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.

Image

Image

Image



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! :D



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 :oops: ), 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!
:D



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!! :wink:



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 :roll:



Bo$bevok@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:55 pm :
ratty i think its a spambot :)



ratty redemption@ : Doom3world • View topic - Subway Station Map

Doom3world

The world is yours! Doom 3 - Quake 4 - ET:QW - Prey - Rage
It is currently Sun Dec 30, 2007 12:14 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Subway Station Map
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:04 pm 
Offline
picked up the chaingun
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:20 pm
Posts: 197
Location: Stuttgart / Germany
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.

Image

Image

Image

_________________
Leader / Pillars: Doom III Total Conversion

"There is no such thing as miracles or the supernatural... only cutting-edge
technology." ~Revolver Ocelot


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:21 pm 
Offline
a gun & a nice word
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2003 8:30 pm
Posts: 7557
Location: Orlando, FL
You can normal map the dome but you won't get near the same illusion of depth.

_________________
Image Staff
Learn something today? Why not write an article about it on modwiki.net?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:16 am 
Offline
missed 400 shots
User avatar

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!

_________________
http://creativecommons.org/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:59 am 
Offline
Last man standing
User avatar

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! :D

_________________
If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit. ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:43 am 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:12 pm
Posts: 820
Location: Area 19
I would like to see an open area mapped out and run with a decent framerate.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:06 am 
Offline
missed 400 shots
User avatar

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!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:25 am 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:12 pm
Posts: 820
Location: Area 19
It is very impressive work, what modeling app did you use?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:14 am 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 9:36 pm
Posts: 841
Location: California
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:57 am 
Offline
picked up 75 health

Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:19 am
Posts: 84
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).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:22 am 
Offline
Last man standing
User avatar

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 :oops: ), 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. ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:05 am 
Offline
missed 400 shots
User avatar

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!
:D

_________________
http://creativecommons.org/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:08 pm 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 9:36 pm
Posts: 841
Location: California
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?

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:40 am 
Offline
"...mostly harmless?!"
User avatar

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.

_________________
ImageCo-Admin - Modelling and modding tutorials and tips


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:47 pm 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

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.

_________________
(wip) ratty d3 hell map
katsbits.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:28 pm 
Offline
"...mostly harmless?!"
User avatar

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!! :wink:

_________________
ImageCo-Admin - Modelling and modding tutorials and tips


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:47 pm 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am
Posts: 951
Location: milton keynes, england
understood and good points kat :)

_________________
(wip) ratty d3 hell map
katsbits.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:50 pm 
Offline
respawned 1350 times
User avatar

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.

_________________
D3: Phobos - Co Leader, Artist.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:50 pm 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

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 :roll:

_________________
(wip) ratty d3 hell map
katsbits.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:55 pm 
Offline
missed 400 shots

Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 11:26 am
Posts: 481
Location: U.K. (but im south african)
ratty i think its a spambot :)

_________________
"Let me make myself clear: You might be the master of your universe, but D3W.org is mine. " - BNA!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:



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.

Image

Image

Image



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! :D



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 :oops: ), 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!
:D



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!! :wink:



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 :roll:



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.

Image

Image

Image



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! :D



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 :oops: ), 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!
:D



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!! :wink:



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 :roll:



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.

Image

Image

Image



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! :D



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 :oops: ), 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!
:D



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!! :wink:



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 :roll:



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.

Image

Image

Image



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! :D



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 :oops: ), 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!
:D



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!! :wink:



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 :roll:



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.

Image

Image

Image



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! :D



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 :oops: ), 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!
:D



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!! :wink:



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 :roll:



Bo$bevok@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:55 pm :
ratty i think its a spambot :)



ratty redemption@: Doom3world • View topic - Subway Station Map

Doom3world

The world is yours! Doom 3 - Quake 4 - ET:QW - Prey - Rage
It is currently Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:15 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Subway Station Map
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:04 pm 
Offline
picked up 200 ammo
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:20 pm
Posts: 201
Location: Stuttgart / Germany
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.

Image

Image

Image

_________________
Leader / Pillars: Doom III Total Conversion

"There is no such thing as miracles or the supernatural... only cutting-edge
technology." ~Revolver Ocelot


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:21 pm 
Offline
a gun & a nice word
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2003 8:30 pm
Posts: 7572
Location: Orlando, FL
You can normal map the dome but you won't get near the same illusion of depth.

