nbohr1more

I think a couple of strategic decorative doors add an interesting gamble element but this should not be abused. Though it's not practical, I think (from a sandbox game-play perspective) players would like all doors to lead "somewhere". Whether the rooms they lead to are empty rooms, "junk rooms" or have treasure or pathways in them, it's simply more immersive to have real rooms of any kind behind each door.

Cool. Since Springheel's Optimizing Maps thread, I recently added entries to the performance wiki so you might see some new stuff there : http://modetwo.net/d...tial_Must-Knows (Though Bikerdude ought to write his own "Performance magic" wiki... ) Edit: I presume any crazy-obsessive optimizing wont be par for course with a speed-build process though... Also, gaddang those are some gorgeous screens...!

This entry seems to have more detail than the one you've posted... http://modetwo.net/d...tching_entities

Doom 3 has always had a performance hit for dynamic light interactions. That said, if TDM is comparatively slower than previous TDM versions with specific dynamic lights like candles or torches then perhaps the extinguishable light SDK framework has become a bit heavier. I think there are plans to revisit the performance of this feature... (I saw some source-code comments where Tels said such and such could be cached, etc...)

I believe it's possible to have door-handles that "Dont Frob or make handling noises"... correct?

Prey 2 is also using Id Tech 4... Yet, the tech can still be licensed while it goes GPL (though Id has historically granted licensees the courtesy of waiting awhile after the release of their games before GPL-ing their tech.). *Crossing-Fingers for Id to uphold their statement about GPL being concurrent to the release of Rage* In a sick way, I kinda like the prolonged wait for GPL Id Tech 4 because it mean TDM's hard-fought technical workarounds still count as remarkable compared to what others have done with Doom 3 modding. Once it's GPL, folks will forget how much these guys had to overcome when they made this mod. ...Good luck with that Thief-style indie Radiatoryang. It'll be interesting to see if your work gets more fan missions than TDS also

Thanks Springheel! That clarifies the situation very precisely! Yes, I was not sure if any amount of fiddling with the acquired "source model" would make it distinct enough to be considered unique but there must be some limit because it is a face after all and all human face configurations can't be copyrighted... How much you would have to morph the thing and how bad it would look after are other concerns though... Yet I still think this one is ( a least philosophically) surmountable (other than Zenimax using big lawyers, bribes, etc to rig any legal action in their favor...)... Yes, the required art-work is still daunting. So this is the primary stumbling-block for a standalone TDM. This should be added to the site FAQ so that it can be referenced as I have seen this topic at TTLG, DarkFate and even Moddb posters bring this up. Thanks again.

That's what I was referring to. The "source" High poly models for the normal maps. If you don't have those, oneofthe8devilz's method can be used to recreate them (though with artifacts). But you could probably smooth-out the artifacts in Sculptris\Zbrush (etc). http://www.doom3world.org/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=23265 I think njob can also make a height-map from a normal map as well so either approach might work to get those "source high-poly models" so they can be adequately revised to make them "Doom 3 free".

Once Doom 3 goes GPL (or it doesn't and you decide to go Xreal etc)... you should just release the broken "free" version with poor placeholder assets. Some folks will just live with it as is but I suspect that someone will come along and say "this has to be fixed". That "free" version could live along-side the premium version until someone showed-up with the needed goods. So oDDity's normal maps are shaped to the contours of the Doom 3 head shape and you don't have the source models? Maybe you could use oneof8devil's normal map to heightmap to model conversion process? You'd have to clean-up conversion artifacts but it would be less work than trying to replicate his work from scratch?

Curse you Sotha! Now: * My day at work will be even more tedious. * Springheel's map (and likely others) will be delayed. * I will have to write-up a (badly needed) release article to boost the Moddb rankings. * More TTLG (etc) folk who don't want to buy Doom 3 will get even angrier by hearing about how cool this mission is. * You are a villain who scorns "those who are trying not to like The Dark Mod". * Foiled again! Alright. Enough foolish blather. Good luck in the contest your competitors have until JUNE to try and outdo this one.

