Posts by Dranore

Hmm... honestly... it's not a bad idea.

The map will be my map for the first release of my mod. The mod will be developed for Source. We're starting with multiplayer, and depending on how things go, then create a single player experience. I could write an entire post about it, hehehe... but that's not really what this post is for. I just realized I didn't have a link to it in my profile. So I added one if you're interested in reading about it. It's a sequel to a mod for HL called Existence. Anyways back to subject...

Within the construct of the game... It *could* be possible to have a message display with a voice over radioing in saying something like... "What are you doing!? Get back to the target area!" Or something... It's still kinda evil... but I in certain ways it's no less evil than making some stupid obstruction that doesn't make any real sense. Then as you mention, you can really have the map go on as far as the eye can see theoretically. It's something kind of obvious that I seem to have overlooked. Again though, what do others think about that kind of warning? I guess it kind of depends on the context of the usage and how it's presented. In the worst case scenario it feels out of place, breaks the reality of the game, and basicly says, "Bad player! No!" If it works within the style of the game and doesn't look like a Fatal Error message I could see it being a feasible solution... even in combination with the 'logical obstructions' mentioned. In that way even if the player does circumvent the conceptual barrier you still have the message telling them to go back with the push barrier. That way you don't have any silly clip brushes keeping the player from jumping over obsticals and solves the verticle and horizontal dilema. Again though, so far it sounds like the best solution but I think you could make a solid arguement against it for the "Bad Player!" reasons. People could find that much more rediculous than simply preventing them from doing so. I guess it depends on the attitude of the player... which is one of those varaibles that's pretty unpredicatable in a lot of cases. Particularly with FPS titles as they have alot of applications and broad appeal for people who might enjoy completely different titles in other reguards.

-Dranore

Hmm... interesting replies.

One thing I should also note is that the nature of my mod creates vertical as well as horizontal problems. I'm ignoring that for the sake of this discussion. There are ways to deal with that in certain respects, but anyways...

I created a similar image to the one above of the actual situation I'm trying to comprehend. Allow me to rock your world.

[Blocked Image: http://www.existence2.com/dranore/ol2.gif]

Wow. Flooring. I know. I'm with you. hehe...

Anyways... you'll notice some new colors joining the party. Green/Black/White will reprise their roles as Intersections that need blocking/Blocks/Roads respectively. Light grey will be joining the cast as sidewalks(!!!) and Dark grey will be the afore mentioned extended block that covers some of the possible green with buildingness. Understand that this layout is still preliminary as I have decided exactly what I'm looking to do yet with the whole map. I've been working on it in chuncks so things will change. But disclaimers aside...

Yeah. Sidewalks. With streets come sidewalks. :\ It's an unfortunate reality... fortunate in reality though. hehe... My problem is that I really want the city to at least give the illusion of being feasible city blocks without having to box them in extremely obviously. I COULD remove some of the greens and just turn them into a corner. That's not an huge deal, the problem is that I don't want to do to all 4 corners of the maps. I could also do the building extensions over the greens in the central areas in the top and bottom. Doing those two things would eliminate all problems..... kinda. But then the player is in a big Box... and it looks like a big box... :\ I thought about cornering one or two of the main corners but I haven't decided yet. I will also DEFINITELY be using the "going underground tactic at least once.

Lemme respond to some of your ideas... you have some pretty good ones.

OL:

Natural disasters would work alot like the warzone scenario. Doesn't work in my situation, but it should definitely go on the list of posibilities.

Fullauto:

Fast Moving Traffic - A good idea, except that we may have scripted cars driving around anyways. Even if not... I'd like to keep the whole road itself open without having a giant stream of fast moving cars to mow down any overly explorative player. Would work well on a highway situation. That could work on an edge like a river... again. Not in my situation but a good thought none the less.

Service Vehicles (Delivery Vans, garbage trucks, etc.) - Interesting idea. This could work well in the situation of the road. Doesn't really work for sidewalks.

The one block situation is definitely a nightmare... I can think of situations where it could work... say a building hostage situation where you have police cordon off all the streets around the building. But that's why I posted my actual situation. It's more practical and in other ways worse. hehe...

Zaphod:

Car Accidents - Good idea. This could get the sidewalk too.

Broken Stoplight - heheh... it'd be funny, but the sidewalk situation would remain.

Freeway Onramps - This is sorta the go underground idea in reverse. The road system in my map is subterranean primarily, but the idea is still a good one.

Tunnel Traffic - I'm using this gimick for another part of the map.

Stalled Big Rig - hehe... another funny idea. This might could work, the only reason it might not is that big rigs usually aren't allowed in dense urban areas. However, as a one time gimik it could work... again... in my situation I don't really think so.

Toll Booth - I'm using this one too in conjunction with the tunnel thing. Those two are used on that central strip of white.