_________________
Image Staff
Learn something today? Why not write an article about it on modwiki.net?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:16 am 
Offline
missed 400 shots
User avatar

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!

_________________
http://creativecommons.org/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:59 am 
Online
Last man standing
User avatar

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! :D

_________________
If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit. ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:43 am 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:12 pm
Posts: 829
Location: Area 19
I would like to see an open area mapped out and run with a decent framerate.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:06 am 
Offline
missed 400 shots
User avatar

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!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:25 am 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:12 pm
Posts: 829
Location: Area 19
It is very impressive work, what modeling app did you use?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:14 am 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 9:36 pm
Posts: 848
Location: California
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:57 am 
Offline
picked up 75 health

Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:19 am
Posts: 84
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).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:22 am 
Online
Last man standing
User avatar

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 :oops: ), 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. ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:05 am 
Offline
missed 400 shots
User avatar

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!
:D

_________________
http://creativecommons.org/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:08 pm 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 9:36 pm
Posts: 848
Location: California
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?

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:40 am 
Offline
"...mostly harmless?!"
User avatar

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.

_________________
ImageCo-Admin - Modelling and modding tutorials and tips


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:47 pm 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

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.

_________________
(wip) ratty d3 hell map
katsbits.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:28 pm 
Offline
"...mostly harmless?!"
User avatar

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!! :wink:

_________________
ImageCo-Admin - Modelling and modding tutorials and tips


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:47 pm 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am
Posts: 955
Location: milton keynes, england
understood and good points kat :)

_________________
(wip) ratty d3 hell map
katsbits.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:50 pm 
Offline
respawned 1350 times
User avatar

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.

_________________
D3: Phobos - Co Leader, Artist.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:50 pm 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

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 :roll:

_________________
(wip) ratty d3 hell map
katsbits.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:55 pm 
Offline
missed 400 shots

Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 11:26 am
Posts: 484
Location: U.K. (but im south african)
ratty i think its a spambot :)

_________________
"Let me make myself clear: You might be the master of your universe, but D3W.org is mine. " - BNA!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:



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.

Image

Image

Image



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! :D



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 :oops: ), 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!
:D



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!! :wink:



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 :roll:



Bo$bevok@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:55 pm :
ratty i think its a spambot :)



ratty redemption@: Doom3world • View topic - Subway Station Map

Doom3world

The world is yours! Doom 3 - Quake 4 - ET:QW - Prey - Rage
It is currently Mon Dec 24, 2007 6:04 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Subway Station Map
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:04 pm 
Offline
picked up the chaingun
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:20 pm
Posts: 197
Location: Stuttgart / Germany
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.

Image

Image

Image

_________________
Leader / Pillars: Doom III Total Conversion

"There is no such thing as miracles or the supernatural... only cutting-edge
technology." ~Revolver Ocelot


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:21 pm 
Offline
a gun & a nice word
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2003 8:30 pm
Posts: 7551
Location: Orlando, FL
You can normal map the dome but you won't get near the same illusion of depth.

_________________
Image Staff
Learn something today? Why not write an article about it on modwiki.net?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:16 am 
Offline
missed 400 shots
User avatar

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!

_________________
http://creativecommons.org/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:59 am 
Offline
Last man standing
User avatar

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! :D

_________________
If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit. ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:43 am 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:12 pm
Posts: 818
Location: Area 19
I would like to see an open area mapped out and run with a decent framerate.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:06 am 
Offline
missed 400 shots
User avatar

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!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:25 am 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:12 pm
Posts: 818
Location: Area 19
It is very impressive work, what modeling app did you use?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:14 am 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 9:36 pm
Posts: 841
Location: California
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:57 am 
Offline
picked up 75 health

Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:19 am
Posts: 84
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).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:22 am 
Offline
Last man standing
User avatar

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 :oops: ), 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. ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:05 am 
Offline
missed 400 shots
User avatar

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!
:D

_________________
http://creativecommons.org/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:08 pm 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 9:36 pm
Posts: 841
Location: California
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?

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:40 am 
Offline
"...mostly harmless?!"
User avatar

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.

_________________
ImageCo-Admin - Modelling and modding tutorials and tips


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:47 pm 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

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.

_________________
(wip) ratty d3 hell map
katsbits.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:28 pm 
Offline
"...mostly harmless?!"
User avatar

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!! :wink:

_________________
ImageCo-Admin - Modelling and modding tutorials and tips


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:47 pm 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am
Posts: 950
Location: milton keynes, england
understood and good points kat :)

_________________
(wip) ratty d3 hell map
katsbits.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:50 pm 
Offline
respawned 1350 times
User avatar

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.

