OP could use Propper for alot of that to save up on brushes. Other than that, it looks pretty damn sexy.
[QUOTE=VaSTinY;21344227]OP could use Propper for alot of that to save up on brushes. Other than that, it looks pretty damn sexy.[/QUOTE]
I was gonna say that, make one of the arches and pillar props, using Propper, and then use it to cut down on visleafs, brush use and even compile time.
[QUOTE=Deadchicken;21345860]I was gonna say that, make one of the arches and pillar props, using Propper, and then use it to cut down on visleafs, brush use and even compile time.[/QUOTE]
Yea was just thinking the same thing myself. Might save a lot of time spent on errors.
[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;21343794]I'm sorry, but this map is going to fail.
Your brush detail is so complicated that it's creating thousands of visleaves, where it should only be creating 20 or 30, leading to insane compile times and extremely poor in-game performance due to the sheer number of brush faces. You're probably using a large chunk of available compile resources in that small area, which means that you won't be able to make it much bigger at all.[/QUOTE]
Easily solved with propper.
[QUOTE=Hellsten;21346348]Easily solved with propper.[/QUOTE]
May not solve everything but it is a good start.
Brush limit rape
[QUOTE=Hellsten;21346348]Easily solved with propper.[/QUOTE]
Propper is a poor excuse for proper modelling with a real modelling program like 3ds max or XSI. It's almost as bad as just using brushes because you can barely optimize the mesh which leads to way more faces being created than needed.
[QUOTE=flippy645;21347530]Brush limit rape[/QUOTE]
Both HL1 and source don't have brush limits. The only brush type limit are "models" which are things like func_brush and func_ladder, but not func_detail. You can use as many brushes as you want as long as it doesn't break the face count or other types of compile limits.
[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;21351235]Propper is a poor excuse for proper modelling with a real modelling program like 3ds max or XSI. It's almost as bad as just using brushes because you can barely optimize the mesh which leads to way more faces being created than needed.[/QUOTE]
You do realize they meant to take some of the more complex brushwork and change it into a prop to reduce the performance hit, right? I don't see how that comment was necessary, they weren't discussing using propper for the actual detail props that will be in the map.
[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;21351235]Propper is a poor excuse for proper modelling with a real modelling program like 3ds max or XSI. It's almost as bad as just using brushes because you can barely optimize the mesh which leads to way more faces being created than needed.
Both HL1 and source don't have brush limits. The only brush type limit are "models" which are things like func_brush and func_ladder, but not func_detail. You can use as many brushes as you want as long as it doesn't break the face count or other types of compile limits.[/QUOTE]
Hey Gigabite
get off GoldSRC and Quake
Propper is a pathetic work around.
[QUOTE=laharlsblade;21351914]You do realize they meant to take some of the more complex brushwork and change it into a prop to reduce the performance hit, right? I don't see how that comment was necessary, they weren't discussing using propper for the actual detail props that will be in the map.[/QUOTE]
He's right, propper isn't a replacement for actual modeling. If you have complex brushwork that needs to be turned into a model with propper, you shouldn't even be doing it as brush work in the first place. Not only will it look better, it wont be optimized like shit. For a project like this, I'd strongly advise picking up a modeling program like 3ds, you'll be glad you did the long run.
[QUOTE=Lord Ivan;21362027]He's right, propper isn't a replacement for actual modeling. If you have complex brushwork that needs to be turned into a model with propper, you shouldn't even be doing it as brush work in the first place. Not only will it look better, it wont be optimized like shit. For a project like this, I'd strongly advise picking up a modeling program like 3ds, you'll be glad you did the long run.[/QUOTE]
Where Propper can come in handy:
Say you're making a detailed RP map, and you have a looping wall, that has columns in it. You could Propper one section of that wall, and simply copy/paste it. Another example I can think of are those highway walls.
[IMG]http://acoustax.com/application/wall-barrier-speedway5.jpg[/IMG]
These things to be exact. As you can see, they have varying elevations, which can cause it to eat up more brushes. For the sake of it, you could use Propper to get one of those sections.
Propper by no means excuses regular modeling programs, but can help reduce brush count, but at the expense of file size.
[QUOTE=laharlsblade;21351914]You do realize they meant to take some of the more complex brushwork and change it into a prop to reduce the performance hit, right? I don't see how that comment was necessary, they weren't discussing using propper for the actual detail props that will be in the map.[/QUOTE]
How is taking bad brushwork and throwing it though a terrible hacky pseudo-model converter that outputs unoptimized shit models with excessive amounts of faces and bloated file sizes any better than just having bad brush work?
Propper is a poor excuse for modelling period. I would never consider a map that uses propper for anything in it to be production quality.
[QUOTE=j-richardson;21352110]Hey Gigabite
get off GoldSRC and Quake[/QUOTE]
Hey j-richardson
Make me. Oh and have a :downs:
I'm going to agree with GiGaBiTe and Lord Ivan on this one, if you want to use any other engine (I'm thinking UDK here), you absolutely NEED to learn how to model and texture. Using converted BSP brushes is acceptable for pre-production or a quick mock-up of what you will be modeling, but it should never go into the final version of the map - [B]EVER[/B]. Models allow for FAR more detail, with 4+ decimal spots instead of single units. UV mapped textures allow for more fine control on the relative quality of the textures applied to the object instead of the one-texture-per-face method used for brushwork.
[QUOTE=Lord Ivan;21362027]He's right, propper isn't a replacement for actual modeling. If you have complex brushwork that needs to be turned into a model with propper, you shouldn't even be doing it as brush work in the first place. Not only will it look better, it wont be optimized like shit. For a project like this, I'd strongly advise picking up a modeling program like 3ds, you'll be glad you did the long run.[/QUOTE]
Mapping and Modelling are two very different things, you seem to forget that not everyone who maps can model.
[QUOTE=Sharpshooter;21363567]Mapping and Modelling are two very different things, you seem to forget that not everyone who maps can model.[/QUOTE]
It's why we have the modelling subsection to help people learn how to make models. Making models with 3ds max, XSI or Maya is very easy to learn with all of the tutorials available.
[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;21362725]How is taking bad brushwork and throwing it though a terrible hacky pseudo-model converter that outputs unoptimized shit models with excessive amounts of faces and bloated file sizes any better than just having bad brush work?
Propper is a poor excuse for modelling period. I would never consider a map that uses propper for anything in it to be production quality.
[/QUOTE]
Oh my God you're all being so god damn impulsive. I never said he was wrong! I said the the comment was unnecessary because it did not address the problem at hand. I know propper should not be used for making props. I never said it should, only that they were discussing using it to get around the brush limit problem. I also never said it was a good alternative, I simply said that that's what they were suggesting. Gigabite's original post did not address how affective propper would be for optimizing the map, he just said it wasn't a good way to make models for maps, which I agree with. So Ivan, robmaister, and gigabite, please think about what you're replying to before you post.
Thanks for all the help and stuff people, I appreciate it.
[IMG]http://i43.tinypic.com/14xhq88.jpg[/IMG]
Finally got the Croft Manor textures into hammer. This is just a quick preview- likey? (as you can see I'm rebuilding it from the ground up to ensure I don't waste brushes).
Not bad, not bad. Good that you want to get better.
^Thank you. Testing window.. and showcasing textures again! XD
[IMG]http://i44.tinypic.com/50qpl4.jpg[/IMG]
Looks nice!
Thank you!
I'm not loving the wood texture on the staircase, but the stone looks amazing. Stone texture + brushwork + lighting = :flashfap:
Looks next-gen. :D
I don't like the wood texture on the stairs either, but since its an original texture from the actual Croft Manor- and thats what it unfortunately looks like, I'm going to stick with it. That made sense.
Thank you both! What do you mean it looks next-gen? Isn't the Orange Box engine already next-gen? :D .. but thanks!
[QUOTE=Deadchicken;21270642]Turn down the lightmaps for a more realistic shadow.[/QUOTE]
Don't be afraid to crank that shit, if it isn't detailed enough it stops being lighting and starts being random blobs of brightness.
Wow. A newbie who makes brushwork that is too detailed?
What has become of the world!
I know right, [IMG]http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif[/IMG].
It's hard to go back to being 'basic' when you like to work with details! .. so I'm finding it difficult to make the manor. I might just make a manor that uses the Croft Manor textures, but doesn't resemble Croft Manor at all.. but I wouldn't want the old Croft Manor to go to waste. Perhaps I should release the .vmf hmmm or just wait till I can be bothered to continue it. :p
No no you have to finish this man!
We don't get any good finished maps these days, all we get are construct maps :saddowns:
[QUOTE=madmanmad;21446876]No no you have to finish this man!
We don't get any good finished maps these days, all we get are construct maps :saddowns:[/QUOTE]
You must be really, really, [I]really[/I] bad with google if you honestly think that.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
