Will mappers be able to use special engine features to easily create pipes and other curved surfaces (like in Doom 3) or will they have to rely on props for every situation?
So it seems like you are limited to the available pipe props unless you make dedicated models? A bit limiting tbh, not everyone is happy with jumping into Maya every time you want not standard looking or non-right angled pipes (and its inefficient). I agree brushes should not be used for geometry like this, that is why the engine needs proper patch support.
Disclaimer: I havn't pre-ordered or actaully used the editor yet, trying to judge if mapping will be fun enough to make it worth my time/money.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
You might want to have a look at the tutorial and timelapse videos to see how the spark editor behaves and handles. It's pretty intuitive, pipe models you could modify in the editor to suit your need would be terrific though...
But building the maps using props and geometry works quite efficiently in Spark, the current release has only the refinery theme props. So in the alpha release you can expect a lot more models, making varied maps quite possible. Combining props into one model seems to work pretty good as well :)
<!--quoteo(post=1750327:date=Feb 2 2010, 08:51 PM:name=bleher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bleher @ Feb 2 2010, 08:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1750327"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->engine needs proper patch support<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's a bit excessive, isn't it? You should not expect such things from any game engine, frankly. The existing... Pipeline may not be perfect, but it's pretty damn good.
What do you mean by "non-right-angled props", by the way?
<!--quoteo(post=1750327:date=Feb 2 2010, 08:51 PM:name=bleher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bleher @ Feb 2 2010, 08:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1750327"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Disclaimer: I havn't pre-ordered or actaully used the editor yet, trying to judge if mapping will be fun enough to make it worth my time/money.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Spark is the best damn thing I've ever used, no comparison to any commercially or freely available tool. Check YouTube for some videos on it.
All Spark would need is a subdivide/bend tool to let you make decent pipes like in Radiant. Maybe caps too for archways etc.
Spark just seems to be a polygonal modeller so it would be easy to add these.
<!--quoteo(post=1750338:date=Feb 2 2010, 02:19 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Feb 2 2010, 02:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1750338"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Spark is the best damn thing I've ever used, no comparison to any commercially or freely available tool. Check YouTube for some videos on it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What makes it better than UnrealEd or Radiant?
<!--quoteo(post=1750327:date=Feb 2 2010, 05:51 PM:name=bleher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bleher @ Feb 2 2010, 05:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1750327"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So it seems like you are limited to the available pipe props unless you make dedicated models? A bit limiting tbh, not everyone is happy with jumping into Maya every time you want not standard looking or non-right angled pipes (and its inefficient). I agree brushes should not be used for geometry like this, that is why the engine needs proper patch support.
Disclaimer: I havn't pre-ordered or actaully used the editor yet, trying to judge if mapping will be fun enough to make it worth my time/money.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's a pipe.
It's cylindrical and it has corners sometimes.
There is only so much variety you can achieve with a pipe before it stops being a pipe.
<!--quoteo(post=1750342:date=Feb 2 2010, 06:44 PM:name=Stardog)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Stardog @ Feb 2 2010, 06:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1750342"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->All Spark would need is a subdivide/bend tool to let you make decent pipes like in Radiant. Maybe caps too for archways etc.
Spark just seems to be a polygonal modeller so it would be easy to add these.
What makes it better than UnrealEd or Radiant?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Probably not very much in the case of unreal because I don't think it has anything like the material system of unreal.
<!--quoteo(post=1750342:date=Feb 2 2010, 09:44 PM:name=Stardog)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Stardog @ Feb 2 2010, 09:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1750342"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->All Spark would need is a subdivide/bend tool to let you make decent pipes like in Radiant.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Both of those would be great, albeit possibly pointless minding the prop-heavy design.
<!--quoteo(post=1750342:date=Feb 2 2010, 09:44 PM:name=Stardog)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Stardog @ Feb 2 2010, 09:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1750342"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What makes it better than UnrealEd or Radiant?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Short answer, everything besides lacking a couple useful features they provide. Long answer I can't possibly provide.
Remember <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=108313" target="_blank">this</a> thread? Would be really great if the editor would support <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-uniform_rational_B-spline" target="_blank">NURBS</a>
<!--quoteo(post=1750348:date=Feb 2 2010, 10:05 PM:name=Brute)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Brute @ Feb 2 2010, 10:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1750348"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Would be really great if the editor would support <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-uniform_rational_B-spline" target="_blank">NURBS</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Last I checked UW don't have Jesus Christ on the payroll.
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
Patch-mesh style curves are one of the things that's on the wishlist for the editor. It's a very very long list, however and for the moment the game itself takes the highest priority.
So, for the time being it's pipe props (there are quite a number of them now) or brushwork.
I don't think having this feature is overly gratuitous for a modern engine that deals mainly with sci-fi environments. Here a just a few examples of map geometry that is an obvious candidate for some type of bezier patch or subdivision tool (I'm being very generic here):
<a href="http://z.about.com/d/compactiongames/1/0/g/5/doom317.jpg" target="_blank">http://z.about.com/d/compactiongames/1/0/g/5/doom317.jpg</a> (See how the texture seamlessly bends) <a href="http://www.visualwalkthroughs.com/prey/complex/15.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.visualwalkthroughs.com/prey/complex/15.jpg</a> (..) <a href="http://www.visualwalkthroughs.com/prey/ascent/52.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.visualwalkthroughs.com/prey/ascent/52.jpg</a> <a href="http://www.visualwalkthroughs.com/prey/allfalldown/35.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.visualwalkthroughs.com/prey/allfalldown/35.jpg</a> <a href="http://guides.gamepressure.com/quake4/gfx/word/86693703.jpg" target="_blank">http://guides.gamepressure.com/quake4/gfx/word/86693703.jpg</a>
<a href="http://myego.cz/img/grafika/doom-3.jpg" target="_blank">http://myego.cz/img/grafika/doom-3.jpg</a> (look at the roof) <a href="http://www.celoxdesign.net/images/tutorials/glossyheader/quake4_screenshot.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.celoxdesign.net/images/tutorial..._screenshot.jpg</a> (note the pipes, you want to be able to tweak them as you wish so they fit the room). <a href="http://www.visualwalkthroughs.com/prey/allfalldown/20.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.visualwalkthroughs.com/prey/allfalldown/20.jpg</a> <a href="http://www.visualwalkthroughs.com/prey/facingtheenemy/9.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.visualwalkthroughs.com/prey/facingtheenemy/9.jpg</a> <a href="http://www.visualwalkthroughs.com/prey/facingtheenemy/13.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.visualwalkthroughs.com/prey/facingtheenemy/13.jpg</a> <a href="http://www.visualwalkthroughs.com/prey/facingtheenemy/27.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.visualwalkthroughs.com/prey/facingtheenemy/27.jpg</a> <a href="http://www.macloud.org/e107_files/public/1235415479_2_FT4414_dmturbine.png" target="_blank">http://www.macloud.org/e107_files/public/1...4_dmturbine.png</a>
<!--quoteo(post=1750348:date=Feb 2 2010, 07:05 PM:name=Brute)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Brute @ Feb 2 2010, 07:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1750348"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Remember <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=108313" target="_blank">this</a> thread? Would be really great if the editor would support <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-uniform_rational_B-spline" target="_blank">NURBS</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think there's a game on the planet that supports nurbs, all games use meshes to my knowledge.
Pipes would be one of the easiest things to make in Maya/3dsmax. It would be a good project for someone new to start on. I will be making props eventually and I know Maya and XSI so you will have people to help.
why can't you create geometry or maps like doom <img src="http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/8858/doomc4.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /> By <a href="http://profile.imageshack.us/user/zeviousman" target="_blank">zeviousman</a> at 2010-02-07
inspiration: <img src="http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/934/15849903.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /> By <a href="http://profile.imageshack.us/user/zeviousman" target="_blank">zeviousman</a> at 2010-02-07
NS2 is prop-based, benefits from gridded layouts, and would require constricted environments to make the melee classes work. So you should be building with that in mind. You aren't designing for a game where the primary weapon is a sniper rifle with unlimited ammo, you're designing for a game that can be easily adapted into a round of comptetitive mugging.
