This is an early WiP of my first serious map i´m doing for Doom 3. It´s a subway station. I guess i can´t export everything as one model but will have to export it as several different models.
And i hope i can normal map these inset thingies on the outer hull of the structure.
rich_is_bored@Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:21 pm :
You can normal map the dome but you won't get near the same illusion of depth.
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:16 am :
Actually you can export everything as one model, and for an open space like this there is no reason not to (although this is easier in Max than it is in Maya). I would redesign the vault so you have a combinaton of some realtime shadows, and normal maps. Make a few prominent beams etc. It should be fun to light. You may have issues with AI in such a space, but I'm sure it will look good!
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:59 am :
The dome will kill the framerate if you let it like this (for casting dynamic shadows), so maybe you should try to double dome's squares...
For AI, you could "inline" your model, and create the basic structures with "clip "brushes and "AIclip" to let them walk where you allow them.
I really love to see really new architectures maps, especially "open" areas!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:43 am :
I would like to see an open area mapped out and run with a decent framerate.
bladeghost@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:06 am :
Visually impressive, nice work!
Then comes texturing!, sounds, triggers, relays, script......
and ah yes lighting....an art in itself. have moving trains? see how it goes best luck with it looks great!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:25 am :
It is very impressive work, what modeling app did you use?
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:14 am :
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry. It helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of both the level editor and a modelling program, so please do not become too dependent on making entire levels out of imported models.
Vladch@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:57 am :
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The design looks quite nice though, perhaps you should include a couple of round shapes (i.e. the handrails).
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:22 am :
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
You can also use the Doom textures tiled into your 3D app, and for certain persons (like me ), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:05 am :
evilartist wrote:
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry.
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The UV mapping abilities of any modelling program are far more sophisitcated than DoomEdit's. You cant unwrap in DoomEdit silly!
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:08 pm :
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:40 am :
evilartist wrote:
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
It doesn't matter so *what* you use, it's *how* that counts. The map above will run like ass regardless - sorry about that Lumpy!
THe main issue here is the open-ness of the map, there's nothing there to do any blocking and using distance portals won't work becasue nothing to blocking the line of site to hide their effects.
The ceiling is better off as a normal map as rich_ said above, an object like that is drawing and wasting to many tris as a result of it being 'real', add light volumes to that and you've got problems with that many shadow volumes being cast at any one time.
The idea is great, but it's more of a visualistion than a game map so it'll need some serious 'compromising' to be done to idea (don't let that put you off btw Lumpengnom.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:47 pm :
couldn't lumpy use that ceiling model as it is but with a noshadows casting material?
that would cut down on the number of shadow volumes being generated. also remember we can add in nodraw shadow casting parts of the models for when we want to fake the appearance of the visible model casting shadows.
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:28 pm :
Yeah that can be done but you always have to ask, is the feature worth the collosal polycount it's uses to be drawn?
Each light volume that hits it will draw polys (shadows or not) and the chances are it's going to need more than one light to fully illuminate it which will dublicate the tris for a feature that 'not important', i.e. it doesn't do anything other than look good.
So yes technically it can be done but it'll need a lot of work to make it FPS/runtime friendly.
I'm not even going to guess how many wholes there are that would need a shadowcasting texture btw!!
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:47 pm :
understood and good points kat
Kristus@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:50 pm :
If you ask me (which I realize none of you actually did, but I can't shut up so here goes) nothing in that scene would really warrant the modeling of the scene.
The ceiling is too heavy to manage really, this is a really quite big and open scene and that's gonna be taxing for the engine to handle. And since it's fairly high up, a texture tiled on a patch mesh would do the trick just fine. As for all the ground stuff, nothing of it is very intricate or complex. It easily handled by brushes and some patch meshes.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:50 pm :
ot: can the admins here ban Encetenpo45, all his posts seem to be totally ot and contain links to porn sites. its getting very annoying thinking there is an update to a thread I've been following, only to find its Encetenpo45 posting spam again
This is an early WiP of my first serious map i´m doing for Doom 3. It´s a subway station. I guess i can´t export everything as one model but will have to export it as several different models.
And i hope i can normal map these inset thingies on the outer hull of the structure.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Actually you can export everything as one model, and for an open space like this there is no reason not to (although this is easier in Max than it is in Maya). I would redesign the vault so you have a combinaton of some realtime shadows, and normal maps. Make a few prominent beams etc. It should be fun to light. You may have issues with AI in such a space, but I'm sure it will look good!
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:42 am Posts: 1172 Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
The dome will kill the framerate if you let it like this (for casting dynamic shadows), so maybe you should try to double dome's squares...
For AI, you could "inline" your model, and create the basic structures with "clip "brushes and "AIclip" to let them walk where you allow them.
I really love to see really new architectures maps, especially "open" areas!
_________________ If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit.
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 10:27 pm Posts: 414 Location: St. Catherines, Ontario Canada
Visually impressive, nice work!
Then comes texturing!, sounds, triggers, relays, script......
and ah yes lighting....an art in itself. have moving trains? see how it goes best luck with it looks great!
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry. It helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of both the level editor and a modelling program, so please do not become too dependent on making entire levels out of imported models.
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The design looks quite nice though, perhaps you should include a couple of round shapes (i.e. the handrails).
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:42 am Posts: 1172 Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
You can also use the Doom textures tiled into your 3D app, and for certain persons (like me ), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
_________________ If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
evilartist wrote:
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry.
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The UV mapping abilities of any modelling program are far more sophisitcated than DoomEdit's. You cant unwrap in DoomEdit silly!
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
_________________ My inevitable step into the world of professional game development is in sight...and when it happens, I will remember to thank this community for getting me started.
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4940 Location: UK, York
evilartist wrote:
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
It doesn't matter so *what* you use, it's *how* that counts. The map above will run like ass regardless - sorry about that Lumpy!
THe main issue here is the open-ness of the map, there's nothing there to do any blocking and using distance portals won't work becasue nothing to blocking the line of site to hide their effects.
The ceiling is better off as a normal map as rich_ said above, an object like that is drawing and wasting to many tris as a result of it being 'real', add light volumes to that and you've got problems with that many shadow volumes being cast at any one time.
The idea is great, but it's more of a visualistion than a game map so it'll need some serious 'compromising' to be done to idea (don't let that put you off btw Lumpengnom.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 951 Location: milton keynes, england
couldn't lumpy use that ceiling model as it is but with a noshadows casting material?
that would cut down on the number of shadow volumes being generated. also remember we can add in nodraw shadow casting parts of the models for when we want to fake the appearance of the visible model casting shadows.
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4940 Location: UK, York
Yeah that can be done but you always have to ask, is the feature worth the collosal polycount it's uses to be drawn?
Each light volume that hits it will draw polys (shadows or not) and the chances are it's going to need more than one light to fully illuminate it which will dublicate the tris for a feature that 'not important', i.e. it doesn't do anything other than look good.
So yes technically it can be done but it'll need a lot of work to make it FPS/runtime friendly.
I'm not even going to guess how many wholes there are that would need a shadowcasting texture btw!!
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 7:33 pm Posts: 1370 Location: In my pants.
If you ask me (which I realize none of you actually did, but I can't shut up so here goes) nothing in that scene would really warrant the modeling of the scene.
The ceiling is too heavy to manage really, this is a really quite big and open scene and that's gonna be taxing for the engine to handle. And since it's fairly high up, a texture tiled on a patch mesh would do the trick just fine. As for all the ground stuff, nothing of it is very intricate or complex. It easily handled by brushes and some patch meshes.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 951 Location: milton keynes, england
ot: can the admins here ban Encetenpo45, all his posts seem to be totally ot and contain links to porn sites. its getting very annoying thinking there is an update to a thread I've been following, only to find its Encetenpo45 posting spam again
This is an early WiP of my first serious map i´m doing for Doom 3. It´s a subway station. I guess i can´t export everything as one model but will have to export it as several different models.
And i hope i can normal map these inset thingies on the outer hull of the structure.
rich_is_bored@Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:21 pm :
You can normal map the dome but you won't get near the same illusion of depth.
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:16 am :
Actually you can export everything as one model, and for an open space like this there is no reason not to (although this is easier in Max than it is in Maya). I would redesign the vault so you have a combinaton of some realtime shadows, and normal maps. Make a few prominent beams etc. It should be fun to light. You may have issues with AI in such a space, but I'm sure it will look good!
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:59 am :
The dome will kill the framerate if you let it like this (for casting dynamic shadows), so maybe you should try to double dome's squares...
For AI, you could "inline" your model, and create the basic structures with "clip "brushes and "AIclip" to let them walk where you allow them.
I really love to see really new architectures maps, especially "open" areas!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:43 am :
I would like to see an open area mapped out and run with a decent framerate.
bladeghost@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:06 am :
Visually impressive, nice work!
Then comes texturing!, sounds, triggers, relays, script......
and ah yes lighting....an art in itself. have moving trains? see how it goes best luck with it looks great!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:25 am :
It is very impressive work, what modeling app did you use?
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:14 am :
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry. It helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of both the level editor and a modelling program, so please do not become too dependent on making entire levels out of imported models.
Vladch@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:57 am :
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The design looks quite nice though, perhaps you should include a couple of round shapes (i.e. the handrails).
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:22 am :
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
You can also use the Doom textures tiled into your 3D app, and for certain persons (like me ), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:05 am :
evilartist wrote:
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry.
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The UV mapping abilities of any modelling program are far more sophisitcated than DoomEdit's. You cant unwrap in DoomEdit silly!
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:08 pm :
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:40 am :
evilartist wrote:
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
It doesn't matter so *what* you use, it's *how* that counts. The map above will run like ass regardless - sorry about that Lumpy!
THe main issue here is the open-ness of the map, there's nothing there to do any blocking and using distance portals won't work becasue nothing to blocking the line of site to hide their effects.
The ceiling is better off as a normal map as rich_ said above, an object like that is drawing and wasting to many tris as a result of it being 'real', add light volumes to that and you've got problems with that many shadow volumes being cast at any one time.
The idea is great, but it's more of a visualistion than a game map so it'll need some serious 'compromising' to be done to idea (don't let that put you off btw Lumpengnom.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:47 pm :
couldn't lumpy use that ceiling model as it is but with a noshadows casting material?
that would cut down on the number of shadow volumes being generated. also remember we can add in nodraw shadow casting parts of the models for when we want to fake the appearance of the visible model casting shadows.
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:28 pm :
Yeah that can be done but you always have to ask, is the feature worth the collosal polycount it's uses to be drawn?
Each light volume that hits it will draw polys (shadows or not) and the chances are it's going to need more than one light to fully illuminate it which will dublicate the tris for a feature that 'not important', i.e. it doesn't do anything other than look good.
So yes technically it can be done but it'll need a lot of work to make it FPS/runtime friendly.
I'm not even going to guess how many wholes there are that would need a shadowcasting texture btw!!
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:47 pm :
understood and good points kat
Kristus@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:50 pm :
If you ask me (which I realize none of you actually did, but I can't shut up so here goes) nothing in that scene would really warrant the modeling of the scene.
The ceiling is too heavy to manage really, this is a really quite big and open scene and that's gonna be taxing for the engine to handle. And since it's fairly high up, a texture tiled on a patch mesh would do the trick just fine. As for all the ground stuff, nothing of it is very intricate or complex. It easily handled by brushes and some patch meshes.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:50 pm :
ot: can the admins here ban Encetenpo45, all his posts seem to be totally ot and contain links to porn sites. its getting very annoying thinking there is an update to a thread I've been following, only to find its Encetenpo45 posting spam again
Bo$bevok@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:55 pm :
ratty i think its a spambot
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 5:11 pm :
understood and thanks, but could it still be blocked or banned somehow?
Lumpengnom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:04 am :
This is an early WiP of my first serious map i´m doing for Doom 3. It´s a subway station. I guess i can´t export everything as one model but will have to export it as several different models.
And i hope i can normal map these inset thingies on the outer hull of the structure.
rich_is_bored@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:21 am :
You can normal map the dome but you won't get near the same illusion of depth.
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:16 am :
Actually you can export everything as one model, and for an open space like this there is no reason not to (although this is easier in Max than it is in Maya). I would redesign the vault so you have a combinaton of some realtime shadows, and normal maps. Make a few prominent beams etc. It should be fun to light. You may have issues with AI in such a space, but I'm sure it will look good!
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:59 am :
The dome will kill the framerate if you let it like this (for casting dynamic shadows), so maybe you should try to double dome's squares...
For AI, you could "inline" your model, and create the basic structures with "clip "brushes and "AIclip" to let them walk where you allow them.
I really love to see really new architectures maps, especially "open" areas!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:43 am :
I would like to see an open area mapped out and run with a decent framerate.
bladeghost@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:06 am :
Visually impressive, nice work!
Then comes texturing!, sounds, triggers, relays, script......
and ah yes lighting....an art in itself. have moving trains? see how it goes best luck with it looks great!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:25 am :
It is very impressive work, what modeling app did you use?
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:14 am :
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry. It helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of both the level editor and a modelling program, so please do not become too dependent on making entire levels out of imported models.
Vladch@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 7:57 am :
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The design looks quite nice though, perhaps you should include a couple of round shapes (i.e. the handrails).
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:22 am :
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
You can also use the Doom textures tiled into your 3D app, and for certain persons (like me ), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:05 am :
evilartist wrote:
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry.
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The UV mapping abilities of any modelling program are far more sophisitcated than DoomEdit's. You cant unwrap in DoomEdit silly!
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:08 pm :
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:40 am :
evilartist wrote:
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
It doesn't matter so *what* you use, it's *how* that counts. The map above will run like ass regardless - sorry about that Lumpy!
THe main issue here is the open-ness of the map, there's nothing there to do any blocking and using distance portals won't work becasue nothing to blocking the line of site to hide their effects.
The ceiling is better off as a normal map as rich_ said above, an object like that is drawing and wasting to many tris as a result of it being 'real', add light volumes to that and you've got problems with that many shadow volumes being cast at any one time.
The idea is great, but it's more of a visualistion than a game map so it'll need some serious 'compromising' to be done to idea (don't let that put you off btw Lumpengnom.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:47 pm :
couldn't lumpy use that ceiling model as it is but with a noshadows casting material?
that would cut down on the number of shadow volumes being generated. also remember we can add in nodraw shadow casting parts of the models for when we want to fake the appearance of the visible model casting shadows.
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:28 pm :
Yeah that can be done but you always have to ask, is the feature worth the collosal polycount it's uses to be drawn?
Each light volume that hits it will draw polys (shadows or not) and the chances are it's going to need more than one light to fully illuminate it which will dublicate the tris for a feature that 'not important', i.e. it doesn't do anything other than look good.
So yes technically it can be done but it'll need a lot of work to make it FPS/runtime friendly.
I'm not even going to guess how many wholes there are that would need a shadowcasting texture btw!!
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 5:47 pm :
understood and good points kat
Kristus@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:50 pm :
If you ask me (which I realize none of you actually did, but I can't shut up so here goes) nothing in that scene would really warrant the modeling of the scene.
The ceiling is too heavy to manage really, this is a really quite big and open scene and that's gonna be taxing for the engine to handle. And since it's fairly high up, a texture tiled on a patch mesh would do the trick just fine. As for all the ground stuff, nothing of it is very intricate or complex. It easily handled by brushes and some patch meshes.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 5:50 pm :
ot: can the admins here ban Encetenpo45, all his posts seem to be totally ot and contain links to porn sites. its getting very annoying thinking there is an update to a thread I've been following, only to find its Encetenpo45 posting spam again
Bo$bevok@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 5:55 pm :
ratty i think its a spambot
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:11 pm :
understood and thanks, but could it still be blocked or banned somehow?
Lumpengnom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:04 am :
This is an early WiP of my first serious map i´m doing for Doom 3. It´s a subway station. I guess i can´t export everything as one model but will have to export it as several different models.
And i hope i can normal map these inset thingies on the outer hull of the structure.
rich_is_bored@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:21 am :
You can normal map the dome but you won't get near the same illusion of depth.
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:16 am :
Actually you can export everything as one model, and for an open space like this there is no reason not to (although this is easier in Max than it is in Maya). I would redesign the vault so you have a combinaton of some realtime shadows, and normal maps. Make a few prominent beams etc. It should be fun to light. You may have issues with AI in such a space, but I'm sure it will look good!
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:59 am :
The dome will kill the framerate if you let it like this (for casting dynamic shadows), so maybe you should try to double dome's squares...
For AI, you could "inline" your model, and create the basic structures with "clip "brushes and "AIclip" to let them walk where you allow them.
I really love to see really new architectures maps, especially "open" areas!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:43 am :
I would like to see an open area mapped out and run with a decent framerate.
bladeghost@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:06 am :
Visually impressive, nice work!
Then comes texturing!, sounds, triggers, relays, script......
and ah yes lighting....an art in itself. have moving trains? see how it goes best luck with it looks great!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:25 am :
It is very impressive work, what modeling app did you use?
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:14 am :
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry. It helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of both the level editor and a modelling program, so please do not become too dependent on making entire levels out of imported models.
Vladch@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 7:57 am :
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The design looks quite nice though, perhaps you should include a couple of round shapes (i.e. the handrails).
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:22 am :
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
You can also use the Doom textures tiled into your 3D app, and for certain persons (like me ), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:05 am :
evilartist wrote:
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry.
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The UV mapping abilities of any modelling program are far more sophisitcated than DoomEdit's. You cant unwrap in DoomEdit silly!
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:08 pm :
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:40 am :
evilartist wrote:
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
It doesn't matter so *what* you use, it's *how* that counts. The map above will run like ass regardless - sorry about that Lumpy!
THe main issue here is the open-ness of the map, there's nothing there to do any blocking and using distance portals won't work becasue nothing to blocking the line of site to hide their effects.
The ceiling is better off as a normal map as rich_ said above, an object like that is drawing and wasting to many tris as a result of it being 'real', add light volumes to that and you've got problems with that many shadow volumes being cast at any one time.
The idea is great, but it's more of a visualistion than a game map so it'll need some serious 'compromising' to be done to idea (don't let that put you off btw Lumpengnom.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:47 pm :
couldn't lumpy use that ceiling model as it is but with a noshadows casting material?
that would cut down on the number of shadow volumes being generated. also remember we can add in nodraw shadow casting parts of the models for when we want to fake the appearance of the visible model casting shadows.
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:28 pm :
Yeah that can be done but you always have to ask, is the feature worth the collosal polycount it's uses to be drawn?
Each light volume that hits it will draw polys (shadows or not) and the chances are it's going to need more than one light to fully illuminate it which will dublicate the tris for a feature that 'not important', i.e. it doesn't do anything other than look good.
So yes technically it can be done but it'll need a lot of work to make it FPS/runtime friendly.
I'm not even going to guess how many wholes there are that would need a shadowcasting texture btw!!
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 5:47 pm :
understood and good points kat
Kristus@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:50 pm :
If you ask me (which I realize none of you actually did, but I can't shut up so here goes) nothing in that scene would really warrant the modeling of the scene.
The ceiling is too heavy to manage really, this is a really quite big and open scene and that's gonna be taxing for the engine to handle. And since it's fairly high up, a texture tiled on a patch mesh would do the trick just fine. As for all the ground stuff, nothing of it is very intricate or complex. It easily handled by brushes and some patch meshes.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 5:50 pm :
ot: can the admins here ban Encetenpo45, all his posts seem to be totally ot and contain links to porn sites. its getting very annoying thinking there is an update to a thread I've been following, only to find its Encetenpo45 posting spam again
Bo$bevok@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 5:55 pm :
ratty i think its a spambot
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:11 pm :
understood and thanks, but could it still be blocked or banned somehow?
Lumpengnom@Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:04 pm :
This is an early WiP of my first serious map i´m doing for Doom 3. It´s a subway station. I guess i can´t export everything as one model but will have to export it as several different models.
