SneaksieDave

I've successfully made a custom shadow texture. Hopefully will have a simple demo shortly.

Cool. Well at least we know that's there (and apparently has source release) if we can never get it working in D3 source. Come to think of it... [downloading...] It actually seems to work perfectly. Remaining problems (known so far) include: 1. I can't seem to get a projected form working, only omni (which is a semi-significant problem, though I guess something stuck on a wall could be shadowed with clever limited size omni light placement *-see below). 2. I'm not sure how to control the darkness of the shadow. Light color doesn't do it. Perhaps there's a shaderparm? Ominously, there are two versions in the TDM folder: shadow_circle_01 and shadow_circle_01dark. Uh oh... Edit: 3. Forgot also, that it doesn't show these negative lights in DR, unfortunately. Makes editing them tricky. From that article on D3W "Negative Light -- Projecting Shadows", I confirm that blendLight is what's being used in these few shadow tex's in TDM. Nice! Thx. @Biker: A couple things (at least) being discussed here. One is using a custom hand painted light texture (same as you'd select for any light) to fake radiosity and soft shadows. Rich's map shows this. The other is using 'negative light' to simply paint soft shadows into a scene. My pic above shows this. I'm wrapping my head around making a simple demo of the second method (even though it's already been used in some maps I believe, it's clear not everyone (including myself) gave it much thought). *Edit: Looks like maybe this (projected v omni) isn't that big of a problem afterall. Apparently lights can be rotated to have Z-fixedness no longer be fixed to Z. IOW, a circular texture can be rotated 90 degrees Y in order to project the circle onto a wall. Didn't know that.

Wow! Looks fab. That and Pandora's Box are shining examples of what can be done with patches -- so perfectly blending into the world you don't pause and say "oh, patches, gee... ", you just take it as part of the world.

Quite weak, yes. Bottom of the line for that series. I've learned during the upgrade process that for nvidia, the initial digit (6 in this case) is the series (4000, 5000, 6000 etc) and the second digit (2 in this case), the member number of the series, places it in the family in terms of power. A 6800 is not just a bit, but actually much more powerful than a 6200. In some cases, from comparison charts I've read, a low member number will even place it below previous series high member numbers (e.g., a 5200 having poorer performance than a 4600).

Okay so I guess it does work*. And has definite potential (though it currently doesn't show in DR unfortunately): Something tells me we'll be needing a lot more shapes of these. And for them to cast in DR if possible. *worked as omni, but not projected. This limits use pretty badly. :-/ Edit: Ugh, don't want to read that whole D3W thread, especially after the first page says he can't get it to work with D3. Does it work?

For discussion completeness, do you have links to such mods? I believe I've heard of one in progress in the past but I thought it wasn't released or complete. More stream of consciousness: (@OrbWeaver, @rich_is_bored, @rebb, @anyone_who_might_know) I think I recall this being done around here somewhere, but aside from creating a light texture with shadows (especially if used as ambient which is limited for realism (no other objects will cast shadows)), shouldn't it be possible with one of the blend methods to make a pure shadow texture? That is, a light that is darkened only in a painted spot (through one of those gl_minus_one or whatever crazy magicks) and has no effect anywhere else in the texture? Not like the existing shadow lights, which cast light and skip some spots for shadow, but rather that casts only a darkened spot (reducing/negating any light it strikes)? With that, mappers could have a regular light work normally, turn off shadows on specific objects, and then use a custom shadow only texture (above) to paint a shadow behind it, while not affecting anything else in the scene? (Maybe it's already being done and I fell asleep.)

Also, if the real shadow (hard edge from a wall) conflicted with the hand-painted shadow, it would defeat the effect. You could of course make such edges into func_static and non shadow casting. But I think for the most part, mixing real time (sharp) shadows with faked (soft) shouldn't look bad. Of course, beating all of it is a sourcecode release.

Bingo ^ That's what I did for three of my systems (one 6800, and two 7600s)

Hoping this will help with a mental image of it for those who don't use DR. Here's a typical ladder in TDM. To start climbing, the game sticks your front end to that surface. Thus the reason you must back off ledges facing the ladder (though you can look down some to negotiate it more safely) for the initial stick (you can look around once stuck). If the mapper makes the brush thicker it can make it more sure that you'll grab it upon stepping off, but you'll be further from the ladder itself in game, so there's a balance. That little lip shown in the pic helps as well. Once you know how it works, you have far fewer (if any) problems anymore. Bonus: yes climbable surfaces can be oddly shaped, angled, and even on ceilings in TDM.

