OrbWeaver
-
Posts
8726 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
81
Posts posted by OrbWeaver
-
-
I've planned what I'll do now. I'll obtain the PC version of Thief3, having the XBox version already, and design levels first. I'm going to look at the modelling stuff aswell as ligthing then start to read the DOOM3 stuff later on, closer to the Dark Mod time, where I'll obtain Doom3 PC and hopefully have a bit of experience by then.
If you want to learn Doom 3 editing, learn it now. There is absolutley NO point in learning the T3 editor first because it is completely different (and a lot less powerful).
-
Ok, maybe not so absurd after all. But doesn't it really reduce the usefulness of a merge function if you can't use solid brushes?
The Merge function is used to merge two shapes into a single convex shape, e.g.
+------+ +------+ | | | | +------+ -> | | | | | | +------+ +------+
-
Ive constructed as simple building in D3ed and now Im trying to merge all the separate walls and stuff into one object.
You can't.
All brushes in Doom 3 are solid and convex. If you want a concave shape (such as a room) you have to make it out of separate solid brushes.
-
Also, the way you traditionally go about plotting road and paths textures onto a terrain is either to cut poly's into the terrain to accomodate where the path goes, which is not an option if your collision engine expects a uniform grid mesh for the terrain, in which case you use the technique Carmack described, where you specify 2 overlapping repeatd texures (eg. grass and road) and then supply a low res alpha map with paths drawn on it, where the road texture shows through.
I wonder if it would be possible to do something similar with the current Doom 3 material engine. As you can already blend between two textures based on the vertexcolours applied to the mesh, perhaps you could write a shader to do the same thing but based on an extra image stage in the material definition.
-
-
I would much rather see real procedural textures, rather than huge 32,000 pixel images (how the hell are you going to edit that in GIMP/Photoshop?).
Imagine a fully programmable object-oriented shader programming engine, where you could define objects that generated "signals" that could be fed into other objects to mix and produce textures on the fly.
E.g.
SineModulator sm(MODULATE_SINE_2D, xscale=2, yscale=3.5); ImageTexture it1("textures/natural/moss"); ImageTexture it2("textures/wall/brickwall2").addModulated(GL_BLEND, it1, sm);Or something.
-
Learning Dromed before Doom 3 would be like learning C before C++. Unhelpful and counterproductive.
Playing a lot of Thief-style levels is certainly a good idea, as well as developing fundamental skills in modelling and texture creation.
-
There's an EDITOR for THIEF ????!!!!!
-
Nobody even considers doing a total conversion anymore?
I noticed that one as well. I think he's right in as much as modding becomes increasingly time-consuming as the standards set by the original game go up, but I hope that Carmack doesn't adopt a "it's too complex for you" attitude towards modders the way Warren Spector did with T3.
-
I have to ask this question: can our great programming wizards "move" some new features (e.g. megatextures) and new-old-already-partially-implemented tricks (e.g. great looking water) from Quake Wars to TDM?
Great-looking water can already be done in Doom 3. Functions like MegaTexture could probably only be implemented once Doom 3 is open-sourced, unless there was enough fledgling code already to make it work (which is unlikely).
-
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?...334234&from=rss
From what I can make out, the MegaTexture is just a very large texture that doesn't go into VRAM, and then some logic in the engine picks out the portions of the large image that should be rendered depending on which parts of the object are in view.
-
If you've made any good models with Blender, then I'll give your opinion more weighting. Even then, I'll say that you wasted your time learning an esoteric interface when you could have learned something more mainstream which will benefit you in the long run when you upgrade to a more powerful modelling program.
I may not have created anything spectacular in Blender, but plenty of people have. Whether Blender has a similar interface to other "mainstream" apps is almost entirely irrelevant, since the skill in modelling is not knowing the specific interface of the 3D app, but knowing the techniques involved in creating an advanced model which are the same in any modeller.
In fact, once people actually get to know Blender's interface, rather than blowing it off because it doesn't have standard widgets and configurable keyboard shortcuts (the horror!) they find it is actually very streamlined and allows you to get work done with very little hassle.
-
Milkshape is probably better alround and costs an affordable $30 US
Milkshape better than Blender?