Oh and your lighting isn't high contrast enough and you haven't got any sprites or bloom effects to make the lights glow so that's also why your map looks horrible compared to doom, good lighting and contrast is key to making anything look nice. The good images have colour and intensity contrast, yours has no colour or intensity contrast, everything is grey and uniformly lit.
<!--quoteo(post=1751773:date=Feb 7 2010, 09:13 PM:name=sloppy_joe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sloppy_joe @ Feb 7 2010, 09:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1751773"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->why can't you create geometry or maps like doom <img src="http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/8858/doomc4.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /> By <a href="http://profile.imageshack.us/user/zeviousman" target="_blank">zeviousman</a> at 2010-02-07<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oops, that's 128 units off, now adjust it :P
<!--quoteo(post=1751830:date=Feb 8 2010, 04:33 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Feb 8 2010, 04:33 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1751830"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Because it's not doom. Same reason you can't create maps like battlefiled 2142.
You shouldn't be trying to make maps like doom, you should be trying to make maps like this:<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> your missing the point. please post your screen shot with out the props. This is an example of what could be done easily with out the use of props, not the color of lights or lighting I'm not going to recreate doom.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited February 2010
Still your comparison shot is not fair. Things wrong with the recreation: A poor choice of textures (no trims and boring flat gray). And with lighting being one of the most important parts (if not the most important part) in creating beautiful/interesting looking areas. A fully lit area with only white light, is not a fair comparison.
I do think it would be nice to have a feature to create more rounded areas, however I wouldn't just be using a feature like that for pipes alone. It is currently possible, just takes more work then I'd like to do.
I don't know why this thread has suddenly turned into a discussion of props and lighting, but creating your own pipe models can be done by just drawing a circle and extruding. Of course getting these 'pipes' to bend is a real heartache, so I wouldn't recommend it for anything other than straight pipes say crossing a hallway width-wise, and the number of polygons is alot lower than on props so you'd only want them if they are out of the way or can be supplemented, eg. by placing some smaller pipe props in front to distract from the crappiness of the actual 'skulk walkway' pipe.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited February 2010
I think you're the one missing my point here ;)
He was asking "why can't you create geometry or maps like doom" And then goes on with a comparison shot, which has the geometry thing going, but not the look and feel of the Doom shot. My post was merely stating the following:
Any kind of geometry only looks good when it is textured and lit properly, like the inspirational shot. It's a one package deal, if you will :D The Spark version's geometry is quite similar to the Doom shot. But does not look like it is flowing due to poor choice in textures... And then there's the lighting, full bright is far from final I hope.
The fact is that this kind of geometry is possible in Spark, but is more labor intensive then it should be. I predict a lot of blocky rooms, that look good due to lighting, props and texturing. But the props system is kinda forcing us to work at 90 or 45 degree angles. Implying it is not possible and then show a poorly textured/lit comparison to other engines is not fair... I would love less work (vertex manipulation) for curves as well, but they are possible!
I'll say again, why does it matter about the look and feel (lighting) when he was comparing GEOMETRY?
Your point appears to be that it's not a fair comparison if the Spark shot isn't lit and textured like the Prey shot.. Yet you say the Spark shot has got the geometry down.. so hasn't he proven that you can make curved areas like the Prey shot? It would appear so and that was the goal. Not to show off his lighting composition skills.
E- Yes, it could look better with good texture placement and lighting.. but that wasn't the point.
<!--quoteo(post=1751874:date=Feb 8 2010, 04:50 PM:name=sloppy_joe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sloppy_joe @ Feb 8 2010, 04:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1751874"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->your missing the point. please post your screen shot with out the props. This is an example of what could be done easily with out the use of props, not the color of lights or lighting I'm not going to recreate doom.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why? You might as well say show it without the lighting or show it without half the screen rendering.
