Func_Msgboard: DM-Ironhide For Unreal Tournament

News | Forum | People | FAQ | Links | Register | Log in

|  | DM-Ironhide For Unreal Tournament

Posted by om9zer [66.233.116.228] on 2004/01/18 03:53:58
For what it's worth, I finished work on a deathmatch map for UT. I doubt many people here play the game much, but... what the hell. Info, Screens, Download: http://www.om9zer.com/leveldesign/...

Screenies Look Very Good
#1 posted by nitin [138.217.8.41] on 2004/01/18 07:06:40
I've downloaded but wont be able to comment for a while. Hopefully, it's made to run well, all the UT maps I've downloaded over the last year or so run horribly because they're catered for high end systems.
Yay!
#2 posted by DaZ [212.159.60.58] on 2004/01/18 11:33:48
Good to see a change in the news every now and then, I'll grab this! Screenshots look very nice...
Actually,
#3 posted by HeadThump [65.140.54.129] on 2004/01/18 12:22:02
I like the old UT very much, and I am glad to see there are still people maping for it. Screen shots are nice; personally, I would have beveled the hell out of those cielings to make them more integral to the design but that is just me; solid work.
Cool
#4 posted by R.P.G. [24.136.235.190] on 2004/01/18 13:00:21
I don't have access to UT so I can't play it, but the screenshots do indeed look cool.
Thanks.
#5 posted by om9zer [66.233.116.228] on 2004/01/18 17:10:26
I appreciate the comments a lot. Most of the ones being made by the Unreal folks complain about the non-rainbow lighting. Perhaps I should ask if they've played Quake recently.
Admittedly nitin, it doesn't run as well as a typical UT map, but that comes with the territory. I've tested it on a GF2MX and it's quite playable. However, you'll want a little more.
First Impressions
#6 posted by nitin [138.217.8.41] on 2004/01/18 17:44:56
I wasnt going to play this yesterday but I had a little runabout because I could actually run it :) It may run slightly slower than early UT maps but this is faster than anything I've picked up over the last 2-2.5 years by far (apart from Ulukai's stuff).
Layout looks decent enough, alebit boxy, but I think the scale's a bit too big. It seems more scaled as a q3 map than a UT but I havent played it yet so I could be wrong there.
Looks wise, it's pretty well done. Nice texturing and lighting though the latter's a bit flat and boring and needed more contrast. Architexture is simplish but effective enough, I like the big and chunky style. Nice use of the fog above water too, it looks a bit strange when you're close up though.
Anyway, more when I actually play it. Got any other maps or was this the first?
ps : what's the polycount BTW? I'm no mapper but I was just interested since you said here and in the readme that this is more demanding than earlier UT maps. Usually such a warning means 400+ polys and the need for a GF4 to run it smoothly :)
Im Diggin It
#7 posted by pope [207.6.29.241] on 2004/01/18 21:57:22
has a very unique yet familiar feel at the same time. bullox to those UT hardcores who love the seizure lighting. You've chosen your light well and don't let anyone tell you different.
nice job!
Couldn't Run It
#8 posted by pushplay [24.109.0.211] on 2004/01/18 22:25:28
I dusted off my UT case (literally) to give the map a look. I installed the latest UT patch but I got an error about not having "EpicCuctomModels." The shots do look good though.
Pushplay
#9 posted by nitin [138.217.8.41] on 2004/01/19 00:00:21
that's bonus pack1 you need.
Thanks Nitin
#10 posted by pushplay [24.109.0.211] on 2004/01/19 02:40:16
I reinstalled to fix the umod association, I patched, I downloaded the packs, and then I played the map. It looks good. A lot of times something that works for one game is inappropriate in another game. You can't do in RTCW what you can do in Q3, but that's not the case here. The lighting entirely works.
Cheers To "EpicCuctomModels."
#11 posted by om9zer [66.69.104.194] on 2004/01/19 07:02:56
That's odd. I'm pretty sure I never even considered using the bonus packs for the making of this map. Who knows?
"I dusted off my UT case (literally) to give the map a look."
Epic would eat that up.
Thanks.
Looks
#12 posted by Shambler [82.38.192.33] on 2004/01/19 07:24:03
...exactly like a map for an Id game to me. Not that that is a qualitive judgement but it is striking.
Om9zer
#13 posted by nitin [138.217.8.41] on 2004/01/19 07:43:10
you didnt answer my questions in my above post (#6)?
Bonus Packs
#14 posted by spentron [64.157.54.62] on 2004/01/19 17:03:36
It's very easy to end up with add-ons included in your map if you're not careful. The Ed will let these look like any other packages. With actors, you can look under "Object", you'll still need to know offending packages, but at least they're a little more obvious usually.
The safe way to map for Unreal is never install add-ons, always remove them immediately after use, or keep a seperate clean install. umod's are best avoided since they don't tell you what they're installing. I don't know if other games have this problem. I mapped under Unreal Gold with Return to Na Pali installed, even "Single Player Start" is RtNP, not obvious at all.
Tried the map although I don't usually do DM maps, decent looking, I wouldn't call it high poly. Could have some more defined shadows.
By definition, good enough for Quaek (or anything even similar) ain't good enough for Unreal ;0.
Polyshmolly.
#15 posted by om9zer [66.69.104.194] on 2004/01/19 21:10:48
I went over the numbers. Using the "stat fps" console command in Unreal Tournament, I ran through about thirty popular and high quality maps produced by both Epic and well-known mappers in the Unreal community.
The deathmatch maps that shipped with UT, on average, do a good job of staying under 100 polygons in view, with high spots that go into the low 100's.
Typical high quality user-made deathmatch maps made by people such as Ulukai, DavidM, Platinum, El Chico Verde, etc., on average, hover around the mid to upper 100's in view with high spots in the mid 200's.
