<!--quoteo(post=1751999:date=Feb 9 2010, 04:13 AM:name=Stardog)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Stardog @ Feb 9 2010, 04:13 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1751999"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I doubt it will look better than Doom other than artistically. NS2's shadow system seems a step down too, since models seem to generate a lower quality shadow.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Doom 3 uses now archaic shadow geometry (literally projection object's mesh onto the ground), while NS2 uses the modern screen-space method (deferred lighting maybe?), which is dozens of times cheaper on the hardware. NS2's shadows are simply how things are done today. If there's an option to increase shadow map size (editor may use lower size to increase performance), the fuzzy edges won't be a problem.
Oh, and current editor performance doesn't really represent the game: it's an unoptimized pre-alpha, and I think Max mentioned that Editor uses more resources because it has to keep geometry in editable format. Pre-alpha video seems to have pretty high light count per scene, so unless UW royally screwed in their estimations, performance should be fine even on low-end machines.
Patches would be a great thing to have in any editor, but if all you need them for is pipes... Well. We already have those, and they work much better.
<!--quoteo(post=1752008:date=Feb 9 2010, 11:28 AM:name=Stardog)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Stardog @ Feb 9 2010, 11:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752008"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In what way?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the sense that anything you can do with a patch you can make as a prop and then add detail to.
You can start with patches in a modelling package and then use them as a base for the nice detailed prop. What you should not do is make nice detailed prop based levels and them just stick random bits of uninteresting plain curved surfaces between it.
Obviously both are equally excellent. Patch meshes for people who either don't model or don't have access to a package, curved corridors, pipes and detail. And Models for large scale sky boxes, buildings and small detail props. There really is no 'better than the other' in my view. And for the record I find Doom 3 far more superior looking to the prop heavy Unreal games.
Anybody hoping to make good looking and playable levels needs to be able to model, texture, work with the material system, make particle effects, and use any other features of the engine such as scripting or entity logic in order to make the best level possible and avoid hacky solutions and badly put together gimmicks.
Anyone who can't is simply not very good at it, they lack the skills neccesary to do the job properly, and if they want to do it properly they need to develop them or work with someone who can already do them. Obviously it should be made as simple as possible but not at the expense of quality, I see no reason for a tool for which the only use is being able to do something you can already do with models, only worse but slightly faster. Worse but slightly faster is a placeholder and placeholders can be done with primitives.
Mapping is not a discipine, 3d content creation is however and a level is simply another form of 3d content which often requires you to use another tool, the level editor, in addition to the existing modelling package and texturing tools. It also requires a knowledge of level design or an existing document to work from, but 'being able to use a level editor' is hardly a useful skill on its own any more than playing with stickle bricks is a useful skill.
If you want to make it play well you need to design it and either write it out carefully or build it yourself, and if you want to make it look good you need to be a competent 3d artist (which involves all aspects of 3d art), if you want to make levels for an existing game you probably need to do both or work with someone who can fill the gaps in your abilities.
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
I think you're being overly prescriptive. The different areas of work you list are often split across a number of people, and in any case each studio will have their own way of doing things, and their own division of labour. While it's good to have all of those skills in one person, it's not always necessary, and in some cases it may be better to have a number of differently specialised people working on one level rather than one person spread a little too thinly.
A patch mesh system can have much in the way of advantage over models. You can get them in game a lot faster, you don't have to worry about exporting, and they are much simpler to texture. It's easier and faster to create, say curved walls on the fly using patches than it is to model them, and is particularly quicker when you're creating a number of different curves in different contexts (rather than modelling every single one).
It's not true to say that prop-heavy environments always look better. In any case, what you should be doing is working out what arrangement most suits your art style and working with that, rather than saying "X is best" and trying to fit your style to that outlook.
I'm not saying they always look better I'm saying they always <i>can</i> look better. If you only need a basic shape then you can make a basic model or a basic brush, if you need a complex shape you should be using a prop. Any workflow that doesn't involve using the best possible system is a flawed one because it can't create the best content. Props can always look better than patches or brushes so if you can use a prop you should, especially if you can take advantage of the inherent benefits of props such as making a curved corridor out of a dozen instanced segments rather than one continuous lump. Obviously it isn't practical to use props for everything but I really can't see any use for patches. If you're making something small but curved and thus high poly you shouldn't because that's a waste of polies on most things apart from characters, if you need to make a curved corridor that would need an obscene number of polies to look good so it's better to build it out of enough flat faces to give a gentle curve overall but when you look at it close up, it doesn't look like it's trying to be perfectly smooth and failing. Bonus points if you make the flat faces out of props and take advantage of the complex geometry and texture you can apply to them to make it look nice and detailed close up, as well as fading off into lower detail later on.