And i hope i can normal map these inset thingies on the outer hull of the structure.
rich_is_bored@Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:21 pm :
You can normal map the dome but you won't get near the same illusion of depth.
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:16 am :
Actually you can export everything as one model, and for an open space like this there is no reason not to (although this is easier in Max than it is in Maya). I would redesign the vault so you have a combinaton of some realtime shadows, and normal maps. Make a few prominent beams etc. It should be fun to light. You may have issues with AI in such a space, but I'm sure it will look good!
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:59 am :
The dome will kill the framerate if you let it like this (for casting dynamic shadows), so maybe you should try to double dome's squares...
For AI, you could "inline" your model, and create the basic structures with "clip "brushes and "AIclip" to let them walk where you allow them.
I really love to see really new architectures maps, especially "open" areas!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:43 am :
I would like to see an open area mapped out and run with a decent framerate.
bladeghost@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:06 am :
Visually impressive, nice work!
Then comes texturing!, sounds, triggers, relays, script......
and ah yes lighting....an art in itself. have moving trains? see how it goes best luck with it looks great!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:25 am :
It is very impressive work, what modeling app did you use?
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:14 am :
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry. It helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of both the level editor and a modelling program, so please do not become too dependent on making entire levels out of imported models.
Vladch@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:57 am :
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The design looks quite nice though, perhaps you should include a couple of round shapes (i.e. the handrails).
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:22 am :
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
You can also use the Doom textures tiled into your 3D app, and for certain persons (like me ), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:05 am :
evilartist wrote:
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry.
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The UV mapping abilities of any modelling program are far more sophisitcated than DoomEdit's. You cant unwrap in DoomEdit silly!
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:08 pm :
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:40 am :
evilartist wrote:
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
It doesn't matter so *what* you use, it's *how* that counts. The map above will run like ass regardless - sorry about that Lumpy!
THe main issue here is the open-ness of the map, there's nothing there to do any blocking and using distance portals won't work becasue nothing to blocking the line of site to hide their effects.
The ceiling is better off as a normal map as rich_ said above, an object like that is drawing and wasting to many tris as a result of it being 'real', add light volumes to that and you've got problems with that many shadow volumes being cast at any one time.
The idea is great, but it's more of a visualistion than a game map so it'll need some serious 'compromising' to be done to idea (don't let that put you off btw Lumpengnom.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:47 pm :
couldn't lumpy use that ceiling model as it is but with a noshadows casting material?
that would cut down on the number of shadow volumes being generated. also remember we can add in nodraw shadow casting parts of the models for when we want to fake the appearance of the visible model casting shadows.
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:28 pm :
Yeah that can be done but you always have to ask, is the feature worth the collosal polycount it's uses to be drawn?
Each light volume that hits it will draw polys (shadows or not) and the chances are it's going to need more than one light to fully illuminate it which will dublicate the tris for a feature that 'not important', i.e. it doesn't do anything other than look good.
So yes technically it can be done but it'll need a lot of work to make it FPS/runtime friendly.
I'm not even going to guess how many wholes there are that would need a shadowcasting texture btw!!
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:47 pm :
understood and good points kat
Kristus@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:50 pm :
If you ask me (which I realize none of you actually did, but I can't shut up so here goes) nothing in that scene would really warrant the modeling of the scene.
The ceiling is too heavy to manage really, this is a really quite big and open scene and that's gonna be taxing for the engine to handle. And since it's fairly high up, a texture tiled on a patch mesh would do the trick just fine. As for all the ground stuff, nothing of it is very intricate or complex. It easily handled by brushes and some patch meshes.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:50 pm :
ot: can the admins here ban Encetenpo45, all his posts seem to be totally ot and contain links to porn sites. its getting very annoying thinking there is an update to a thread I've been following, only to find its Encetenpo45 posting spam again
Bo$bevok@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:55 pm :
ratty i think its a spambot
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 5:11 pm :
understood and thanks, but could it still be blocked or banned somehow?
Lumpengnom@Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:04 pm :
This is an early WiP of my first serious map i´m doing for Doom 3. It´s a subway station. I guess i can´t export everything as one model but will have to export it as several different models.
And i hope i can normal map these inset thingies on the outer hull of the structure.
rich_is_bored@Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:21 pm :
You can normal map the dome but you won't get near the same illusion of depth.
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:16 am :
Actually you can export everything as one model, and for an open space like this there is no reason not to (although this is easier in Max than it is in Maya). I would redesign the vault so you have a combinaton of some realtime shadows, and normal maps. Make a few prominent beams etc. It should be fun to light. You may have issues with AI in such a space, but I'm sure it will look good!
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:59 am :
The dome will kill the framerate if you let it like this (for casting dynamic shadows), so maybe you should try to double dome's squares...
For AI, you could "inline" your model, and create the basic structures with "clip "brushes and "AIclip" to let them walk where you allow them.
I really love to see really new architectures maps, especially "open" areas!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:43 am :
I would like to see an open area mapped out and run with a decent framerate.
bladeghost@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:06 am :
Visually impressive, nice work!
Then comes texturing!, sounds, triggers, relays, script......
and ah yes lighting....an art in itself. have moving trains? see how it goes best luck with it looks great!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:25 am :
It is very impressive work, what modeling app did you use?
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:14 am :
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry. It helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of both the level editor and a modelling program, so please do not become too dependent on making entire levels out of imported models.
Vladch@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:57 am :
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The design looks quite nice though, perhaps you should include a couple of round shapes (i.e. the handrails).
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:22 am :
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
You can also use the Doom textures tiled into your 3D app, and for certain persons (like me ), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:05 am :
evilartist wrote:
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry.
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The UV mapping abilities of any modelling program are far more sophisitcated than DoomEdit's. You cant unwrap in DoomEdit silly!
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:08 pm :
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:40 am :
evilartist wrote:
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
It doesn't matter so *what* you use, it's *how* that counts. The map above will run like ass regardless - sorry about that Lumpy!
THe main issue here is the open-ness of the map, there's nothing there to do any blocking and using distance portals won't work becasue nothing to blocking the line of site to hide their effects.
The ceiling is better off as a normal map as rich_ said above, an object like that is drawing and wasting to many tris as a result of it being 'real', add light volumes to that and you've got problems with that many shadow volumes being cast at any one time.
The idea is great, but it's more of a visualistion than a game map so it'll need some serious 'compromising' to be done to idea (don't let that put you off btw Lumpengnom.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:47 pm :
couldn't lumpy use that ceiling model as it is but with a noshadows casting material?
that would cut down on the number of shadow volumes being generated. also remember we can add in nodraw shadow casting parts of the models for when we want to fake the appearance of the visible model casting shadows.
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:28 pm :
Yeah that can be done but you always have to ask, is the feature worth the collosal polycount it's uses to be drawn?
Each light volume that hits it will draw polys (shadows or not) and the chances are it's going to need more than one light to fully illuminate it which will dublicate the tris for a feature that 'not important', i.e. it doesn't do anything other than look good.
So yes technically it can be done but it'll need a lot of work to make it FPS/runtime friendly.
I'm not even going to guess how many wholes there are that would need a shadowcasting texture btw!!
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:47 pm :
understood and good points kat
Kristus@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:50 pm :
If you ask me (which I realize none of you actually did, but I can't shut up so here goes) nothing in that scene would really warrant the modeling of the scene.
The ceiling is too heavy to manage really, this is a really quite big and open scene and that's gonna be taxing for the engine to handle. And since it's fairly high up, a texture tiled on a patch mesh would do the trick just fine. As for all the ground stuff, nothing of it is very intricate or complex. It easily handled by brushes and some patch meshes.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:50 pm :
ot: can the admins here ban Encetenpo45, all his posts seem to be totally ot and contain links to porn sites. its getting very annoying thinking there is an update to a thread I've been following, only to find its Encetenpo45 posting spam again
Bo$bevok@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:55 pm :
ratty i think its a spambot
ratty redemption@:
Doom3world • View topic - Subway Station Map
This is an early WiP of my first serious map i´m doing for Doom 3. It´s a subway station. I guess i can´t export everything as one model but will have to export it as several different models.
And i hope i can normal map these inset thingies on the outer hull of the structure.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Actually you can export everything as one model, and for an open space like this there is no reason not to (although this is easier in Max than it is in Maya). I would redesign the vault so you have a combinaton of some realtime shadows, and normal maps. Make a few prominent beams etc. It should be fun to light. You may have issues with AI in such a space, but I'm sure it will look good!
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:42 am Posts: 1172 Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
The dome will kill the framerate if you let it like this (for casting dynamic shadows), so maybe you should try to double dome's squares...
For AI, you could "inline" your model, and create the basic structures with "clip "brushes and "AIclip" to let them walk where you allow them.
I really love to see really new architectures maps, especially "open" areas!
_________________ If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit.
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 10:27 pm Posts: 430 Location: St. Catherines, Ontario Canada
Visually impressive, nice work!
Then comes texturing!, sounds, triggers, relays, script......
and ah yes lighting....an art in itself. have moving trains? see how it goes best luck with it looks great!
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry. It helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of both the level editor and a modelling program, so please do not become too dependent on making entire levels out of imported models.
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The design looks quite nice though, perhaps you should include a couple of round shapes (i.e. the handrails).
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:42 am Posts: 1172 Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
You can also use the Doom textures tiled into your 3D app, and for certain persons (like me ), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
_________________ If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
evilartist wrote:
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry.
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The UV mapping abilities of any modelling program are far more sophisitcated than DoomEdit's. You cant unwrap in DoomEdit silly!
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
_________________ My inevitable step into the world of professional game development is in sight...and when it happens, I will remember to thank this community for getting me started.
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4940 Location: UK, York
evilartist wrote:
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
It doesn't matter so *what* you use, it's *how* that counts. The map above will run like ass regardless - sorry about that Lumpy!
THe main issue here is the open-ness of the map, there's nothing there to do any blocking and using distance portals won't work becasue nothing to blocking the line of site to hide their effects.
The ceiling is better off as a normal map as rich_ said above, an object like that is drawing and wasting to many tris as a result of it being 'real', add light volumes to that and you've got problems with that many shadow volumes being cast at any one time.
The idea is great, but it's more of a visualistion than a game map so it'll need some serious 'compromising' to be done to idea (don't let that put you off btw Lumpengnom.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 955 Location: milton keynes, england
couldn't lumpy use that ceiling model as it is but with a noshadows casting material?
that would cut down on the number of shadow volumes being generated. also remember we can add in nodraw shadow casting parts of the models for when we want to fake the appearance of the visible model casting shadows.
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4940 Location: UK, York
Yeah that can be done but you always have to ask, is the feature worth the collosal polycount it's uses to be drawn?
Each light volume that hits it will draw polys (shadows or not) and the chances are it's going to need more than one light to fully illuminate it which will dublicate the tris for a feature that 'not important', i.e. it doesn't do anything other than look good.
So yes technically it can be done but it'll need a lot of work to make it FPS/runtime friendly.
I'm not even going to guess how many wholes there are that would need a shadowcasting texture btw!!
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 7:33 pm Posts: 1377 Location: In my pants.
If you ask me (which I realize none of you actually did, but I can't shut up so here goes) nothing in that scene would really warrant the modeling of the scene.
The ceiling is too heavy to manage really, this is a really quite big and open scene and that's gonna be taxing for the engine to handle. And since it's fairly high up, a texture tiled on a patch mesh would do the trick just fine. As for all the ground stuff, nothing of it is very intricate or complex. It easily handled by brushes and some patch meshes.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 955 Location: milton keynes, england
ot: can the admins here ban Encetenpo45, all his posts seem to be totally ot and contain links to porn sites. its getting very annoying thinking there is an update to a thread I've been following, only to find its Encetenpo45 posting spam again
This is an early WiP of my first serious map i´m doing for Doom 3. It´s a subway station. I guess i can´t export everything as one model but will have to export it as several different models.
And i hope i can normal map these inset thingies on the outer hull of the structure.
rich_is_bored@Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:21 pm :
You can normal map the dome but you won't get near the same illusion of depth.
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:16 am :
Actually you can export everything as one model, and for an open space like this there is no reason not to (although this is easier in Max than it is in Maya). I would redesign the vault so you have a combinaton of some realtime shadows, and normal maps. Make a few prominent beams etc. It should be fun to light. You may have issues with AI in such a space, but I'm sure it will look good!
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:59 am :
The dome will kill the framerate if you let it like this (for casting dynamic shadows), so maybe you should try to double dome's squares...
For AI, you could "inline" your model, and create the basic structures with "clip "brushes and "AIclip" to let them walk where you allow them.
I really love to see really new architectures maps, especially "open" areas!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:43 am :
I would like to see an open area mapped out and run with a decent framerate.
bladeghost@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:06 am :
Visually impressive, nice work!
Then comes texturing!, sounds, triggers, relays, script......
and ah yes lighting....an art in itself. have moving trains? see how it goes best luck with it looks great!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:25 am :
It is very impressive work, what modeling app did you use?
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:14 am :
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry. It helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of both the level editor and a modelling program, so please do not become too dependent on making entire levels out of imported models.
Vladch@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:57 am :
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The design looks quite nice though, perhaps you should include a couple of round shapes (i.e. the handrails).
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:22 am :
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
You can also use the Doom textures tiled into your 3D app, and for certain persons (like me ), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:05 am :
evilartist wrote:
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry.
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The UV mapping abilities of any modelling program are far more sophisitcated than DoomEdit's. You cant unwrap in DoomEdit silly!
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:08 pm :
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:40 am :
evilartist wrote:
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
It doesn't matter so *what* you use, it's *how* that counts. The map above will run like ass regardless - sorry about that Lumpy!
THe main issue here is the open-ness of the map, there's nothing there to do any blocking and using distance portals won't work becasue nothing to blocking the line of site to hide their effects.
The ceiling is better off as a normal map as rich_ said above, an object like that is drawing and wasting to many tris as a result of it being 'real', add light volumes to that and you've got problems with that many shadow volumes being cast at any one time.
The idea is great, but it's more of a visualistion than a game map so it'll need some serious 'compromising' to be done to idea (don't let that put you off btw Lumpengnom.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:47 pm :
couldn't lumpy use that ceiling model as it is but with a noshadows casting material?
that would cut down on the number of shadow volumes being generated. also remember we can add in nodraw shadow casting parts of the models for when we want to fake the appearance of the visible model casting shadows.
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:28 pm :
Yeah that can be done but you always have to ask, is the feature worth the collosal polycount it's uses to be drawn?
Each light volume that hits it will draw polys (shadows or not) and the chances are it's going to need more than one light to fully illuminate it which will dublicate the tris for a feature that 'not important', i.e. it doesn't do anything other than look good.
So yes technically it can be done but it'll need a lot of work to make it FPS/runtime friendly.
I'm not even going to guess how many wholes there are that would need a shadowcasting texture btw!!
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:47 pm :
understood and good points kat
Kristus@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:50 pm :
If you ask me (which I realize none of you actually did, but I can't shut up so here goes) nothing in that scene would really warrant the modeling of the scene.
The ceiling is too heavy to manage really, this is a really quite big and open scene and that's gonna be taxing for the engine to handle. And since it's fairly high up, a texture tiled on a patch mesh would do the trick just fine. As for all the ground stuff, nothing of it is very intricate or complex. It easily handled by brushes and some patch meshes.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:50 pm :
ot: can the admins here ban Encetenpo45, all his posts seem to be totally ot and contain links to porn sites. its getting very annoying thinking there is an update to a thread I've been following, only to find its Encetenpo45 posting spam again
Bo$bevok@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:55 pm :
ratty i think its a spambot
ratty redemption@:
Doom3world • View topic - Subway Station Map
This is an early WiP of my first serious map i´m doing for Doom 3. It´s a subway station. I guess i can´t export everything as one model but will have to export it as several different models.
And i hope i can normal map these inset thingies on the outer hull of the structure.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Actually you can export everything as one model, and for an open space like this there is no reason not to (although this is easier in Max than it is in Maya). I would redesign the vault so you have a combinaton of some realtime shadows, and normal maps. Make a few prominent beams etc. It should be fun to light. You may have issues with AI in such a space, but I'm sure it will look good!
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:42 am Posts: 1172 Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
The dome will kill the framerate if you let it like this (for casting dynamic shadows), so maybe you should try to double dome's squares...
For AI, you could "inline" your model, and create the basic structures with "clip "brushes and "AIclip" to let them walk where you allow them.
I really love to see really new architectures maps, especially "open" areas!
_________________ If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit.
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 10:27 pm Posts: 405 Location: St. Catherines, Ontario Canada
Visually impressive, nice work!
Then comes texturing!, sounds, triggers, relays, script......
and ah yes lighting....an art in itself. have moving trains? see how it goes best luck with it looks great!
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry. It helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of both the level editor and a modelling program, so please do not become too dependent on making entire levels out of imported models.
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The design looks quite nice though, perhaps you should include a couple of round shapes (i.e. the handrails).
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:42 am Posts: 1172 Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
You can also use the Doom textures tiled into your 3D app, and for certain persons (like me ), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
_________________ If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
evilartist wrote:
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry.
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The UV mapping abilities of any modelling program are far more sophisitcated than DoomEdit's. You cant unwrap in DoomEdit silly!
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
_________________ My inevitable step into the world of professional game development is in sight...and when it happens, I will remember to thank this community for getting me started.
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4940 Location: UK, York
evilartist wrote:
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
It doesn't matter so *what* you use, it's *how* that counts. The map above will run like ass regardless - sorry about that Lumpy!
THe main issue here is the open-ness of the map, there's nothing there to do any blocking and using distance portals won't work becasue nothing to blocking the line of site to hide their effects.
The ceiling is better off as a normal map as rich_ said above, an object like that is drawing and wasting to many tris as a result of it being 'real', add light volumes to that and you've got problems with that many shadow volumes being cast at any one time.
The idea is great, but it's more of a visualistion than a game map so it'll need some serious 'compromising' to be done to idea (don't let that put you off btw Lumpengnom.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 950 Location: milton keynes, england
couldn't lumpy use that ceiling model as it is but with a noshadows casting material?
that would cut down on the number of shadow volumes being generated. also remember we can add in nodraw shadow casting parts of the models for when we want to fake the appearance of the visible model casting shadows.
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4940 Location: UK, York
Yeah that can be done but you always have to ask, is the feature worth the collosal polycount it's uses to be drawn?
Each light volume that hits it will draw polys (shadows or not) and the chances are it's going to need more than one light to fully illuminate it which will dublicate the tris for a feature that 'not important', i.e. it doesn't do anything other than look good.
So yes technically it can be done but it'll need a lot of work to make it FPS/runtime friendly.
I'm not even going to guess how many wholes there are that would need a shadowcasting texture btw!!
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 7:33 pm Posts: 1369 Location: In my pants.
If you ask me (which I realize none of you actually did, but I can't shut up so here goes) nothing in that scene would really warrant the modeling of the scene.
The ceiling is too heavy to manage really, this is a really quite big and open scene and that's gonna be taxing for the engine to handle. And since it's fairly high up, a texture tiled on a patch mesh would do the trick just fine. As for all the ground stuff, nothing of it is very intricate or complex. It easily handled by brushes and some patch meshes.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 950 Location: milton keynes, england
ot: can the admins here ban Encetenpo45, all his posts seem to be totally ot and contain links to porn sites. its getting very annoying thinking there is an update to a thread I've been following, only to find its Encetenpo45 posting spam again
This is an early WiP of my first serious map i´m doing for Doom 3. It´s a subway station. I guess i can´t export everything as one model but will have to export it as several different models.
And i hope i can normal map these inset thingies on the outer hull of the structure.
rich_is_bored@Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:21 pm :
You can normal map the dome but you won't get near the same illusion of depth.
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:16 am :
Actually you can export everything as one model, and for an open space like this there is no reason not to (although this is easier in Max than it is in Maya). I would redesign the vault so you have a combinaton of some realtime shadows, and normal maps. Make a few prominent beams etc. It should be fun to light. You may have issues with AI in such a space, but I'm sure it will look good!
