Posts by RealaxFourX

  • [Troubleshooting] CS:GO - Strange dark spots in the shadows

    I can't remember exactly, but I think it started to happen from revolver update. After doing full HDR or even just a full final compile (doesn't matter really) in some areas a very dark shadow appears:

    And I would like to know, what causes these dark "stains" and if there is a way to fix them without using customly made light entities?


    Also, I found another things like:

    In the middle, the shadow is accurate but on the right lower part of the arch it is just a pure black colour. Is there a way to fix it, if so, how?

  • cs:go sliding doors while holding use key

    Hello everyone.

    I really need sliding doors, it's very important for the project's gameplay. The tricky part is that those doors needs to move only if the player uses and holds the use key. Is it possible to do it in cs:go? I've seen it being used a lot in half life series, but in cs:go SDK there isn't any option. If there is any other way in to do that?

  • (CS:GO) What is the correct brush work - more brushes, less textures or vice versa?

    Hello.

    Recently I got very confused about the way maps in cs:go should be made. One friend of mine, who has a lot of experience, states that using as least brushes as possible is the best thing to do. By doing this, there will be some textures under some brushes. Other states, that there isn't any difference, if I will clip and by this use more brushes, as I won't probably reach brush limit with my 5v5 comp map cs_market.

    I checked some official maps, and they have some texture peaking through walls, even players can't really see it. So I assume less brushes are better?

    In this, there was a long wall, so I clipped and added on one side no draw texture.

    I'm really not sure on which way is better.


    So my question is simple: Is it better to have more brushes but less textures or less brushes, but more textures? How does it effect compiling and performance in-game?

  • de_guerilla

    Quote from Plat

    10 hours ago, Plat said: I'm struggling with finding a theme for this map. In some areas it greatly resembles aztec, but in others it follows a more industrial style. I assume the artstyle isn't finalized or anything. Just basing this off what I am seeing in your screenshots.

    Also, looking at the overview, the map appears to be missing a way to rotate quickly from mid to b. Could be an issue when the cts need to retake the site, and might even make a site irrelevant.

    It is even visible in B site screenshot, that there is a third entrance in B site... I already told to the creator of the map, to make next time the roof ot the buldings in nodraw, so those passage ways would be visible next time he will make a leveloverview.

  • de_guerilla

    Before posting anything, make sure to check out this level in-game. The top-down level view (leveloverview), doesn't show some rotation paths from mid to sites. I will check it tomorrow in-game.

  • CS:GO modeling (formats and programs)

    So even Solidworks can be enough to make models for cs:go?

    I have some experience (how to make basic shapes like a realistic cup, a table, a pitcher with two handles...) with 3D max before (but now probably forgot almost everything. But before learning on a new program, or maybe on 3D max, I would like to know if it will be possible to transfer models from those programs to cs:go. The most difficult object which I'm planning to make is a realistic angel sculpture and a helicopter or current crashed helicopter's collision model.

  • CS:GO modeling (formats and programs)

    Hello everyone.


    I will be studying modeling in a few days and I'm curious, what program (Solidworks or Maja, maybe others) would be the best to create props like Pantheon's dome, architectural columns, vehicles, maybe sculptures etc .for cs:go and those programs wouldn't consume so much time as 3D MAX?

    Also, what file formats does source engine support?

  • MapCore CS:GO Playtesting 4.0

    Quote from 1488

    1 minute ago, 1488 said: I don't think you read what others said either. Your map has quite a few flaws, and instead of accepting that and going back to the drawing board you've decided to argue with others and try to bash other people's maps. People here are trying to help you, but you're not respecting them or taking what they say into account. Your map has many problems, as others have already pointed out. This is a community filled with many experienced mappers and their goal is to help you, not abuse you or be unjust. This is probably your first map, and it has a lot of work to be done on it, so instead of arguging and getting super upset, try to listen to others that know more than you.

    I'm thankful, to everyone, who tries to help. But actually, the only one, who wrote about my map was Plat, and RZL only in the status 1. RZL, suggested to remove all the models, change to the same brushes instead of models. Also, re-texture my map to bare grey box, as if it would change anything. Just spend like a few hours and achieve nothing, only worse results in the end. As for layout,I made it then I didn't know anything about source engine, but I'm simplifying it. Just that optimization is fighting against the gameplay and visuals. Also, vvis does a poor job, that adds up a lot of work. Also, those visuals mistakes from the source engine itself. No wonder, an old engine. But I will keep working on my map.

