looks like a quake3:arena map, only with better lightning.
He means that the geometry is pretty basic in comparison to what the engine is capable of.
Looks pretty fly to me. Carry on 
find that kinda funny though, since quake3:arena didn't support bumpmaped textures, which this map is full of.
BumpMapping in Q3 is realizeable. You just need the newest Q3Map2!
To your map. Sry , but i don`t really like it.The architecture is okay, although its pretty basic, but there needs to be a much greater variation of textures and colour in used textures and lighting.
And on pic2 , u really should make that upper area not that linear, that hurts my eyes. Always try to get an unlinear architecture in DM Maps and avoid 90degrees "Winkel" on the horizontal layer!
Pic3: Sry but that area is ugly ( in my oppinion ), rebuild it and / or delete the second area above the first and make the lower area smaller....
it seems really empty, fill it with things to make it interesting
get some highlighting light in there. Too dark and too orange.
The Doom3 engine is capable of some truly awesome stuff. Take advantage of that 
What they said. Doom III is extremely detailed when it comes to objects and geometry, I'm sure you can get away with more detail. Add some skull things and demons and pentagrams or what have you!
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that it's a singleplayer map..meaning it will be filled with monsters and treasure chests and stuff. But I do agree, it needs more texture variation and more detail. But like I said, I will be detailing it later by giving it a nice ruined temple feel.
As for Doom3 and its geometry, it's no different from Quake3 as far as building it goes. It's not like there is some new feature in the engine that allows you to build abstract shapes that you couldn't before do. The thing is that when you start creating weird crazy shapes, they cast big ugly shadows that don't look right. You're supposed to use textures for most of your detail rather than crazy geometry. All the different map types (bump, specular, normal ect..), along with the lighting are what make the Doom3 engine so amazing, not geometry that was done 5 years ago. I'm not saying you need simple geometry, but not as detailed as games like Quake3 or UT.
But thanks for the comments
in doom 3 the lighting prevents funky shadows
do you not understand this?
Quote from W01fI'm confused. Are you saying they look bad? Are you trying to insult me, or just making an innocent comment?I find that kinda funny though, since quake3:arena didn't support bumpmaped textures, which this map is full of.
slightly paranoid?
if this was a hl map, i would say "poor brushwork" ... Now i dont know how mapping in doom3 engine works, so i cant say that in case you dont use brushes... Anyhow, you should make more details/interesting architecture. And do not belive that everyone is "after you".
There are two ways you're going to sell the normal maps:
1) multi-directional lighting and
2) good texture alignment using the edges well.
All the shots show what might as well be a giant noshadow fill light. It's difficult to tell there's even normal mapping on the textures.
In the second shot, the texture alignment is way off (and it almost looks like you're building on a weird grid ). When the textures get cut off away from an edge, things can look pretty bad. Use the natural edges and borders on the textures to your advantage. And break things up that way. Normal mapped edges on textures let you get away with brush/texture stacks that you couldn't get away with using only normal diffuse textures.
It's also not the number of lights, it's the number of overlapping lights. Don't be afraid to use small accents, projected lights, etc. etc. to bring out some detail and color. You're showing some good ideas and it's a cool texture set and whatnot; now just focus on making it work for you.
Quote from KungFuSquirrelThere are two ways you're going to sell the normal maps:1) multi-directional lighting and
2) good texture alignment using the edges well.
All the shots show what might as well be a giant noshadow fill light. It's difficult to tell there's even normal mapping on the textures.
In the second shot, the texture alignment is way off (and it almost looks like you're building on a weird grid
It's also not the number of lights, it's the number of overlapping lights. Don't be afraid to use small accents, projected lights, etc. etc. to bring out some detail and color. You're showing some good ideas and it's a cool texture set and whatnot; now just focus on making it work for you.
Yeah, in the second shot you're talking about that middle texture with writing on it? It's just that I had to scale the textures differently on that one wall, but I'll definately look into fixing it.
I have lots of overlapping lights, too...tho maybe not too noticable right now (might have to up the brightness). All of the flames have their own seperate light, and each room uses two large lights, both with shadows on. I do stop certain objects from casting shadows tho because sometimes it just doesn't look right (like the big pillars casting big dark shadows on opposite ends..)
Try a big fill light in the middle going out past the walls on the side for the pillar shadows, then light/lights as appropriate behind the pillars to fill it in. You should be able to get away with that little overdraw; shouldn't go over 3 to get a basic scheme down.
Quote from KungFuSquirrelTry a big fill light in the middle going out past the walls on the side for the pillar shadows, then light/lights as appropriate behind the pillars to fill it in. You should be able to get away with that little overdraw; shouldn't go over 3 to get a basic scheme down.
But then I won't be able to have lights for the flames 
Well I could, but at a pretty big hit to the frame rate.
Not if you use the lights from the flames themselves to fill in the areas behind the pillars.
If that's not what you're aiming for and you really want good lights on the flames, only extend the main fill light maybe halfway past the pillars, use an additional fill light behind, and then each light from the flame is only the second light pass on most faces aside of maybe part of the pillar (which would be at 3) if you size them well.
I don't expect you'll get it right on the first or second try, and neither should you. It's really tough to get the perfect balance of illumination and light count/shadow tris, but when you do hit the mark, the results really pop out at you... almost literally. hehe
Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!