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:59 am :
The dome will kill the framerate if you let it like this (for casting dynamic shadows), so maybe you should try to double dome's squares...
For AI, you could "inline" your model, and create the basic structures with "clip "brushes and "AIclip" to let them walk where you allow them.
I really love to see really new architectures maps, especially "open" areas!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:43 am :
I would like to see an open area mapped out and run with a decent framerate.
bladeghost@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:06 am :
Visually impressive, nice work!
Then comes texturing!, sounds, triggers, relays, script......
and ah yes lighting....an art in itself. have moving trains? see how it goes best luck with it looks great!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:25 am :
It is very impressive work, what modeling app did you use?
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:14 am :
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry. It helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of both the level editor and a modelling program, so please do not become too dependent on making entire levels out of imported models.
Vladch@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:57 am :
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The design looks quite nice though, perhaps you should include a couple of round shapes (i.e. the handrails).
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:22 am :
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
You can also use the Doom textures tiled into your 3D app, and for certain persons (like me ), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:05 am :
evilartist wrote:
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry.
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The UV mapping abilities of any modelling program are far more sophisitcated than DoomEdit's. You cant unwrap in DoomEdit silly!
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:08 pm :
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:40 am :
evilartist wrote:
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
It doesn't matter so *what* you use, it's *how* that counts. The map above will run like ass regardless - sorry about that Lumpy!
THe main issue here is the open-ness of the map, there's nothing there to do any blocking and using distance portals won't work becasue nothing to blocking the line of site to hide their effects.
The ceiling is better off as a normal map as rich_ said above, an object like that is drawing and wasting to many tris as a result of it being 'real', add light volumes to that and you've got problems with that many shadow volumes being cast at any one time.
The idea is great, but it's more of a visualistion than a game map so it'll need some serious 'compromising' to be done to idea (don't let that put you off btw Lumpengnom.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:47 pm :
couldn't lumpy use that ceiling model as it is but with a noshadows casting material?
that would cut down on the number of shadow volumes being generated. also remember we can add in nodraw shadow casting parts of the models for when we want to fake the appearance of the visible model casting shadows.
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:28 pm :
Yeah that can be done but you always have to ask, is the feature worth the collosal polycount it's uses to be drawn?
Each light volume that hits it will draw polys (shadows or not) and the chances are it's going to need more than one light to fully illuminate it which will dublicate the tris for a feature that 'not important', i.e. it doesn't do anything other than look good.
So yes technically it can be done but it'll need a lot of work to make it FPS/runtime friendly.
I'm not even going to guess how many wholes there are that would need a shadowcasting texture btw!!
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:47 pm :
understood and good points kat
Kristus@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:50 pm :
If you ask me (which I realize none of you actually did, but I can't shut up so here goes) nothing in that scene would really warrant the modeling of the scene.
The ceiling is too heavy to manage really, this is a really quite big and open scene and that's gonna be taxing for the engine to handle. And since it's fairly high up, a texture tiled on a patch mesh would do the trick just fine. As for all the ground stuff, nothing of it is very intricate or complex. It easily handled by brushes and some patch meshes.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:50 pm :
ot: can the admins here ban Encetenpo45, all his posts seem to be totally ot and contain links to porn sites. its getting very annoying thinking there is an update to a thread I've been following, only to find its Encetenpo45 posting spam again
This is an early WiP of my first serious map i´m doing for Doom 3. It´s a subway station. I guess i can´t export everything as one model but will have to export it as several different models.
And i hope i can normal map these inset thingies on the outer hull of the structure.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Actually you can export everything as one model, and for an open space like this there is no reason not to (although this is easier in Max than it is in Maya). I would redesign the vault so you have a combinaton of some realtime shadows, and normal maps. Make a few prominent beams etc. It should be fun to light. You may have issues with AI in such a space, but I'm sure it will look good!
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:42 am Posts: 1207 Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
The dome will kill the framerate if you let it like this (for casting dynamic shadows), so maybe you should try to double dome's squares...
For AI, you could "inline" your model, and create the basic structures with "clip "brushes and "AIclip" to let them walk where you allow them.
I really love to see really new architectures maps, especially "open" areas!
_________________ Id tech 4 still amaze me. Good assets make good games.
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 10:27 pm Posts: 448 Location: St. Catherines, Ontario Canada
Visually impressive, nice work!
Then comes texturing!, sounds, triggers, relays, script......
and ah yes lighting....an art in itself. have moving trains? see how it goes best luck with it looks great!
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry. It helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of both the level editor and a modelling program, so please do not become too dependent on making entire levels out of imported models.
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The design looks quite nice though, perhaps you should include a couple of round shapes (i.e. the handrails).
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:42 am Posts: 1207 Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
You can also use the Doom textures tiled into your 3D app, and for certain persons (like me ), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
_________________ Id tech 4 still amaze me. Good assets make good games.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
evilartist wrote:
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry.
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The UV mapping abilities of any modelling program are far more sophisitcated than DoomEdit's. You cant unwrap in DoomEdit silly!
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
_________________ My inevitable step into the world of professional game development is in sight...and when it happens, I will remember to thank this community for getting me started.
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4943 Location: UK, York
evilartist wrote:
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
It doesn't matter so *what* you use, it's *how* that counts. The map above will run like ass regardless - sorry about that Lumpy!
THe main issue here is the open-ness of the map, there's nothing there to do any blocking and using distance portals won't work becasue nothing to blocking the line of site to hide their effects.
The ceiling is better off as a normal map as rich_ said above, an object like that is drawing and wasting to many tris as a result of it being 'real', add light volumes to that and you've got problems with that many shadow volumes being cast at any one time.
The idea is great, but it's more of a visualistion than a game map so it'll need some serious 'compromising' to be done to idea (don't let that put you off btw Lumpengnom.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 974 Location: milton keynes, england
couldn't lumpy use that ceiling model as it is but with a noshadows casting material?
that would cut down on the number of shadow volumes being generated. also remember we can add in nodraw shadow casting parts of the models for when we want to fake the appearance of the visible model casting shadows.
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4943 Location: UK, York
Yeah that can be done but you always have to ask, is the feature worth the collosal polycount it's uses to be drawn?
Each light volume that hits it will draw polys (shadows or not) and the chances are it's going to need more than one light to fully illuminate it which will dublicate the tris for a feature that 'not important', i.e. it doesn't do anything other than look good.
So yes technically it can be done but it'll need a lot of work to make it FPS/runtime friendly.
I'm not even going to guess how many wholes there are that would need a shadowcasting texture btw!!
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 7:33 pm Posts: 1403 Location: In my pants.
If you ask me (which I realize none of you actually did, but I can't shut up so here goes) nothing in that scene would really warrant the modeling of the scene.
The ceiling is too heavy to manage really, this is a really quite big and open scene and that's gonna be taxing for the engine to handle. And since it's fairly high up, a texture tiled on a patch mesh would do the trick just fine. As for all the ground stuff, nothing of it is very intricate or complex. It easily handled by brushes and some patch meshes.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 974 Location: milton keynes, england
ot: can the admins here ban Encetenpo45, all his posts seem to be totally ot and contain links to porn sites. its getting very annoying thinking there is an update to a thread I've been following, only to find its Encetenpo45 posting spam again
This is an early WiP of my first serious map i´m doing for Doom 3. It´s a subway station. I guess i can´t export everything as one model but will have to export it as several different models.
And i hope i can normal map these inset thingies on the outer hull of the structure.
rich_is_bored@Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:21 pm :
You can normal map the dome but you won't get near the same illusion of depth.
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:16 am :
Actually you can export everything as one model, and for an open space like this there is no reason not to (although this is easier in Max than it is in Maya). I would redesign the vault so you have a combinaton of some realtime shadows, and normal maps. Make a few prominent beams etc. It should be fun to light. You may have issues with AI in such a space, but I'm sure it will look good!
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:59 am :
The dome will kill the framerate if you let it like this (for casting dynamic shadows), so maybe you should try to double dome's squares...
For AI, you could "inline" your model, and create the basic structures with "clip "brushes and "AIclip" to let them walk where you allow them.
I really love to see really new architectures maps, especially "open" areas!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:43 am :
I would like to see an open area mapped out and run with a decent framerate.
bladeghost@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:06 am :
Visually impressive, nice work!
Then comes texturing!, sounds, triggers, relays, script......
and ah yes lighting....an art in itself. have moving trains? see how it goes best luck with it looks great!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:25 am :
It is very impressive work, what modeling app did you use?
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:14 am :
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry. It helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of both the level editor and a modelling program, so please do not become too dependent on making entire levels out of imported models.
Vladch@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:57 am :
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The design looks quite nice though, perhaps you should include a couple of round shapes (i.e. the handrails).
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:22 am :
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
You can also use the Doom textures tiled into your 3D app, and for certain persons (like me ), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:05 am :
evilartist wrote:
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry.
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The UV mapping abilities of any modelling program are far more sophisitcated than DoomEdit's. You cant unwrap in DoomEdit silly!
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:08 pm :
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:40 am :
evilartist wrote:
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
It doesn't matter so *what* you use, it's *how* that counts. The map above will run like ass regardless - sorry about that Lumpy!
THe main issue here is the open-ness of the map, there's nothing there to do any blocking and using distance portals won't work becasue nothing to blocking the line of site to hide their effects.
The ceiling is better off as a normal map as rich_ said above, an object like that is drawing and wasting to many tris as a result of it being 'real', add light volumes to that and you've got problems with that many shadow volumes being cast at any one time.
The idea is great, but it's more of a visualistion than a game map so it'll need some serious 'compromising' to be done to idea (don't let that put you off btw Lumpengnom.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:47 pm :
couldn't lumpy use that ceiling model as it is but with a noshadows casting material?
that would cut down on the number of shadow volumes being generated. also remember we can add in nodraw shadow casting parts of the models for when we want to fake the appearance of the visible model casting shadows.
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:28 pm :
Yeah that can be done but you always have to ask, is the feature worth the collosal polycount it's uses to be drawn?
Each light volume that hits it will draw polys (shadows or not) and the chances are it's going to need more than one light to fully illuminate it which will dublicate the tris for a feature that 'not important', i.e. it doesn't do anything other than look good.
So yes technically it can be done but it'll need a lot of work to make it FPS/runtime friendly.
I'm not even going to guess how many wholes there are that would need a shadowcasting texture btw!!
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:47 pm :
understood and good points kat
Kristus@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:50 pm :
If you ask me (which I realize none of you actually did, but I can't shut up so here goes) nothing in that scene would really warrant the modeling of the scene.
The ceiling is too heavy to manage really, this is a really quite big and open scene and that's gonna be taxing for the engine to handle. And since it's fairly high up, a texture tiled on a patch mesh would do the trick just fine. As for all the ground stuff, nothing of it is very intricate or complex. It easily handled by brushes and some patch meshes.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:50 pm :
ot: can the admins here ban Encetenpo45, all his posts seem to be totally ot and contain links to porn sites. its getting very annoying thinking there is an update to a thread I've been following, only to find its Encetenpo45 posting spam again
Bo$bevok@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:55 pm :
ratty i think its a spambot
ratty redemption@:
Doom3world • View topic - Subway Station Map
This is an early WiP of my first serious map i´m doing for Doom 3. It´s a subway station. I guess i can´t export everything as one model but will have to export it as several different models.
And i hope i can normal map these inset thingies on the outer hull of the structure.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Actually you can export everything as one model, and for an open space like this there is no reason not to (although this is easier in Max than it is in Maya). I would redesign the vault so you have a combinaton of some realtime shadows, and normal maps. Make a few prominent beams etc. It should be fun to light. You may have issues with AI in such a space, but I'm sure it will look good!
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:42 am Posts: 1172 Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
The dome will kill the framerate if you let it like this (for casting dynamic shadows), so maybe you should try to double dome's squares...
For AI, you could "inline" your model, and create the basic structures with "clip "brushes and "AIclip" to let them walk where you allow them.
I really love to see really new architectures maps, especially "open" areas!
_________________ If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit.
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 10:27 pm Posts: 404 Location: St. Catherines, Ontario Canada
Visually impressive, nice work!
Then comes texturing!, sounds, triggers, relays, script......
and ah yes lighting....an art in itself. have moving trains? see how it goes best luck with it looks great!
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry. It helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of both the level editor and a modelling program, so please do not become too dependent on making entire levels out of imported models.
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The design looks quite nice though, perhaps you should include a couple of round shapes (i.e. the handrails).
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:42 am Posts: 1172 Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
You can also use the Doom textures tiled into your 3D app, and for certain persons (like me ), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
_________________ If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
evilartist wrote:
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry.
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The UV mapping abilities of any modelling program are far more sophisitcated than DoomEdit's. You cant unwrap in DoomEdit silly!
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
_________________ My inevitable step into the world of professional game development is in sight...and when it happens, I will remember to thank this community for getting me started.
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4940 Location: UK, York
evilartist wrote:
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
It doesn't matter so *what* you use, it's *how* that counts. The map above will run like ass regardless - sorry about that Lumpy!
THe main issue here is the open-ness of the map, there's nothing there to do any blocking and using distance portals won't work becasue nothing to blocking the line of site to hide their effects.
The ceiling is better off as a normal map as rich_ said above, an object like that is drawing and wasting to many tris as a result of it being 'real', add light volumes to that and you've got problems with that many shadow volumes being cast at any one time.
The idea is great, but it's more of a visualistion than a game map so it'll need some serious 'compromising' to be done to idea (don't let that put you off btw Lumpengnom.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 943 Location: milton keynes, england
couldn't lumpy use that ceiling model as it is but with a noshadows casting material?
that would cut down on the number of shadow volumes being generated. also remember we can add in nodraw shadow casting parts of the models for when we want to fake the appearance of the visible model casting shadows.
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4940 Location: UK, York
Yeah that can be done but you always have to ask, is the feature worth the collosal polycount it's uses to be drawn?
Each light volume that hits it will draw polys (shadows or not) and the chances are it's going to need more than one light to fully illuminate it which will dublicate the tris for a feature that 'not important', i.e. it doesn't do anything other than look good.
So yes technically it can be done but it'll need a lot of work to make it FPS/runtime friendly.
I'm not even going to guess how many wholes there are that would need a shadowcasting texture btw!!
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 7:33 pm Posts: 1362 Location: In my pants.
If you ask me (which I realize none of you actually did, but I can't shut up so here goes) nothing in that scene would really warrant the modeling of the scene.
The ceiling is too heavy to manage really, this is a really quite big and open scene and that's gonna be taxing for the engine to handle. And since it's fairly high up, a texture tiled on a patch mesh would do the trick just fine. As for all the ground stuff, nothing of it is very intricate or complex. It easily handled by brushes and some patch meshes.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 943 Location: milton keynes, england
ot: can the admins here ban Encetenpo45, all his posts seem to be totally ot and contain links to porn sites. its getting very annoying thinking there is an update to a thread I've been following, only to find its Encetenpo45 posting spam again
This is an early WiP of my first serious map i´m doing for Doom 3. It´s a subway station. I guess i can´t export everything as one model but will have to export it as several different models.
And i hope i can normal map these inset thingies on the outer hull of the structure.
rich_is_bored@Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:21 pm :
You can normal map the dome but you won't get near the same illusion of depth.
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:16 am :
Actually you can export everything as one model, and for an open space like this there is no reason not to (although this is easier in Max than it is in Maya). I would redesign the vault so you have a combinaton of some realtime shadows, and normal maps. Make a few prominent beams etc. It should be fun to light. You may have issues with AI in such a space, but I'm sure it will look good!
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:59 am :
The dome will kill the framerate if you let it like this (for casting dynamic shadows), so maybe you should try to double dome's squares...
For AI, you could "inline" your model, and create the basic structures with "clip "brushes and "AIclip" to let them walk where you allow them.
I really love to see really new architectures maps, especially "open" areas!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:43 am :
I would like to see an open area mapped out and run with a decent framerate.
bladeghost@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:06 am :
Visually impressive, nice work!
Then comes texturing!, sounds, triggers, relays, script......
and ah yes lighting....an art in itself. have moving trains? see how it goes best luck with it looks great!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:25 am :
It is very impressive work, what modeling app did you use?
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:14 am :
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry. It helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of both the level editor and a modelling program, so please do not become too dependent on making entire levels out of imported models.
Vladch@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:57 am :
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The design looks quite nice though, perhaps you should include a couple of round shapes (i.e. the handrails).
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:22 am :
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
You can also use the Doom textures tiled into your 3D app, and for certain persons (like me ), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:05 am :
evilartist wrote:
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry.
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The UV mapping abilities of any modelling program are far more sophisitcated than DoomEdit's. You cant unwrap in DoomEdit silly!
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:08 pm :
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:40 am :
evilartist wrote:
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
It doesn't matter so *what* you use, it's *how* that counts. The map above will run like ass regardless - sorry about that Lumpy!
THe main issue here is the open-ness of the map, there's nothing there to do any blocking and using distance portals won't work becasue nothing to blocking the line of site to hide their effects.
The ceiling is better off as a normal map as rich_ said above, an object like that is drawing and wasting to many tris as a result of it being 'real', add light volumes to that and you've got problems with that many shadow volumes being cast at any one time.
The idea is great, but it's more of a visualistion than a game map so it'll need some serious 'compromising' to be done to idea (don't let that put you off btw Lumpengnom.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:47 pm :
couldn't lumpy use that ceiling model as it is but with a noshadows casting material?
that would cut down on the number of shadow volumes being generated. also remember we can add in nodraw shadow casting parts of the models for when we want to fake the appearance of the visible model casting shadows.
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:28 pm :
Yeah that can be done but you always have to ask, is the feature worth the collosal polycount it's uses to be drawn?
Each light volume that hits it will draw polys (shadows or not) and the chances are it's going to need more than one light to fully illuminate it which will dublicate the tris for a feature that 'not important', i.e. it doesn't do anything other than look good.
So yes technically it can be done but it'll need a lot of work to make it FPS/runtime friendly.
I'm not even going to guess how many wholes there are that would need a shadowcasting texture btw!!
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:47 pm :
understood and good points kat
Kristus@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:50 pm :
If you ask me (which I realize none of you actually did, but I can't shut up so here goes) nothing in that scene would really warrant the modeling of the scene.
The ceiling is too heavy to manage really, this is a really quite big and open scene and that's gonna be taxing for the engine to handle. And since it's fairly high up, a texture tiled on a patch mesh would do the trick just fine. As for all the ground stuff, nothing of it is very intricate or complex. It easily handled by brushes and some patch meshes.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:50 pm :
ot: can the admins here ban Encetenpo45, all his posts seem to be totally ot and contain links to porn sites. its getting very annoying thinking there is an update to a thread I've been following, only to find its Encetenpo45 posting spam again
Bo$bevok@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:55 pm :
ratty i think its a spambot
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 5:11 pm :
understood and thanks, but could it still be blocked or banned somehow?
Lumpengnom@Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:04 pm Post subject: Subway Station Map:
This is an early WiP of my first serious map iôm doing for Doom 3. Itôs a subway station. I guess i canôt export everything as one model but will have to export it as several different models.
And i hope i can normal map these inset thingies on the outer hull of the structure.
"There is no such thing as miracles or the supernatural... only cutting-edge
technology." ~Revolver Ocelot
rich_is_bored@Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:21 pm Post subject: :
You can normal map the dome but you won't get near the same illusion of depth. _________________ Staff
Learn something today? Why not write an article about it on modwiki.net?
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:16 am Post subject: :
Actually you can export everything as one model, and for an open space like this there is no reason not to (although this is easier in Max than it is in Maya). I would redesign the vault so you have a combinaton of some realtime shadows, and normal maps. Make a few prominent beams etc. It should be fun to light. You may have issues with AI in such a space, but I'm sure it will look good! _________________ http://creativecommons.org/
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:59 am Post subject: :
The dome will kill the framerate if you let it like this (for casting dynamic shadows), so maybe you should try to double dome's squares...