DM-Ironhide, on average, contains in-view polygon counts ranging from the upper 100's to the upper 200's, with multiple areas of the map containing well over 300, and one in particular that has over 400.
So, whether you consider it to be a high-poly map or not, the simple truth is that, compared to the average high-quality UT deathmatch map, it is.
"...ain't good enough for Unreal ;0."
What?
Well
#16 posted by nitin [138.217.8.41] on 2004/01/20 02:53:40
I have maps in my dir with lower polies per view than that and they run horribly. Probably because they're not zoned well. anyway, my point is that you did pretty well with the looks/framerates in this map given how open it is in parts.
And I'm playing it later today so be back then with proper gameplay comments.
So any others in the works?
Poly
#17 posted by spentron [171.75.57.109] on 2004/01/20 08:44:00
It was a guess, and I'm surprised it goes that high. Note however, your map has no added meshes (plants, etc.) which wouldn't be in the poly count. The engine seems to scale added load rather linearly to system requirements from what I can tell, a huge amount can be thrown at it with a good PC.
As to lighting, 2 comments. Your light fixtures are not that evident even by Quake standards, the typical Unreal treatment of adding coronas would certainly reverse that. The level is structured to be lit by external and internal light, which would be expected to be of different hue. On the other hand, it looks smooth and solid like it is, so go with what you feel, buck the trend if necessary, although unfortunately there's no substitute for actually trying it (this mapping thing can get so endless...). Getting really realistic shadows, etc. and looking good at the same time can also be impossible; complexity can work against you.
I presume you're aware there's a certain rivalry between Unreal/UT and Quake fans. The Unreal camp is known to include those overtly anti-Quake as opposed to just ignoring the other game.
Lookin' Good
#18 posted by Hubster [203.26.24.216] on 2004/01/20 09:23:29
I'm waiting for this to download, as I recently re-installed UT for a LAN gig.
I'm looking fwd to checking this out:-)
..... And Now I Have Played It...
#19 posted by Hubster [203.26.24.216] on 2004/01/20 09:50:11
... The map is a great piece of work, but falls drastically short on one issue: scale.
As mentioned above by someone else, the scale is far too large. There is too much travelling from place to place involved on this map.
Were it scaled approx 60-70% down, the map would be a brilliant stage for some really tense duels.
I would love to see an updated version of this map, with the scaling re-done.
Good work nevertheless.
Lighting, Scale, Next Project...
#20 posted by om9zer [66.69.104.194] on 2004/01/21 01:40:25
The ambient lighting from the sky and the light from the fixtures are different hues if you look closely at the rooftops, just not dramatically so. But yes - the lights are too bright.
As for the scale, yeah it can feel quite too large at first. I guess you get used to it after a while. I don't even notice it much anymore and actually get some really intense matches on it with a godlike bot. I doubt I'll do another version for UT. Those curves took a long time to make. A smaller UT2004 version isn't overruled as long as I can learn how to make good static meshes. I like the layout so I'd hate to see it end here.
However, for the time being, I have a new map that's almost finished featuring a drastically tighter layout. You can view some preview shots of it at my web site:
http://www.om9zer.com/leveldesign/
Thanks for all the feedback guys. It's much appreciated.
Good Static Meshes
#21 posted by HeadThump [65.140.55.6] on 2004/01/21 15:07:04
Learn Wings3d, read the pdf manual for it and fallow the tutorials in the manual closely. By the time you are done with this you should be able to render any shape you can imagine.
Unfortunately
#22 posted by starbuck [82.33.90.202] on 2004/01/21 17:49:01
boxes are about the limits of my imagination
Played It Properly
#23 posted by nitin [138.217.8.41] on 2004/01/21 22:13:21
Gameplay is even better than I thought, the map flows really well despite the box design. I still think the scale hurts it quite a bit as the biggish distances to travel in some parts slow games down quite a bit. Hubster's about right, 50% scaling down would be perfect for fast and frenetic games. Also glad you didnt include Sniper Rifle or jumpboots on this map. Bots could have been a bit more challenging if you pathed some trickjumps in.
I'll take a look at your new beta tourney if you want.
Scaling
#24 posted by Hubster [203.26.24.217] on 2004/01/21 23:09:22
This map would OWN if it was re-scaled.
The layout is so nice, it's got a great flow to it.
It's just too spread out, that's the ONLY issue with this map imho.
I agree with Nitin - SR on this level would have killed it. A very wise choice to exlude it imho
Re: Lighting, Scale, Next Project...
#25 posted by Hubster [203.26.24.217] on 2004/01/21 23:12:49
.. dang! Dude you have it goin on!
Those screenshots look fantastic. If it's going to be tight, I'd say it's going to rock.
I'm a big fan of tighter, faster maps.
Bump
#26 posted by ProdigyXL [66.194.172.172] on 2005/08/18 16:30:36
This one is for Joe. :)
Quake Vs Unreal
#27 posted by grahf [24.51.109.238] on 2005/08/18 21:44:27
I presume you're aware there's a certain rivalry between Unreal/UT and Quake fans. The Unreal camp is known to include those overtly anti-Quake as opposed to just ignoring the other game.
But certainly, it's possible to bridge the gap and like both games? I've been getting back into unreal single player and reading the unrealsp.org forums lately, and they refer to Quake as "Qwaek"... I find this amusing, but I'm not sure if it's meant insultingly or what.

Post A Reply:

Name: |
Title: |
Body: |

Website copyright © 2002-2013 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors.