CryEngine 2: first mod images.

[ifO]

Yeah I mean max/maya/xsi whatever.

It might be better but it's a ton more time consuming and less flexible. Modelling apps for props and fancy architecture, that's fine, but if I want to make a straight wall... I don't want to have to do that in max.

Imagine an app you do every single bit of your level geometry in, but you can texture in a number of ways. You can generate UV maps automatically and paint them, or you can use old-style texture application. For making basic structures it should be as easy as in Hammer, and for making complex architecture it should have all the power of a modelling app. If you tweak some geometry, it will auto-adjust the UV for you and prompt you to check it's correct. If you want to make simple models like trees you should be able to generate them procedurally. Same goes for terrain and for things like railings, pipes etc. And all of this architecture is converted automatically into the cheapest form possible.

A naive dream maybe, but that is where I think things should be going. I don't want to design levels in max.

[FrieChamp]

I don't think that is a naive dream

[Defrag]

I agree with you, ifO. I don't like doing basic geometry in modelling packages either. I find it especially clunky when trying to navigate a scene in max, even when using the first person camera. Hammer and co are the business for blocking out basic geometry; maybe one day we'll have the best of both worlds (like a kind of 'speedbuilder' brush modelling styled max feature).

[Zacker]

Once you get used to do everything in max, then it works out pretty well. Granted, Max got an a lot of flaws, but overall the flow of creating everything in max works nicely.

[BioPulse]

Damn, looks sweet, shame i can't model atall.. maybe i should spend more time in max afterall.......

[e-freak]

Though it's kind of getting an OT discussion I think the problem with max is that optimization and entity placement is something that happens in the engine.

When working with Hammer i block out a level and have direct access to the manual optimization the engine bases on and can place my entities directly in the source-file and then render it up for the engine. When doing the stuff in max (or any other 3D-App) I will not have this full control. It seems to be the "ethical-question" - do I want to create a game by hand - completely from intro to extro or may i do a crysis/oblivion game where i can place 24.387 trees in a pre-baked terrain and can randomize them or do i do the classical console-title with pre-done art assets in relatevely closed levels with teleport in and teleport out - this is where max seems to work best. As in my personal opinion games like Half-Life 2 with extending levels (reach the end of the map and start at the exactly same point in the next map) and handmade enviroment I stick to the brush-your-map-method though i can see it may be usefull for other kinds of games to have everything done in max and just set it into a global heightmap (especally then using a non-bsp renderpath)

[Zacker]

When working with Hammer i block out a level and have direct access to the manual optimization the engine bases on and can place my entities directly in the source-file and then render it up for the engine. When doing the stuff in max (or any other 3D-App) I will not have this full control.

Uhm why does the one exclude the other? Nothing prevents you from having at least as much control as usual just because all geometry is done in max.

[von*ferret]

ambient occlusion for the win.

[Warby]

hammer is no way closer/more direct in touch with the hl engine - than any other engine with its prefered 3d app.

if you would have used unrealed as an example i would shut up

*newcanofwormswarning*