For AI, you could "inline" your model, and create the basic structures with "clip "brushes and "AIclip" to let them walk where you allow them.
I really love to see really new architectures maps, especially "open" areas!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:43 am Post subject: :
I would like to see an open area mapped out and run with a decent framerate.
bladeghost@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:06 am Post subject: :
Visually impressive, nice work!
Then comes texturing!, sounds, triggers, relays, script......
and ah yes lighting....an art in itself. have moving trains? see how it goes best luck with it looks great!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:25 am Post subject: :
It is very impressive work, what modeling app did you use?
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:14 am Post subject: :
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry. It helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of both the level editor and a modelling program, so please do not become too dependent on making entire levels out of imported models.
Vladch@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:57 am Post subject: :
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The design looks quite nice though, perhaps you should include a couple of round shapes (i.e. the handrails).
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:22 am Post subject: :
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
You can also use the Doom textures tiled into your 3D app, and for certain persons (like me ), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:05 am Post subject: :
evilartist wrote:
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry.
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The UV mapping abilities of any modelling program are far more sophisitcated than DoomEdit's. You cant unwrap in DoomEdit silly!
_________________ http://creativecommons.org/
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:08 pm Post subject: :
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models? _________________ December 10, 1993: A Date to Remember Forever.
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:40 am Post subject: :
evilartist wrote:
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
It doesn't matter so *what* you use, it's *how* that counts. The map above will run like ass regardless - sorry about that Lumpy!
THe main issue here is the open-ness of the map, there's nothing there to do any blocking and using distance portals won't work becasue nothing to blocking the line of site to hide their effects.
The ceiling is better off as a normal map as rich_ said above, an object like that is drawing and wasting to many tris as a result of it being 'real', add light volumes to that and you've got problems with that many shadow volumes being cast at any one time.
The idea is great, but it's more of a visualistion than a game map so it'll need some serious 'compromising' to be done to idea (don't let that put you off btw Lumpengnom. _________________ Co-Admin - Modelling and modding tutorials and tips
Lumpengnom@Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:04 pm :
This is an early WiP of my first serious map i´m doing for Doom 3. It´s a subway station. I guess i can´t export everything as one model but will have to export it as several different models.
And i hope i can normal map these inset thingies on the outer hull of the structure.
rich_is_bored@Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:21 pm :
You can normal map the dome but you won't get near the same illusion of depth.
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:16 am :
Actually you can export everything as one model, and for an open space like this there is no reason not to (although this is easier in Max than it is in Maya). I would redesign the vault so you have a combinaton of some realtime shadows, and normal maps. Make a few prominent beams etc. It should be fun to light. You may have issues with AI in such a space, but I'm sure it will look good!
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:59 am :
The dome will kill the framerate if you let it like this (for casting dynamic shadows), so maybe you should try to double dome's squares...
For AI, you could "inline" your model, and create the basic structures with "clip "brushes and "AIclip" to let them walk where you allow them.
I really love to see really new architectures maps, especially "open" areas!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:43 am :
I would like to see an open area mapped out and run with a decent framerate.
bladeghost@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:06 am :
Visually impressive, nice work!
Then comes texturing!, sounds, triggers, relays, script......
and ah yes lighting....an art in itself. have moving trains? see how it goes best luck with it looks great!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:25 am :
It is very impressive work, what modeling app did you use?
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:14 am :
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry. It helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of both the level editor and a modelling program, so please do not become too dependent on making entire levels out of imported models.
Vladch@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:57 am :
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The design looks quite nice though, perhaps you should include a couple of round shapes (i.e. the handrails).
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:22 am :
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
You can also use the Doom textures tiled into your 3D app, and for certain persons (like me ), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:05 am :
evilartist wrote:
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry.
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The UV mapping abilities of any modelling program are far more sophisitcated than DoomEdit's. You cant unwrap in DoomEdit silly!
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:08 pm :
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:40 am :
evilartist wrote:
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
It doesn't matter so *what* you use, it's *how* that counts. The map above will run like ass regardless - sorry about that Lumpy!
THe main issue here is the open-ness of the map, there's nothing there to do any blocking and using distance portals won't work becasue nothing to blocking the line of site to hide their effects.
The ceiling is better off as a normal map as rich_ said above, an object like that is drawing and wasting to many tris as a result of it being 'real', add light volumes to that and you've got problems with that many shadow volumes being cast at any one time.
The idea is great, but it's more of a visualistion than a game map so it'll need some serious 'compromising' to be done to idea (don't let that put you off btw Lumpengnom.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:47 pm :
couldn't lumpy use that ceiling model as it is but with a noshadows casting material?
that would cut down on the number of shadow volumes being generated. also remember we can add in nodraw shadow casting parts of the models for when we want to fake the appearance of the visible model casting shadows.
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:28 pm :
Yeah that can be done but you always have to ask, is the feature worth the collosal polycount it's uses to be drawn?
Each light volume that hits it will draw polys (shadows or not) and the chances are it's going to need more than one light to fully illuminate it which will dublicate the tris for a feature that 'not important', i.e. it doesn't do anything other than look good.
So yes technically it can be done but it'll need a lot of work to make it FPS/runtime friendly.
I'm not even going to guess how many wholes there are that would need a shadowcasting texture btw!!
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:47 pm :
understood and good points kat
Kristus@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:50 pm :
If you ask me (which I realize none of you actually did, but I can't shut up so here goes) nothing in that scene would really warrant the modeling of the scene.
The ceiling is too heavy to manage really, this is a really quite big and open scene and that's gonna be taxing for the engine to handle. And since it's fairly high up, a texture tiled on a patch mesh would do the trick just fine. As for all the ground stuff, nothing of it is very intricate or complex. It easily handled by brushes and some patch meshes.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:50 pm :
ot: can the admins here ban Encetenpo45, all his posts seem to be totally ot and contain links to porn sites. its getting very annoying thinking there is an update to a thread I've been following, only to find its Encetenpo45 posting spam again
Bo$bevok@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:55 pm :
ratty i think its a spambot
ratty redemption@:
Doom3world • View topic - Subway Station Map
This is an early WiP of my first serious map i´m doing for Doom 3. It´s a subway station. I guess i can´t export everything as one model but will have to export it as several different models.
And i hope i can normal map these inset thingies on the outer hull of the structure.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Actually you can export everything as one model, and for an open space like this there is no reason not to (although this is easier in Max than it is in Maya). I would redesign the vault so you have a combinaton of some realtime shadows, and normal maps. Make a few prominent beams etc. It should be fun to light. You may have issues with AI in such a space, but I'm sure it will look good!
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:42 am Posts: 1172 Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
The dome will kill the framerate if you let it like this (for casting dynamic shadows), so maybe you should try to double dome's squares...
For AI, you could "inline" your model, and create the basic structures with "clip "brushes and "AIclip" to let them walk where you allow them.
I really love to see really new architectures maps, especially "open" areas!
_________________ If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit.
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 10:27 pm Posts: 428 Location: St. Catherines, Ontario Canada
Visually impressive, nice work!
Then comes texturing!, sounds, triggers, relays, script......
and ah yes lighting....an art in itself. have moving trains? see how it goes best luck with it looks great!
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry. It helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of both the level editor and a modelling program, so please do not become too dependent on making entire levels out of imported models.
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The design looks quite nice though, perhaps you should include a couple of round shapes (i.e. the handrails).
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:42 am Posts: 1172 Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
You can also use the Doom textures tiled into your 3D app, and for certain persons (like me ), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
_________________ If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
evilartist wrote:
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry.
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The UV mapping abilities of any modelling program are far more sophisitcated than DoomEdit's. You cant unwrap in DoomEdit silly!
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
_________________ My inevitable step into the world of professional game development is in sight...and when it happens, I will remember to thank this community for getting me started.
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4940 Location: UK, York
evilartist wrote:
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
It doesn't matter so *what* you use, it's *how* that counts. The map above will run like ass regardless - sorry about that Lumpy!
THe main issue here is the open-ness of the map, there's nothing there to do any blocking and using distance portals won't work becasue nothing to blocking the line of site to hide their effects.
The ceiling is better off as a normal map as rich_ said above, an object like that is drawing and wasting to many tris as a result of it being 'real', add light volumes to that and you've got problems with that many shadow volumes being cast at any one time.
The idea is great, but it's more of a visualistion than a game map so it'll need some serious 'compromising' to be done to idea (don't let that put you off btw Lumpengnom.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 951 Location: milton keynes, england
couldn't lumpy use that ceiling model as it is but with a noshadows casting material?
that would cut down on the number of shadow volumes being generated. also remember we can add in nodraw shadow casting parts of the models for when we want to fake the appearance of the visible model casting shadows.
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4940 Location: UK, York
Yeah that can be done but you always have to ask, is the feature worth the collosal polycount it's uses to be drawn?
Each light volume that hits it will draw polys (shadows or not) and the chances are it's going to need more than one light to fully illuminate it which will dublicate the tris for a feature that 'not important', i.e. it doesn't do anything other than look good.
So yes technically it can be done but it'll need a lot of work to make it FPS/runtime friendly.
I'm not even going to guess how many wholes there are that would need a shadowcasting texture btw!!
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 7:33 pm Posts: 1372 Location: In my pants.
If you ask me (which I realize none of you actually did, but I can't shut up so here goes) nothing in that scene would really warrant the modeling of the scene.
The ceiling is too heavy to manage really, this is a really quite big and open scene and that's gonna be taxing for the engine to handle. And since it's fairly high up, a texture tiled on a patch mesh would do the trick just fine. As for all the ground stuff, nothing of it is very intricate or complex. It easily handled by brushes and some patch meshes.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 951 Location: milton keynes, england
ot: can the admins here ban Encetenpo45, all his posts seem to be totally ot and contain links to porn sites. its getting very annoying thinking there is an update to a thread I've been following, only to find its Encetenpo45 posting spam again
This is an early WiP of my first serious map i´m doing for Doom 3. It´s a subway station. I guess i can´t export everything as one model but will have to export it as several different models.
And i hope i can normal map these inset thingies on the outer hull of the structure.
rich_is_bored@Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:21 pm :
You can normal map the dome but you won't get near the same illusion of depth.
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:16 am :
Actually you can export everything as one model, and for an open space like this there is no reason not to (although this is easier in Max than it is in Maya). I would redesign the vault so you have a combinaton of some realtime shadows, and normal maps. Make a few prominent beams etc. It should be fun to light. You may have issues with AI in such a space, but I'm sure it will look good!
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:59 am :
The dome will kill the framerate if you let it like this (for casting dynamic shadows), so maybe you should try to double dome's squares...
For AI, you could "inline" your model, and create the basic structures with "clip "brushes and "AIclip" to let them walk where you allow them.
I really love to see really new architectures maps, especially "open" areas!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:43 am :
I would like to see an open area mapped out and run with a decent framerate.
bladeghost@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:06 am :
Visually impressive, nice work!
Then comes texturing!, sounds, triggers, relays, script......
and ah yes lighting....an art in itself. have moving trains? see how it goes best luck with it looks great!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:25 am :
It is very impressive work, what modeling app did you use?
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:14 am :
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry. It helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of both the level editor and a modelling program, so please do not become too dependent on making entire levels out of imported models.
Vladch@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:57 am :
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The design looks quite nice though, perhaps you should include a couple of round shapes (i.e. the handrails).
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:22 am :
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
You can also use the Doom textures tiled into your 3D app, and for certain persons (like me ), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:05 am :
evilartist wrote:
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry.
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The UV mapping abilities of any modelling program are far more sophisitcated than DoomEdit's. You cant unwrap in DoomEdit silly!
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:08 pm :
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:40 am :
evilartist wrote:
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
It doesn't matter so *what* you use, it's *how* that counts. The map above will run like ass regardless - sorry about that Lumpy!
THe main issue here is the open-ness of the map, there's nothing there to do any blocking and using distance portals won't work becasue nothing to blocking the line of site to hide their effects.
The ceiling is better off as a normal map as rich_ said above, an object like that is drawing and wasting to many tris as a result of it being 'real', add light volumes to that and you've got problems with that many shadow volumes being cast at any one time.
The idea is great, but it's more of a visualistion than a game map so it'll need some serious 'compromising' to be done to idea (don't let that put you off btw Lumpengnom.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:47 pm :
couldn't lumpy use that ceiling model as it is but with a noshadows casting material?
that would cut down on the number of shadow volumes being generated. also remember we can add in nodraw shadow casting parts of the models for when we want to fake the appearance of the visible model casting shadows.
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:28 pm :
Yeah that can be done but you always have to ask, is the feature worth the collosal polycount it's uses to be drawn?
Each light volume that hits it will draw polys (shadows or not) and the chances are it's going to need more than one light to fully illuminate it which will dublicate the tris for a feature that 'not important', i.e. it doesn't do anything other than look good.
So yes technically it can be done but it'll need a lot of work to make it FPS/runtime friendly.
I'm not even going to guess how many wholes there are that would need a shadowcasting texture btw!!
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:47 pm :
understood and good points kat
Kristus@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:50 pm :
If you ask me (which I realize none of you actually did, but I can't shut up so here goes) nothing in that scene would really warrant the modeling of the scene.
The ceiling is too heavy to manage really, this is a really quite big and open scene and that's gonna be taxing for the engine to handle. And since it's fairly high up, a texture tiled on a patch mesh would do the trick just fine. As for all the ground stuff, nothing of it is very intricate or complex. It easily handled by brushes and some patch meshes.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:50 pm :
ot: can the admins here ban Encetenpo45, all his posts seem to be totally ot and contain links to porn sites. its getting very annoying thinking there is an update to a thread I've been following, only to find its Encetenpo45 posting spam again
Bo$bevok@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:55 pm :
ratty i think its a spambot
ratty redemption@:
Doom3world • View topic - Subway Station Map
This is an early WiP of my first serious map i´m doing for Doom 3. It´s a subway station. I guess i can´t export everything as one model but will have to export it as several different models.
And i hope i can normal map these inset thingies on the outer hull of the structure.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Actually you can export everything as one model, and for an open space like this there is no reason not to (although this is easier in Max than it is in Maya). I would redesign the vault so you have a combinaton of some realtime shadows, and normal maps. Make a few prominent beams etc. It should be fun to light. You may have issues with AI in such a space, but I'm sure it will look good!
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:42 am Posts: 1172 Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
The dome will kill the framerate if you let it like this (for casting dynamic shadows), so maybe you should try to double dome's squares...
For AI, you could "inline" your model, and create the basic structures with "clip "brushes and "AIclip" to let them walk where you allow them.
I really love to see really new architectures maps, especially "open" areas!
_________________ If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit.
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 10:27 pm Posts: 405 Location: St. Catherines, Ontario Canada
Visually impressive, nice work!
Then comes texturing!, sounds, triggers, relays, script......
and ah yes lighting....an art in itself. have moving trains? see how it goes best luck with it looks great!
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry. It helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of both the level editor and a modelling program, so please do not become too dependent on making entire levels out of imported models.
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The design looks quite nice though, perhaps you should include a couple of round shapes (i.e. the handrails).
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:42 am Posts: 1172 Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
You can also use the Doom textures tiled into your 3D app, and for certain persons (like me ), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
_________________ If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
evilartist wrote:
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry.
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The UV mapping abilities of any modelling program are far more sophisitcated than DoomEdit's. You cant unwrap in DoomEdit silly!
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
_________________ My inevitable step into the world of professional game development is in sight...and when it happens, I will remember to thank this community for getting me started.
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4940 Location: UK, York
evilartist wrote:
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
It doesn't matter so *what* you use, it's *how* that counts. The map above will run like ass regardless - sorry about that Lumpy!
THe main issue here is the open-ness of the map, there's nothing there to do any blocking and using distance portals won't work becasue nothing to blocking the line of site to hide their effects.
The ceiling is better off as a normal map as rich_ said above, an object like that is drawing and wasting to many tris as a result of it being 'real', add light volumes to that and you've got problems with that many shadow volumes being cast at any one time.
The idea is great, but it's more of a visualistion than a game map so it'll need some serious 'compromising' to be done to idea (don't let that put you off btw Lumpengnom.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 946 Location: milton keynes, england
couldn't lumpy use that ceiling model as it is but with a noshadows casting material?
that would cut down on the number of shadow volumes being generated. also remember we can add in nodraw shadow casting parts of the models for when we want to fake the appearance of the visible model casting shadows.
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4940 Location: UK, York
Yeah that can be done but you always have to ask, is the feature worth the collosal polycount it's uses to be drawn?
Each light volume that hits it will draw polys (shadows or not) and the chances are it's going to need more than one light to fully illuminate it which will dublicate the tris for a feature that 'not important', i.e. it doesn't do anything other than look good.
So yes technically it can be done but it'll need a lot of work to make it FPS/runtime friendly.
I'm not even going to guess how many wholes there are that would need a shadowcasting texture btw!!
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 7:33 pm Posts: 1363 Location: In my pants.
If you ask me (which I realize none of you actually did, but I can't shut up so here goes) nothing in that scene would really warrant the modeling of the scene.
The ceiling is too heavy to manage really, this is a really quite big and open scene and that's gonna be taxing for the engine to handle. And since it's fairly high up, a texture tiled on a patch mesh would do the trick just fine. As for all the ground stuff, nothing of it is very intricate or complex. It easily handled by brushes and some patch meshes.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 946 Location: milton keynes, england
ot: can the admins here ban Encetenpo45, all his posts seem to be totally ot and contain links to porn sites. its getting very annoying thinking there is an update to a thread I've been following, only to find its Encetenpo45 posting spam again
This is an early WiP of my first serious map i´m doing for Doom 3. It´s a subway station. I guess i can´t export everything as one model but will have to export it as several different models.
And i hope i can normal map these inset thingies on the outer hull of the structure.
rich_is_bored@Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:21 pm :
You can normal map the dome but you won't get near the same illusion of depth.
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:16 am :
Actually you can export everything as one model, and for an open space like this there is no reason not to (although this is easier in Max than it is in Maya). I would redesign the vault so you have a combinaton of some realtime shadows, and normal maps. Make a few prominent beams etc. It should be fun to light. You may have issues with AI in such a space, but I'm sure it will look good!
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:59 am :
The dome will kill the framerate if you let it like this (for casting dynamic shadows), so maybe you should try to double dome's squares...
For AI, you could "inline" your model, and create the basic structures with "clip "brushes and "AIclip" to let them walk where you allow them.
I really love to see really new architectures maps, especially "open" areas!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:43 am :
I would like to see an open area mapped out and run with a decent framerate.
bladeghost@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:06 am :
Visually impressive, nice work!
Then comes texturing!, sounds, triggers, relays, script......
and ah yes lighting....an art in itself. have moving trains? see how it goes best luck with it looks great!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:25 am :
It is very impressive work, what modeling app did you use?
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:14 am :
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry. It helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of both the level editor and a modelling program, so please do not become too dependent on making entire levels out of imported models.
Vladch@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:57 am :
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The design looks quite nice though, perhaps you should include a couple of round shapes (i.e. the handrails).
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:22 am :
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
You can also use the Doom textures tiled into your 3D app, and for certain persons (like me ), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:05 am :
evilartist wrote:
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry.
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The UV mapping abilities of any modelling program are far more sophisitcated than DoomEdit's. You cant unwrap in DoomEdit silly!
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:08 pm :
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:40 am :
evilartist wrote:
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
It doesn't matter so *what* you use, it's *how* that counts. The map above will run like ass regardless - sorry about that Lumpy!
THe main issue here is the open-ness of the map, there's nothing there to do any blocking and using distance portals won't work becasue nothing to blocking the line of site to hide their effects.
The ceiling is better off as a normal map as rich_ said above, an object like that is drawing and wasting to many tris as a result of it being 'real', add light volumes to that and you've got problems with that many shadow volumes being cast at any one time.
