Wellingtoncrab

Personally I would love to see this change - as it would great to have another way beyond gas arrows to open up alert AI to KO. It feels like there is very little reason as is for a player to invest in flashbombs at all and it’d be one more option for players that might provide one less reason to just reload the game.

An equivalent of 60 to 30 would be something more like dropping from 300 down to like 50-60 frames maybe, but I assume that is still flawed given all the differences in hardware and how they handle the work loads period.

Imo no, because the amount of milliseconds it takes to render a frame is very different at low vs high frame rates. 30 FPS is 33.33333 MS 60 FPS is 16.66666 MS 90 FPS is 11.11111 MS 120 FPS is 8.333333 MS 140 FPS is 7.142857 MS 144 FPS is 6.944444 MS 180 FPS is 5.555555 MS 240 FPS is 4.166666 MS The practical difference between 150 vs 300 is basically 3 ms per frame of render time, vs the over 16ms that comes with 30 vs 60.

On the topic of flash bombs I agree it would be an improvement if these could be used to interrupt alert states of guards and open them back up to KO. This gives them a real purpose in the game, and a way out of situations that might otherwise just result in a long wait for ai cool downs, or more likely just a reload. So far I know of a couple of authors who have attempted to address this via scripting, but haven't been able to get it to work. Might require some code to support the option.

You know it's perfectly fine to mod the game to include changes which only address your own very personal hangups about the story and setting, regardless of how I feel about it. But as you know from your work on Bloodlines, which you deserve a tremendous amount of credit for what you have done to help preserve that game, that not every user is going to want or even expect a "patch" to touch those aspects of a game. So why advertise it as a gameplay focused patch or pretend you are acting on behalf any users besides yourself when you are making these kinds of changes? I get that your "patch" is effectively any change to that *you* prefer - and that now includes story elements you don’t like. In the case of Bloodlines it seems like it was the right decision to separate them, but that is up to you. But you don’t get to avoid receiving feedback on the topic because it is “snarky” or “sarcastic”.

Yeah some guy named Wesp5 complained about it and it seemed to really bother them. Nice of you to reach out and fix it! Maybe if they are still active you can try and track Wesp5 down and see if they are ok first with you just omitting this from your patch before jumping to any conclusions?

No that's me. And yes I don't think people who install a "patch" expect it to change art and story elements in people's missions. At a minimum there is usually a way to opt out of it. Didn't you learn this with your own Bloodlines patch already? Weird approach that you make authors “opt out” in the first place - but if that is the case I would just reiterate you do not have my permission to modify the art or story in anyway in *any* mission I have and will ever work on, not just the one. To be clear you do not *need* my permission to mod the game (and make no mistake - the unofficial “patch” is a mod, not a patch) but I would consider it a courtesy if you please honor my request. I don't know why I am doing this again, but in TDM "Britain" and "France" do not exist. TDM is set on psuedo continental europe in an alternate history which diverges thousands of years ago. While that is stated case on the TDM wiki, the art selections for the maps leave the contours of the continent vague enough, even “mysterious” to the point that users like you were not even aware this was the case: Let’s see how that aligns with some of your art selections: Wow - you really have to squint to make out Europe. Cool map - but you haven’t exactly kept the “mystery” intact here.

Yes that is an issue - for the game to draw any material it must defined in a .def file. It is the material def which points at the texture maps, and then the model is pointed at the material def via the names of it's material. For yours it could be quite simple for the time being: textures/gobmdl/ksword_rusty { metal diffusemap textures/gobmdl/ksword_rusty }

Good news is that is appears to me to export fine (and seems like it will be a cool dishonored style model): Bad news would be what the heck is going wrong. Here is a picture of the modifier stack: And the ase export settings: What does your material def for the texture look like? Maybe there is an issue there.

Do you want to try posting your .blend file? I can take a look at it.

This almost has to do with the normal facings of the model which I can see you are aware as you are posting a picture of the blue normal direction in blender. The catch would be even when the normals are facing the correct direction in blender - it unfortunately doesn't always mean they will be handled correctly by the model exporter. Check a few things: Have you triangulated the model? Quads and ngons will not render correctly in the game. The export tools have a triangulate check box - but I prefer to use the triangulate modifier in blender as that gives you a bit more control and you can actually see the result. Do you have "recalculate normals" selected on export? *Normally* that is fine (get it?), but if the exporter is messing up the normal facings of the model you can try disabling it. Then are you using lwo? *Personally* I have had a lot of issue when importing and exporting lwos in general - and that includes circumstances where the normal direction of the models just would not export correctly - and I actually had to invert the normals in blender (ie all red outward faces) to get them to export correctly into the game. For that reason I currently like using ase over lwo or the newer obj export as it is the most reliably “what you see is what you get “option when working with TDM formats and blender, but that is just my opinion.

