Screenshots
-
+JuggerNaut+
- Posts: 22175
- Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 7:00 am
Maybe because they look vaguely cubic/volumetric? In the shots they look sort of like light through a window, but because they're also very defined (rather than fading out slowly over more distance), they also sort of look like blocks of white fog or somesuch...rgoer wrote:I don't like the flares around the windows... they look off in some way
Method, I never used the fx editor when working on Q4, but there's a handy how-to at: http://www.iddevnet.com/quake4/FXEditor
I bet you could reverse-engineer something by poking about in the paks. I just took a quick look and I see various lightbeam effects under effects/ambient in pak001...
Great shots Method. Great atmosphere, I like the dirty look. It lacks a bit of colour for contrast imho, but that's it.
Just a few rectifications about your level Kat. I think it's great, nicely built and looks nice. Nevertheless it does look blend as far as the lighting and the texture on the rocks is concerned. I've never mapped for Quake IV (I kind of passed that phase as I got addicted to World of Warcraft), so I don't know how far the engine goes with the lighting, and I might not be the person to judge, but I do feel, looking at other screenies of Quake IV maps, that it can be done better. And that you can do it better, as I do know who you are, which means you don't suck :icon28: It might be a good idea to re-evalulate your map's lighting: use crystals, torches, beams of light from holes in the ceiling/wall, green glowing moss on the walls, plants that have flowers that give light, ...
Blaming it all on the engine really doesn't cut it in my opinion. I think Method's comments were correct. He commented on the visual style, and I think now that you have calmed down that you would also see that the comments do make sense. I know Hourences personally, and if I remember correctly he was already working for a gamedesign company when he made DM-Sae, so he didn't really have that much "free" time. He does however put an insane amount of time in detail.
Just a few rectifications about your level Kat. I think it's great, nicely built and looks nice. Nevertheless it does look blend as far as the lighting and the texture on the rocks is concerned. I've never mapped for Quake IV (I kind of passed that phase as I got addicted to World of Warcraft), so I don't know how far the engine goes with the lighting, and I might not be the person to judge, but I do feel, looking at other screenies of Quake IV maps, that it can be done better. And that you can do it better, as I do know who you are, which means you don't suck :icon28: It might be a good idea to re-evalulate your map's lighting: use crystals, torches, beams of light from holes in the ceiling/wall, green glowing moss on the walls, plants that have flowers that give light, ...
Blaming it all on the engine really doesn't cut it in my opinion. I think Method's comments were correct. He commented on the visual style, and I think now that you have calmed down that you would also see that the comments do make sense. I know Hourences personally, and if I remember correctly he was already working for a gamedesign company when he made DM-Sae, so he didn't really have that much "free" time. He does however put an insane amount of time in detail.
In regards to Kat's map release there are a few points I would like to highlight.
There does seem to be some slight feeling that somehow models are inferior to brushes. Perhaps I read more into some posts than I should, but of late that is an impression I have been getting. If us designers are going to move onto QW:ET from Q4, then we are all going to have to embrace model making at some point.
The technical expertise required to produce a working map from models, quite apart from the necessary skill with the modelling application, in many ways exceed that of traditional brush work. Planning portal placement and building each section of the map externally requires thought and skill.
By and large many of the criticisms leveled at Kat's level have been down to artistic taste. I prefer Van Gogh to Mattise, but I wouldnt say one was 'better' than the other.
The assets used in Kat's level are custom made with local maps created either from high poly models or through Crazy Bump. Producing good quality normal maps from photo images is far more involved than simply running it through a filter or stand alone application. Those that attempt that route end up with poor local map images as shadow is incorporated into depth. The finished quality of this level's normal maps is very high.
The lighting issue is pretty musc down to personal like or dislike, but what this level demonstrates is good, strong levels of light throughout the map, without resorting to level wide ambient lighting or comprimising performance.
Level of detail is also down to personal taste. It would be possible to sacrifce performance for over the top poly counts, but what this map does is strike a fairly intelligent balance. What is rendered at any one time is pretty much limited to what is seen on screen. That's hard enough to achieve with a conventional brush built level, let alone a map that was built by and large outside of the editor. Sure it would have been possible to allow the tris count to rise to 40000 or even 100000, but that would have been indicative of poor craftsmanship. When using models it is only possible to blend two textures, that is a limitation of the engine. Using decals on meshes is very difficult, if not impossible. Applying brushes or patches to non-axial geometry is very hard indeed. Projected light decals is a possible but problematic solution as alpha masked textures applied to lights seem to be video card dependant. The only workable solution would be a second over-layed mesh, which of course would double the tris count of that particular scene.
As with most level design there is a compromise to be reached. Organic rock models are never going to be as easy to add extra details to without making the level unplayable as are brush based levels. Brush based levels on the other hand are by their nature blocky and axial in the most part and require an excessive use of patch detail to flesh them out.
The bottom line for me is this: regardless of one's taste, I can see this is a quality piece of work on many levels and it is something of a shame that in all the recent discord that seems to have been over looked.