The idea is great, but it's more of a visualistion than a game map so it'll need some serious 'compromising' to be done to idea (don't let that put you off btw Lumpengnom.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:47 pm :
couldn't lumpy use that ceiling model as it is but with a noshadows casting material?
that would cut down on the number of shadow volumes being generated. also remember we can add in nodraw shadow casting parts of the models for when we want to fake the appearance of the visible model casting shadows.
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:28 pm :
Yeah that can be done but you always have to ask, is the feature worth the collosal polycount it's uses to be drawn?
Each light volume that hits it will draw polys (shadows or not) and the chances are it's going to need more than one light to fully illuminate it which will dublicate the tris for a feature that 'not important', i.e. it doesn't do anything other than look good.
So yes technically it can be done but it'll need a lot of work to make it FPS/runtime friendly.
I'm not even going to guess how many wholes there are that would need a shadowcasting texture btw!!
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:47 pm :
understood and good points kat
Kristus@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:50 pm :
If you ask me (which I realize none of you actually did, but I can't shut up so here goes) nothing in that scene would really warrant the modeling of the scene.
The ceiling is too heavy to manage really, this is a really quite big and open scene and that's gonna be taxing for the engine to handle. And since it's fairly high up, a texture tiled on a patch mesh would do the trick just fine. As for all the ground stuff, nothing of it is very intricate or complex. It easily handled by brushes and some patch meshes.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:50 pm :
ot: can the admins here ban Encetenpo45, all his posts seem to be totally ot and contain links to porn sites. its getting very annoying thinking there is an update to a thread I've been following, only to find its Encetenpo45 posting spam again
Bo$bevok@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:55 pm :
ratty i think its a spambot
ratty redemption@:
Doom3world • View topic - Subway Station Map
This is an early WiP of my first serious map i´m doing for Doom 3. It´s a subway station. I guess i can´t export everything as one model but will have to export it as several different models.
And i hope i can normal map these inset thingies on the outer hull of the structure.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Actually you can export everything as one model, and for an open space like this there is no reason not to (although this is easier in Max than it is in Maya). I would redesign the vault so you have a combinaton of some realtime shadows, and normal maps. Make a few prominent beams etc. It should be fun to light. You may have issues with AI in such a space, but I'm sure it will look good!
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:42 am Posts: 1172 Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
The dome will kill the framerate if you let it like this (for casting dynamic shadows), so maybe you should try to double dome's squares...
For AI, you could "inline" your model, and create the basic structures with "clip "brushes and "AIclip" to let them walk where you allow them.
I really love to see really new architectures maps, especially "open" areas!
_________________ If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit.
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 10:27 pm Posts: 435 Location: St. Catherines, Ontario Canada
Visually impressive, nice work!
Then comes texturing!, sounds, triggers, relays, script......
and ah yes lighting....an art in itself. have moving trains? see how it goes best luck with it looks great!
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry. It helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of both the level editor and a modelling program, so please do not become too dependent on making entire levels out of imported models.
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The design looks quite nice though, perhaps you should include a couple of round shapes (i.e. the handrails).
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:42 am Posts: 1172 Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
You can also use the Doom textures tiled into your 3D app, and for certain persons (like me ), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
_________________ If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
evilartist wrote:
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry.
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The UV mapping abilities of any modelling program are far more sophisitcated than DoomEdit's. You cant unwrap in DoomEdit silly!
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
_________________ My inevitable step into the world of professional game development is in sight...and when it happens, I will remember to thank this community for getting me started.
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4943 Location: UK, York
evilartist wrote:
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
It doesn't matter so *what* you use, it's *how* that counts. The map above will run like ass regardless - sorry about that Lumpy!
THe main issue here is the open-ness of the map, there's nothing there to do any blocking and using distance portals won't work becasue nothing to blocking the line of site to hide their effects.
The ceiling is better off as a normal map as rich_ said above, an object like that is drawing and wasting to many tris as a result of it being 'real', add light volumes to that and you've got problems with that many shadow volumes being cast at any one time.
The idea is great, but it's more of a visualistion than a game map so it'll need some serious 'compromising' to be done to idea (don't let that put you off btw Lumpengnom.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 964 Location: milton keynes, england
couldn't lumpy use that ceiling model as it is but with a noshadows casting material?
that would cut down on the number of shadow volumes being generated. also remember we can add in nodraw shadow casting parts of the models for when we want to fake the appearance of the visible model casting shadows.
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4943 Location: UK, York
Yeah that can be done but you always have to ask, is the feature worth the collosal polycount it's uses to be drawn?
Each light volume that hits it will draw polys (shadows or not) and the chances are it's going to need more than one light to fully illuminate it which will dublicate the tris for a feature that 'not important', i.e. it doesn't do anything other than look good.
So yes technically it can be done but it'll need a lot of work to make it FPS/runtime friendly.
I'm not even going to guess how many wholes there are that would need a shadowcasting texture btw!!
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 7:33 pm Posts: 1386 Location: In my pants.
If you ask me (which I realize none of you actually did, but I can't shut up so here goes) nothing in that scene would really warrant the modeling of the scene.
The ceiling is too heavy to manage really, this is a really quite big and open scene and that's gonna be taxing for the engine to handle. And since it's fairly high up, a texture tiled on a patch mesh would do the trick just fine. As for all the ground stuff, nothing of it is very intricate or complex. It easily handled by brushes and some patch meshes.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 964 Location: milton keynes, england
ot: can the admins here ban Encetenpo45, all his posts seem to be totally ot and contain links to porn sites. its getting very annoying thinking there is an update to a thread I've been following, only to find its Encetenpo45 posting spam again
This is an early WiP of my first serious map i´m doing for Doom 3. It´s a subway station. I guess i can´t export everything as one model but will have to export it as several different models.
And i hope i can normal map these inset thingies on the outer hull of the structure.
rich_is_bored@Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:21 pm :
You can normal map the dome but you won't get near the same illusion of depth.
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:16 am :
Actually you can export everything as one model, and for an open space like this there is no reason not to (although this is easier in Max than it is in Maya). I would redesign the vault so you have a combinaton of some realtime shadows, and normal maps. Make a few prominent beams etc. It should be fun to light. You may have issues with AI in such a space, but I'm sure it will look good!
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:59 am :
The dome will kill the framerate if you let it like this (for casting dynamic shadows), so maybe you should try to double dome's squares...
For AI, you could "inline" your model, and create the basic structures with "clip "brushes and "AIclip" to let them walk where you allow them.
I really love to see really new architectures maps, especially "open" areas!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:43 am :
I would like to see an open area mapped out and run with a decent framerate.
bladeghost@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:06 am :
Visually impressive, nice work!
Then comes texturing!, sounds, triggers, relays, script......
and ah yes lighting....an art in itself. have moving trains? see how it goes best luck with it looks great!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:25 am :
It is very impressive work, what modeling app did you use?
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:14 am :
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry. It helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of both the level editor and a modelling program, so please do not become too dependent on making entire levels out of imported models.
Vladch@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:57 am :
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The design looks quite nice though, perhaps you should include a couple of round shapes (i.e. the handrails).
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:22 am :
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
You can also use the Doom textures tiled into your 3D app, and for certain persons (like me ), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:05 am :
evilartist wrote:
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry.
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The UV mapping abilities of any modelling program are far more sophisitcated than DoomEdit's. You cant unwrap in DoomEdit silly!
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:08 pm :
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:40 am :
evilartist wrote:
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
It doesn't matter so *what* you use, it's *how* that counts. The map above will run like ass regardless - sorry about that Lumpy!
THe main issue here is the open-ness of the map, there's nothing there to do any blocking and using distance portals won't work becasue nothing to blocking the line of site to hide their effects.
The ceiling is better off as a normal map as rich_ said above, an object like that is drawing and wasting to many tris as a result of it being 'real', add light volumes to that and you've got problems with that many shadow volumes being cast at any one time.
The idea is great, but it's more of a visualistion than a game map so it'll need some serious 'compromising' to be done to idea (don't let that put you off btw Lumpengnom.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:47 pm :
couldn't lumpy use that ceiling model as it is but with a noshadows casting material?
that would cut down on the number of shadow volumes being generated. also remember we can add in nodraw shadow casting parts of the models for when we want to fake the appearance of the visible model casting shadows.
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:28 pm :
Yeah that can be done but you always have to ask, is the feature worth the collosal polycount it's uses to be drawn?
Each light volume that hits it will draw polys (shadows or not) and the chances are it's going to need more than one light to fully illuminate it which will dublicate the tris for a feature that 'not important', i.e. it doesn't do anything other than look good.
So yes technically it can be done but it'll need a lot of work to make it FPS/runtime friendly.
I'm not even going to guess how many wholes there are that would need a shadowcasting texture btw!!
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:47 pm :
understood and good points kat
Kristus@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:50 pm :
If you ask me (which I realize none of you actually did, but I can't shut up so here goes) nothing in that scene would really warrant the modeling of the scene.
The ceiling is too heavy to manage really, this is a really quite big and open scene and that's gonna be taxing for the engine to handle. And since it's fairly high up, a texture tiled on a patch mesh would do the trick just fine. As for all the ground stuff, nothing of it is very intricate or complex. It easily handled by brushes and some patch meshes.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:50 pm :
ot: can the admins here ban Encetenpo45, all his posts seem to be totally ot and contain links to porn sites. its getting very annoying thinking there is an update to a thread I've been following, only to find its Encetenpo45 posting spam again
Bo$bevok@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:55 pm :
ratty i think its a spambot
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 5:11 pm :
understood and thanks, but could it still be blocked or banned somehow?
Lumpengnom@Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:04 pm :
This is an early WiP of my first serious map i´m doing for Doom 3. It´s a subway station. I guess i can´t export everything as one model but will have to export it as several different models.
And i hope i can normal map these inset thingies on the outer hull of the structure.
rich_is_bored@Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:21 pm :
You can normal map the dome but you won't get near the same illusion of depth.
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:16 am :
Actually you can export everything as one model, and for an open space like this there is no reason not to (although this is easier in Max than it is in Maya). I would redesign the vault so you have a combinaton of some realtime shadows, and normal maps. Make a few prominent beams etc. It should be fun to light. You may have issues with AI in such a space, but I'm sure it will look good!
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:59 am :
The dome will kill the framerate if you let it like this (for casting dynamic shadows), so maybe you should try to double dome's squares...
For AI, you could "inline" your model, and create the basic structures with "clip "brushes and "AIclip" to let them walk where you allow them.
I really love to see really new architectures maps, especially "open" areas!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:43 am :
I would like to see an open area mapped out and run with a decent framerate.
bladeghost@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:06 am :
Visually impressive, nice work!
Then comes texturing!, sounds, triggers, relays, script......
and ah yes lighting....an art in itself. have moving trains? see how it goes best luck with it looks great!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:25 am :
It is very impressive work, what modeling app did you use?
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:14 am :
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry. It helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of both the level editor and a modelling program, so please do not become too dependent on making entire levels out of imported models.
Vladch@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:57 am :
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The design looks quite nice though, perhaps you should include a couple of round shapes (i.e. the handrails).
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:22 am :
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
You can also use the Doom textures tiled into your 3D app, and for certain persons (like me ), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:05 am :
evilartist wrote:
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry.
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The UV mapping abilities of any modelling program are far more sophisitcated than DoomEdit's. You cant unwrap in DoomEdit silly!
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:08 pm :
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:40 am :
evilartist wrote:
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
It doesn't matter so *what* you use, it's *how* that counts. The map above will run like ass regardless - sorry about that Lumpy!
THe main issue here is the open-ness of the map, there's nothing there to do any blocking and using distance portals won't work becasue nothing to blocking the line of site to hide their effects.
The ceiling is better off as a normal map as rich_ said above, an object like that is drawing and wasting to many tris as a result of it being 'real', add light volumes to that and you've got problems with that many shadow volumes being cast at any one time.
The idea is great, but it's more of a visualistion than a game map so it'll need some serious 'compromising' to be done to idea (don't let that put you off btw Lumpengnom.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:47 pm :
couldn't lumpy use that ceiling model as it is but with a noshadows casting material?
that would cut down on the number of shadow volumes being generated. also remember we can add in nodraw shadow casting parts of the models for when we want to fake the appearance of the visible model casting shadows.
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:28 pm :
Yeah that can be done but you always have to ask, is the feature worth the collosal polycount it's uses to be drawn?
Each light volume that hits it will draw polys (shadows or not) and the chances are it's going to need more than one light to fully illuminate it which will dublicate the tris for a feature that 'not important', i.e. it doesn't do anything other than look good.
So yes technically it can be done but it'll need a lot of work to make it FPS/runtime friendly.
I'm not even going to guess how many wholes there are that would need a shadowcasting texture btw!!
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:47 pm :
understood and good points kat
Kristus@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:50 pm :
If you ask me (which I realize none of you actually did, but I can't shut up so here goes) nothing in that scene would really warrant the modeling of the scene.
The ceiling is too heavy to manage really, this is a really quite big and open scene and that's gonna be taxing for the engine to handle. And since it's fairly high up, a texture tiled on a patch mesh would do the trick just fine. As for all the ground stuff, nothing of it is very intricate or complex. It easily handled by brushes and some patch meshes.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:50 pm :
ot: can the admins here ban Encetenpo45, all his posts seem to be totally ot and contain links to porn sites. its getting very annoying thinking there is an update to a thread I've been following, only to find its Encetenpo45 posting spam again
Bo$bevok@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:55 pm :
ratty i think its a spambot
ratty redemption@:
Doom3world • View topic - Subway Station Map
This is an early WiP of my first serious map i´m doing for Doom 3. It´s a subway station. I guess i can´t export everything as one model but will have to export it as several different models.
And i hope i can normal map these inset thingies on the outer hull of the structure.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Actually you can export everything as one model, and for an open space like this there is no reason not to (although this is easier in Max than it is in Maya). I would redesign the vault so you have a combinaton of some realtime shadows, and normal maps. Make a few prominent beams etc. It should be fun to light. You may have issues with AI in such a space, but I'm sure it will look good!
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:42 am Posts: 1172 Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
The dome will kill the framerate if you let it like this (for casting dynamic shadows), so maybe you should try to double dome's squares...
For AI, you could "inline" your model, and create the basic structures with "clip "brushes and "AIclip" to let them walk where you allow them.
I really love to see really new architectures maps, especially "open" areas!
_________________ If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit.
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 10:27 pm Posts: 426 Location: St. Catherines, Ontario Canada
Visually impressive, nice work!
Then comes texturing!, sounds, triggers, relays, script......
and ah yes lighting....an art in itself. have moving trains? see how it goes best luck with it looks great!
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry. It helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of both the level editor and a modelling program, so please do not become too dependent on making entire levels out of imported models.
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The design looks quite nice though, perhaps you should include a couple of round shapes (i.e. the handrails).
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:42 am Posts: 1172 Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
You can also use the Doom textures tiled into your 3D app, and for certain persons (like me ), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
_________________ If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
evilartist wrote:
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry.
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The UV mapping abilities of any modelling program are far more sophisitcated than DoomEdit's. You cant unwrap in DoomEdit silly!
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
_________________ My inevitable step into the world of professional game development is in sight...and when it happens, I will remember to thank this community for getting me started.
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4940 Location: UK, York
evilartist wrote:
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
It doesn't matter so *what* you use, it's *how* that counts. The map above will run like ass regardless - sorry about that Lumpy!
THe main issue here is the open-ness of the map, there's nothing there to do any blocking and using distance portals won't work becasue nothing to blocking the line of site to hide their effects.
The ceiling is better off as a normal map as rich_ said above, an object like that is drawing and wasting to many tris as a result of it being 'real', add light volumes to that and you've got problems with that many shadow volumes being cast at any one time.
The idea is great, but it's more of a visualistion than a game map so it'll need some serious 'compromising' to be done to idea (don't let that put you off btw Lumpengnom.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 951 Location: milton keynes, england
couldn't lumpy use that ceiling model as it is but with a noshadows casting material?
that would cut down on the number of shadow volumes being generated. also remember we can add in nodraw shadow casting parts of the models for when we want to fake the appearance of the visible model casting shadows.
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4940 Location: UK, York
Yeah that can be done but you always have to ask, is the feature worth the collosal polycount it's uses to be drawn?
Each light volume that hits it will draw polys (shadows or not) and the chances are it's going to need more than one light to fully illuminate it which will dublicate the tris for a feature that 'not important', i.e. it doesn't do anything other than look good.
So yes technically it can be done but it'll need a lot of work to make it FPS/runtime friendly.
I'm not even going to guess how many wholes there are that would need a shadowcasting texture btw!!
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 7:33 pm Posts: 1372 Location: In my pants.
If you ask me (which I realize none of you actually did, but I can't shut up so here goes) nothing in that scene would really warrant the modeling of the scene.
The ceiling is too heavy to manage really, this is a really quite big and open scene and that's gonna be taxing for the engine to handle. And since it's fairly high up, a texture tiled on a patch mesh would do the trick just fine. As for all the ground stuff, nothing of it is very intricate or complex. It easily handled by brushes and some patch meshes.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 951 Location: milton keynes, england
ot: can the admins here ban Encetenpo45, all his posts seem to be totally ot and contain links to porn sites. its getting very annoying thinking there is an update to a thread I've been following, only to find its Encetenpo45 posting spam again
This is an early WiP of my first serious map i´m doing for Doom 3. It´s a subway station. I guess i can´t export everything as one model but will have to export it as several different models.
And i hope i can normal map these inset thingies on the outer hull of the structure.
rich_is_bored@Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:21 pm :
You can normal map the dome but you won't get near the same illusion of depth.
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:16 am :
Actually you can export everything as one model, and for an open space like this there is no reason not to (although this is easier in Max than it is in Maya). I would redesign the vault so you have a combinaton of some realtime shadows, and normal maps. Make a few prominent beams etc. It should be fun to light. You may have issues with AI in such a space, but I'm sure it will look good!
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:59 am :
The dome will kill the framerate if you let it like this (for casting dynamic shadows), so maybe you should try to double dome's squares...
For AI, you could "inline" your model, and create the basic structures with "clip "brushes and "AIclip" to let them walk where you allow them.
I really love to see really new architectures maps, especially "open" areas!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:43 am :
I would like to see an open area mapped out and run with a decent framerate.
bladeghost@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:06 am :
Visually impressive, nice work!
Then comes texturing!, sounds, triggers, relays, script......
and ah yes lighting....an art in itself. have moving trains? see how it goes best luck with it looks great!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:25 am :
It is very impressive work, what modeling app did you use?
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:14 am :
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry. It helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of both the level editor and a modelling program, so please do not become too dependent on making entire levels out of imported models.
Vladch@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:57 am :
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The design looks quite nice though, perhaps you should include a couple of round shapes (i.e. the handrails).
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:22 am :
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
You can also use the Doom textures tiled into your 3D app, and for certain persons (like me ), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:05 am :
evilartist wrote:
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry.
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The UV mapping abilities of any modelling program are far more sophisitcated than DoomEdit's. You cant unwrap in DoomEdit silly!
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:08 pm :
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:40 am :
evilartist wrote:
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
It doesn't matter so *what* you use, it's *how* that counts. The map above will run like ass regardless - sorry about that Lumpy!
THe main issue here is the open-ness of the map, there's nothing there to do any blocking and using distance portals won't work becasue nothing to blocking the line of site to hide their effects.
The ceiling is better off as a normal map as rich_ said above, an object like that is drawing and wasting to many tris as a result of it being 'real', add light volumes to that and you've got problems with that many shadow volumes being cast at any one time.
The idea is great, but it's more of a visualistion than a game map so it'll need some serious 'compromising' to be done to idea (don't let that put you off btw Lumpengnom.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:47 pm :
couldn't lumpy use that ceiling model as it is but with a noshadows casting material?
that would cut down on the number of shadow volumes being generated. also remember we can add in nodraw shadow casting parts of the models for when we want to fake the appearance of the visible model casting shadows.
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:28 pm :
Yeah that can be done but you always have to ask, is the feature worth the collosal polycount it's uses to be drawn?