Props are how you make maps in spark, props look better than basic brush geometry, which is why they are how you make maps in spark.
Hell even doom uses props for most things as far as I can tell, at the very least it uses a proplike system where the level is built of repeating tiled segments of geometry which if it isn't props could be done a hell of a lot more efficiently and attractively with props.
I really don't get what you're trying to do. If you're asking why spark doesn't look as good when you map as if you were making a doom level it's because all the assets for spark are designed to be used with props and you should be using them with props because then it will look better than doom.
<!--quoteo(post=1751957:date=Feb 8 2010, 08:59 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Feb 8 2010, 08:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1751957"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Basic brushes = crap, detailed props = good. Doom = crap, spark = good.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You say Doom when you mean Radiant. And it's not crap since it uses the same way of working as Spark and has extra features to create curves/pipes called Patches, which is what the OP is talking about. So Radiant = good, Spark = not so good.
<!--quoteo(post=1751957:date=Feb 8 2010, 08:59 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Feb 8 2010, 08:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1751957"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->which if it isn't props could be done a hell of a lot more efficiently and attractively with props.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's the OP's point. Patches in the Radiant editor allow for much more efficiency than just having props. Props are a specific size that can be rescaled, but patches can be edited by vertex.
<a href="http://www.katsbits.com/htm/tutorials/patch_mesh_curves_1.htm" target="_blank">http://www.katsbits.com/htm/tutorials/patc...sh_curves_1.htm</a> (we want this inside the Spark editor) <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4DzqNoI2oo" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4DzqNoI2oo</a> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tpk_xH0x-0Y" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tpk_xH0x-0Y</a>
To create that curved screenshot in Spark you'd have to use 3D modelling software, which means re-importing everytime you needed to adjust something. There aren't any smoothing groups with the default Spark circle tool so you can't use that.
<!--quoteo(post=1751957:date=Feb 8 2010, 08:59 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Feb 8 2010, 08:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1751957"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->all the assets for spark are designed to be used with props and you should be using them with props because then it will look better than doom.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> 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.
Doom uses very basic shadows, while I often like the sharpness of them, softened shadows are the more advanced system and are technologically a step forward, although again it's stylistic and I like the extremely hard shadows of early dynamic shadow systems.
You really don't need to be able to create round surfaces in the editor because that's what props are for, if you need a round surface just make a prop for it, texture it with the stock materials, and then bake an AO map to improve the lighting quality. Yes you have to reimport if you do it wrong but considering the builder application is specifically designed to make that easy to do as well as the hot loading capabilities of the engine, it really helps to alleviate the issues of prop based systems. That and you can just avoid doing it wrong to begin with, or even better, think of a way to do it that doesn't involve making curved surfaces because they're ridiculously inefficient, they use lots of polies to create something very simple, something which lacks detail, you'd be better served using those polies to create an octagon or something out of eight instanced props which have lots of surface detail at less cost.
Honestly propping is the superior system, it takes effort to make it look good but there isn't very much it can't do, and it takes effort to make <i>anything</i> look good, that's why game developers get paid a lot and work ridiculous hours.
<!--quoteo(post=1752001:date=Feb 9 2010, 04:55 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Feb 9 2010, 04:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752001"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Honestly propping is the superior system.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not really, having patches and props would be superior.
But props look better and have the benefit of being instancable.
Anything you can do with a patch you can do better with a prop, if you're just looking for a placeholder just use a primitive until you can make the prop.
Comments
Other than that, probably not, but no certain ideas.
Disclaimer: I havn't pre-ordered or actaully used the editor yet, trying to judge if mapping will be fun enough to make it worth my time/money.