Not to jump into a long-standing disagreement but I find the topic matter too interesting... To summarize the gloom-n-doom; The Dark Mod's "situation" is "a mod that appeals to a niche crowd for a niche game". Many players have cast doubts about the underlying engine because of how it performs and looks. There is no escape from being tied to Doom 3 because the assets are not portable. New blood is not coming in and the old blood is draining... I think that all the assertions above are vitally less important then the last. More involvement. More new faces. The players will flock to content even if it is tied to a "crappy" game. Once the players come, contributors follow. The biggest impediment is simply lack of awareness: 1) Many folks don't even know ANY mods exist much less "The Dark Mod". If they want new gameplay they purchase it. 2) Of those who are somewhat cognisant of mods, they often believe them to be things like weapon tweaks which are cumbersome to install and will possibly introduce stability problems. 3) Finally, if we get over the hurdle of the obscurity of mods, when someone wants a Thief style game the do not immediately think of a game with a Sci-Fi setting like Doom 3 to find mods that match their taste. They will likely end-up with Oblivion thief-guild mods installed instead. So Moddb does act as a beacon to let folks stumble onto TDM but obviously it's effectiveness is limited. Even being in the Top 100 didn't really drive-up the numbers so much. Moddb seems to be more the land of Source and Stalker mod people. I think we need to spread the word to RPG and MMO players who play games in historical settings. We need to post screens, videos, and details in their forums. To me The Dark Mod is not only a great game but a great showcase of "what if" for folks wondering what kinda games an Id Tech 4 licensee would've created if more of them used the technology and pushed it. I thought that Beyond3d and Quake3world would be interested in the mod for it's technical use at least but it seems that those crowds just don't care about Id Tech 4 and a "stealth" game is mostly below contempt (Especially at Q3W, TDM is seen as wasting a perfectly good engine for death-matches on stealth...). Now, onto asset replacement. Rather then drawing the line and saying "no Doom 3 assets right now", how about instead saying "Such and Such AI-Head must be replaced with a TDM only version by two TDM versions from now." Then one-by-one whittle out and replace each asset. But this is presuming that the skill to replace any of the items even exists. If not, then we again need to grow contributors by growing an audience. Perhaps a high-profile stunt like "The Dark Mod is teaming-up with the Hexen: Edge of Chaos team to help them with their tricky coding issues." Somehow Hexen Mod always seems more newsworthy to folks than TDM. If we helped their mod it would be mutually beneficial and they've got talented folk who might return the favor by adding assets. Heck, I'm sure some of our mappers would love to rework some of the Hexen: EoC maps for TDM. Think of the extra publicity for SEED if it were integrated into Hexen or Ruiner mods. I really don't think Doom 3 assets are really holding-back the mod from expanding though. (As nice as it would be to break the tethers.) You could port TDM to Xreal or any other Open Source engine that could use Doom 3 assets, then just include the Xreal (etc) engine with the mod as installed inside Doom 3. You could then have complete control over expanding engine features without violating Id intellectual property. The Doom3.exe would be sitting there collecting dust but that is no big deal. Just having the two executables there in the Doom 3 install folder would probably frustrate at least one animator or modeler to replace a couple of assets to alleviate the absurdity of the situation. That's enough ramble for now.

Yeah, I was hoping for a loophole there: // options to override surface shader flags (replace with material parameters?) bool noSelfShadow; // cast shadows onto other objects,but not self bool noShadow; // no shadow at all bool noDynamicInteractions; // see below // don't create any light / shadow interaction // the level load is completed. This is a performance hack // for the gigantic outdoor meshes in the monorail map, so // all the lights in the moving monorail don't touch the meshes Now that I've read more clearly, these appear to be bulldozer "ignore anything in the material definition and follow my orders" type attributes. I thought that "surface shader flag" might be another name for "stage keyword". Oh well... back to the drawing-board...

Try Notepad++

The materials are in your root darkmod directory when you dmap or "elsewhere'? I would use an override pk4 like zzz_melan_new.pk4 to make sure that your versions win.

All the textures are Power of Two, correct? I don't see a syntax problem with the definition. I would make sure to re-check the texture names (and also look for conflicting names in TDM?)

