Fair enough Lukin. I totally respect your opinion and you as a mapper. I misunderstood some things you said. I also agree with you on some of your other comments as well.
Again, like you said, it's back to opinions. When I see something completely different I automatically draw more attention to it because it is that: different. I admire change and originality. And you are also correct in saying that doesn't make it "good" or that it could have been done better. In one person's eyes, its good and COULD NOT have been done better, to someone else it's the opposite Back to stage one again!
Good luck in the comp, Lukin. Hopefully we will get to vote on multiple maps on different categories!
Lukin wrote:...P.S. I don't think lighting in "Q4" is more difficult. It's different, but sometimes it's even easier, and a real time preview is a blessing.
Real time preview is huge, yeah.. Id really did that right. But I still see people struggling (no, I don't know why) with making lights that look like they "work" in the sense that they come from something and cast shadows in situations where it kind of makes sense that they should, etc... and that's why I say "lighting in D3/Q4 is harder" because I mean to say "people seem to have a hard time with it."
Still, I think the contest is a success, and I hope they include many of these maps, even if mine isn't one of them. (I hope nobody will think I'm trying to score votes by being positive about the contest; I'm sure a tiny, tiny percentage of Quake players remember the things I say on Internet forums.)
TBH I am still more than a little cross about this. Using the excuse that a statement is 'just my opinion' does not make it right to do so. To rubbish somebody's work before the voting/results, in a contest such as this is not on.
I have been thinking about this overnight. Even Q3 contained levels where playability was sacrificed for other qualities, Q3tourney5 for example. The 'wow, that's different factor'.
//edit...was having a bad day.
Last edited by dnky on Sun Feb 04, 2007 6:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hex wrote:seems that I can only run in DM. Any other si_gametypes, result in this error.
You can try them all in any mode using Q4Max. I'm sure when packaged for 1.4 this wont be an issue, but atm thats addon.conf's having their wicked way again...
pjw wrote:...Kat Fight! by Kat: Great lighting!...
Thanks for noticing pjw, aside from dnky you're the only one that has
[EDIT] Did a mod edit me post?! I don't remember saying the stuff below this line (me commenting on a screenshot I sent myself?!), and it's confusing me!
--------------------------------
[cough]First thing I commented on when you sent me the screenshot (and no ambient lighting either)[/cough]
From what I've been experiencing is that Q4 is a pretty big shift from Q3 mapping and there is a lot to get used to. It's a total shift in concept and theory. In some ways, I think it's actually a larger challenge going from someone who is converting from Q3 to Q4 than for someone who has never had prior mapping experience and is just learning Q4 now.
Last edited by Kat on Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
GODLIKE wrote:Real time preview is huge, yeah.. Id really did that right. But I still see people struggling (no, I don't know why) with making lights that look like they "work" in the sense that they come from something and cast shadows in situations where it kind of makes sense that they should, etc... and that's why I say "lighting in D3/Q4 is harder" because I mean to say "people seem to have a hard time with it."
Still, I think the contest is a success, and I hope they include many of these maps, even if mine isn't one of them. (I hope nobody will think I'm trying to score votes by being positive about the contest; I'm sure a tiny, tiny percentage of Quake players remember the things I say on Internet forums.)
Totally off-topic. You kept that quiet didn;t you? Getting hired by 3Wave! Nice one!
If anyone want to try gameflow of CMP submissions with "AI" (and for those lagged permanently), I prepared this BOTAAS PAK (filefront) for all 34 maps (mod can't compile for entry 34). Check cfg. It works with sabota10updated (for Q4 1.3):
Mod sabota10updated by Tinman (filefront) :icon32:
Last edited by Moreigh on Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
pjw wrote:...Kat Fight! by Kat: Great lighting!...
Thanks for noticing pjw, aside from dnky you're the only one that has
[EDIT] Did a mod edit me post?! I don't remember saying the stuff below this line (me commenting on a screenshot I sent myself?!), and it's confusing me!
--------------------------------
[cough]First thing I commented on when you sent me the screenshot (and no ambient lighting either)[/cough]
From what I've been experiencing is that Q4 is a pretty big shift from Q3 mapping and there is a lot to get used to. It's a total shift in concept and theory. In some ways, I think it's actually a larger challenge going from someone who is converting from Q3 to Q4 than for someone who has never had prior mapping experience and is just learning Q4 now.
Well, that's odd. I wrote that, but I was trying to post a reply. I typed it twice and both times, the forum sent me back a php error, so I gave up and went to read up on something else.
dnky wrote:TBH I am still more than a little cross about this. Using the excuse that a statement is 'just my opinion' does not make it right to do so. To rubbish somebody's work before the voting/results, in a contest such as this is not on.
I have been thinking about this overnight. Even Q3 contained levels where playability was sacrificed for other qualities, Q3tourney5 for example. The 'wow, that's different factor'.
//edit...was having a bad day.
I didn't mean to rubbish your work - the maps you have submitted are ok, yet I like some other more. But you're right that speaking opinions about competitors' maps wasn't a good idea of mine. Sorry
BTW Id Software just released a beta version of 1.4 patch. Looks like a revolution this game needed
I dont think that we see other fps in the future. The problem is, that you _HAVE_ to set the server to render the game in more fps than the default 60. However, the amount of data transfered between server and clients will drastically increase, so will the need of cpu power.
Increasing the si_fps will only be an option while lanning I'll suppose, maybe a slight raise to 75 will be acceptable for online play.
Back to stage one again!