_________________
D3: Phobos - Co Leader, Artist.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:50 pm 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

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 :roll:

_________________
(wip) ratty d3 hell map
katsbits.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:55 pm 
Offline
missed 400 shots

Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 11:26 am
Posts: 478
Location: U.K. (but im south african)
ratty i think its a spambot :)

_________________
"Let me make myself clear: You might be the master of your universe, but D3W.org is mine. " - BNA!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:



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.

Image

Image

Image



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! :D



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 :oops: ), 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!
:D



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!! :wink:



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 :roll:



Bo$bevok@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:55 pm :
ratty i think its a spambot :)



ratty redemption@ : Doom3world • View topic - Subway Station Map

Doom3world

The world is yours! Doom 3 - Quake 4 - ET:QW - Prey - Rage
It is currently Mon Feb 18, 2008 5:04 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Subway Station Map
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:04 pm 
Offline
picked up 200 ammo
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:20 pm
Posts: 208
Location: Stuttgart / Germany
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.

Image

Image

Image

_________________
Leader / Pillars: Doom III Total Conversion

"There is no such thing as miracles or the supernatural... only cutting-edge
technology." ~Revolver Ocelot


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:21 pm 
Offline
a gun & a nice word
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2003 8:30 pm
Posts: 7610
Location: Orlando, FL
You can normal map the dome but you won't get near the same illusion of depth.

_________________
Image Staff
Learn something today? Why not write an article about it on modwiki.net?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:16 am 
Offline
missed 400 shots
User avatar

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!

_________________
http://creativecommons.org/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:59 am 
Offline
Last man standing
User avatar

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! :D

_________________
Id tech 4 still amaze me. Good assets make good games.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:43 am 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:12 pm
Posts: 843
Location: Area 19
I would like to see an open area mapped out and run with a decent framerate.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:06 am 
Offline
missed 400 shots
User avatar

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!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:25 am 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:12 pm
Posts: 843
Location: Area 19
It is very impressive work, what modeling app did you use?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:14 am 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 9:36 pm
Posts: 859
Location: California
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:57 am 
Offline
picked up 75 health

Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:19 am
Posts: 84
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).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:22 am 
Offline
Last man standing
User avatar

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 :oops: ), 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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:05 am 
Offline
missed 400 shots
User avatar

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!
:D

_________________
http://creativecommons.org/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:08 pm 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 9:36 pm
Posts: 859
Location: California
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?

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:40 am 
Offline
"...mostly harmless?!"
User avatar

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.

_________________
ImageCo-Admin - Modelling and modding tutorials and tips


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:47 pm 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

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.

_________________
(wip) ratty d3 hell map
crazybump forums
katsbits


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:28 pm 
Offline
"...mostly harmless?!"
User avatar

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!! :wink:

_________________
ImageCo-Admin - Modelling and modding tutorials and tips


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:47 pm 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am
Posts: 974
Location: milton keynes, england
understood and good points kat :)

_________________
(wip) ratty d3 hell map
crazybump forums
katsbits


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:50 pm 
Offline
respawned 1350 times
User avatar

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.

_________________
D3: Phobos - Co Leader, Artist.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:50 pm 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

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 :roll:

_________________
(wip) ratty d3 hell map
crazybump forums
katsbits


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:55 pm 
Offline
missed 400 shots

Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 11:26 am
Posts: 488
Location: U.K. (but im south african)
ratty i think its a spambot :)

_________________
"Let me make myself clear: You might be the master of your universe, but D3W.org is mine. " - BNA!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:



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.

Image

Image

Image



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! :D



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 :oops: ), 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!
:D



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!! :wink:



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 :roll:



Bo$bevok@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:55 pm :
ratty i think its a spambot :)



ratty redemption@: Doom3world • View topic - Subway Station Map

Doom3world

The world is yours! Doom 3 - Quake 4 - ET:QW - Prey - Rage
It is currently Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:21 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Subway Station Map
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:04 pm 
Offline
picked up the chaingun
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:20 pm
Posts: 197
Location: Stuttgart / Germany
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.