Why pay hard cash for a low-poly-only modeller when you can have a professional-quality high/low-poly modelling tool for absolutely goddamn nothing?
-
Which i'm going to model and texture etc into darkmod eventually (in a few years)
You don't need to wait for Dark Mod to do this, you can model and texture it into Doom 3 now.
-
Everybody likes new, groundbreaking 3D interfaces that utilise the full range of your body's motion to communicate with the PC.
For the first 10 minutes, that is.
I wouldn't like to imagine what my arms would feel like after a 2 hour gaming session using such technology.
-
It's better to hold it further to one side or even slightly behind you, so that the light source does not enter your FOV at all.
-
When you are a scout, one thing you learn is, to NOT use a torch in the night in the forest. The reason is exactly the same. Using a torch means that you have good vision in the cone of the torch and zeor vision outside of it, while without a torch you have generally a much better vision, even though you may not see all details.
It amuses me in TV and films when a character is searching with an oil lamp or other omnidirectional lightsource, and they spot something and hold up the light in front of them to get a better view.
I can confirm from experience that in this situation you would see nothing except for the light source itself.
-
ascottk might be worth a try as well, he has done some retexturing work in T3 and recently expressed an interest in migrating to TDM.
-
Without light he would be invisible. But with bright/moderate light either behind or in front he would be illuminated, provided, say a wall is not in the way.
This is not pedantic its fact, imagine standing the other side of the tunnel & the thief would be lit. If not then the quantity of the light coming down the tunnel is NOT enough for a sillhouette if you were then at the other end of the tunnel.
Go outside and try it in RL.
BTW I used to teach physics so don't bother arguing
Nobody is disputing that this in real life, the existence of a object's silhouette implies that some light is hitting the object.
Grinningman's assumption was that this is also true in the Dark Mod lightgem code, which is incorrect. The lightgem only responds to light which falls on the player directly from an in-game light source, not theoretical light reflected off other game surfaces.
-
Grinningman is correct in a purely pedantic, literal way, in as much as the existence of a silhouette entails a difference between light that intercepts (and therefore "illuminates", if only very slightly) an object and light which doesn't.
This is nevertheless merely a semantic debate that has no relevance to the actual issue, which is whether the lightgem in its current incarnation automatically takes care of silhouettes (it doesn't).
-
Textures as a whole is quite lacking. Poor BT is shouldering most of the work, and despite numerous leads (free sources, photo jaunts, MORE free sources, discs full of 'em) it's something we lack the most.
I think you are overestimating the amount of skill that is out there. I would glady make textures if I had the time (hell I even applied at one point), but unfortunately I am just not that good at making textures. OK, but not that good.
The problem is that once you learn a couple of simple techniques in modelling, texturing or whatever, you are immediately seized by the notion that you absolutely rock at modelling or texturing, just because you can produce stuff that you wouldn't have thought possible before you started (I've been there myself). Unfortunately, this applies to everybody else as well, which means that your own work is in fact pretty average.
The result of this is that there is a big discrepancy between the number of "modellers" and "texture artists" who drop into the forums, and the number of actual talented individuals who can make a real contribution.
-
Moving onwards and upwards, apparently.
-
It depends on the environment too. I can just about see the dark areas on my bright LCD in a dimly-lit room, but I wouldn't bank on being able to see much on a standard CRT in a brightly-lit office, for instance.
-
Thenone of them manages to kill the killer and while they are celebrating he is coming again because he was not really killed.
That's the bit that always infuriates me.
Useless bimbo girl gets chased by killer. Useless bimbo girl has sudden fit of non-bimboness and hides in wait for the killer, then when killer approaches, bimbogirl makes a single feeble attempt to strike/stab/shoot the killer, then sits down and cries with back to the body. Killer is not really dead and gets up again.
The total failure of "victims" in films to aggressively seize their one moment of advantage and gain the upper hand is an extremely annoying cliche.
3rd Person
in The Dark Mod
Posted
It won't help with level design that much, because it is used differently. It would be like trying to learn to fly a plane by driving a car - although some things may be similar, it is much better to train on the tool you will be using.
I'm not sure what you mean by "3rd person viewpoint" - this is nothing to do with level design, it is a function provided by the final game which you can't control unless you rewrite the game itself.