But building the maps using props and geometry works quite efficiently in Spark, the current release has only the refinery theme props. So in the alpha release you can expect a lot more models, making varied maps quite possible. Combining props into one model seems to work pretty good as well :)
That's a bit excessive, isn't it? You should not expect such things from any game engine, frankly. The existing... Pipeline may not be perfect, but it's pretty damn good.
What do you mean by "non-right-angled props", by the way?
<!--quoteo(post=1750327:date=Feb 2 2010, 08:51 PM:name=bleher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bleher @ Feb 2 2010, 08:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1750327"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Disclaimer: I havn't pre-ordered or actaully used the editor yet, trying to judge if mapping will be fun enough to make it worth my time/money.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Spark is the best damn thing I've ever used, no comparison to any commercially or freely available tool. Check YouTube for some videos on it.
Spark just seems to be a polygonal modeller so it would be easy to add these.
<!--quoteo(post=1750338:date=Feb 2 2010, 02:19 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Feb 2 2010, 02:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1750338"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Spark is the best damn thing I've ever used, no comparison to any commercially or freely available tool. Check YouTube for some videos on it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What makes it better than UnrealEd or Radiant?
Disclaimer: I havn't pre-ordered or actaully used the editor yet, trying to judge if mapping will be fun enough to make it worth my time/money.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's a pipe.
It's cylindrical and it has corners sometimes.
There is only so much variety you can achieve with a pipe before it stops being a pipe.
<!--quoteo(post=1750342:date=Feb 2 2010, 06:44 PM:name=Stardog)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Stardog @ Feb 2 2010, 06:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1750342"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->All Spark would need is a subdivide/bend tool to let you make decent pipes like in Radiant. Maybe caps too for archways etc.
Spark just seems to be a polygonal modeller so it would be easy to add these.
What makes it better than UnrealEd or Radiant?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Probably not very much in the case of unreal because I don't think it has anything like the material system of unreal.
Both of those would be great, albeit possibly pointless minding the prop-heavy design.
<!--quoteo(post=1750342:date=Feb 2 2010, 09:44 PM:name=Stardog)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Stardog @ Feb 2 2010, 09:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1750342"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What makes it better than UnrealEd or Radiant?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Short answer, everything besides lacking a couple useful features they provide. Long answer I can't possibly provide.
Would be really great if the editor would support <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-uniform_rational_B-spline" target="_blank">NURBS</a>
Last I checked UW don't have Jesus Christ on the payroll.
So, for the time being it's pipe props (there are quite a number of them now) or brushwork.
<a href="http://z.about.com/d/compactiongames/1/0/g/5/doom317.jpg" target="_blank">http://z.about.com/d/compactiongames/1/0/g/5/doom317.jpg</a> (See how the texture seamlessly bends)
<a href="http://www.visualwalkthroughs.com/prey/complex/15.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.visualwalkthroughs.com/prey/complex/15.jpg</a> (..)
<a href="http://www.visualwalkthroughs.com/prey/ascent/52.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.visualwalkthroughs.com/prey/ascent/52.jpg</a>
<a href="http://www.visualwalkthroughs.com/prey/allfalldown/35.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.visualwalkthroughs.com/prey/allfalldown/35.jpg</a>
<a href="http://guides.gamepressure.com/quake4/gfx/word/86693703.jpg" target="_blank">http://guides.gamepressure.com/quake4/gfx/word/86693703.jpg</a>
<a href="http://myego.cz/img/grafika/doom-3.jpg" target="_blank">http://myego.cz/img/grafika/doom-3.jpg</a> (look at the roof)
<a href="http://www.celoxdesign.net/images/tutorials/glossyheader/quake4_screenshot.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.celoxdesign.net/images/tutorial..._screenshot.jpg</a> (note the pipes, you want to be able to tweak them as you wish so they fit the room).