Image

Image

Image

_________________
Leader / Pillars: Doom III Total Conversion

"There is no such thing as miracles or the supernatural... only cutting-edge
technology." ~Revolver Ocelot


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:21 pm 
Offline
a gun & a nice word
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2003 8:30 pm
Posts: 7544
Location: Orlando, FL
You can normal map the dome but you won't get near the same illusion of depth.

_________________
Image Staff
Learn something today? Why not write an article about it on modwiki.net?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:16 am 
Offline
missed 400 shots
User avatar

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!

_________________
http://creativecommons.org/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:59 am 
Offline
Last man standing
User avatar

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! :D

_________________
If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit. ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:43 am 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:12 pm
Posts: 817
Location: Area 19
I would like to see an open area mapped out and run with a decent framerate.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:06 am 
Offline
missed 400 shots
User avatar

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!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:25 am 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:12 pm
Posts: 817
Location: Area 19
It is very impressive work, what modeling app did you use?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:14 am 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 9:36 pm
Posts: 840
Location: California
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:57 am 
Offline
picked up 75 health

Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:19 am
Posts: 84
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).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:22 am 
Offline
Last man standing
User avatar

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 :oops: ), 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. ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:05 am 
Offline
missed 400 shots
User avatar

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!
:D

_________________
http://creativecommons.org/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:08 pm 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 9:36 pm
Posts: 840
Location: California
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?

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:40 am 
Offline
"...mostly harmless?!"
User avatar

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.

_________________
ImageCo-Admin - Modelling and modding tutorials and tips


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:47 pm 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

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.

_________________
(wip) ratty d3 hell map
katsbits.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:28 pm 
Offline
"...mostly harmless?!"
User avatar

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!! :wink:

_________________
ImageCo-Admin - Modelling and modding tutorials and tips


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:47 pm 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am
Posts: 943
Location: milton keynes, england
understood and good points kat :)

_________________
(wip) ratty d3 hell map
katsbits.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:50 pm 
Offline
respawned 1350 times
User avatar

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.

_________________
D3: Phobos - Co Leader, Artist.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:50 pm 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

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 :roll:

_________________
(wip) ratty d3 hell map
katsbits.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:55 pm 
Offline
missed 400 shots

Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 11:26 am
Posts: 478
Location: U.K. (but im south african)
ratty i think its a spambot :)

_________________
"Let me make myself clear: You might be the master of your universe, but D3W.org is mine. " - BNA!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:



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.

Image

Image

Image



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! :D



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 :oops: ), 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!
:D



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!! :wink:



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 :roll:



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 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.






_________________
Leader / Pillars: Doom III Total Conversion

"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! Very Happy



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 Sad ) 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 Sad ) 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 Embarassed ), 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!
Very Happy
_________________
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.

Image

Image

Image



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! :D



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 :oops: ), 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!
:D



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!! :wink:



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 :roll:



Bo$bevok@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:55 pm :
ratty i think its a spambot :)



ratty redemption@: Doom3world • View topic - Subway Station Map

Doom3world

The world is yours! Doom 3 - Quake 4 - ET:QW - Prey - Rage
It is currently Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:55 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Subway Station Map
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:04 pm 
Offline
picked up the chaingun
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:20 pm
Posts: 199
Location: Stuttgart / Germany
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.

Image

Image

Image

_________________
Leader / Pillars: Doom III Total Conversion

"There is no such thing as miracles or the supernatural... only cutting-edge
technology." ~Revolver Ocelot


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:21 pm 
Offline
a gun & a nice word
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2003 8:30 pm
Posts: 7565
Location: Orlando, FL
You can normal map the dome but you won't get near the same illusion of depth.

_________________
Image Staff
Learn something today? Why not write an article about it on modwiki.net?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:16 am 
Offline
missed 400 shots
User avatar

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!

_________________
http://creativecommons.org/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:59 am 
Offline
Last man standing
User avatar

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! :D

_________________
If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit. ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:43 am 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:12 pm
Posts: 824
Location: Area 19
I would like to see an open area mapped out and run with a decent framerate.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:06 am 
Offline
missed 400 shots
User avatar

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!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:25 am 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:12 pm
Posts: 824
Location: Area 19
It is very impressive work, what modeling app did you use?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:14 am 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 9:36 pm
Posts: 842
Location: California
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:57 am 
Offline
picked up 75 health

Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:19 am
Posts: 84
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).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:22 am 
Offline
Last man standing
User avatar

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 :oops: ), 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. ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:05 am 
Offline
missed 400 shots
User avatar

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!
:D

_________________
http://creativecommons.org/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:08 pm 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 9:36 pm
Posts: 842
Location: California
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?