Each light volume that hits it will draw polys (shadows or not) and the chances are it's going to need more than one light to fully illuminate it which will dublicate the tris for a feature that 'not important', i.e. it doesn't do anything other than look good.
So yes technically it can be done but it'll need a lot of work to make it FPS/runtime friendly.
I'm not even going to guess how many wholes there are that would need a shadowcasting texture btw!!
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:47 pm :
understood and good points kat
Kristus@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:50 pm :
If you ask me (which I realize none of you actually did, but I can't shut up so here goes) nothing in that scene would really warrant the modeling of the scene.
The ceiling is too heavy to manage really, this is a really quite big and open scene and that's gonna be taxing for the engine to handle. And since it's fairly high up, a texture tiled on a patch mesh would do the trick just fine. As for all the ground stuff, nothing of it is very intricate or complex. It easily handled by brushes and some patch meshes.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:50 pm :
ot: can the admins here ban Encetenpo45, all his posts seem to be totally ot and contain links to porn sites. its getting very annoying thinking there is an update to a thread I've been following, only to find its Encetenpo45 posting spam again
Bo$bevok@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:55 pm :
ratty i think its a spambot
ratty redemption@:
Doom3world • View topic - Subway Station Map
This is an early WiP of my first serious map i´m doing for Doom 3. It´s a subway station. I guess i can´t export everything as one model but will have to export it as several different models.
And i hope i can normal map these inset thingies on the outer hull of the structure.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Actually you can export everything as one model, and for an open space like this there is no reason not to (although this is easier in Max than it is in Maya). I would redesign the vault so you have a combinaton of some realtime shadows, and normal maps. Make a few prominent beams etc. It should be fun to light. You may have issues with AI in such a space, but I'm sure it will look good!
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:42 am Posts: 1172 Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
The dome will kill the framerate if you let it like this (for casting dynamic shadows), so maybe you should try to double dome's squares...
For AI, you could "inline" your model, and create the basic structures with "clip "brushes and "AIclip" to let them walk where you allow them.
I really love to see really new architectures maps, especially "open" areas!
_________________ If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit.
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 10:27 pm Posts: 408 Location: St. Catherines, Ontario Canada
Visually impressive, nice work!
Then comes texturing!, sounds, triggers, relays, script......
and ah yes lighting....an art in itself. have moving trains? see how it goes best luck with it looks great!
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry. It helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of both the level editor and a modelling program, so please do not become too dependent on making entire levels out of imported models.
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The design looks quite nice though, perhaps you should include a couple of round shapes (i.e. the handrails).
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:42 am Posts: 1172 Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
You can also use the Doom textures tiled into your 3D app, and for certain persons (like me ), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
_________________ If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
evilartist wrote:
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry.
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The UV mapping abilities of any modelling program are far more sophisitcated than DoomEdit's. You cant unwrap in DoomEdit silly!
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
_________________ My inevitable step into the world of professional game development is in sight...and when it happens, I will remember to thank this community for getting me started.
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4940 Location: UK, York
evilartist wrote:
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
It doesn't matter so *what* you use, it's *how* that counts. The map above will run like ass regardless - sorry about that Lumpy!
THe main issue here is the open-ness of the map, there's nothing there to do any blocking and using distance portals won't work becasue nothing to blocking the line of site to hide their effects.
The ceiling is better off as a normal map as rich_ said above, an object like that is drawing and wasting to many tris as a result of it being 'real', add light volumes to that and you've got problems with that many shadow volumes being cast at any one time.
The idea is great, but it's more of a visualistion than a game map so it'll need some serious 'compromising' to be done to idea (don't let that put you off btw Lumpengnom.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 950 Location: milton keynes, england
couldn't lumpy use that ceiling model as it is but with a noshadows casting material?
that would cut down on the number of shadow volumes being generated. also remember we can add in nodraw shadow casting parts of the models for when we want to fake the appearance of the visible model casting shadows.
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4940 Location: UK, York
Yeah that can be done but you always have to ask, is the feature worth the collosal polycount it's uses to be drawn?
Each light volume that hits it will draw polys (shadows or not) and the chances are it's going to need more than one light to fully illuminate it which will dublicate the tris for a feature that 'not important', i.e. it doesn't do anything other than look good.
So yes technically it can be done but it'll need a lot of work to make it FPS/runtime friendly.
I'm not even going to guess how many wholes there are that would need a shadowcasting texture btw!!
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 7:33 pm Posts: 1370 Location: In my pants.
If you ask me (which I realize none of you actually did, but I can't shut up so here goes) nothing in that scene would really warrant the modeling of the scene.
The ceiling is too heavy to manage really, this is a really quite big and open scene and that's gonna be taxing for the engine to handle. And since it's fairly high up, a texture tiled on a patch mesh would do the trick just fine. As for all the ground stuff, nothing of it is very intricate or complex. It easily handled by brushes and some patch meshes.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 950 Location: milton keynes, england
ot: can the admins here ban Encetenpo45, all his posts seem to be totally ot and contain links to porn sites. its getting very annoying thinking there is an update to a thread I've been following, only to find its Encetenpo45 posting spam again
This is an early WiP of my first serious map i´m doing for Doom 3. It´s a subway station. I guess i can´t export everything as one model but will have to export it as several different models.
And i hope i can normal map these inset thingies on the outer hull of the structure.
rich_is_bored@Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:21 pm :
You can normal map the dome but you won't get near the same illusion of depth.
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:16 am :
Actually you can export everything as one model, and for an open space like this there is no reason not to (although this is easier in Max than it is in Maya). I would redesign the vault so you have a combinaton of some realtime shadows, and normal maps. Make a few prominent beams etc. It should be fun to light. You may have issues with AI in such a space, but I'm sure it will look good!
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:59 am :
The dome will kill the framerate if you let it like this (for casting dynamic shadows), so maybe you should try to double dome's squares...
For AI, you could "inline" your model, and create the basic structures with "clip "brushes and "AIclip" to let them walk where you allow them.
I really love to see really new architectures maps, especially "open" areas!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:43 am :
I would like to see an open area mapped out and run with a decent framerate.
bladeghost@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:06 am :
Visually impressive, nice work!
Then comes texturing!, sounds, triggers, relays, script......
and ah yes lighting....an art in itself. have moving trains? see how it goes best luck with it looks great!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:25 am :
It is very impressive work, what modeling app did you use?
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:14 am :
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry. It helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of both the level editor and a modelling program, so please do not become too dependent on making entire levels out of imported models.
Vladch@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:57 am :
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The design looks quite nice though, perhaps you should include a couple of round shapes (i.e. the handrails).
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:22 am :
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
You can also use the Doom textures tiled into your 3D app, and for certain persons (like me ), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:05 am :
evilartist wrote:
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry.
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The UV mapping abilities of any modelling program are far more sophisitcated than DoomEdit's. You cant unwrap in DoomEdit silly!
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:08 pm :
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:40 am :
evilartist wrote:
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
It doesn't matter so *what* you use, it's *how* that counts. The map above will run like ass regardless - sorry about that Lumpy!
THe main issue here is the open-ness of the map, there's nothing there to do any blocking and using distance portals won't work becasue nothing to blocking the line of site to hide their effects.
The ceiling is better off as a normal map as rich_ said above, an object like that is drawing and wasting to many tris as a result of it being 'real', add light volumes to that and you've got problems with that many shadow volumes being cast at any one time.
The idea is great, but it's more of a visualistion than a game map so it'll need some serious 'compromising' to be done to idea (don't let that put you off btw Lumpengnom.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:47 pm :
couldn't lumpy use that ceiling model as it is but with a noshadows casting material?
that would cut down on the number of shadow volumes being generated. also remember we can add in nodraw shadow casting parts of the models for when we want to fake the appearance of the visible model casting shadows.
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:28 pm :
Yeah that can be done but you always have to ask, is the feature worth the collosal polycount it's uses to be drawn?
Each light volume that hits it will draw polys (shadows or not) and the chances are it's going to need more than one light to fully illuminate it which will dublicate the tris for a feature that 'not important', i.e. it doesn't do anything other than look good.
So yes technically it can be done but it'll need a lot of work to make it FPS/runtime friendly.
I'm not even going to guess how many wholes there are that would need a shadowcasting texture btw!!
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:47 pm :
understood and good points kat
Kristus@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:50 pm :
If you ask me (which I realize none of you actually did, but I can't shut up so here goes) nothing in that scene would really warrant the modeling of the scene.
The ceiling is too heavy to manage really, this is a really quite big and open scene and that's gonna be taxing for the engine to handle. And since it's fairly high up, a texture tiled on a patch mesh would do the trick just fine. As for all the ground stuff, nothing of it is very intricate or complex. It easily handled by brushes and some patch meshes.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:50 pm :
ot: can the admins here ban Encetenpo45, all his posts seem to be totally ot and contain links to porn sites. its getting very annoying thinking there is an update to a thread I've been following, only to find its Encetenpo45 posting spam again
This is an early WiP of my first serious map i´m doing for Doom 3. It´s a subway station. I guess i can´t export everything as one model but will have to export it as several different models.
And i hope i can normal map these inset thingies on the outer hull of the structure.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Actually you can export everything as one model, and for an open space like this there is no reason not to (although this is easier in Max than it is in Maya). I would redesign the vault so you have a combinaton of some realtime shadows, and normal maps. Make a few prominent beams etc. It should be fun to light. You may have issues with AI in such a space, but I'm sure it will look good!
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:42 am Posts: 1172 Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
The dome will kill the framerate if you let it like this (for casting dynamic shadows), so maybe you should try to double dome's squares...
For AI, you could "inline" your model, and create the basic structures with "clip "brushes and "AIclip" to let them walk where you allow them.
I really love to see really new architectures maps, especially "open" areas!
_________________ If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit.
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 10:27 pm Posts: 405 Location: St. Catherines, Ontario Canada
Visually impressive, nice work!
Then comes texturing!, sounds, triggers, relays, script......
and ah yes lighting....an art in itself. have moving trains? see how it goes best luck with it looks great!
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry. It helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of both the level editor and a modelling program, so please do not become too dependent on making entire levels out of imported models.
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The design looks quite nice though, perhaps you should include a couple of round shapes (i.e. the handrails).
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:42 am Posts: 1172 Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
You can also use the Doom textures tiled into your 3D app, and for certain persons (like me ), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
_________________ If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
evilartist wrote:
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry.
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The UV mapping abilities of any modelling program are far more sophisitcated than DoomEdit's. You cant unwrap in DoomEdit silly!
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
_________________ My inevitable step into the world of professional game development is in sight...and when it happens, I will remember to thank this community for getting me started.
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4940 Location: UK, York
evilartist wrote:
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
It doesn't matter so *what* you use, it's *how* that counts. The map above will run like ass regardless - sorry about that Lumpy!
THe main issue here is the open-ness of the map, there's nothing there to do any blocking and using distance portals won't work becasue nothing to blocking the line of site to hide their effects.
The ceiling is better off as a normal map as rich_ said above, an object like that is drawing and wasting to many tris as a result of it being 'real', add light volumes to that and you've got problems with that many shadow volumes being cast at any one time.
The idea is great, but it's more of a visualistion than a game map so it'll need some serious 'compromising' to be done to idea (don't let that put you off btw Lumpengnom.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 947 Location: milton keynes, england
couldn't lumpy use that ceiling model as it is but with a noshadows casting material?
that would cut down on the number of shadow volumes being generated. also remember we can add in nodraw shadow casting parts of the models for when we want to fake the appearance of the visible model casting shadows.
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4940 Location: UK, York
Yeah that can be done but you always have to ask, is the feature worth the collosal polycount it's uses to be drawn?
Each light volume that hits it will draw polys (shadows or not) and the chances are it's going to need more than one light to fully illuminate it which will dublicate the tris for a feature that 'not important', i.e. it doesn't do anything other than look good.
So yes technically it can be done but it'll need a lot of work to make it FPS/runtime friendly.
I'm not even going to guess how many wholes there are that would need a shadowcasting texture btw!!
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 7:33 pm Posts: 1366 Location: In my pants.
If you ask me (which I realize none of you actually did, but I can't shut up so here goes) nothing in that scene would really warrant the modeling of the scene.
The ceiling is too heavy to manage really, this is a really quite big and open scene and that's gonna be taxing for the engine to handle. And since it's fairly high up, a texture tiled on a patch mesh would do the trick just fine. As for all the ground stuff, nothing of it is very intricate or complex. It easily handled by brushes and some patch meshes.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 947 Location: milton keynes, england
ot: can the admins here ban Encetenpo45, all his posts seem to be totally ot and contain links to porn sites. its getting very annoying thinking there is an update to a thread I've been following, only to find its Encetenpo45 posting spam again
This is an early WiP of my first serious map i´m doing for Doom 3. It´s a subway station. I guess i can´t export everything as one model but will have to export it as several different models.
And i hope i can normal map these inset thingies on the outer hull of the structure.
rich_is_bored@Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:21 pm :
You can normal map the dome but you won't get near the same illusion of depth.
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:16 am :
Actually you can export everything as one model, and for an open space like this there is no reason not to (although this is easier in Max than it is in Maya). I would redesign the vault so you have a combinaton of some realtime shadows, and normal maps. Make a few prominent beams etc. It should be fun to light. You may have issues with AI in such a space, but I'm sure it will look good!
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:59 am :
The dome will kill the framerate if you let it like this (for casting dynamic shadows), so maybe you should try to double dome's squares...
For AI, you could "inline" your model, and create the basic structures with "clip "brushes and "AIclip" to let them walk where you allow them.
I really love to see really new architectures maps, especially "open" areas!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:43 am :
I would like to see an open area mapped out and run with a decent framerate.
bladeghost@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:06 am :
Visually impressive, nice work!
Then comes texturing!, sounds, triggers, relays, script......
and ah yes lighting....an art in itself. have moving trains? see how it goes best luck with it looks great!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:25 am :
It is very impressive work, what modeling app did you use?
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:14 am :
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry. It helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of both the level editor and a modelling program, so please do not become too dependent on making entire levels out of imported models.
Vladch@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:57 am :
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The design looks quite nice though, perhaps you should include a couple of round shapes (i.e. the handrails).
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:22 am :
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
You can also use the Doom textures tiled into your 3D app, and for certain persons (like me ), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:05 am :
evilartist wrote:
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry.
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The UV mapping abilities of any modelling program are far more sophisitcated than DoomEdit's. You cant unwrap in DoomEdit silly!
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:08 pm :
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:40 am :
evilartist wrote:
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
It doesn't matter so *what* you use, it's *how* that counts. The map above will run like ass regardless - sorry about that Lumpy!
THe main issue here is the open-ness of the map, there's nothing there to do any blocking and using distance portals won't work becasue nothing to blocking the line of site to hide their effects.
The ceiling is better off as a normal map as rich_ said above, an object like that is drawing and wasting to many tris as a result of it being 'real', add light volumes to that and you've got problems with that many shadow volumes being cast at any one time.
The idea is great, but it's more of a visualistion than a game map so it'll need some serious 'compromising' to be done to idea (don't let that put you off btw Lumpengnom.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:47 pm :
couldn't lumpy use that ceiling model as it is but with a noshadows casting material?
that would cut down on the number of shadow volumes being generated. also remember we can add in nodraw shadow casting parts of the models for when we want to fake the appearance of the visible model casting shadows.
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:28 pm :
Yeah that can be done but you always have to ask, is the feature worth the collosal polycount it's uses to be drawn?
Each light volume that hits it will draw polys (shadows or not) and the chances are it's going to need more than one light to fully illuminate it which will dublicate the tris for a feature that 'not important', i.e. it doesn't do anything other than look good.
So yes technically it can be done but it'll need a lot of work to make it FPS/runtime friendly.
I'm not even going to guess how many wholes there are that would need a shadowcasting texture btw!!
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:47 pm :
understood and good points kat
Kristus@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:50 pm :
If you ask me (which I realize none of you actually did, but I can't shut up so here goes) nothing in that scene would really warrant the modeling of the scene.
The ceiling is too heavy to manage really, this is a really quite big and open scene and that's gonna be taxing for the engine to handle. And since it's fairly high up, a texture tiled on a patch mesh would do the trick just fine. As for all the ground stuff, nothing of it is very intricate or complex. It easily handled by brushes and some patch meshes.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:50 pm :
ot: can the admins here ban Encetenpo45, all his posts seem to be totally ot and contain links to porn sites. its getting very annoying thinking there is an update to a thread I've been following, only to find its Encetenpo45 posting spam again
Bo$bevok@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:55 pm :
ratty i think its a spambot
ratty redemption@:
Doom3world • View topic - Subway Station Map
This is an early WiP of my first serious map i´m doing for Doom 3. It´s a subway station. I guess i can´t export everything as one model but will have to export it as several different models.
And i hope i can normal map these inset thingies on the outer hull of the structure.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Actually you can export everything as one model, and for an open space like this there is no reason not to (although this is easier in Max than it is in Maya). I would redesign the vault so you have a combinaton of some realtime shadows, and normal maps. Make a few prominent beams etc. It should be fun to light. You may have issues with AI in such a space, but I'm sure it will look good!
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:42 am Posts: 1172 Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
The dome will kill the framerate if you let it like this (for casting dynamic shadows), so maybe you should try to double dome's squares...
For AI, you could "inline" your model, and create the basic structures with "clip "brushes and "AIclip" to let them walk where you allow them.
I really love to see really new architectures maps, especially "open" areas!
_________________ If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit.
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 10:27 pm Posts: 405 Location: St. Catherines, Ontario Canada
Visually impressive, nice work!
Then comes texturing!, sounds, triggers, relays, script......
and ah yes lighting....an art in itself. have moving trains? see how it goes best luck with it looks great!
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry. It helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of both the level editor and a modelling program, so please do not become too dependent on making entire levels out of imported models.
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The design looks quite nice though, perhaps you should include a couple of round shapes (i.e. the handrails).
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:42 am Posts: 1172 Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
You can also use the Doom textures tiled into your 3D app, and for certain persons (like me ), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
_________________ If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
evilartist wrote:
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry.
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The UV mapping abilities of any modelling program are far more sophisitcated than DoomEdit's. You cant unwrap in DoomEdit silly!
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
_________________ My inevitable step into the world of professional game development is in sight...and when it happens, I will remember to thank this community for getting me started.
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4940 Location: UK, York
evilartist wrote:
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
It doesn't matter so *what* you use, it's *how* that counts. The map above will run like ass regardless - sorry about that Lumpy!
THe main issue here is the open-ness of the map, there's nothing there to do any blocking and using distance portals won't work becasue nothing to blocking the line of site to hide their effects.
The ceiling is better off as a normal map as rich_ said above, an object like that is drawing and wasting to many tris as a result of it being 'real', add light volumes to that and you've got problems with that many shadow volumes being cast at any one time.
The idea is great, but it's more of a visualistion than a game map so it'll need some serious 'compromising' to be done to idea (don't let that put you off btw Lumpengnom.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 948 Location: milton keynes, england
couldn't lumpy use that ceiling model as it is but with a noshadows casting material?
that would cut down on the number of shadow volumes being generated. also remember we can add in nodraw shadow casting parts of the models for when we want to fake the appearance of the visible model casting shadows.
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4940 Location: UK, York
Yeah that can be done but you always have to ask, is the feature worth the collosal polycount it's uses to be drawn?
Each light volume that hits it will draw polys (shadows or not) and the chances are it's going to need more than one light to fully illuminate it which will dublicate the tris for a feature that 'not important', i.e. it doesn't do anything other than look good.
So yes technically it can be done but it'll need a lot of work to make it FPS/runtime friendly.
I'm not even going to guess how many wholes there are that would need a shadowcasting texture btw!!
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 7:33 pm Posts: 1368 Location: In my pants.
If you ask me (which I realize none of you actually did, but I can't shut up so here goes) nothing in that scene would really warrant the modeling of the scene.
