Re: Mapping for UrT HD
Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2011 11:06 pm
.
First off there is nothing fundamentally different between making a map the old school way verses a “requirement” to make a map for HD. A HD based map is more ideological in nature than practical in application and rather than replacing Radiant, which you still need for entity placement and clip brushes, the ability to use outside resources makes performance improvements as well as faster workflows hard to ignore.
We can talk about performance improvements all day but the reality is one cannot consolidate all of the improvements into a single idea with out doing the work necessary to prove the point. This of course is a time consuming process if one is thinking about making a map from concept to completion and it’s easy enough to talk the talk but how improvements needs to be made are based on the two ideals of increased performance and faster workflows.
So
There is nothing different between a map made for 4.X and a map made for HD and labeling it as such is done so as to be a container, a point of reference, than makes it easier to relate both performance and workflow improvements.
Fact.
Either way you go does not really matter as the magic is preformed in the compiler and not the application that you use and as long as you can get it into Radiant in the first place then the output can be targeted to what ever version of the game you wish.
Second although performance, faster workflows, as well as resource recovery is a huge consideration these alone are not motivating factors as compared to our needs as a collective to be able to develop content for the game in a manner that fits the needs of the individuals on our team as well fits in with the demands of or asset pipeline.
We are probably one of the few or even the only development team that caters to the needs of the content and asset creators that has an asset pipeline that is flexible enough to be able to move the work from concept to completion with out the need to become overly concerned over their personal preferences as to how they like to work using the applications that they are familiar with.
So
Based on the need to support the efforts of the talent and rather than creating yet more application dependencies the “desire” to add external application support is a lot more valuable in the creation of usable assets with in a team of individuals who can all model in a 3d application like 3ds Max and as many individuals who can model can work on a single map at the same time with out everyone getting in the way.
The overall benefit to the 3rd party mapmaking community is maps can now be made using team dynamics to build a map much in the same way a collective of individuals use their talents to build a house and labeling a map as being HD is about the ideals of process rather than being forced to change how things are done.
In conclusion
How the individual wishes to create a map, be it for 4.X or HD, does not matter as it relates to results and being able to create with out concerns to application dependencies is where things are heading in the world of 3D graphic in general with out the need to label the artists based on the result.
So the choices are there not based on requirements but on creative intent and as such one can chose to sit around and wait to see what happens or be the first one to create something insanely great.
FrankieV
Rayne wrote:Blender IMO is crap. Very user unfriendly and difficult to learn. Where max is easy to pick up and easier to learn than radiant, at least it was to me.
RedSnappa wrote:Rayne wrote:Blender IMO is crap. Very user unfriendly and difficult to learn. Where max is easy to pick up and easier to learn than radiant, at least it was to me.
I don't have $3,500 to spend on 3dsmax though, and I suspect that few mappers do. In just a few hours I have made some decent inroads in learning Blender. As soon as I finish this Spacestation map I am going to delve deeper into it.
Rayne wrote:RedSnappa wrote:Rayne wrote:Blender IMO is crap. Very user unfriendly and difficult to learn. Where max is easy to pick up and easier to learn than radiant, at least it was to me.
I don't have $3,500 to spend on 3dsmax though, and I suspect that few mappers do. In just a few hours I have made some decent inroads in learning Blender. As soon as I finish this Spacestation map I am going to delve deeper into it.
You can get max for free now. All you have to do is join their education community.
http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/do ... eID=123112