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:40 am 
Offline
"...mostly harmless?!"
User avatar

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.

_________________
ImageCo-Admin - Modelling and modding tutorials and tips


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:47 pm 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

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.

_________________
(wip) ratty d3 hell map
katsbits.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:28 pm 
Offline
"...mostly harmless?!"
User avatar

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!! :wink:

_________________
ImageCo-Admin - Modelling and modding tutorials and tips


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:47 pm 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am
Posts: 951
Location: milton keynes, england
understood and good points kat :)

_________________
(wip) ratty d3 hell map
katsbits.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:50 pm 
Offline
respawned 1350 times
User avatar

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.

_________________
D3: Phobos - Co Leader, Artist.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:50 pm 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

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 :roll:

_________________
(wip) ratty d3 hell map
katsbits.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:55 pm 
Offline
missed 400 shots

Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 11:26 am
Posts: 483
Location: U.K. (but im south african)
ratty i think its a spambot :)

_________________
"Let me make myself clear: You might be the master of your universe, but D3W.org is mine. " - BNA!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:



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.

Image

Image

Image



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! :D



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 :oops: ), 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!
:D



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!! :wink:



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 :roll:



Bo$bevok@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:55 pm :
ratty i think its a spambot :)



ratty redemption@: Doom3world • View topic - Subway Station Map

Doom3world

The world is yours! Doom 3 - Quake 4 - ET:QW - Prey - Rage
It is currently Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:09 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Subway Station Map
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:04 pm 
Offline
picked up the chaingun
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:20 pm
Posts: 197
Location: Stuttgart / Germany
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.

Image

Image

Image

_________________
Leader / Pillars: Doom III Total Conversion

"There is no such thing as miracles or the supernatural... only cutting-edge
technology." ~Revolver Ocelot


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:21 pm 
Offline
a gun & a nice word
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2003 8:30 pm
Posts: 7544
Location: Orlando, FL
You can normal map the dome but you won't get near the same illusion of depth.

_________________
Image Staff
Learn something today? Why not write an article about it on modwiki.net?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:16 am 
Offline
missed 400 shots
User avatar

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!

_________________
http://creativecommons.org/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:59 am 
Offline
Last man standing
User avatar

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! :D

_________________
If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit. ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:43 am 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:12 pm
Posts: 817
Location: Area 19
I would like to see an open area mapped out and run with a decent framerate.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:06 am 
Offline
missed 400 shots
User avatar

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!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:25 am 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:12 pm
Posts: 817
Location: Area 19
It is very impressive work, what modeling app did you use?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:14 am 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 9:36 pm
Posts: 840
Location: California
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:57 am 
Offline
picked up 75 health

Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:19 am
Posts: 84
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).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:22 am 
Offline
Last man standing
User avatar

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 :oops: ), 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. ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:05 am 
Offline
missed 400 shots
User avatar

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!
:D

_________________
http://creativecommons.org/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:08 pm 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 9:36 pm
Posts: 840
Location: California
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?

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:40 am 
Offline
"...mostly harmless?!"
User avatar

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.

_________________
ImageCo-Admin - Modelling and modding tutorials and tips


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:47 pm 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

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.

_________________
(wip) ratty d3 hell map
katsbits.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:28 pm 
Offline
"...mostly harmless?!"
User avatar

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!! :wink:

_________________
ImageCo-Admin - Modelling and modding tutorials and tips


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:47 pm 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am
Posts: 946
Location: milton keynes, england
understood and good points kat :)

_________________
(wip) ratty d3 hell map
katsbits.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:50 pm 
Offline
respawned 1350 times
User avatar

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.

_________________
D3: Phobos - Co Leader, Artist.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:50 pm 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

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 :roll:

_________________
(wip) ratty d3 hell map
katsbits.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:55 pm 
Offline
missed 400 shots

Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 11:26 am
Posts: 478
Location: U.K. (but im south african)
ratty i think its a spambot :)

_________________
"Let me make myself clear: You might be the master of your universe, but D3W.org is mine. " - BNA!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:



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.

Image

Image

Image



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! :D



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 :oops: ), 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!
:D



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!! :wink:



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 :roll:



Bo$bevok@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:55 pm :
ratty i think its a spambot :)



ratty redemption@: Doom3world • View topic - Subway Station Map

Doom3world

The world is yours! Doom 3 - Quake 4 - ET:QW - Prey - Rage
It is currently Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:15 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Subway Station Map
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:04 pm 
Offline
picked up 200 ammo
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:20 pm
Posts: 206
Location: Stuttgart / Germany
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.

