure of this layout than the original.
More Small/medium Maps Would Be Nice!
#4071 posted by mwh on 2005/08/16 05:07:34
Maybe everyone has Kinn-envy :)
#4072 posted by czg on 2005/08/16 05:28:25
The only thing envyable about Kinn is how he can be so fat and still manage to type on a standard keyboard.
Aguire!
#4073 posted by inertia on 2005/08/16 11:05:28
I was wondering if there is a way to get the -sunlight function not to have zero falloff...
I am using -sunlight in my map, and it produces really nice and crisp shadows on the ground -- which is great. But I also have skylights that are ~1024 (or more) units from the floor... and the bright spot on the floor looks a bit silly to be honest :/
I want to release this map during qexpo, and if I can't get this problem worked out I'll just go for the regular "put lots of lights near the sky and hope for the best" technique :)
Aguire!
#4074 posted by inertia on 2005/08/16 11:06:15
I was wondering if there is a way to get the -sunlight function not to have zero falloff...
I am using -sunlight in my map, and it produces really nice and crisp shadows on the ground -- which is great. But I also have skylights that are ~1024 (or more) units from the floor... and the bright spot on the floor looks a bit silly to be honest :/
I want to release this map during qexpo, and if I can't get this problem worked out I'll just go for the regular "put lots of lights near the sky and hope for the best" technique -- but I don't really want to do that! :)
Argh
#4075 posted by inertia on 2005/08/16 11:08:51
oops :/
So What You're Saying
#4076 posted by czg on 2005/08/16 12:03:39
...is that you don't actually want sunlight.
Skylight/sunlight
#4077 posted by Mike Woodham on 2005/08/16 12:51:43
Try Yaw and Pitch to make sure the sunlight doesn't shine straight down.
or
Try anti-lights in the area where you don't want full sunlight.
Just...
#4078 posted by metlslime on 2005/08/16 12:52:52
stretch the sky brush up like 512 and put a bright point light inside it near the top.
Thanks!
#4079 posted by inertia on 2005/08/16 14:13:39
i'll try all of those things when i get back from dinner. in short, i like the cool shadows that sunlight makes, but not the ugly unrealistic stuff it can also produce!
Inertia
#4080 posted by Mike Woodham on 2005/08/16 14:19:16
Don't forget -light and -sunlight2.
Hmm
#4081 posted by aguirRe on 2005/08/16 15:53:36
I didn't understand the question, really. What is causing the "bright spot" on the ground? If you're using sunlight, you shouldn't also use intense point lights as that would defeat the purpose of the sunlight.
You can however add other ambient point lights around to make the outdoor lighting more interesting, but these should be low-intensity and with low wait values (e.g. 0.01).
You can also try using the _anglesense key in worldspawn (only affects sunlight then) with lower values than 0.5. This will reduce the angle attenuation and create a more intense sunlight, especially on vertical walls.
If you then lower the intensity of the sunlight to compensate, the difference in light levels between the ground and the walls will be smaller. If that was what you wanted ...
Oh
#4082 posted by R.P.G. on 2005/08/16 19:15:21
So for a hazy sun effect I could have a high _anglesense value?
|