<a href="http://www.visualwalkthroughs.com/prey/allfalldown/20.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.visualwalkthroughs.com/prey/allfalldown/20.jpg</a>
<a href="http://www.visualwalkthroughs.com/prey/facingtheenemy/9.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.visualwalkthroughs.com/prey/facingtheenemy/9.jpg</a>
<a href="http://www.visualwalkthroughs.com/prey/facingtheenemy/13.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.visualwalkthroughs.com/prey/facingtheenemy/13.jpg</a>
<a href="http://www.visualwalkthroughs.com/prey/facingtheenemy/27.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.visualwalkthroughs.com/prey/facingtheenemy/27.jpg</a>
<a href="http://www.macloud.org/e107_files/public/1235415479_2_FT4414_dmturbine.png" target="_blank">http://www.macloud.org/e107_files/public/1...4_dmturbine.png</a>
Pipes:
<a href="http://guides.gamepressure.com/quake4/gfx/word/86653562.jpg" target="_blank">http://guides.gamepressure.com/quake4/gfx/word/86653562.jpg</a>
<a href="http://guides.gamepressure.com/quake4/gfx/word/86380515.jpg" target="_blank">http://guides.gamepressure.com/quake4/gfx/word/86380515.jpg</a>
<a href="http://guides.gamepressure.com/quake4/gfx/word/84412093.jpg" target="_blank">http://guides.gamepressure.com/quake4/gfx/word/84412093.jpg</a>
<a href="http://guides.gamepressure.com/quake4/gfx/word/85596734.jpg" target="_blank">http://guides.gamepressure.com/quake4/gfx/word/85596734.jpg</a>
I deliberately excluded examples of 'natural' geometry: caverns, organic material etc.
Anyway you have collectively answered my question and apparently it has already been requested so I won't go on about it.
Would be really great if the editor would support <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-uniform_rational_B-spline" target="_blank">NURBS</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think there's a game on the planet that supports nurbs, all games use meshes to my knowledge.
<img src="http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/8858/doomc4.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
By <a href="http://profile.imageshack.us/user/zeviousman" target="_blank">zeviousman</a> at 2010-02-07
inspiration:
<img src="http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/934/15849903.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
By <a href="http://profile.imageshack.us/user/zeviousman" target="_blank">zeviousman</a> at 2010-02-07
Because it's not doom. Same reason you can't create maps like battlefiled 2142.
You shouldn't be trying to make maps like doom, you should be trying to make maps like this:
<img src="http://www.unitedworlds.co.uk/online-gaming/ns2_map01.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<img src="http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/6610/27654499.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
NS2 is prop-based, benefits from gridded layouts, and would require constricted environments to make the melee classes work. So you should be building with that in mind. You aren't designing for a game where the primary weapon is a sniper rifle with unlimited ammo, you're designing for a game that can be easily adapted into a round of comptetitive mugging.
Oh and your lighting isn't high contrast enough and you haven't got any sprites or bloom effects to make the lights glow so that's also why your map looks horrible compared to doom, good lighting and contrast is key to making anything look nice. The good images have colour and intensity contrast, yours has no colour or intensity contrast, everything is grey and uniformly lit.
<img src="http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/8858/doomc4.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
By <a href="http://profile.imageshack.us/user/zeviousman" target="_blank">zeviousman</a> at 2010-02-07<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oops, that's 128 units off, now adjust it :P
Is that a model or in-game cylinder tool?
You shouldn't be trying to make maps like doom, you should be trying to make maps like this:<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
your missing the point.
please post your screen shot with out the props. This is an example of what could be done easily with out the use of props, not the color of lights or lighting I'm not going to recreate doom.
I do think it would be nice to have a feature to create more rounded areas, however I wouldn't just be using a feature like that for pipes alone. It is currently possible, just takes more work then I'd like to do.
Way to miss the point entirely.
He was asking "why can't you create geometry or maps like doom" And then goes on with a comparison shot, which has the geometry thing going, but not the look and feel of the Doom shot. My post was merely stating the following:
Any kind of geometry only looks good when it is textured and lit properly, like the inspirational shot. It's a one package deal, if you will :D The Spark version's geometry is quite similar to the Doom shot. But does not look like it is flowing due to poor choice in textures... And then there's the lighting, full bright is far from final I hope.