Image

Image

Image

_________________
Leader / Pillars: Doom III Total Conversion

"There is no such thing as miracles or the supernatural... only cutting-edge
technology." ~Revolver Ocelot


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:21 pm 
Offline
a gun & a nice word
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2003 8:30 pm
Posts: 7574
Location: Orlando, FL
You can normal map the dome but you won't get near the same illusion of depth.

_________________
Image Staff
Learn something today? Why not write an article about it on modwiki.net?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:16 am 
Offline
missed 400 shots
User avatar

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!

_________________
http://creativecommons.org/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:59 am 
Offline
Last man standing
User avatar

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! :D

_________________
If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit. ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:43 am 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:12 pm
Posts: 832
Location: Area 19
I would like to see an open area mapped out and run with a decent framerate.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:06 am 
Offline
missed 400 shots
User avatar

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!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:25 am 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:12 pm
Posts: 832
Location: Area 19
It is very impressive work, what modeling app did you use?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:14 am 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 9:36 pm
Posts: 851
Location: California
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:57 am 
Offline
picked up 75 health

Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:19 am
Posts: 84
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).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:22 am 
Offline
Last man standing
User avatar

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 :oops: ), 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. ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:05 am 
Offline
missed 400 shots
User avatar

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!
:D

_________________
http://creativecommons.org/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:08 pm 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 9:36 pm
Posts: 851
Location: California
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?

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:40 am 
Offline
"...mostly harmless?!"
User avatar

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.

_________________
ImageCo-Admin - Modelling and modding tutorials and tips


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:47 pm 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

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.

_________________
(wip) ratty d3 hell map
katsbits.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:28 pm 
Offline
"...mostly harmless?!"
User avatar

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!! :wink:

_________________
ImageCo-Admin - Modelling and modding tutorials and tips


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:47 pm 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am
Posts: 964
Location: milton keynes, england
understood and good points kat :)

_________________
(wip) ratty d3 hell map
katsbits.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:50 pm 
Offline
respawned 1350 times
User avatar

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.

_________________
D3: Phobos - Co Leader, Artist.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:50 pm 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

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 :roll:

_________________
(wip) ratty d3 hell map
katsbits.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:55 pm 
Offline
missed 400 shots

Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 11:26 am
Posts: 487
Location: U.K. (but im south african)
ratty i think its a spambot :)

_________________
"Let me make myself clear: You might be the master of your universe, but D3W.org is mine. " - BNA!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:



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.

Image

Image

Image



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! :D



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 :oops: ), 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!
:D



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!! :wink:



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 :roll:



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.

Image

Image

Image



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! :D



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 :oops: ), 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!
:D



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!! :wink:



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 :roll:



Bo$bevok@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:55 pm :
ratty i think its a spambot :)



ratty redemption@: Doom3world • View topic - Subway Station Map

Doom3world

The world is yours! Doom 3 - Quake 4 - ET:QW - Prey - Rage
It is currently Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:54 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Subway Station Map
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:04 pm 
Offline
picked up the chaingun
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:20 pm
Posts: 199
Location: Stuttgart / Germany
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.

Image

Image

Image

_________________
Leader / Pillars: Doom III Total Conversion

"There is no such thing as miracles or the supernatural... only cutting-edge
technology." ~Revolver Ocelot


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:21 pm 
Offline
a gun & a nice word
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2003 8:30 pm
Posts: 7565
Location: Orlando, FL
You can normal map the dome but you won't get near the same illusion of depth.

_________________
Image Staff
Learn something today? Why not write an article about it on modwiki.net?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:16 am 
Offline
missed 400 shots
User avatar

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!

_________________
http://creativecommons.org/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:59 am 
Offline
Last man standing
User avatar

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! :D

_________________
If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit. ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:43 am 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:12 pm
Posts: 824
Location: Area 19
I would like to see an open area mapped out and run with a decent framerate.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:06 am 
Offline
missed 400 shots
User avatar

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!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:25 am 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:12 pm
Posts: 824
Location: Area 19
It is very impressive work, what modeling app did you use?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:14 am 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 9:36 pm
Posts: 842
Location: California
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:57 am 
Offline
picked up 75 health

Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:19 am
Posts: 84
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).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:22 am 
Offline
Last man standing
User avatar

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 :oops: ), 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. ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:05 am 
Offline
missed 400 shots
User avatar

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!
:D

_________________
http://creativecommons.org/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:08 pm 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 9:36 pm
Posts: 842
Location: California
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?

