Leaderboard

@STRUNK, @grayman, I think I figured it out after some more experimenting... turns out my towers were worldspawn, and apparently when a speaker is embedded within a brush it behaves in this peculiar way. Learn something new every day I guess ^^

Perfect! That did the trick. Added the extra lines for the other painting too. I feel like this is a game bug that should probably be addressed in the stock assets for 2.08 though. I'll get back when I have a few more bugs ready to be squashed

With Tencent's money, they're trying to cover all fronts, but megascans content does run like shit even on decent modern machines. And that auto LODing system that will come with UE5 will require some serious hard drive throughput. There are rumors that PS5 has some next-gen SSD that allows it, so that would make sense. But I doubt indie studios will want to force highest hardware requirements for their games. Either that or they'll be spending most of their time optimizing someone else's models. Not to mention that there are quite many indie studios specializing in stylized art (pixel, voxel, handpainted), so no jobs for slider pushers there I wouldn't be surprised though, if a UE5/Megascans combo will be heavily used in VFX and Cinematography. Prototyping lighting and camerawork will be much faster than doing tests on location only. Side note: I know that I'm getting grumpy, but the whole thing kind of makes me like idTech4 even more. Its limitations (no GI, old shaders, etc.) are opportunity for you to grow as 3d artist, and you will see that improvement in the scenes you make. If you have no idea about how light works, how surfaces react to light, how objects are made, and you don't really care about all that, it will be reflected in the quality of your maps and models. But once you start learning all this, or if you have some experience in drawing, photography, etc., the quality of your work will become better and better. It's a joyous process and no amount of sliders and picklists will give you that

Yeah, I can confirm that but I think I although noticed that sometimes hitting the space key actually creates a duplicate. Workaround: save the resized model as new model in the mission's model folder.

@Bienie In line 1222 I added "skin builder02_torn" and that seems to do the trick. I guess you have to do this for all the skins you want to use. Place the edited file "tdm_decorative_wall.skin" in your skins folder (or create one if you don't have it in your project). tdm_decorative_wall.skin Next bug plz : )

@Bienie I tried it and with the default skin it works fine, though, if I use the skin you are using the same thing happens, it leaves a black rectangle. Looking further, there must be 2 skins: skin and skin_torn. So somewhere you have to add that _torn skin, that could be "portrait_in_armour_torn" fot it has the same frame. In the spawnargs there is "replace" that has to do with it, but it's the same with the working and non working skins .. so .. must be done somewhere in the skin defenition or something .. I'll go have a look if I can find something.

@Bienie Ok good!! On to the next bug then : )

Interested in helping. Sign me up if you still need testers.

Make sure you have "s_occlusion" set to "0". Counter-intuitively, this setting means that the sound should travel through portals and fade with distance traveled. Also set "s_omni" to "0". This prevents the sound from being "omnipresent" everywhere. Btw, "no_dups" doesn't mean sounds won't overlap. It means that once a sound has played, the next time it plays, if there are multiple choices, pick one that didn't just play. This keeps, for example, AI from continuously barking the same thing repeatedly when there are choices he could make.

good news, the FM is working with 2.08 beta \o/ FYI : I also have same kind of crash in 2.07 with "King of the Mountain" and "The Ravine" FMs, and both are working well with 2.08 beta. The problem seems to be more related to 2.07 version than your FM. Here's the generated log file with 2.07 Darkmod.cfg qconsole.log

One thing we might do is have the game send the server the stealth score tagged to the mission, and then it could compute a histogram that shows on the end game screen (if they're online), i.e., a bar graph of stealth scores for all players of that FM with a vertical line where the player's stealth score is, so they can see where they rate vis-a-vis the majority. That'd be cool to see and not too hard to set up.

This. I can't promise to be able to dedicate loads of time but I'd certainly give it a run through once or twice!

As an avid ghoster I do very much appreciate the stealth system we have in place at the moment. I think the increasing score system is fine, it might be a bit confusing the first time you play but you get the hang of it quickly. It's only on the end screen anyway where you have to consciously click to see the breakdown. I think the name stealth score is fine, because any word that's the opposite of stealth sounds more like an insult to the player than anything else honestly ^^ I do kind vibe with the par system, I almost wish we had a metric for each map somewhere in the menu system (or even just in the endgame screen) that shows for example your stealth score and then what "par" is, as in a number that the average player would expect to see. That's the only thing I think that is missing from our stealth score system atm, you don't really have anything to compare it to, since the maps vary so wildly it can be hard to tell if it's a good score or not. Personally only a 0 satisfies me but I'm probably in the minority on that one.

