WIP in WIP, post your level screenshots!

    looking great Albatros

    The only thing I noticed is the buildings dont seem to be casting very defined directional shadows. If you look in the bottom right of the first picture, the street light doesn't seem to be casting a shadow. Is that because the weather is overcast?

    it's not whether it's a problem, it's just that it doesn't look right. right now it's just a minor thing on a facade, but i could imagine it being an immersion breaker if you place larger versions of the same over your map. war might make odd shapes, but the laws of physics still apply.

    Hi Sentura,

    I don't intend to place anything in the map that doesn't make sense from the logical

    point of view.

    Those bricks up there would doubtlessly be held together by mortar, and there is no reason

    to believe such a structure would collapse immediately, since I've literally seen thousands of

    pictures of similar ruins. Which is the point where I take the liberty of trusting my own judgement

    more than that of others who - just an assumption of mine - haven't made the same effort.

    Now, I could start a poll for any controversial detail on the maps, and I'm sure there would

    pretty often be a 50/50 situation where people like a detail that others dislike, and in all

    of those situations, I'd choose to keep that detail if I like it that way.

    The problem is, between those bricks shown in the upper picture and, for example, these:

    [Blocked Image: http://www.albatros44.de/aachen/aachen_0409_d01.jpg]

    ... there's hardly any difference. Yet, if I was consequent, I'd use neither and, if I continued

    combing out my maps for any debatable thing I'd need to abandon tons of interesting minor

    detail, which I'm not willing to do.

    I've had this discussion many times over the years, and it's not getting any more interesting.

    So, all I can say is: I don't think it doesn't look right.

    Cheers,

    Til

    P.S.: still glad about any helpful feedback!

    Quote

    Albatros":vycnnpre]bricks... held together by mortar

    Quote

    Albatros":vycnnpre]bricks... held together by mortar

    Quote

    Albatros":vycnnpre]bricks... held together by mortar

    I think the problem is that the shape doesn't really fit with how brick walls collapse. In the majority of cases, the wall will always form a curve with either a thicker section of bricks above (if the wall lost its structural integrity from below) or below (if the wall fell and "peeled" away).

    [Blocked Image: http://i44.tinypic.com/110ykqw.jpg]

    Collapse from below:

    [Blocked Image: http://i39.tinypic.com/5la33t.jpg]

    The wall here is supported because it's load bearing (and so much thicker) and can support itself even when the bottom part has been pulled away when the front of the building collapsed.

    [Blocked Image: http://i40.tinypic.com/oa8y0m.jpg]

    Collapse from above:

    [Blocked Image: http://i42.tinypic.com/23jr8f8.jpg]

    [Blocked Image: http://i42.tinypic.com/16lg0i8.jpg]

    [Blocked Image: http://i43.tinypic.com/20b1mqd.jpg]

    [Blocked Image: http://i40.tinypic.com/2nvtr3p.jpg]

    [Blocked Image: http://i39.tinypic.com/2ia8lg8.jpg]

    I think in your example the wall would have been pulled (peeled) away as the roof collapsed and would leave behind something like this:

    [Blocked Image: http://i42.tinypic.com/123m9p1.jpg]

    [Blocked Image: http://i39.tinypic.com/2wfl0xs.jpg]

    Thanks Narby for pointing that out again.

    As you said, you're marking some "typical" lines of collapsing walls there.

    I also do get your point and I do know that the typical line has to be the

    guideline in most of the places in a map. But I don't think it's that much

    of a contradiction to use bricks the way I do, taking your images as

    example...

    [Blocked Image: http://www.albatros44.de/aachen/a01a.JPG]

    [Blocked Image: http://www.albatros44.de/aachen/a01b.JPG]

    [Blocked Image: http://www.albatros44.de/aachen/a01c.JPG]

    [Blocked Image: http://www.albatros44.de/aachen/a01d.JPG]

    [Blocked Image: http://www.albatros44.de/aachen/a01e.JPG]

    Seriously, I don't think this is leading anywhere.

    P.S.: Basically, I can fix that one line, and it does need at least to have

    that gap closed, that much I admit . But there's always a why, why *that*

    particular set of bricks might have an additional support, and why *this*

    wall-bit looks out of place... it's just a matter of spotting it, accepting it

    as possible and leaving the rest to the author, as long as it's not totally

    out of place. My opinion, but I'll stick with it for now.