It’s already mentioned in the Iris thread there.

User @kalinovka has been working on a Russian language translation of -= IRIS =- which is now available in an initial beta release here: https://cloud.mail.ru/public/J3VG/U3nKuMieC There is still a lot of work to do - so feedback from Russian language speaking users would be greatly appreciated!

The POM materials included in the game are all brand new. So you can expect to only see them in new or updated missions, which we haven’t seen just yet. There are missions in development which use the feature that hopefully will release in the not too distant future. Welcome back to the wondrous world of idtech4 by the way!

How well it will “work” depends on the nature of the curve, the number/angle of the facets in the curve, the material, the texture scale of the material, etc but it typically looks fine imo and will probably often look more “seamless” than a 90 - especially on convex edges. We tried to tune most of the materials added to core to at least look ok tiled across 90 degree convex edges.

@CountMorillonite Yes - the secret stat only pertains to the So it looks like you have at least one more to find. And of course you can let me know if you discover any new ones.

Yes that would be very interesting. That’s why I mentioned tessellation as maybe an alternative with less downsides than POM when you are considering the actual brush/texturing workflow used when building levels for the game.

@peter_spy The Pepsi POM challenge of what is more efficient is again maybe interesting, but for the workflow of this game does it even matter? Its already obvious POM is pepsi and real geometry is coke, but it presumes these would actually be interchangeable for most people making content for the game. If I need a brick surface, I and 99% of mappers are going to drop a worldspawn brush and put a tiling brick texture on it using the inbuilt tools. I am not going to make a model of it. I am definitely not going to make LODs of it. The use case of most of these POM materials is to be a familiar extension of the traditional brush/texturing/sealing workflow, not a replacement for models which have, and will always have, their place in the game.

More polys/geometry usually isn’t easier in the context of this game, where making content which runs at all is about producing clean sealing geometry and portalization. For all its faults an illusion like POM, which derives detail while retaining minimally complex sealing geometry seems well suited to that and the workflow of most mappers. Maybe hardware tessellation could achieve something similar with less of the drawbacks, but I am pretty happy with this so far.

There are a number of ways a the parallax effect might look "weird" on edges as it is just an illusion. There is the perspective distortion on edges, the fact the effect just doesn't work at glancing angles, the displacement not tiling perfectly across edges, being able to see "past" the edge into the parallax itself, etc. This is why in the brief window this was a popular technique in games, you would often see it on something like a portion of brick wall that was surrounded in beams. Or in more modern example in Deus Ex: MD it used on cobblestones where you always have curbs to flank it. Just like any "trick" you need to use it in a way that plays to it's strengths and hides it weaknesses. Did you consider adding a border with geometry, such as a curb?

All of the parallax materials shown off in the anniversary demo video (and more) are available in the dev build dev17234-10914. Just search for the suffix "_parallax"

#3 about 12 seconds in starts to look about right to me.

Yeah this is really getting out of hand:

Pretty subjective. Looking at things like the rough details in the normal map, I don’t think that’s what the original model is intended to convey, but I guess I don’t know either. It’s all subjective, but if that is what you are going for you are operating more in the territory of making a skin variant and the base material should remain intact, as I would consider yours to be more of an exception in terms of depictions of armor, which even when ornate, tend to have a more diffuse reflection: Personally given the darker setting I would prefer to use the original.

@Arcturus I am sorry but the elite armor looks significantly less like a metallic response and more like some kind of glass, polished stone, or clear coat. The reflections are too intense and uniform and that is obscuring and smoothing over detail you can see pretty clearly in the original imo. It doesn’t really suit the material or look like an improvement yet to me. When the old material was on screen, your test lighting is actually quite flattering to the specular response, and my reaction was “that looks pretty good, I like that”. Maybe dial down the intensity of the reflection, use something like a colored cubemap so you get a less neutral “glassy” reflection response, and try adding some masking?