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. 

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. 

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? 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

That makes more sense, thanks. 

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. 

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. 

No, there's no gamma correct downsizing, that's something to try! 

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. 

I feel like the introduction of all these new features etc is being held back a huge amount. 

What new map spec do you have in mind? 

 

higher def light maps sound like they'd be useful 

 

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. 

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.