The fact is that this kind of geometry is possible in Spark, but is more labor intensive then it should be. I predict a lot of blocky rooms, that look good due to lighting, props and texturing. But the props system is kinda forcing us to work at 90 or 45 degree angles. Implying it is not possible and then show a poorly textured/lit comparison to other engines is not fair... I would love less work (vertex manipulation) for curves as well, but they are possible!
Your point appears to be that it's not a fair comparison if the Spark shot isn't lit and textured like the Prey shot..
Yet you say the Spark shot has got the geometry down.. so hasn't he proven that you can make curved areas like the Prey shot? It would appear so and that was the goal. Not to show off his lighting composition skills.
E- Yes, it could look better with good texture placement and lighting.. but that wasn't the point.
please post your screen shot with out the props. This is an example of what could be done easily with out the use of props, not the color of lights or lighting I'm not going to recreate doom.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why? You might as well say show it without the lighting or show it without half the screen rendering.
Props are how you make maps in spark, props look better than basic brush geometry, which is why they are how you make maps in spark.
Therefore you use props, and light them properly.
Basic brushes = crap, detailed props = good. Doom = crap, spark = good.
Hell even doom uses props for most things as far as I can tell, at the very least it uses a proplike system where the level is built of repeating tiled segments of geometry which if it isn't props could be done a hell of a lot more efficiently and attractively with props.
I really don't get what you're trying to do. If you're asking why spark doesn't look as good when you map as if you were making a doom level it's because all the assets for spark are designed to be used with props and you should be using them with props because then it will look better than doom.
You say Doom when you mean Radiant. And it's not crap since it uses the same way of working as Spark and has extra features to create curves/pipes called Patches, which is what the OP is talking about. So Radiant = good, Spark = not so good.
<!--quoteo(post=1751957:date=Feb 8 2010, 08:59 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Feb 8 2010, 08:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1751957"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->which if it isn't props could be done a hell of a lot more efficiently and attractively with props.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's the OP's point. Patches in the Radiant editor allow for much more efficiency than just having props. Props are a specific size that can be rescaled, but patches can be edited by vertex.
<a href="http://www.katsbits.com/htm/tutorials/patch_mesh_curves_1.htm" target="_blank">http://www.katsbits.com/htm/tutorials/patc...sh_curves_1.htm</a> (we want this inside the Spark editor)
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4DzqNoI2oo" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4DzqNoI2oo</a>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tpk_xH0x-0Y" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tpk_xH0x-0Y</a>
To create that curved screenshot in Spark you'd have to use 3D modelling software, which means re-importing everytime you needed to adjust something. There aren't any smoothing groups with the default Spark circle tool so you can't use that.
<!--quoteo(post=1751957:date=Feb 8 2010, 08:59 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Feb 8 2010, 08:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1751957"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->all the assets for spark are designed to be used with props and you should be using them with props because then it will look better than doom.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
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.
You really don't need to be able to create round surfaces in the editor because that's what props are for, if you need a round surface just make a prop for it, texture it with the stock materials, and then bake an AO map to improve the lighting quality. Yes you have to reimport if you do it wrong but considering the builder application is specifically designed to make that easy to do as well as the hot loading capabilities of the engine, it really helps to alleviate the issues of prop based systems. That and you can just avoid doing it wrong to begin with, or even better, think of a way to do it that doesn't involve making curved surfaces because they're ridiculously inefficient, they use lots of polies to create something very simple, something which lacks detail, you'd be better served using those polies to create an octagon or something out of eight instanced props which have lots of surface detail at less cost.
Honestly propping is the superior system, it takes effort to make it look good but there isn't very much it can't do, and it takes effort to make <i>anything</i> look good, that's why game developers get paid a lot and work ridiculous hours.
Not really, having patches and props would be superior.
Anything you can do with a patch you can do better with a prop, if you're just looking for a placeholder just use a primitive until you can make the prop.