Discussion in 'Mapping' started by [lodw]keef, Jun 2, 2009.
Make the wooden bridges 50% wider please, the number of vehicles that fall in there is unreal.
I think it's funny.
One thing I do when I'm a gren is lay 3 mines on each bridge. I sunk more than 5 comms doing that
fixed. I've been doing this every time I play this map and haven't had 1 com dumb enough to fall for it.
Really? Ouch. Most comms head to the A3/F3 ref (or a4/f4), build it, then head North to squish peeps. Then head back to go to main, or w.e.
They wont add fog afaik
there will be gentle fog, and he's referring to the images of the new texture tests which if you looked at them you probably notice its a entirely different VMF.
Well first off have you heard of a plateau?
Second i actually like the new bridges (although that is an opnion). but talking of a high brush count, it could mean that it would slow down Frames per second in game depending on the amount you are talking about and it would increase compile time significantly depending on how many more brushes you add. plus the bridges look fine with the amount of brushes they have right now.
Also Keef it is looking a mighty bit better so far with the changes that have been made. Although i would like to see some infantry only ramps leading up to some of the higher points in the map so the infantry don't have to run a far distance to get up and so they can flank the enemy.
I wouldn't mind seeing a more clearly defined path from the ground up to each base, as well as more ways to middle from the ground.
Yes, I am bumping the map spotlight threads, but they need some attention since, quite frankly, the poor visual quality of the current official maps is quite offputting.
So, how is this going? Any progress?
Like I said in my duststorm thread I've been MIA for 2-3 months basically even from the computer in general so not really any progress as of yet, I'll tickle ya with one pic though.
I can't tell if it is, but wasn't the over all agreement to put the dam ref on top of the dam?
Not that I can recall dubee.
Anyway I've been foolin around and have been leaning a lil bit twords 'red' rather than gray/brown.
I like it, but its too bright, anything much darker in tone, or you can put a blimp infront of the light_environment place.
That's in the editor. You can tell by the hint brush and skybox textures. There is, of course, no lighting in the editor preview.
Actually there is light simulation but it's really basic and I don't think light_environments are calculated.
imo it's too colorfull though, not that i'm against changing the current atmospere. At this point i'd chose the current version over the cartoon test version.
I like the new dam, though.
ya I was getting some inspiration from this pic
but I didnt quite get the same color dirt of rocks in there, i'll edit and get back to it later.
There's four types of lighting available in OB Hammer:
- None, which was used in that screenshot.
- Shaded, which darkens sides based on their angles to fake a light_env but is really only useful for contrasting similarly textured brushes.
- Lighting Preview, which supposedly fakes lights and light_spots but not light_env, and typically appears to be a grease-smeared film of ass.
- Ray-Traced Preview, which ray traces lights and light_spots reasonably accurately (even on models) but doesn't do light_envs, doesn't do HDR, doesn't do radiosity, doesn't do lightmaps, and has to be done in a separate window from Hammer. Oh, and it likes to bug out.
Separate names with a comma.