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:40 am 
Offline
"...mostly harmless?!"
User avatar

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.

_________________
ImageCo-Admin - Modelling and modding tutorials and tips


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:47 pm 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

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.

_________________
(wip) ratty d3 hell map
katsbits.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:28 pm 
Offline
"...mostly harmless?!"
User avatar

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!! :wink:

_________________
ImageCo-Admin - Modelling and modding tutorials and tips


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:47 pm 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am
Posts: 951
Location: milton keynes, england
understood and good points kat :)

_________________
(wip) ratty d3 hell map
katsbits.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:50 pm 
Offline
respawned 1350 times
User avatar

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.

_________________
D3: Phobos - Co Leader, Artist.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:50 pm 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

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 :roll:

_________________
(wip) ratty d3 hell map
katsbits.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:55 pm 
Offline
missed 400 shots

Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 11:26 am
Posts: 482
Location: U.K. (but im south african)
ratty i think its a spambot :)

_________________
"Let me make myself clear: You might be the master of your universe, but D3W.org is mine. " - BNA!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:



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.

Image

Image

Image



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! :D



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 :oops: ), 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!
:D



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!! :wink:



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 :roll:



Bo$bevok@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:55 pm :
ratty i think its a spambot :)



ratty redemption@: Doom3world • View topic - Subway Station Map

Doom3world

The world is yours! Doom 3 - Quake 4 - ET:QW - Prey - Rage
It is currently Tue Dec 25, 2007 2:52 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Subway Station Map
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:04 pm 
Offline
picked up the chaingun
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:20 pm
Posts: 197
Location: Stuttgart / Germany
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.

Image

Image

Image

_________________
Leader / Pillars: Doom III Total Conversion

"There is no such thing as miracles or the supernatural... only cutting-edge
technology." ~Revolver Ocelot


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:21 pm 
Offline
a gun & a nice word
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2003 8:30 pm
Posts: 7553
Location: Orlando, FL
You can normal map the dome but you won't get near the same illusion of depth.

_________________
Image Staff
Learn something today? Why not write an article about it on modwiki.net?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:16 am 
Offline
missed 400 shots
User avatar

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!

_________________
http://creativecommons.org/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:59 am 
Offline
Last man standing
User avatar

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! :D

_________________
If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit. ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:43 am 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:12 pm
Posts: 818
Location: Area 19
I would like to see an open area mapped out and run with a decent framerate.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:06 am 
Offline
missed 400 shots
User avatar

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!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:25 am 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:12 pm
Posts: 818
Location: Area 19
It is very impressive work, what modeling app did you use?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:14 am 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 9:36 pm
Posts: 841
Location: California
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:57 am 
Offline
picked up 75 health

Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:19 am
Posts: 84
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).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:22 am 
Offline
Last man standing
User avatar

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 :oops: ), 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. ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:05 am 
Offline
missed 400 shots
User avatar

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!
:D

_________________
http://creativecommons.org/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:08 pm 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 9:36 pm
Posts: 841
Location: California
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?

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:40 am 
Offline
"...mostly harmless?!"
User avatar

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.

_________________
ImageCo-Admin - Modelling and modding tutorials and tips


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:47 pm 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

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.

_________________
(wip) ratty d3 hell map
katsbits.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:28 pm 
Offline
"...mostly harmless?!"
User avatar

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!! :wink:

_________________
ImageCo-Admin - Modelling and modding tutorials and tips


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:47 pm 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am
Posts: 950
Location: milton keynes, england
understood and good points kat :)

_________________
(wip) ratty d3 hell map
katsbits.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:50 pm 
Offline
respawned 1350 times
User avatar

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.

_________________
D3: Phobos - Co Leader, Artist.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:50 pm 
Offline
did just hit his 750th monster
User avatar

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 :roll:

_________________
(wip) ratty d3 hell map
katsbits.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:55 pm 
Offline
missed 400 shots

Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 11:26 am
Posts: 478
Location: U.K. (but im south african)
ratty i think its a spambot :)

_________________
"Let me make myself clear: You might be the master of your universe, but D3W.org is mine. " - BNA!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:



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.

Image

Image

Image



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! :D



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).</