There does seem to be some slight feeling that somehow models are inferior to brushes. Perhaps I read more into some posts than I should, but of late that is an impression I have been getting. If us designers are going to move onto QW:ET from Q4, then we are all going to have to embrace model making at some point.
The technical expertise required to produce a working map from models, quite apart from the necessary skill with the modelling application, in many ways exceed that of traditional brush work. Planning portal placement and building each section of the map externally requires thought and skill.
By and large many of the criticisms leveled at Kat's level have been down to artistic taste. I prefer Van Gogh to Mattise, but I wouldnt say one was 'better' than the other.
The assets used in Kat's level are custom made with local maps created either from high poly models or through Crazy Bump. Producing good quality normal maps from photo images is far more involved than simply running it through a filter or stand alone application. Those that attempt that route end up with poor local map images as shadow is incorporated into depth. The finished quality of this level's normal maps is very high.
The lighting issue is pretty musc down to personal like or dislike, but what this level demonstrates is good, strong levels of light throughout the map, without resorting to level wide ambient lighting or comprimising performance.
Level of detail is also down to personal taste. It would be possible to sacrifce performance for over the top poly counts, but what this map does is strike a fairly intelligent balance. What is rendered at any one time is pretty much limited to what is seen on screen. That's hard enough to achieve with a conventional brush built level, let alone a map that was built by and large outside of the editor. Sure it would have been possible to allow the tris count to rise to 40000 or even 100000, but that would have been indicative of poor craftsmanship. When using models it is only possible to blend two textures, that is a limitation of the engine. Using decals on meshes is very difficult, if not impossible. Applying brushes or patches to non-axial geometry is very hard indeed. Projected light decals is a possible but problematic solution as alpha masked textures applied to lights seem to be video card dependant. The only workable solution would be a second over-layed mesh, which of course would double the tris count of that particular scene.
As with most level design there is a compromise to be reached. Organic rock models are never going to be as easy to add extra details to without making the level unplayable as are brush based levels. Brush based levels on the other hand are by their nature blocky and axial in the most part and require an excessive use of patch detail to flesh them out.
The bottom line for me is this: regardless of one's taste, I can see this is a quality piece of work on many levels and it is something of a shame that in all the recent discord that seems to have been over looked.
Whatever....
Here are the performance shots of the recent areas:
This area is about 30k polys in all given views.
This area is about 40k polys in all given views.
Other shots:
http://www.methodonline.com/temp/meth_test.htm
-Method
This area is about 30k polys in all given views.
This area is about 40k polys in all given views.
Other shots:
http://www.methodonline.com/temp/meth_test.htm
-Method
-
roughrider
- Posts: 355
- Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2002 7:00 am
Good to see the old dogs are still at it. Been a long time since I have ventured into this area, real life stuff has taken front seat for now so I get on when I can and do "little bit here, little bit there" then hop off.
Nice shots there Method, been a while since I have done any mapping myself, I do have a ctf map sitting around that maybe one day I will finish but as mentioned above, real life stuff has my complete attention atm.
Heck, it has been so long since I even used gtkradiant that I will probably have to take about 20 mins just to figure out what my "fav" buttons do. LOL!
Drive on fellow quakers and make those maps so those of us that can't will still be heard in one form or another. And for the "pissy-ness" I saw, enough of that shit. I see it has stopped but still, none of that crap.
Nice shots there Method, been a while since I have done any mapping myself, I do have a ctf map sitting around that maybe one day I will finish but as mentioned above, real life stuff has my complete attention atm.
Heck, it has been so long since I even used gtkradiant that I will probably have to take about 20 mins just to figure out what my "fav" buttons do. LOL!
Drive on fellow quakers and make those maps so those of us that can't will still be heard in one form or another. And for the "pissy-ness" I saw, enough of that shit. I see it has stopped but still, none of that crap.
Team *A51* Q3 & QL
BEERSpookmineer: there is not enough time for someone to be a good enough player to map well for gameplay and to be technically skillful as well as versed in all the skills of texture and model creation. In any case collaboration produces better maps as people bounce ideas off each other and bring their own specialisms.
-
+JuggerNaut+
- Posts: 22175
- Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 7:00 am
A little late to the party, A1yssa? :icon29: (actually, you haven't been around for a while)
It was a little misunderstanding, I'm sure. It's over now, lets move on.
It was a little misunderstanding, I'm sure. It's over now, lets move on.
[size=85][url=http://gtkradiant.com]GtkRadiant[/url] | [url=http://q3map2.robotrenegade.com]Q3Map2[/url] | [url=http://q3map2.robotrenegade.com/docs/shader_manual/]Shader Manual[/url][/size]
Testing some custom textures really but turning into a Q4 CTF level. Nothing else to show but part of the flag room. Both flag rooms will back on to each other, separated by a glass window. I was interested in an idea of how I could make a CTF level that wasnt staright forward in a normal linear fashion. Maybe nothing will come from this, but I was feeling a rush of inspiration.
Whatever....
-
Amphetamine
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 5:15 am