    Cheers,

    Til

    it's just constructive criticism, you can take it or leave it. however, i would keep in mind how many people have voiced the same concern; there might be something about it.

    (not that popularity should be an excuse for anything)

    I think the problem becomes much more apparent when you have a seam of bricks that then have a row missing below which gives the impression the remainder are floating which is made worse by the face the bricks are quite large in size so they tend to stick out a bit more. At the end of the day, this is harmless feedback that you can take or leave, but the fact is it stuck out to a few people and looked odd on an otherwise impressive building.

    Hey again,

    yeah, there have been pros and cons, and, frankly, I did show those shots around

    on lots of communities and - as always -, opinions were very much divided.

    I'll pass those first bricks a piece of supporting wall for the next compile so the gap

    (which is what you refer to as the missing row of bricks, that kind of "floating" effect)

    is closed and there's some downwards-curving in the bricks, but I don't think this'll

    change that much. The missing row of bricks, that I can understand and it needs fixing;

    but as for the normal collapsing wall of bricks that looks just like "cut off", I know it's

    a thing that just simply exists, even though it may look odd at first.

    Sentura:

    I already answered that on the last page. I'm always glad about useful feedback, but

    for this particular discussion, please check my last postings again and you'll find that I

    did in fact give this problem a lot of thought and I've come to a conclusion over the past

    six or seven years. If it's not the bricks, then it's something else that stirrs up the same

    kind of discussion where people have a tendency to either like or dislike a feature/detail,

    sometimes with good reasons on both sides. That's no arrogance of mine by refusing to

    take advice, not at all , and I really don't want to be misunderstood there.

    Cheers,

    Til

    Those sections you have highlighted don't go against anything Narby said, he was emphasizing how the forces on a collapsing wall will depend on how it was taken down. Almost all the sections you have highlighted are where the wall has sheered away as a result of the weight from the other structural failures.

    While you could made a technical case for exacting scenarios that would result in the arrangements you have used, they would be extremely unlikely and to many people it will make what you have there look un-natural. In such a beautiful scene that has some extremely realistic shapes it is a shame to shock the player out of the illusion by presenting them with an artificial looking form.

    Quote

    Those sections you have highlighted don't go against anything Narby said, he was emphasizing how the forces on a collapsing wall will depend on how it was taken down. Almost all the sections you have highlighted are where the wall has sheered away as a result of the weight from the other structural failures.While you could made a technical case for exacting scenarios that would result in the arrangements you have used, they would be extremely unlikely and to many people it will make what you have there look un-natural. In such a beautiful scene that has some extremely realistic shapes it is a shame to shock the player out of the illusion by presenting them with an artificial looking form.

    Alright,

    I guess keeping my position now would make me look rather stubborn

    As I said before, I'll gladly fill up the most "likely to collapse" parts of those bricks and then give you guys an update & see what happens. I still fail to see the shocking dimension of this brickwork though, and I - honestly - wouldn't have noticed it myself.

    The idea behind placing those bricks was to keep a line of them next to the concrete beams / pillars, so they wouldn't look all "naked" - an idea I got from my ruins picture collection, once again.

    But yeah, I'll just add some supporting elements/additional brickwork around the most fragile spots and maybe the problem will be solved then.

    Cheers

    Quote from Campaignjunkie

    Almost done with part 2 (of 3) of my single player project. Sending it out to beta testers this weekend, most likely. It feels good to nearly be done with it... until the testers point out how terrible it is and how I'll have to redo everything.

    I want to know more ^^

    If you need more testers I'm up for it.

    God damn. It's been too fucking long since I stepped foot in this thread. That was probably over 200 pages ago. hi guys.

    I'll post some screens of the ancient shit fest that I'm working on probably sometime tomorrow. Cheers.

    Quote from DvS

    I want to know more ^^

    If you need more testers I'm up for it.

    DvS (and anyone else for that matter) - PM me your e-mail address if you want to test... well, with the intention of e-mailing me back some feedback using your keen sense of level design. (Though lately I've found sitting down random friends and watching them, aka the Valve method, is strangely compelling and also horrifying.)

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!

Register Yourself Login