Insta:

Heheh... I'm in agreement with ya to a certain extent. But that's why I posted here. hehe... There is a backstory of course. But it's nothing of that nature. In fact it's suppose to be a somewhat covert operation... so if crazyness was already going on, then it wouldn't be a very good time to undertake the operation.

It for some reason strikes me as strange that creating a realistic map should be so difficult without needing some rediculous scenario to create boundries. I guess that's the nature of reality. We aren't really prevented from going in any direction when navigating in real life... so unless there's a parade or marathon (LAME) going on that circumscribes the map... it's tough to do. Clearly many of today's engines can support rather large city envioronments, but for the sake of gameplay one needs to control their actions to keep players from wandering endlessly as if playing Stalker. No offense intended of course. hehe... Just in most multiplayer environments, to keep the pace up clearly there must be some control involved.

I'm trying to recall urban games of days past. Deus Ex and Max Payne come to mind the most quickly. Deus Ex had fairly overtly controled enviornments in genereal... The Hanger, Liberty Island, UNATCO headquarters, Shipyard, there is a couple city blocks as I recal and I think they had alot of dead ends and the afforementioned cornering. Max Payne takes place primarily in interiors making you go outside for only short periods... but nature was motivating that one as it was "the worst snow storm in recorded history." Oh gimicks. hehehe...

Anyways. I'm rambling again. I appreciate everyone's thoughts. If you have anything else to add, I'd love to hear it.

-Dranore

Wow. Have to agree about it looking like a floor, but it's still great. Is it all painted or did you use alot of photosource or did you use bits of old textures you'd worked on? Just curious. Seems like alot of work to accomplish in an hour.

-Dranore

There don't seem to be many posts here discussing much in the way of mapping theory, and it is something I enjoy discussing. In anycase, I figured I'd post something I'd been thinking about lately.

I've been working on a design for a urban map. This doesn't only apply to my map of course, but it's how I came across the quandry. If you're map takes place in a city, a modern western city not in a state of war, how do you logically obstruct players from going down every road? Take for example one city block.

[Blocked Image: http://www.existence2.com/dranore/ol1.gif]

If you look above you'll see the block itself in black. The surrounding square of road in white, and all of the continuances of roads in green. Now the map I'm working on is larger than one block of course, but just as an example. There are, for this one block 8 different roads that I'd need to obstruct in some way that doesn't make the player go, "That's rediculous. I wanna go down there."

Within the construct of a fictional realm there are many ways to do this. In a situation where war is present, you can have all kinds of debris, from abandoned vehicles, destroyed building parts, etc. You can also have roads and paths destroyed by the "enemy." In scifi you can have bizzare corridors and really create a path that works for you with disreguard for the realities of designing for that enviorment. A game based, at least in look, on reality has more constraints. Expecially in the manmade realm where we've imposed order, and an order that is somewhat predictable. Nature has the same benefits as scifi in that you can build paths and chaoticly meander about without anyone really noticing as it actually the reality of nature.

I've been strugling coming up with ways to control my players movments. A few things I've thought of.

Roadwork/Construction - One, two, maybe three roads could have this done to them if you really wanted to push it.

Emergency Blockades - Fire trucks, police blockades, what have you. This isn't really appropriate for my situation, but works in the modern realm conceptually.

Unusually Shaped Blocks - In a situation where you have multiple blocks you can cut a few out by extending a blocks length and or adjusting it's shape.

Natural Obstructions - Certain elements in nature define the way we plan cities in general such as rivers and seas. If the block is located next to one of these then it eliminates those sides. But this only works for a specific area. In a related note, sudden elevation changes can concivably be used to wall in certain areas.

Subterranean Road System - You can have roads go down into dark tunnels the player can't really enter. It's kinda cheap, but most people will accept it.

The problem is even with all of the things above... in a multiple block situation you will clearly run into some issues. You could have a REALLY busy one block situation and use all of those and probably cover blocking all 8 roads... after all there can't be alot of reasons you'd logically be confined to one block anyways unless there was something fairly important on that block. Anyways. I'm rambling and I realize it.

I don't want this thread just to be about my own concerns, though I apprecaite any thoughts you have that might assist me. Please feel free to post any thoughts you have on the subject of controling where players are allowed to go. Thanks for your time.

-Dranore

[Blocked Image: http://www.mazy.net/pics/alienware/gallery/images/alienware27.jpg]

You look so angry at your old computer. ehehehe...

So wait..... you dropped all that cash on the tower without speakers or a monitor? Yikes.

-Dranore

So interesting! Anyways... I can texture and map... I'm okay at modeling... but what I'm not so good at is UV mapping. I don't really understand it very well. I know some people can do it very quickly, and for something like a pipe, I'd be perfectly fine... but unwrapping UV's for a complex model scares me. And I'm sure as hell not gonna find a person who loves unwrapping other peoples models. hehe...

Wow. I wish HL2 used LW. That's the package I'm comfy with. And the fact you can just send stuff back and forth is awesome. Way to plan id.