  • MapCore CS:GO Playtesting 4.0

    Quote from 1488

    19 minutes ago, 1488 said: lmao dude you got owned

    Not owned, just ignored and rejected without any reason. Probably he didn't like me. That's the most logical explanation to it. /emoticons/[email protected] 2x" title=":)" width="15"> Well, I'm happy to know, what the head of administration is judging maps by his feeling, rather than a constructive criticism. He can't even reply as a normal human would do. Anyways, sorry, everyone, that I am trying to search for any justice. Keep glowing in dark, dear mapcore.

  • MapCore CS:GO Playtesting 4.0

    Okay, my map just got declined from play testing, because "Not ready for playtesting yet. Please keep iterating on your map. Please go back to greyboxing the map and replacing most of the models with placeholder brushes. The brushwork overall is very crude and appears sloppy, please improve that as well." and maps like Oakwood, Mutrah, Aftermath passed just well. To be honest, the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in years...And I didn't expect that type of an answer from RZL... This is what I wrote to him:

    First of all, I want to advise the texturing misunderstanding. Overtime I have learned new painting skills and have realized that adding basic colors first is the best option as this lets you see what is missing or needs to be improved for later development. I made the same thing in my map, added the basic textures, to see how my map will feel. And as the reason, that my map does not reach the bare minimum in play testing requirements, as you stated the reason „Please go back to greyboxing the map and replacing most of the models with placeholder brushes.“ I‘m sorry, but I disagree. In previously confirmed maps, like Oakwood and Mutrah, there was many models, as in Oakwood trees and in Mutrah, boxes, cars. My map has only boxes, some pillars and vehicles and I changing them to „placeholder brushes“ Seems strange. Also, re-texturing my map to bare grey colors only for playtesting seems unreasonable thing to do. As it will lose all it‘s colors and the feeling of the map will change dramatically. I do not see what is the difference if the walls are in bare grey or in normal dustish brick/sand texture and I highly doubt, that it somehow improves gameplay quality.


    Another thing worth mentioning, is the layout of my map. All walls were placed in reasonable manner, as all of them have their role in gameplay. In real life, markets are not always so orderly placed only with 90 and 45 degrees rotations or corners. Simplifying the layout changes the times, removes a lot of cover for players also makes some parts of the map dull. Maps like oakwood had a lot of displacements oddly shaped (to be more similar to rock), I do not seem to understand, why walls, shaped like an old marketplace seems as „very crude“ and appears „sloppy“. All brushes there made as simplistic as possible, so I could change them faster if something was wrong with the gameplay, but as cs_market had about 9 competitive high ranked (mostly eagles, supremes and globals) matches and those walls did not make any discomfort for any players. In the start, there was a lack of cover, but later on by adding additional markets, it got improved. I made some walls straight to make smoking and other grenade usage more easier, also it is easier for source engine to handle straight walls on grid and I am fully aware of that.


    As for radar, was even a bigger misunderstanding. After a lot of thought, I decided to change my file name from cs_market to cs_market_v0.12, but I forgot, that it will mislead the system. So I had to change it to cs_market_v012 and it worked. After I updated, I forgot, that I had to also update the cubemaps and I also renamed the market files, so they would appear in workshop version. All this time, radar was always on cs_market, except those 5 minutes, then I was changing the file names to fit this statement „The filename has a proper suffix (e.g. "_v03")“. I am aware and sorry, that I did it a bit late. But in my opinion, it is not a thing to worry about.

    And here is his reply: http://prntscr.com/al4ra7 "looks like we are at a disagreement here. I will not reconsider cs_market as a valid submission in it's current state" and "surprisingly", his argument is empty and not even connecting to what he wrote in the reasons why my map was declined. Well, what can I add. I was expecting something better from mapcore, I really did...

  • MapCore CS:GO Playtesting 4.0

    I also submitted my map for play test. Hopefully, it will get approved. Yesterday I joined to de_oakwood and de_mutrah. I was kinda surprised, that mapcore is organising only casual playtests. I was expecting more like 5v5 competititve match. Anyways, I would suggest to change it to competititve matches, because the main goal of the defusal and rescue maps is to be played at competitive level, and sadly, 10v10 is not the same as 5v5. Also it's worth mentioning, that enemy team can hear what other says, by this, not letting for players to do any strategies nor callouts. It limits the players.

    Personally, if we would do a 10v10 on my current map - cs_market, I doubt it would be anything good, because I made that map specifically for competitive gameplay in mind. The same goes to dust2, because CT could place 2 players in middle and about 5 on A site and 3 on B. It's very unrealistic and makes taking the sites very difficult, especially if players are in different skill.

    Also, as I saw, there are plenty of good people, who would like to try out new maps. We could use it and just place a limit on only 5v5 at a map. On the next map, players could change and if there's still some free place in teams, previous map testers could take the place.