The ceiling is too heavy to manage really, this is a really quite big and open scene and that's gonna be taxing for the engine to handle. And since it's fairly high up, a texture tiled on a patch mesh would do the trick just fine. As for all the ground stuff, nothing of it is very intricate or complex. It easily handled by brushes and some patch meshes.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 948 Location: milton keynes, england
ot: can the admins here ban Encetenpo45, all his posts seem to be totally ot and contain links to porn sites. its getting very annoying thinking there is an update to a thread I've been following, only to find its Encetenpo45 posting spam again
This is an early WiP of my first serious map i´m doing for Doom 3. It´s a subway station. I guess i can´t export everything as one model but will have to export it as several different models.
And i hope i can normal map these inset thingies on the outer hull of the structure.
rich_is_bored@Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:21 pm :
You can normal map the dome but you won't get near the same illusion of depth.
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:16 am :
Actually you can export everything as one model, and for an open space like this there is no reason not to (although this is easier in Max than it is in Maya). I would redesign the vault so you have a combinaton of some realtime shadows, and normal maps. Make a few prominent beams etc. It should be fun to light. You may have issues with AI in such a space, but I'm sure it will look good!
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:59 am :
The dome will kill the framerate if you let it like this (for casting dynamic shadows), so maybe you should try to double dome's squares...
For AI, you could "inline" your model, and create the basic structures with "clip "brushes and "AIclip" to let them walk where you allow them.
I really love to see really new architectures maps, especially "open" areas!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:43 am :
I would like to see an open area mapped out and run with a decent framerate.
bladeghost@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:06 am :
Visually impressive, nice work!
Then comes texturing!, sounds, triggers, relays, script......
and ah yes lighting....an art in itself. have moving trains? see how it goes best luck with it looks great!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:25 am :
It is very impressive work, what modeling app did you use?
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:14 am :
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry. It helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of both the level editor and a modelling program, so please do not become too dependent on making entire levels out of imported models.
Vladch@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:57 am :
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The design looks quite nice though, perhaps you should include a couple of round shapes (i.e. the handrails).
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:22 am :
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
You can also use the Doom textures tiled into your 3D app, and for certain persons (like me ), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:05 am :
evilartist wrote:
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry.
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The UV mapping abilities of any modelling program are far more sophisitcated than DoomEdit's. You cant unwrap in DoomEdit silly!
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:08 pm :
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:40 am :
evilartist wrote:
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
It doesn't matter so *what* you use, it's *how* that counts. The map above will run like ass regardless - sorry about that Lumpy!
THe main issue here is the open-ness of the map, there's nothing there to do any blocking and using distance portals won't work becasue nothing to blocking the line of site to hide their effects.
The ceiling is better off as a normal map as rich_ said above, an object like that is drawing and wasting to many tris as a result of it being 'real', add light volumes to that and you've got problems with that many shadow volumes being cast at any one time.
The idea is great, but it's more of a visualistion than a game map so it'll need some serious 'compromising' to be done to idea (don't let that put you off btw Lumpengnom.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:47 pm :
couldn't lumpy use that ceiling model as it is but with a noshadows casting material?
that would cut down on the number of shadow volumes being generated. also remember we can add in nodraw shadow casting parts of the models for when we want to fake the appearance of the visible model casting shadows.
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:28 pm :
Yeah that can be done but you always have to ask, is the feature worth the collosal polycount it's uses to be drawn?
Each light volume that hits it will draw polys (shadows or not) and the chances are it's going to need more than one light to fully illuminate it which will dublicate the tris for a feature that 'not important', i.e. it doesn't do anything other than look good.
So yes technically it can be done but it'll need a lot of work to make it FPS/runtime friendly.
I'm not even going to guess how many wholes there are that would need a shadowcasting texture btw!!
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:47 pm :
understood and good points kat
Kristus@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:50 pm :
If you ask me (which I realize none of you actually did, but I can't shut up so here goes) nothing in that scene would really warrant the modeling of the scene.
The ceiling is too heavy to manage really, this is a really quite big and open scene and that's gonna be taxing for the engine to handle. And since it's fairly high up, a texture tiled on a patch mesh would do the trick just fine. As for all the ground stuff, nothing of it is very intricate or complex. It easily handled by brushes and some patch meshes.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:50 pm :
ot: can the admins here ban Encetenpo45, all his posts seem to be totally ot and contain links to porn sites. its getting very annoying thinking there is an update to a thread I've been following, only to find its Encetenpo45 posting spam again
This is an early WiP of my first serious map i´m doing for Doom 3. It´s a subway station. I guess i can´t export everything as one model but will have to export it as several different models.
And i hope i can normal map these inset thingies on the outer hull of the structure.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Actually you can export everything as one model, and for an open space like this there is no reason not to (although this is easier in Max than it is in Maya). I would redesign the vault so you have a combinaton of some realtime shadows, and normal maps. Make a few prominent beams etc. It should be fun to light. You may have issues with AI in such a space, but I'm sure it will look good!
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:42 am Posts: 1172 Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
The dome will kill the framerate if you let it like this (for casting dynamic shadows), so maybe you should try to double dome's squares...
For AI, you could "inline" your model, and create the basic structures with "clip "brushes and "AIclip" to let them walk where you allow them.
I really love to see really new architectures maps, especially "open" areas!
_________________ If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit.
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 10:27 pm Posts: 404 Location: St. Catherines, Ontario Canada
Visually impressive, nice work!
Then comes texturing!, sounds, triggers, relays, script......
and ah yes lighting....an art in itself. have moving trains? see how it goes best luck with it looks great!
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry. It helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of both the level editor and a modelling program, so please do not become too dependent on making entire levels out of imported models.
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The design looks quite nice though, perhaps you should include a couple of round shapes (i.e. the handrails).
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:42 am Posts: 1172 Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
You can also use the Doom textures tiled into your 3D app, and for certain persons (like me ), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
_________________ If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
evilartist wrote:
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry.
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The UV mapping abilities of any modelling program are far more sophisitcated than DoomEdit's. You cant unwrap in DoomEdit silly!
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
_________________ My inevitable step into the world of professional game development is in sight...and when it happens, I will remember to thank this community for getting me started.
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4940 Location: UK, York
evilartist wrote:
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
It doesn't matter so *what* you use, it's *how* that counts. The map above will run like ass regardless - sorry about that Lumpy!
THe main issue here is the open-ness of the map, there's nothing there to do any blocking and using distance portals won't work becasue nothing to blocking the line of site to hide their effects.
The ceiling is better off as a normal map as rich_ said above, an object like that is drawing and wasting to many tris as a result of it being 'real', add light volumes to that and you've got problems with that many shadow volumes being cast at any one time.
The idea is great, but it's more of a visualistion than a game map so it'll need some serious 'compromising' to be done to idea (don't let that put you off btw Lumpengnom.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 945 Location: milton keynes, england
couldn't lumpy use that ceiling model as it is but with a noshadows casting material?
that would cut down on the number of shadow volumes being generated. also remember we can add in nodraw shadow casting parts of the models for when we want to fake the appearance of the visible model casting shadows.
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4940 Location: UK, York
Yeah that can be done but you always have to ask, is the feature worth the collosal polycount it's uses to be drawn?
Each light volume that hits it will draw polys (shadows or not) and the chances are it's going to need more than one light to fully illuminate it which will dublicate the tris for a feature that 'not important', i.e. it doesn't do anything other than look good.
So yes technically it can be done but it'll need a lot of work to make it FPS/runtime friendly.
I'm not even going to guess how many wholes there are that would need a shadowcasting texture btw!!
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 7:33 pm Posts: 1362 Location: In my pants.
If you ask me (which I realize none of you actually did, but I can't shut up so here goes) nothing in that scene would really warrant the modeling of the scene.
The ceiling is too heavy to manage really, this is a really quite big and open scene and that's gonna be taxing for the engine to handle. And since it's fairly high up, a texture tiled on a patch mesh would do the trick just fine. As for all the ground stuff, nothing of it is very intricate or complex. It easily handled by brushes and some patch meshes.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 945 Location: milton keynes, england
ot: can the admins here ban Encetenpo45, all his posts seem to be totally ot and contain links to porn sites. its getting very annoying thinking there is an update to a thread I've been following, only to find its Encetenpo45 posting spam again
This is an early WiP of my first serious map i´m doing for Doom 3. It´s a subway station. I guess i can´t export everything as one model but will have to export it as several different models.
And i hope i can normal map these inset thingies on the outer hull of the structure.
rich_is_bored@Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:21 pm :
You can normal map the dome but you won't get near the same illusion of depth.
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:16 am :
Actually you can export everything as one model, and for an open space like this there is no reason not to (although this is easier in Max than it is in Maya). I would redesign the vault so you have a combinaton of some realtime shadows, and normal maps. Make a few prominent beams etc. It should be fun to light. You may have issues with AI in such a space, but I'm sure it will look good!
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:59 am :
The dome will kill the framerate if you let it like this (for casting dynamic shadows), so maybe you should try to double dome's squares...
For AI, you could "inline" your model, and create the basic structures with "clip "brushes and "AIclip" to let them walk where you allow them.
I really love to see really new architectures maps, especially "open" areas!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:43 am :
I would like to see an open area mapped out and run with a decent framerate.
bladeghost@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:06 am :
Visually impressive, nice work!
Then comes texturing!, sounds, triggers, relays, script......
and ah yes lighting....an art in itself. have moving trains? see how it goes best luck with it looks great!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:25 am :
It is very impressive work, what modeling app did you use?
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:14 am :
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry. It helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of both the level editor and a modelling program, so please do not become too dependent on making entire levels out of imported models.
Vladch@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:57 am :
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The design looks quite nice though, perhaps you should include a couple of round shapes (i.e. the handrails).
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:22 am :
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
You can also use the Doom textures tiled into your 3D app, and for certain persons (like me ), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:05 am :
evilartist wrote:
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry.
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The UV mapping abilities of any modelling program are far more sophisitcated than DoomEdit's. You cant unwrap in DoomEdit silly!
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:08 pm :
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:40 am :
evilartist wrote:
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
It doesn't matter so *what* you use, it's *how* that counts. The map above will run like ass regardless - sorry about that Lumpy!
THe main issue here is the open-ness of the map, there's nothing there to do any blocking and using distance portals won't work becasue nothing to blocking the line of site to hide their effects.
The ceiling is better off as a normal map as rich_ said above, an object like that is drawing and wasting to many tris as a result of it being 'real', add light volumes to that and you've got problems with that many shadow volumes being cast at any one time.
The idea is great, but it's more of a visualistion than a game map so it'll need some serious 'compromising' to be done to idea (don't let that put you off btw Lumpengnom.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:47 pm :
couldn't lumpy use that ceiling model as it is but with a noshadows casting material?
that would cut down on the number of shadow volumes being generated. also remember we can add in nodraw shadow casting parts of the models for when we want to fake the appearance of the visible model casting shadows.
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:28 pm :
Yeah that can be done but you always have to ask, is the feature worth the collosal polycount it's uses to be drawn?
Each light volume that hits it will draw polys (shadows or not) and the chances are it's going to need more than one light to fully illuminate it which will dublicate the tris for a feature that 'not important', i.e. it doesn't do anything other than look good.
So yes technically it can be done but it'll need a lot of work to make it FPS/runtime friendly.
I'm not even going to guess how many wholes there are that would need a shadowcasting texture btw!!
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:47 pm :
understood and good points kat
Kristus@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:50 pm :
If you ask me (which I realize none of you actually did, but I can't shut up so here goes) nothing in that scene would really warrant the modeling of the scene.
The ceiling is too heavy to manage really, this is a really quite big and open scene and that's gonna be taxing for the engine to handle. And since it's fairly high up, a texture tiled on a patch mesh would do the trick just fine. As for all the ground stuff, nothing of it is very intricate or complex. It easily handled by brushes and some patch meshes.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:50 pm :
ot: can the admins here ban Encetenpo45, all his posts seem to be totally ot and contain links to porn sites. its getting very annoying thinking there is an update to a thread I've been following, only to find its Encetenpo45 posting spam again
Bo$bevok@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:55 pm :
ratty i think its a spambot
ratty redemption@:
Doom3world • View topic - Subway Station Map
This is an early WiP of my first serious map i´m doing for Doom 3. It´s a subway station. I guess i can´t export everything as one model but will have to export it as several different models.
And i hope i can normal map these inset thingies on the outer hull of the structure.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Actually you can export everything as one model, and for an open space like this there is no reason not to (although this is easier in Max than it is in Maya). I would redesign the vault so you have a combinaton of some realtime shadows, and normal maps. Make a few prominent beams etc. It should be fun to light. You may have issues with AI in such a space, but I'm sure it will look good!
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:42 am Posts: 1172 Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
The dome will kill the framerate if you let it like this (for casting dynamic shadows), so maybe you should try to double dome's squares...
For AI, you could "inline" your model, and create the basic structures with "clip "brushes and "AIclip" to let them walk where you allow them.
I really love to see really new architectures maps, especially "open" areas!
_________________ If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit.
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 10:27 pm Posts: 426 Location: St. Catherines, Ontario Canada
Visually impressive, nice work!
Then comes texturing!, sounds, triggers, relays, script......
and ah yes lighting....an art in itself. have moving trains? see how it goes best luck with it looks great!
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry. It helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of both the level editor and a modelling program, so please do not become too dependent on making entire levels out of imported models.
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The design looks quite nice though, perhaps you should include a couple of round shapes (i.e. the handrails).
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:42 am Posts: 1172 Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
You can also use the Doom textures tiled into your 3D app, and for certain persons (like me ), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
_________________ If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
evilartist wrote:
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry.
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The UV mapping abilities of any modelling program are far more sophisitcated than DoomEdit's. You cant unwrap in DoomEdit silly!
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
_________________ My inevitable step into the world of professional game development is in sight...and when it happens, I will remember to thank this community for getting me started.
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4940 Location: UK, York
evilartist wrote:
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
It doesn't matter so *what* you use, it's *how* that counts. The map above will run like ass regardless - sorry about that Lumpy!
THe main issue here is the open-ness of the map, there's nothing there to do any blocking and using distance portals won't work becasue nothing to blocking the line of site to hide their effects.
The ceiling is better off as a normal map as rich_ said above, an object like that is drawing and wasting to many tris as a result of it being 'real', add light volumes to that and you've got problems with that many shadow volumes being cast at any one time.
The idea is great, but it's more of a visualistion than a game map so it'll need some serious 'compromising' to be done to idea (don't let that put you off btw Lumpengnom.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 951 Location: milton keynes, england
couldn't lumpy use that ceiling model as it is but with a noshadows casting material?
that would cut down on the number of shadow volumes being generated. also remember we can add in nodraw shadow casting parts of the models for when we want to fake the appearance of the visible model casting shadows.
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4940 Location: UK, York
Yeah that can be done but you always have to ask, is the feature worth the collosal polycount it's uses to be drawn?
Each light volume that hits it will draw polys (shadows or not) and the chances are it's going to need more than one light to fully illuminate it which will dublicate the tris for a feature that 'not important', i.e. it doesn't do anything other than look good.
So yes technically it can be done but it'll need a lot of work to make it FPS/runtime friendly.
I'm not even going to guess how many wholes there are that would need a shadowcasting texture btw!!
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 7:33 pm Posts: 1372 Location: In my pants.
If you ask me (which I realize none of you actually did, but I can't shut up so here goes) nothing in that scene would really warrant the modeling of the scene.
The ceiling is too heavy to manage really, this is a really quite big and open scene and that's gonna be taxing for the engine to handle. And since it's fairly high up, a texture tiled on a patch mesh would do the trick just fine. As for all the ground stuff, nothing of it is very intricate or complex. It easily handled by brushes and some patch meshes.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 951 Location: milton keynes, england
ot: can the admins here ban Encetenpo45, all his posts seem to be totally ot and contain links to porn sites. its getting very annoying thinking there is an update to a thread I've been following, only to find its Encetenpo45 posting spam again
This is an early WiP of my first serious map i´m doing for Doom 3. It´s a subway station. I guess i can´t export everything as one model but will have to export it as several different models.
And i hope i can normal map these inset thingies on the outer hull of the structure.
rich_is_bored@Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:21 pm :
You can normal map the dome but you won't get near the same illusion of depth.
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:16 am :
Actually you can export everything as one model, and for an open space like this there is no reason not to (although this is easier in Max than it is in Maya). I would redesign the vault so you have a combinaton of some realtime shadows, and normal maps. Make a few prominent beams etc. It should be fun to light. You may have issues with AI in such a space, but I'm sure it will look good!
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:59 am :
The dome will kill the framerate if you let it like this (for casting dynamic shadows), so maybe you should try to double dome's squares...
For AI, you could "inline" your model, and create the basic structures with "clip "brushes and "AIclip" to let them walk where you allow them.
I really love to see really new architectures maps, especially "open" areas!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:43 am :
I would like to see an open area mapped out and run with a decent framerate.
bladeghost@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:06 am :
Visually impressive, nice work!
Then comes texturing!, sounds, triggers, relays, script......
and ah yes lighting....an art in itself. have moving trains? see how it goes best luck with it looks great!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:25 am :
It is very impressive work, what modeling app did you use?
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:14 am :
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry. It helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of both the level editor and a modelling program, so please do not become too dependent on making entire levels out of imported models.
Vladch@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:57 am :
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The design looks quite nice though, perhaps you should include a couple of round shapes (i.e. the handrails).
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:22 am :
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
You can also use the Doom textures tiled into your 3D app, and for certain persons (like me ), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:05 am :
evilartist wrote:
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry.
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The UV mapping abilities of any modelling program are far more sophisitcated than DoomEdit's. You cant unwrap in DoomEdit silly!
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:08 pm :
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:40 am :
evilartist wrote:
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
It doesn't matter so *what* you use, it's *how* that counts. The map above will run like ass regardless - sorry about that Lumpy!
THe main issue here is the open-ness of the map, there's nothing there to do any blocking and using distance portals won't work becasue nothing to blocking the line of site to hide their effects.
The ceiling is better off as a normal map as rich_ said above, an object like that is drawing and wasting to many tris as a result of it being 'real', add light volumes to that and you've got problems with that many shadow volumes being cast at any one time.
The idea is great, but it's more of a visualistion than a game map so it'll need some serious 'compromising' to be done to idea (don't let that put you off btw Lumpengnom.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:47 pm :
couldn't lumpy use that ceiling model as it is but with a noshadows casting material?
that would cut down on the number of shadow volumes being generated. also remember we can add in nodraw shadow casting parts of the models for when we want to fake the appearance of the visible model casting shadows.
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:28 pm :
Yeah that can be done but you always have to ask, is the feature worth the collosal polycount it's uses to be drawn?
Each light volume that hits it will draw polys (shadows or not) and the chances are it's going to need more than one light to fully illuminate it which will dublicate the tris for a feature that 'not important', i.e. it doesn't do anything other than look good.
So yes technically it can be done but it'll need a lot of work to make it FPS/runtime friendly.
I'm not even going to guess how many wholes there are that would need a shadowcasting texture btw!!
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:47 pm :
understood and good points kat
Kristus@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:50 pm :
If you ask me (which I realize none of you actually did, but I can't shut up so here goes) nothing in that scene would really warrant the modeling of the scene.
The ceiling is too heavy to manage really, this is a really quite big and open scene and that's gonna be taxing for the engine to handle. And since it's fairly high up, a texture tiled on a patch mesh would do the trick just fine. As for all the ground stuff, nothing of it is very intricate or complex. It easily handled by brushes and some patch meshes.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:50 pm :
ot: can the admins here ban Encetenpo45, all his posts seem to be totally ot and contain links to porn sites. its getting very annoying thinking there is an update to a thread I've been following, only to find its Encetenpo45 posting spam again
Bo$bevok@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:55 pm :
ratty i think its a spambot
ratty redemption@:
Doom3world • View topic - Subway Station Map
This is an early WiP of my first serious map i´m doing for Doom 3. It´s a subway station. I guess i can´t export everything as one model but will have to export it as several different models.