So after considering the benefits of the spectrum keyword I had a little brainstorm... What if only one stage in a material could be set to noDynamicInteractions and that stage would only be affected by lights of the same spectrum. Now my hypothetical "near infinite" light overlap scenario would work. I will try to test this myself but here is the material shader concept: add the following: textures/your_desired_editor_texture_folder/your_texture_name { // Use one of the predefined surface types like stone, glass, wood stone // or use this: // surfaceType 15 // and make the first word in the description below your texture type, // like so: // description "foliage" (This is a grass texture) description "Add here a little description of your texture" qer_editorimage textures/your_file_folder/your_texture_name_ed bumpmap textures/your_file_folder/your_texture_name_local diffusemap textures/your_file_folder/your_texture_name specularmap textures/your_file_folder/your_texture_name_s // This is the code for the "Light Map" stage { diffusemap textures/your_file_folder/your_texture_name spectrum 3 // Only lights with spectrum 3 affect this stage noDynamicInteractions // The lighting for this stage will not change once the map loads } // The following two blocks are required for the ambient shading: // TDM Ambient Method Related { if (global5 == 1) blend add map textures/your_file_folder/your_texture_name scale 1, 1 red global2 green global3 blue global4 } { if (global5 == 2) blend add program ambientEnvironment.vfp vertexParm 0 1, 1, 1, 1 // UV Scales for Diffuse and Bump vertexParm 1 1, 1, 1, 1 // (X,Y) UV Scale for specular vertexParm 2 global2, global3, global4, 1 fragmentMap 0 cubeMap env/gen1 fragmentMap 1 textures/your_file_folder/your_texture_name_local //Bump fragmentMap 2 textures/your_file_folder/your_texture_name //Diffuse fragmentMap 3 _black // Specular } }

Couldn't you "plant" prefab buildings or rooms with SEED? Then mapping would be as easy as drawing the grayscale image maps to tell SEED where to place buildings...? All the placement and connective rules could be handled "programmatically" (not to add more work for Tels... just food for thought for the future...)

My biggest concern is that this industry lockout process is snuffing-out the idea incubator that we know as modding. UDK and Unity are great for more ambitious folk but they do not provide the "low barrier to entry" tinker stage that lets more fresh random voices join in. OTOH, with even console games since Tony Hawk Pro skater including level designers with the latest being stuff like "Little Big Planet", "Mod Nation Racers" and even "Infamous 2" we are getting close to where "game design as a game" is becoming a real possibility for even the most novice users. I suppose, artists willing, that when TDM's prefab library is large enough that a new breed of FM author that only arranges prefabs could emerge. Something like Sotha's suggestion of a breed of FM author that just reworks Quake 4 maps into FM's. This would be the Tier I mapping group compared to the Tier II folks who build from scratch. If these authors offered great gameplay and or story it wouldn't be that much of a pity to see the same assets reused. And, of course, Darkradiant just keeps getting easier and better so that goes along with the "game building as game" trend... to some degree...

Try this: tdm_show_loot

I'm sure that the jury is out regarding a great deal of where one would say the "optimal" visportal arrangement would be for different scenarios but I thought it would be cool to have a thread that collects VP arrangements of either common or tricky areas so that mappers could compare and contrast. I was thinking of the common scenario of an open door-like entrance between two large areas and thought that a "fan-like" pattern of VP's would close according to your view parallax: \ \ |**| / / *W**W __ **___ **|**| --- ** ----- 1 2 3 4 5 (See attached JPG) (Obviously the W would be where the VP's come very close to each other then fan out from there.) My presumption is that as the player moves from position 1 to 5 different pairs of VP's will close? Anyone wish to comment or share their tricks? (Forum formatting is not consistent enough to preserve the intent of my ASCII art )

Not to place any unwarranted blame but... aren't the "key brightener" features in v1.05? Perhaps that is have an affect on the shaderParm (overridden)?

That seems like a milder variation of 2085 ... So perhaps make the new bug a child of 1860 as well?

The Death of Mods has nothing to do with the momentum towards "indie" as Robert stated. The Death of Mods is more about new kids wanting to mod on new engines and finding that these "new engines" reside within games that are protected by draconian DRM. Look at the GTA IV modding scene, you essentially (and ironically?) have to break the law in order to add any of the mods to the game. I believe I read that Bulletstorm has an encrypted config file such that you need to use hacking tools to change the damn FOV values. Should these kids instead look to older engines? Yes. Unfortunately, many cannot look past the limitations of older engines and simply don't feel it's worth it to put the effort in. Then, of course, is the fact that many modders use games they have in their library (economics alone will cause modders to gravitate to what they own). The new generation "own" games that cannot be touched without violating DMCA.

Hey I think I figured out how to use that "Print Screen SysRq" key you were discussing: Nudge nudge wink wink

I'm calm... But my soup is not getting any warmer over here