Page 2 of 6

Re: Mapping for UrT HD

Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:51 am
by flajeen
This is good. Finally Urban Terror can get the visual quality that it needs.

Re: Mapping for UrT HD

Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:59 am
by Rylius
I run 4.1 faster than most of other players. I can actually play on 50 slot servers with solid 125 FPS and graphics pushed to the max. 4.1 doesn't use the GPU, it's all CPU, while in HD it's the other way round.

I can agree on Blender 2.4, but they reworked the UI in 2.5 and it's a HUGE improvement. I picked it up pretty fast. Key is the learn the keyboard shortcuts for a bunch of actions.
Radiant is so basic it doesn't take more than a week to learn most features tbh.

Re: Mapping for UrT HD

Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2011 11:07 am
by johnnyenglish
That link by 27 which del posted is a good example - at least in the version of max I have it even has a lot of low(ish) poly tree types included.

I'm so pleased the engine designer has made this post - his terrain is max mesh - it's probably time to take the hint and start considering a different way of making maps.

Re: Mapping for UrT HD

Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2011 11:09 am
by MajkiFajki
We have to buy software for $$$ to make a map for free game.

O tempora! O mores!

Re: Mapping for UrT HD

Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2011 11:10 am
by flajeen
Blender is free.

Re: Mapping for UrT HD

Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2011 11:39 am
by Delirium
Look, you can still map in Radiant... Shits sake, they haven't removed mapping in GTK completely and you CAN convert brushwork from Radiant to and ASE thus making HD render your map as a model. Its not a big a fuss as people think it is, Surfs are now rendered in batches from the GPU too so in all models and brushes are rendered the same, just like they are now just a heck of a lot fast.
Which now gives us the ability to add a lot more detail weather it be brushes or models. I got NulL to clarify this for us, to be honest... I'd take NulLs understanding of mapping over Frankie's (no offense to Frankie)

Honestly there's no NEED to switch to Max, sure it might be a lot easier and we can add a lot more detail more easily than before, but thanks for bringing this up cause I've investigated and found I can stay right where I am :)

We can just use those really tris expensive models we've always wanted to use from random online sites :D

Re: Mapping for UrT HD

Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2011 2:00 pm
by ValkoVer
Rylius wrote:If you have a decent graphics card, that is. I'm actually running HD WAY slower than 4.1.

I don't like this modelling stuff, mapping just loses its flair of moving brushes around.
Radiant doesn't require a modelling tool and that's what at least attracted me to it. It's very easy to pick up and work with it, of which at least the first isn't true for Blender (Can't speak for Max since that's a *little* too expensive for me).

If it's for placing props and sculpting terrain I can go use CryEngine 3 too, their editor is optimized for something like this.

I really don't care if it's more optimized/modern in the end, since mapping is a hobby I just want to have fun with it.
I have tried mapping in Blender already and it wasn't fun at all.
Oh well, finish Italy and UrT mapping is dead for me then.


+1 <3

Im trying to learn blender as milkshape is *a little* too primitive, but i don't think i will create all geomtry using it.

Re: Mapping for UrT HD

Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2011 2:17 pm
by MajkiFajki
If you have a decent graphics card, that is. I'm actually running HD WAY slower than 4.1.


fstech1 is still WiP. What I have in mind now is support myself with modelling software. I'm still not convinced to making entire map in 3dMax or Blender. But still have not tried it :)

Re: Mapping for UrT HD

Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2011 7:42 pm
by bludshot
.

Re: Mapping for UrT HD

Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:27 pm
by Delirium
The Millions of light entities are only good cause it makes bumpy look a lot more realistic, Oaks is the only map which I have EVER used the light entity, and I hate it lol... Shaders are so much easier and look a lot more realistic than the light entities. I'd say for night time maps the light entity is the way to go.
But the "New" method by FrankieV doesn't seem much like a new method at all to be honest...