Yes it's work, but it's neccesary work, it gives you better results in all areas.
<!--quoteo(post=1752243:date=Feb 10 2010, 08:00 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Feb 10 2010, 08:00 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752243"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Props can always look better than patches or brushes so if you can use a prop you should<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> A cylinder's a cylinder whether it's a prop or a patch. A prop will not magically look better. You will also have a uvmap and possibly unwrap a prop which is a major slowdown.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->you can take advantage of the inherent benefits of props such as making a curved corridor out of a dozen instanced segments rather than one continuous lump.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> There's no reason it would need to be one continuous patch.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->it doesn't look like it's trying to be perfectly smooth and failing<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why would it be failing?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you're making something small but curved and thus high poly you shouldn't because that's a waste of polies on most things apart from characters, if you need to make a curved corridor that would need an obscene number of polies to look good<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> We'd be talking as little as 4 polys for a smooth bevelled corner that's adjustable in-editor on the fly.
I think the gist of this comes down to: "Patches are cool and useful, but do you really need them?"
<!--quoteo(post=1752216:date=Feb 10 2010, 12:27 PM:name=dux)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (dux @ Feb 10 2010, 12:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752216"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And for the record I find Doom 3 far more superior looking to the prop heavy Unreal games.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Duly noted. You're now on my sworn enemy list.
<!--quoteo(post=1752264:date=Feb 10 2010, 06:18 PM:name=Stardog)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Stardog @ Feb 10 2010, 06:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752264"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A cylinder's a cylinder whether it's a prop or a patch. A prop will not magically look better.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not magically, of course. Have you seen the current pipe props? They're pretty far from simple cylinders...
<!--quoteo(post=1752264:date=Feb 10 2010, 06:18 PM:name=Stardog)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Stardog @ Feb 10 2010, 06:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752264"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We'd be talking as little as <b>4 polys</b> for a smooth bevelled corner that's adjustable in-editor on the fly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <b>What.</b>
One patch in each corner.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That doesn't look smooth though, it looks like you've just stuck two extra quads there, which is what you have done, i can see the corners where it meets the floor. It can also be done very easily without the need for a patch mesh, just edit the polies like that. If you wanted something like that you could just add smoothing groups to brush geometry, you don't need an entirely new system of controlling high poly meshes with low poly 'handles' (which is what a patch mesh is for, isn't it?) You only need that when you're actually making high poly stuff and you just <i>don't</i> make high poly curved surfaces because they're so inefficient, the exception is for things that have to be curved such as anything that is supposed to be a copy of reality, i.e people, vehicles, and structures if you have to, some structural elements must also be curved like pipes but for those a prop set is made to allow you to build your own nice, detailed systems with good detail easily. If you used a patch mesh for pipes you'd still need to stick lots of props over the patch to make the pipe as detailed as a prop pipe so it'd take just as long.
You would get better results in that room if you made a flat 45 degree polygon across the corner or better still, stuck a wall prop at 45 degrees across the corner. The prop would be the fastest method and would look the best because all the props have good amounts of surface detail and would blend well with the rest of the walls which should be using props too. Hell you could even use a curved interior wall prop for it, that's what props are for, you make one and then use it a lot of times.
<!--quoteo(post=1752411:date=Feb 11 2010, 04:55 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Feb 11 2010, 04:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752411"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That doesn't look smooth though, it looks like you've just stuck two extra quads there, which is what you have done, i can see the corners where it meets the floor.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I knew you'd pick up on that because you're fighting a losing battle :P. A prop wouldn't do any better.
Those two patches were 10 seconds in Radiant, including texture alignment. They could be subdivided to have 1 million segments if I wanted instead of the 2 here, then it would be super smooth for you (halt reply about performance). With a prop I'd have to edit it entirely which might warp the texture, reimport, and have fun hoping the texture aligns.