The score matches the rules for Ghosting, where they know something is there, which fits with the barks for level 2 but not for level 1. If you want to have a rule where just searches and busts count, then you can see that on the front page just by having zero searches and busts. If you're talking about modifying it, note that it took us weeks of work to get the counting right because of the cascade problem. It's never "one bust" or "search trigger", it's a cascade of like 20 of them in a brief period that looks like "one" to the player. But what a mapper could do is keep all of that system and just change the actual values of the points for each level though, like make them subtractive instead of additive, or make level 2 busts count for zero, etc. There's a way to get mapper scripts to talk to sourcecode, but I don't remember how to do it. The problem then is that it may be counterproductive to have a different system across maps.

I think "conspicuity" or "conspicuity level" would be the most fitting term (as far as I can judge that as a non-native speaker )

Man, this soundtrack really sucks up every bit of adrenaline in your body and spits it out explosively!!

That's the Epic goal

https://quixel.com/blog/2020/5/14/building-next-generation-experiences-with-megascans-and-unreal-engine-5 https://quixel.com/blog/2019/11/12/quixel-joins-forces-with-epic-games https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/05/unreal-engine-is-now-royalty-free-until-a-game-makes-a-whopping-1-mill/ If I'm reading the situation right, Epic wants Unreal Engine to be used by indie games, and indie developers will have access to Megascans through Unreal Engine. Niche indie games may never hit the $1 million revenue mark, but some unexpected hits might. And it gets more developers hooked on using Epic's tools, possibly for the rest of their careers.

Thanks! I agree, it's beautiful! While playing your mission I found myself getting back to the inn's tavern often, and risking getting caught just to listen to it from as close to the musician as possible

Sign me up. I'm very close to going into beta on my own mission, but I can devote some time to testing others.

A bit more grounded discussion on UE5 demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KgWJ1RxDhw It also aligns with what I've been thinking, e.g. that the quality of the character model is still last gen. Or that these 30-million polygon models are just impossible to have in a production environment. I've also checked the latest Megascans video: And you know what, I thought I had a pretty beefy rig. This scene runs at 20 fps for me, in a viewport. In fullscreen mode is more like 5 fps. And it really doesn't look much better than e.g. last Uncharted games. But right now I kind of understand why they've been pushing this "no-polygon limit" approach – so they can bind you to use Megascans and their hugely unoptimised assets. This scene is also not possible to have in a current production environment (i.e. a full game with AI logic, etc.). But AAA companies will jump at this as fast as they can, because the workflow they propose in this video is hugely beneficial to them. Once Megascans libraries are comprehensive enough, the role of "3d artist" will be to search through them, find an asset, choose from available dropdowns, push some sliders on a material level and insert asset into a level. In a sense, there will be no need for a 3d artist, as level designers could easily do that job themselves, or there will be a highly replaceable "asset finder" post, where any monkey with a week of training would do. But that's AAA business I guess, indie games will still hire modelers and 3d artists with a classic skill set.

Hey, first of all thanks for all of your work! I'm having a blast with The Dark Mod and with learning DarkRadiant (I'm truly enjoying your Speed Build challenge by the way). I agree that penalty might not be the most appropriate word. What I meant was that the current stealth score is something that is supposed to be minimized. The breakdown of the score is actually a set of penalty points applied to different situations in which the AI was alerted, so this score is more like an "AI alerted points" (again, not the perfect words, but it's along those lines) than an actual stealth score. It could be converted into a score if it was presented over a total. For example, 0 could be converted to 100/100, a 1 to 99/100 and so on. That way, when a user sees: Stealth score: 97/100 they immediately understand it wasn't perfect but it was close. When they see: Stealth score: 3 the immediate reaction is confusion and that they played it terribly, especially the first time they see this, but again, if it was more like: Stealth [insert word referencing something negative that needs to be minimized]: 3 users could better understand they did minimize what was supposed to be minimized. Anyways, just my two cents. Thanks for reading.

What isn't clear to me at all is how this could escalate. After all, only a select few have access to the TDM mission repository for uploading mission updates. If for example Goldwell started making his own versions of missions and replaced the official versions unwarranted, misusing his access rights, then surely all that would be needed would be to revoke his access to the mission repository and revert to the original version. In cases where a license by the author was given to make an update, I think it'd be reasonable to ask that the author inspects the updated version before consenting to its uploading to the official server. All the work has after all already been done for him. If it's a case where assistance is given during mapping, then the author should implement the ideas that he likes and leave aside the others. This was my experience during collaboration with bikerdude: we are after all 2 different people with each their own style of mapping, so it's clear that on some parts we would diverge, while on others the mission would reap the benefits from having 2 creative minds at work. I can however see problems with this kind of creative process if one author is a newbie while the other is a veteran, as the veteran might then end up taking a perhaps too great influence on development. So based on what I've gleaned from public discussion, it would seem like a simple case, but clearly there's more to this drawn-out discussion. Why is there drama about unauthorised updates when those can just be undone or prevented?