-Dranore

Yes. Uberdank indeed. Best mapping question response evar.

-Dranore

Just so I know for when the SDK hits... what is the name of the entity that turns static props into physics props?

-Dranore

I think for terrain it depends on the scale. You can deform flat plains to make terrain or you can make make a mesh of more notable bits of terrain. You can do it either way. Clearly I don't know which way is *best*, but I've seen people do both. Doing it with deformation is alot more accessible to the average mapper though as it doesn't require modeling the terrain.

-Dranore

That makes sense to a certain degree, but in the same reguard they could be "asleep" as it were, and as soon as the player triggers an interaction with it, bring it to life? I dunno again... this kinda getting OT... but it seems logical to me... I guess it depends on how the enging monitors the entities... whether ist's constantly checking any phys_entities that are loaded for changes or whether it's just waiting for a condition to trigger it's physics reaction.

-Dranore

Thanks for the relies. I appreciate the detailed response Zaphod. I have another question for you all. Is it possible to enable and disable physics simulations on the fly when the player interacts with it? It seems to me that would be the best way to deal with it... that way any object that was capable of being effected by physics could exist in a scene in quantity without crunching up CPU and bandwidth. If not by default would it be feasible/possible to impliment that sort of function? Perhaps that's beyound the scope of what you mappers know about. I figured I'd ask anyways.

BTW, you have prop_dynamic twice, once before and after prop_physics... was that a mistake?

I'm leading a mod as well as mapping so this information is extremely useful... we've been hypothesizing some things and it's really guessing as there isn't much official info out there. :\ Thanks again for the info and time.

-Dranore

Izuno, thanks for the pertinent reply. Much appreciated.

I imagine you could do an entire map in static meshes with matched collision. Is it a good idea? Well if HL2 does in fact load all meshes to the video card for processing and storage, then it seems not... depending on your video card I guess. If you're loading an entire map into the card, obviously not all at once... but at least everything you see, that's probably not how HL2 is optimized to run... and could end up slowing everything down... from this discussion it strikes me that anything other than simple box geometry makes a good canidate for meshes and should probably be used as such.

I'm probably the most n00b person in this discussion though... so I could quite easily be wrong. hehe...

-Dranore

Hehe... thanks for the replies. Not that I'm a pro/expert on the subject... but I tend to agree with DD... it doesn't make sense that BSP would disappear completely. So I'm still curious, for Source, when does one choose mesh vs. brush? Clearly finer details and complex objects should be meshes, but I'm unsure in general. :\

-Dranore

Doesn't matter. You can layout geometry in the Hammer we have now. They're not changing the map format so much that you can't import old map files. Just can't test in Source yet. Doesn't hurt to prepare.

-Dranore

This is more for the professionals who've been working with Source for a while now.

I've been doing some planning for a map for Source and laying out some brushwork in Hammer. I know HL2 uses alot of meshes for world objects. My question: When should one use a mesh as opposed to a brush? What are the trade offs? I've heard that rendering meshes uses less CPU power. Is that acurate?

For example, I'm messing with a column. As a brush, if it touches the floor and ceiling it cuts the floor and ceiling if they have direct contact. It also seems like it would be smarter to be a mesh because I could have a rounder column without having an overly complex brush to compile.

Any light that you guys can shed on this would be appreciated.

-Dranore

True to the original for the most part. It's a bit cementy, and I'd work on the red glow inside... the background behind the panel looks completely flat with some red oddly applied to it... the original has more of solid red light look to it that I would let bleed onto those wire/pipes. GJ though.

If someone gets that webpage rolling, someone shoudl dump all the originals to it so we can see what hasn't been done yet. It's a bit tedious to go through 35 pages of posts.

-Dranore

I'm new here, but I'm not new to texturing. Some of you have touched on some things.

It can be tricky to create a good tutorial, as it can be hard to assume how proficient someone is with Photoshop. The best way to learn texturing is to do. Even if you suck, that's fine. You don't have to share your sucky creations, but it is important that you make them to learn what your doing. Each time you make something, you'll learn something. And you will improve over time.

With that said, I do think that people don't want to make tutorials because their meathods can be downright simple. Lots of masking with a little bit of detailing. Alot of photo based textures aren't extremely deep in terms of the techniques they involve and with a little practice someone could easily do the work you do, and possibly even better. Is that a bad thing? I think some people probably assume it is.

Also, some people have mentioned that you can't really learn to texture from tutorials. This is somewhat true... but not really. Step by step tutorials can be very helpful if you don't understand where people start. Seeing a good texture broken down into it's steps can help people understand where people start... do they start with a texture, do they start painting details from scratch, do they start with an actual sketch and develop it into a texture? Tutorials can be very revealing I believe and can help people get rolling. Will they turn you into a fantastic texture artist? Of course not, that depends on your own level of skill... but I believe they can be helpful.

-Dranore