And i hope i can normal map these inset thingies on the outer hull of the structure.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Actually you can export everything as one model, and for an open space like this there is no reason not to (although this is easier in Max than it is in Maya). I would redesign the vault so you have a combinaton of some realtime shadows, and normal maps. Make a few prominent beams etc. It should be fun to light. You may have issues with AI in such a space, but I'm sure it will look good!
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:42 am Posts: 1172 Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
The dome will kill the framerate if you let it like this (for casting dynamic shadows), so maybe you should try to double dome's squares...
For AI, you could "inline" your model, and create the basic structures with "clip "brushes and "AIclip" to let them walk where you allow them.
I really love to see really new architectures maps, especially "open" areas!
_________________ If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit.
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 10:27 pm Posts: 435 Location: St. Catherines, Ontario Canada
Visually impressive, nice work!
Then comes texturing!, sounds, triggers, relays, script......
and ah yes lighting....an art in itself. have moving trains? see how it goes best luck with it looks great!
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry. It helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of both the level editor and a modelling program, so please do not become too dependent on making entire levels out of imported models.
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The design looks quite nice though, perhaps you should include a couple of round shapes (i.e. the handrails).
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:42 am Posts: 1172 Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
You can also use the Doom textures tiled into your 3D app, and for certain persons (like me ), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
_________________ If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
evilartist wrote:
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry.
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The UV mapping abilities of any modelling program are far more sophisitcated than DoomEdit's. You cant unwrap in DoomEdit silly!
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
_________________ My inevitable step into the world of professional game development is in sight...and when it happens, I will remember to thank this community for getting me started.
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4943 Location: UK, York
evilartist wrote:
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
It doesn't matter so *what* you use, it's *how* that counts. The map above will run like ass regardless - sorry about that Lumpy!
THe main issue here is the open-ness of the map, there's nothing there to do any blocking and using distance portals won't work becasue nothing to blocking the line of site to hide their effects.
The ceiling is better off as a normal map as rich_ said above, an object like that is drawing and wasting to many tris as a result of it being 'real', add light volumes to that and you've got problems with that many shadow volumes being cast at any one time.
The idea is great, but it's more of a visualistion than a game map so it'll need some serious 'compromising' to be done to idea (don't let that put you off btw Lumpengnom.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 964 Location: milton keynes, england
couldn't lumpy use that ceiling model as it is but with a noshadows casting material?
that would cut down on the number of shadow volumes being generated. also remember we can add in nodraw shadow casting parts of the models for when we want to fake the appearance of the visible model casting shadows.
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4943 Location: UK, York
Yeah that can be done but you always have to ask, is the feature worth the collosal polycount it's uses to be drawn?
Each light volume that hits it will draw polys (shadows or not) and the chances are it's going to need more than one light to fully illuminate it which will dublicate the tris for a feature that 'not important', i.e. it doesn't do anything other than look good.
So yes technically it can be done but it'll need a lot of work to make it FPS/runtime friendly.
I'm not even going to guess how many wholes there are that would need a shadowcasting texture btw!!
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 7:33 pm Posts: 1386 Location: In my pants.
If you ask me (which I realize none of you actually did, but I can't shut up so here goes) nothing in that scene would really warrant the modeling of the scene.
The ceiling is too heavy to manage really, this is a really quite big and open scene and that's gonna be taxing for the engine to handle. And since it's fairly high up, a texture tiled on a patch mesh would do the trick just fine. As for all the ground stuff, nothing of it is very intricate or complex. It easily handled by brushes and some patch meshes.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 964 Location: milton keynes, england
ot: can the admins here ban Encetenpo45, all his posts seem to be totally ot and contain links to porn sites. its getting very annoying thinking there is an update to a thread I've been following, only to find its Encetenpo45 posting spam again
This is an early WiP of my first serious map i´m doing for Doom 3. It´s a subway station. I guess i can´t export everything as one model but will have to export it as several different models.
And i hope i can normal map these inset thingies on the outer hull of the structure.
rich_is_bored@Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:21 pm :
You can normal map the dome but you won't get near the same illusion of depth.
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:16 am :
Actually you can export everything as one model, and for an open space like this there is no reason not to (although this is easier in Max than it is in Maya). I would redesign the vault so you have a combinaton of some realtime shadows, and normal maps. Make a few prominent beams etc. It should be fun to light. You may have issues with AI in such a space, but I'm sure it will look good!
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:59 am :
The dome will kill the framerate if you let it like this (for casting dynamic shadows), so maybe you should try to double dome's squares...
For AI, you could "inline" your model, and create the basic structures with "clip "brushes and "AIclip" to let them walk where you allow them.
I really love to see really new architectures maps, especially "open" areas!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:43 am :
I would like to see an open area mapped out and run with a decent framerate.
bladeghost@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:06 am :
Visually impressive, nice work!
Then comes texturing!, sounds, triggers, relays, script......
and ah yes lighting....an art in itself. have moving trains? see how it goes best luck with it looks great!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:25 am :
It is very impressive work, what modeling app did you use?
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:14 am :
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry. It helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of both the level editor and a modelling program, so please do not become too dependent on making entire levels out of imported models.
Vladch@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:57 am :
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The design looks quite nice though, perhaps you should include a couple of round shapes (i.e. the handrails).
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:22 am :
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
You can also use the Doom textures tiled into your 3D app, and for certain persons (like me ), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:05 am :
evilartist wrote:
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry.
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The UV mapping abilities of any modelling program are far more sophisitcated than DoomEdit's. You cant unwrap in DoomEdit silly!
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:08 pm :
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:40 am :
evilartist wrote:
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
It doesn't matter so *what* you use, it's *how* that counts. The map above will run like ass regardless - sorry about that Lumpy!
THe main issue here is the open-ness of the map, there's nothing there to do any blocking and using distance portals won't work becasue nothing to blocking the line of site to hide their effects.
The ceiling is better off as a normal map as rich_ said above, an object like that is drawing and wasting to many tris as a result of it being 'real', add light volumes to that and you've got problems with that many shadow volumes being cast at any one time.
The idea is great, but it's more of a visualistion than a game map so it'll need some serious 'compromising' to be done to idea (don't let that put you off btw Lumpengnom.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:47 pm :
couldn't lumpy use that ceiling model as it is but with a noshadows casting material?
that would cut down on the number of shadow volumes being generated. also remember we can add in nodraw shadow casting parts of the models for when we want to fake the appearance of the visible model casting shadows.
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:28 pm :
Yeah that can be done but you always have to ask, is the feature worth the collosal polycount it's uses to be drawn?
Each light volume that hits it will draw polys (shadows or not) and the chances are it's going to need more than one light to fully illuminate it which will dublicate the tris for a feature that 'not important', i.e. it doesn't do anything other than look good.
So yes technically it can be done but it'll need a lot of work to make it FPS/runtime friendly.
I'm not even going to guess how many wholes there are that would need a shadowcasting texture btw!!
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:47 pm :
understood and good points kat
Kristus@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:50 pm :
If you ask me (which I realize none of you actually did, but I can't shut up so here goes) nothing in that scene would really warrant the modeling of the scene.
The ceiling is too heavy to manage really, this is a really quite big and open scene and that's gonna be taxing for the engine to handle. And since it's fairly high up, a texture tiled on a patch mesh would do the trick just fine. As for all the ground stuff, nothing of it is very intricate or complex. It easily handled by brushes and some patch meshes.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:50 pm :
ot: can the admins here ban Encetenpo45, all his posts seem to be totally ot and contain links to porn sites. its getting very annoying thinking there is an update to a thread I've been following, only to find its Encetenpo45 posting spam again
Bo$bevok@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:55 pm :
ratty i think its a spambot
ratty redemption@:
Doom3world • View topic - Subway Station Map
This is an early WiP of my first serious map i´m doing for Doom 3. It´s a subway station. I guess i can´t export everything as one model but will have to export it as several different models.
And i hope i can normal map these inset thingies on the outer hull of the structure.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Actually you can export everything as one model, and for an open space like this there is no reason not to (although this is easier in Max than it is in Maya). I would redesign the vault so you have a combinaton of some realtime shadows, and normal maps. Make a few prominent beams etc. It should be fun to light. You may have issues with AI in such a space, but I'm sure it will look good!
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:42 am Posts: 1171 Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
The dome will kill the framerate if you let it like this (for casting dynamic shadows), so maybe you should try to double dome's squares...
For AI, you could "inline" your model, and create the basic structures with "clip "brushes and "AIclip" to let them walk where you allow them.
I really love to see really new architectures maps, especially "open" areas!
_________________ If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit.
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 10:27 pm Posts: 404 Location: St. Catherines, Ontario Canada
Visually impressive, nice work!
Then comes texturing!, sounds, triggers, relays, script......
and ah yes lighting....an art in itself. have moving trains? see how it goes best luck with it looks great!
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry. It helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of both the level editor and a modelling program, so please do not become too dependent on making entire levels out of imported models.
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The design looks quite nice though, perhaps you should include a couple of round shapes (i.e. the handrails).
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:42 am Posts: 1171 Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
You can also use the Doom textures tiled into your 3D app, and for certain persons (like me ), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
_________________ If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
evilartist wrote:
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry.
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The UV mapping abilities of any modelling program are far more sophisitcated than DoomEdit's. You cant unwrap in DoomEdit silly!
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
_________________ My inevitable step into the world of professional game development is in sight...and when it happens, I will remember to thank this community for getting me started.
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4940 Location: UK, York
evilartist wrote:
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
It doesn't matter so *what* you use, it's *how* that counts. The map above will run like ass regardless - sorry about that Lumpy!
THe main issue here is the open-ness of the map, there's nothing there to do any blocking and using distance portals won't work becasue nothing to blocking the line of site to hide their effects.
The ceiling is better off as a normal map as rich_ said above, an object like that is drawing and wasting to many tris as a result of it being 'real', add light volumes to that and you've got problems with that many shadow volumes being cast at any one time.
The idea is great, but it's more of a visualistion than a game map so it'll need some serious 'compromising' to be done to idea (don't let that put you off btw Lumpengnom.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 943 Location: milton keynes, england
couldn't lumpy use that ceiling model as it is but with a noshadows casting material?
that would cut down on the number of shadow volumes being generated. also remember we can add in nodraw shadow casting parts of the models for when we want to fake the appearance of the visible model casting shadows.
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4940 Location: UK, York
Yeah that can be done but you always have to ask, is the feature worth the collosal polycount it's uses to be drawn?
Each light volume that hits it will draw polys (shadows or not) and the chances are it's going to need more than one light to fully illuminate it which will dublicate the tris for a feature that 'not important', i.e. it doesn't do anything other than look good.
So yes technically it can be done but it'll need a lot of work to make it FPS/runtime friendly.
I'm not even going to guess how many wholes there are that would need a shadowcasting texture btw!!
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 7:33 pm Posts: 1362 Location: In my pants.
If you ask me (which I realize none of you actually did, but I can't shut up so here goes) nothing in that scene would really warrant the modeling of the scene.
The ceiling is too heavy to manage really, this is a really quite big and open scene and that's gonna be taxing for the engine to handle. And since it's fairly high up, a texture tiled on a patch mesh would do the trick just fine. As for all the ground stuff, nothing of it is very intricate or complex. It easily handled by brushes and some patch meshes.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 943 Location: milton keynes, england
ot: can the admins here ban Encetenpo45, all his posts seem to be totally ot and contain links to porn sites. its getting very annoying thinking there is an update to a thread I've been following, only to find its Encetenpo45 posting spam again
This is an early WiP of my first serious map i´m doing for Doom 3. It´s a subway station. I guess i can´t export everything as one model but will have to export it as several different models.
And i hope i can normal map these inset thingies on the outer hull of the structure.
rich_is_bored@Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:21 pm :
You can normal map the dome but you won't get near the same illusion of depth.
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:16 am :
Actually you can export everything as one model, and for an open space like this there is no reason not to (although this is easier in Max than it is in Maya). I would redesign the vault so you have a combinaton of some realtime shadows, and normal maps. Make a few prominent beams etc. It should be fun to light. You may have issues with AI in such a space, but I'm sure it will look good!
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:59 am :
The dome will kill the framerate if you let it like this (for casting dynamic shadows), so maybe you should try to double dome's squares...
For AI, you could "inline" your model, and create the basic structures with "clip "brushes and "AIclip" to let them walk where you allow them.
I really love to see really new architectures maps, especially "open" areas!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:43 am :
I would like to see an open area mapped out and run with a decent framerate.
bladeghost@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:06 am :
Visually impressive, nice work!
Then comes texturing!, sounds, triggers, relays, script......
and ah yes lighting....an art in itself. have moving trains? see how it goes best luck with it looks great!
Jack Rammsdell@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:25 am :
It is very impressive work, what modeling app did you use?
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:14 am :
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry. It helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of both the level editor and a modelling program, so please do not become too dependent on making entire levels out of imported models.
Vladch@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:57 am :
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The design looks quite nice though, perhaps you should include a couple of round shapes (i.e. the handrails).
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:22 am :
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
You can also use the Doom textures tiled into your 3D app, and for certain persons (like me ), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
modern@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:05 am :
evilartist wrote:
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry.
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The UV mapping abilities of any modelling program are far more sophisitcated than DoomEdit's. You cant unwrap in DoomEdit silly!
evilartist@Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:08 pm :
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:40 am :
evilartist wrote:
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
It doesn't matter so *what* you use, it's *how* that counts. The map above will run like ass regardless - sorry about that Lumpy!
THe main issue here is the open-ness of the map, there's nothing there to do any blocking and using distance portals won't work becasue nothing to blocking the line of site to hide their effects.
The ceiling is better off as a normal map as rich_ said above, an object like that is drawing and wasting to many tris as a result of it being 'real', add light volumes to that and you've got problems with that many shadow volumes being cast at any one time.
The idea is great, but it's more of a visualistion than a game map so it'll need some serious 'compromising' to be done to idea (don't let that put you off btw Lumpengnom.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:47 pm :
couldn't lumpy use that ceiling model as it is but with a noshadows casting material?
that would cut down on the number of shadow volumes being generated. also remember we can add in nodraw shadow casting parts of the models for when we want to fake the appearance of the visible model casting shadows.
kat@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:28 pm :
Yeah that can be done but you always have to ask, is the feature worth the collosal polycount it's uses to be drawn?
Each light volume that hits it will draw polys (shadows or not) and the chances are it's going to need more than one light to fully illuminate it which will dublicate the tris for a feature that 'not important', i.e. it doesn't do anything other than look good.
So yes technically it can be done but it'll need a lot of work to make it FPS/runtime friendly.
I'm not even going to guess how many wholes there are that would need a shadowcasting texture btw!!
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:47 pm :
understood and good points kat
Kristus@Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:50 pm :
If you ask me (which I realize none of you actually did, but I can't shut up so here goes) nothing in that scene would really warrant the modeling of the scene.
The ceiling is too heavy to manage really, this is a really quite big and open scene and that's gonna be taxing for the engine to handle. And since it's fairly high up, a texture tiled on a patch mesh would do the trick just fine. As for all the ground stuff, nothing of it is very intricate or complex. It easily handled by brushes and some patch meshes.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:50 pm :
ot: can the admins here ban Encetenpo45, all his posts seem to be totally ot and contain links to porn sites. its getting very annoying thinking there is an update to a thread I've been following, only to find its Encetenpo45 posting spam again
This is an early WiP of my first serious map i´m doing for Doom 3. It´s a subway station. I guess i can´t export everything as one model but will have to export it as several different models.
And i hope i can normal map these inset thingies on the outer hull of the structure.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Actually you can export everything as one model, and for an open space like this there is no reason not to (although this is easier in Max than it is in Maya). I would redesign the vault so you have a combinaton of some realtime shadows, and normal maps. Make a few prominent beams etc. It should be fun to light. You may have issues with AI in such a space, but I'm sure it will look good!
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:42 am Posts: 1172 Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
The dome will kill the framerate if you let it like this (for casting dynamic shadows), so maybe you should try to double dome's squares...
For AI, you could "inline" your model, and create the basic structures with "clip "brushes and "AIclip" to let them walk where you allow them.
I really love to see really new architectures maps, especially "open" areas!
_________________ If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit.
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 10:27 pm Posts: 405 Location: St. Catherines, Ontario Canada
Visually impressive, nice work!
Then comes texturing!, sounds, triggers, relays, script......
and ah yes lighting....an art in itself. have moving trains? see how it goes best luck with it looks great!
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry. It helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of both the level editor and a modelling program, so please do not become too dependent on making entire levels out of imported models.
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The design looks quite nice though, perhaps you should include a couple of round shapes (i.e. the handrails).
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:42 am Posts: 1172 Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
You can also use the Doom textures tiled into your 3D app, and for certain persons (like me ), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
_________________ If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
evilartist wrote:
You really should make a lot of that in the map editor. Don't make everything static models when you can more easily make level geometry.
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
Vladch wrote:
Have "fun" texturing your model, because they will have pretty low-resolution textures if you export them as big models. (No megatexture technology for Doom 3 ) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
The UV mapping abilities of any modelling program are far more sophisitcated than DoomEdit's. You cant unwrap in DoomEdit silly!
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
_________________ My inevitable step into the world of professional game development is in sight...and when it happens, I will remember to thank this community for getting me started.
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4940 Location: UK, York
evilartist wrote:
Modern wrote:
The only advantage of using brushes is being able to generate visportals. Its always going to be easier and advantageous to make geometry in a dedicated modelling program.
There are other advantages to using geometry. Game A.I. recognizes soild brushes as obstacles and don't need to be clipped.
You should also consider map performance. I don't have enough knowledge with the latter, so can anyone tell us if the map will be less or more hardware demanding if you mostly use static models?
It doesn't matter so *what* you use, it's *how* that counts. The map above will run like ass regardless - sorry about that Lumpy!
THe main issue here is the open-ness of the map, there's nothing there to do any blocking and using distance portals won't work becasue nothing to blocking the line of site to hide their effects.
The ceiling is better off as a normal map as rich_ said above, an object like that is drawing and wasting to many tris as a result of it being 'real', add light volumes to that and you've got problems with that many shadow volumes being cast at any one time.
The idea is great, but it's more of a visualistion than a game map so it'll need some serious 'compromising' to be done to idea (don't let that put you off btw Lumpengnom.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 949 Location: milton keynes, england
couldn't lumpy use that ceiling model as it is but with a noshadows casting material?
that would cut down on the number of shadow volumes being generated. also remember we can add in nodraw shadow casting parts of the models for when we want to fake the appearance of the visible model casting shadows.
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4940 Location: UK, York
Yeah that can be done but you always have to ask, is the feature worth the collosal polycount it's uses to be drawn?
Each light volume that hits it will draw polys (shadows or not) and the chances are it's going to need more than one light to fully illuminate it which will dublicate the tris for a feature that 'not important', i.e. it doesn't do anything other than look good.
So yes technically it can be done but it'll need a lot of work to make it FPS/runtime friendly.
I'm not even going to guess how many wholes there are that would need a shadowcasting texture btw!!
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 7:33 pm Posts: 1369 Location: In my pants.
If you ask me (which I realize none of you actually did, but I can't shut up so here goes) nothing in that scene would really warrant the modeling of the scene.
The ceiling is too heavy to manage really, this is a really quite big and open scene and that's gonna be taxing for the engine to handle. And since it's fairly high up, a texture tiled on a patch mesh would do the trick just fine. As for all the ground stuff, nothing of it is very intricate or complex. It easily handled by brushes and some patch meshes.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 949 Location: milton keynes, england
ot: can the admins here ban Encetenpo45, all his posts seem to be totally ot and contain links to porn sites. its getting very annoying thinking there is an update to a thread I've been following, only to find its Encetenpo45 posting spam again
) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
Staff
) That's why it would be better to do the whole thing in the Doom 3 editor.
), it's easiest to UVWmap exactly like you want into Max (for example) rather than into Doomeditor...
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
