<!--QuoteBegin-Clashen+Oct 23 2004, 10:02 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Clashen @ Oct 23 2004, 10:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Worst picture from the Source engine i've seen yet. And still using 512x512 textures for such a big surface? :/ <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> They've probably got, like, 2 guys working on it. It's not #2 on their "To Do" list, exactly. It's way down there with "feed the weird fish thing."
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited October 2004
<!--QuoteBegin-Soylent green+Oct 23 2004, 05:31 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Soylent green @ Oct 23 2004, 05:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Can't we all just agree that the original unrealEd was the worst editor _ever_ and get along? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Aside from the fact that I couldn't seem to get it to snap to the grid, I thought the original UnrealEd was absolutely fantastic. Subtractive geometry ftw. You could also build lathes and prisms out of arbitrary shapes, align textures by dragging them into place along the surface, fuse whole rooms into a single brush, move brushes with click and drag within the 3d view, see an approximation of your light sources while editing, oh yeah, almost forgot, <b>concave brushes</b>.
There are innumerable ways in which UrealEd, even the original buggy version, stomps the **** out of hammer any day of the week.
Edit: Man, I keep thinking of more things. UnrealEd didn't give a flaming **** whether your brushes were aligned to the grid or not. Leaks simply didn't exist because the editor used subtrative geometry (ftw). You could compile unrealscript right in the editor without any external tools and it would be included in your map. Every entity had its own icon or model (which wordcraft didn't add until recently). Any arbitrary texture could be set to move however you wanted, and you would see it moving in the editor.
Pretty much everything associated with valve has been golden so far, but there are a lot of ways in which they are substantially holding back the progress of games. Everything they do technologywise seems to be hacks bolted on awkwardly to old technology.
Subtractive geometry is definately the best way to do it but at first it takes a bit to get your head around the idea, especially if you're used to additive methods. There were so many awesome features of UnrealED, like the floor lofter or displaying the lighting in the editor with effects and all. For it's time it was outstanding. I haven't had the opportunity to fiddle with any newer versions since the UT engine though <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Oh, and btw, I've been using the UnrealED that came with UT2k4 in case anyone cares (patched, of course). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Can't say i have ever used it. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The only major problem I found with UnrealEd (aside from the lack of tutorials), was that you needed to enter the size of your brush manually and start from there. So, the question is...do you want a 512x512x256 rectangular solid, or a 32x32x48x8sided cylinder?
Plus the fact I never got what was up with texture lights, but most of the Unreal Torunament maps can look good no matter what. You can just change some of the point-source lighting and bam...flickery cool blue lights.
Well, something like that.
It was the fact it was hard to get two brushes to stay in contact with eachother (that is, snap onto the same grid line), that could get annoying.
I have all the VTMs that came with UT2k4 on DVD <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Clashen+Oct 23 2004, 02:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Clashen @ Oct 23 2004, 02:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Worst picture from the Source engine i've seen yet. And still using 512x512 textures for such a big surface? :/ <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Most modern games, including Unreal 2004, use 512x512 textures for most things. It's all about balancing quality and efficiency. That isn't to say HL2 won't use 1024x1024 and higher for when it really needs to pull out all the stops.
Comments
They've probably got, like, 2 guys working on it. It's not #2 on their "To Do" list, exactly. It's way down there with "feed the weird fish thing."
Aside from the fact that I couldn't seem to get it to snap to the grid, I thought the original UnrealEd was absolutely fantastic. Subtractive geometry ftw. You could also build lathes and prisms out of arbitrary shapes, align textures by dragging them into place along the surface, fuse whole rooms into a single brush, move brushes with click and drag within the 3d view, see an approximation of your light sources while editing, oh yeah, almost forgot, <b>concave brushes</b>.
There are innumerable ways in which UrealEd, even the original buggy version, stomps the **** out of hammer any day of the week.
Edit: Man, I keep thinking of more things. UnrealEd didn't give a flaming **** whether your brushes were aligned to the grid or not. Leaks simply didn't exist because the editor used subtrative geometry (ftw). You could compile unrealscript right in the editor without any external tools and it would be included in your map. Every entity had its own icon or model (which wordcraft didn't add until recently). Any arbitrary texture could be set to move however you wanted, and you would see it moving in the editor.
Pretty much everything associated with valve has been golden so far, but there are a lot of ways in which they are substantially holding back the progress of games. Everything they do technologywise seems to be hacks bolted on awkwardly to old technology.
DEU was definentley THE best editor, ever.
What, pray tell, is DUE?
Not DUE :X
Oh, and btw, I've been using the UnrealED that came with UT2k4 in case anyone cares (patched, of course).
Not DUE :X
Oh, and btw, I've been using the UnrealED that came with UT2k4 in case anyone cares (patched, of course). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can't say i have ever used it. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
DCK > DEU
<img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/style_images/TSA_Skin-975/icon12.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' /> DCK
Plus the fact I never got what was up with texture lights, but most of the Unreal Torunament maps can look good no matter what. You can just change some of the point-source lighting and bam...flickery cool blue lights.
Well, something like that.
It was the fact it was hard to get two brushes to stay in contact with eachother (that is, snap onto the same grid line), that could get annoying.
Most modern games, including Unreal 2004, use 512x512 textures for most things. It's all about balancing quality and efficiency. That isn't to say HL2 won't use 1024x1024 and higher for when it really needs to pull out all the stops.