<!--quoteo(post=1752411:date=Feb 11 2010, 04:55 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Feb 11 2010, 04:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752411"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It can also be done very easily without the need for a patch mesh, just edit the polies like that. If you wanted something like that you could just add smoothing groups to brush geometry, you don't need an entirely new system of controlling high poly meshes with low poly 'handles' (which is what a patch mesh is for, isn't it?)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If they're going to add smoothing groups they might aswell make it like a proper 3D modelling tool allowing subdivision, bend handles etc. Spark is already closer to Milkshape/3ds max/maya than it is to Radiant/Hammer.
This isn't about props being magical things that can defy the laws of physics, it's about the fact that they can do whatever it is you want a patch to do.
To get a smooth corner like that you'll need a lot of polies regardless of what you use, which is why I keep saying not to bother trying, and instead to make it generally flat but maybe if you use a prop, treat it like a wall section and add wall detail to it.
That's the best solution, it gives you the functionality of a rounded edge but it works better and uses polies more efficiently.
Adding smoothing groups is different from making a full fledged modelling tool, every 3d tool has smoothing groups, hammer has smoothing groups, smoothing groups are far removed from adding every feature in 3ds max.
Comments
In what way?
0_o
You think they're better?
Strange fuzzy edges - soft shadows are good but this way of achieving them doesn't look hot close up.
Looks like it projects from a lower LOD model instead of the one you're using.
Has issues with small props.
Disappear after a certain distance (this will be temp for the editor, but still).
Performance doesn't seem any better than D3 at the moment, only requiring a few shadow-casting lights before it slows dramatically.
Often they're out of alignment with the prop.
Those are no big deals but I wouldn't say they're any better than D3 shadows.
Oh, and current editor performance doesn't really represent the game: it's an unoptimized pre-alpha, and I think Max mentioned that Editor uses more resources because it has to keep geometry in editable format. Pre-alpha video seems to have pretty high light count per scene, so unless UW royally screwed in their estimations, performance should be fine even on low-end machines.
Patches would be a great thing to have in any editor, but if all you need them for is pipes... Well. We already have those, and they work much better.
In the sense that anything you can do with a patch you can make as a prop and then add detail to.
You can start with patches in a modelling package and then use them as a base for the nice detailed prop. What you should not do is make nice detailed prop based levels and them just stick random bits of uninteresting plain curved surfaces between it.
Anyone who can't is simply not very good at it, they lack the skills neccesary to do the job properly, and if they want to do it properly they need to develop them or work with someone who can already do them. Obviously it should be made as simple as possible but not at the expense of quality, I see no reason for a tool for which the only use is being able to do something you can already do with models, only worse but slightly faster. Worse but slightly faster is a placeholder and placeholders can be done with primitives.
Mapping is not a discipine, 3d content creation is however and a level is simply another form of 3d content which often requires you to use another tool, the level editor, in addition to the existing modelling package and texturing tools. It also requires a knowledge of level design or an existing document to work from, but 'being able to use a level editor' is hardly a useful skill on its own any more than playing with stickle bricks is a useful skill.
If you want to make it play well you need to design it and either write it out carefully or build it yourself, and if you want to make it look good you need to be a competent 3d artist (which involves all aspects of 3d art), if you want to make levels for an existing game you probably need to do both or work with someone who can fill the gaps in your abilities.
A patch mesh system can have much in the way of advantage over models. You can get them in game a lot faster, you don't have to worry about exporting, and they are much simpler to texture. It's easier and faster to create, say curved walls on the fly using patches than it is to model them, and is particularly quicker when you're creating a number of different curves in different contexts (rather than modelling every single one).
It's not true to say that prop-heavy environments always look better. In any case, what you should be doing is working out what arrangement most suits your art style and working with that, rather than saying "X is best" and trying to fit your style to that outlook.
Yes it's work, but it's neccesary work, it gives you better results in all areas.
A cylinder's a cylinder whether it's a prop or a patch. A prop will not magically look better. You will also have a uvmap and possibly unwrap a prop which is a major slowdown.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->you can take advantage of the inherent benefits of props such as making a curved corridor out of a dozen instanced segments rather than one continuous lump.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's no reason it would need to be one continuous patch.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->it doesn't look like it's trying to be perfectly smooth and failing<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why would it be failing?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you're making something small but curved and thus high poly you shouldn't because that's a waste of polies on most things apart from characters, if you need to make a curved corridor that would need an obscene number of polies to look good<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We'd be talking as little as 4 polys for a smooth bevelled corner that's adjustable in-editor on the fly.
Have you used patches before?
<!--quoteo(post=1752216:date=Feb 10 2010, 12:27 PM:name=dux)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (dux @ Feb 10 2010, 12:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752216"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And for the record I find Doom 3 far more superior looking to the prop heavy Unreal games.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Duly noted. You're now on my sworn enemy list.
<!--quoteo(post=1752264:date=Feb 10 2010, 06:18 PM:name=Stardog)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Stardog @ Feb 10 2010, 06:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752264"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A cylinder's a cylinder whether it's a prop or a patch. A prop will not magically look better.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not magically, of course. Have you seen the current pipe props? They're pretty far from simple cylinders...
<!--quoteo(post=1752264:date=Feb 10 2010, 06:18 PM:name=Stardog)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Stardog @ Feb 10 2010, 06:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752264"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We'd be talking as little as <b>4 polys</b> for a smooth bevelled corner that's adjustable in-editor on the fly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>What.</b>
I meant 4 triangles not polys.
<a href="http://img638.imageshack.us/i/bevelcorners.jpg/" target="_blank"><img src="http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/5420/bevelcorners.th.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /></a>
One patch in each corner.
<a href="http://img638.imageshack.us/i/bevelcorners.jpg/" target="_blank"><img src="http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/5420/bevelcorners.th.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /></a>
One patch in each corner.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That doesn't look smooth though, it looks like you've just stuck two extra quads there, which is what you have done, i can see the corners where it meets the floor. It can also be done very easily without the need for a patch mesh, just edit the polies like that. If you wanted something like that you could just add smoothing groups to brush geometry, you don't need an entirely new system of controlling high poly meshes with low poly 'handles' (which is what a patch mesh is for, isn't it?) You only need that when you're actually making high poly stuff and you just <i>don't</i> make high poly curved surfaces because they're so inefficient, the exception is for things that have to be curved such as anything that is supposed to be a copy of reality, i.e people, vehicles, and structures if you have to, some structural elements must also be curved like pipes but for those a prop set is made to allow you to build your own nice, detailed systems with good detail easily. If you used a patch mesh for pipes you'd still need to stick lots of props over the patch to make the pipe as detailed as a prop pipe so it'd take just as long.
You would get better results in that room if you made a flat 45 degree polygon across the corner or better still, stuck a wall prop at 45 degrees across the corner. The prop would be the fastest method and would look the best because all the props have good amounts of surface detail and would blend well with the rest of the walls which should be using props too. Hell you could even use a curved interior wall prop for it, that's what props are for, you make one and then use it a lot of times.
Gotcha.
Also, that particular example is more illustration of smoothing. You don't need patches to have smoothed geometry.
I knew you'd pick up on that because you're fighting a losing battle :P. A prop wouldn't do any better.
Those two patches were 10 seconds in Radiant, including texture alignment. They could be subdivided to have 1 million segments if I wanted instead of the 2 here, then it would be super smooth for you (halt reply about performance). With a prop I'd have to edit it entirely which might warp the texture, reimport, and have fun hoping the texture aligns.
<!--quoteo(post=1752411:date=Feb 11 2010, 04:55 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Feb 11 2010, 04:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752411"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It can also be done very easily without the need for a patch mesh, just edit the polies like that. If you wanted something like that you could just add smoothing groups to brush geometry, you don't need an entirely new system of controlling high poly meshes with low poly 'handles' (which is what a patch mesh is for, isn't it?)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If they're going to add smoothing groups they might aswell make it like a proper 3D modelling tool allowing subdivision, bend handles etc. Spark is already closer to Milkshape/3ds max/maya than it is to Radiant/Hammer.
To get a smooth corner like that you'll need a lot of polies regardless of what you use, which is why I keep saying not to bother trying, and instead to make it generally flat but maybe if you use a prop, treat it like a wall section and add wall detail to it.
That's the best solution, it gives you the functionality of a rounded edge but it works better and uses polies more efficiently.
Adding smoothing groups is different from making a full fledged modelling tool, every 3d tool has smoothing groups, hammer has smoothing groups, smoothing groups are far removed from adding every feature in 3ds max.