You have TDM's HDR? Question (I guess one of photoshop) on technique: How do you gradually increase the blur as it moves away from the wall corner? A gradient of a gaussian blur maybe (assuming that's possible; I haven't tried it)? Another: How to get the exact dimensions of the shadows for the room? My guess is one could take a screenshot of the ortho view and work from there. Stream of consciousness: As to the z direction, hm... I think I get how the z direction is handled, but yes it's obviously problematic. Using two was mentioned, and if I understand correctly, I assume that's talking about splitting the room vertically in half and lighting it twice, once for each half? Probably useful but hopefully in most cases fading before ceiling is applicable. And of course, this is doing an entire room at once. There is also the option to use several lights, e.g. around lamps, to light portions of a room, like around a nightstand and a shadow from a bed, making achieving the effect much easier. Couple this with project soft shadows onto walls and such... zowie! I see it's an ambient (and looks so realistic that an unlit model looks out of place, wow), but I assume that's not necessary. If it were a regular light, it could cast the same shadows plus dynamic (sharp) ones?

My stance is what it always was and will be. If Thiaf is good, I'll get it. If not, I won't. I always sit and wait on purchases so I have time to decide. Thief is separate from Thief 2 is separate from TDS is separate from TDM is separate from Thiaf, and they can be enjoyed or not, separately.

There currently exists: Paste PasteShader (interesting... maybe redundant with paste and face selected?) PasteShaderNatural PasteToCamera

Yup you can do exactly that: select face, copy. Select face, paste. Texture transferred. I just use MMB and ctrl-MMB myself. Click, click, done.

Yes ^ I've heard one (sensible) suggestion that it might be good to allow some "regular" mapping time in between contests, so contests don't dominate everything, but I disagree. Contests really keep the community blood flowing, and it's not like everyone participates. If someone has a larger project they're working on instead, they will do so and leave the contest to others.

Regular ctrl-c and ctrl-v work with selected faces (not brushes; that would duplicate the brush). And there are the MMB and ctrl-MMB mouse shortcuts. Then there are the paste natural, paste aligned, etc methods. Do you mean something else different?

Right, this is actually a perfect example of a feature in TDM that is merely derived from the original Doom3 functionality, but greatly improved for better gameplay. This type of thing probably goes unnoticed in most cases, where a hater thinks, "so what? Doom3 already had ladders, big deal." And this type of stuff is everywhere in the mod.

Yes, misunderstanding and both sides blown out of proportion and context. Peace. So what's this about a summer FM contest?

Uh, discovered the reason, and it's not good. (Side topic) The world is completely black (after re-dmap; otherwise it looks like my shot above) when the mapper doesn't include an "ambient_world" entity*. I realize all release maps should include that, but to bust a map completely if it doesn't? Bit much. Edit: *for those without new ambient and HDR this will work fine.

Not sure, just the one in the post above Diego's. Feel like I'm having a brainfart. Works fine in DR... loads wrong in TDM... recompiled... deleted from PK4 even... renamed even... tried in separate folder even... erm... huh?

Hm. I'm getting this: Yes it's renamed PK4 (and opens as such with winrar). I also tried taking the map out of the PK4 and into the /maps folder and recompiling, and even renaming it to testrich.map (though no 'test.map' is conflicting) but no dice. I can see in DR that this isn't what the map looks like, so I'm a bit confused at the moment... Edit: oh damn, it looks sweet in DR though. Made my heart skip a beat, as for a split second I thought DR gained realtime soft shadows!

For clarification (hope you don't take offense at this, too), here are just a few times this has been brought up that I've found using google for two minutes (the forum search is really ass). We've had Crysis,UDK, and even Wii. Somewhere around here I'm sure Irrlicht, Ogre, and maybe whatever the Penumbra engine is called, have been brought up too. And that's just the ones that come to mind. While "go with different tech" for any variety of reasons is in no way necessarily a "bad" idea, it should be more than obvious that it's way too late to consider that at this stage. One need only look at the time involved to see how practical it is, and that overlooks a lot of the true hurdles. Imagine working for more nearly 6 years on a free project, getting very little help from the community (aside from demanding things and complaining), and throughout, you have people suggesting you trash it all and start over for them. Imagine that when you make a simply awesome editor (and if you don't think it is, you don't know DR except for what it currently lacks (e.g. proper renderer)), they tell you all the ways that it's not as good as sandbox, or hammer, or even friggin DromEd. Yes, when someone asks a question they don't know has been asked before, they deserve some patience. But those repeatedly asked also deserve some as well for the reasons above. Since you haven't responded about the quoting clarification (except in PM which I'm not interested in), I'll assume either it's clarified and closed, or you want to hold a grudge because you were quoted in an unflattering manner. Okay. You shouldn't read more hostility into something than was intended. Either way, we should conclude the derail of this thread that started with the engine switch suggestion.

Shi... well the fact that it's using the exact same textures (from the stones for walls to the columns to the stairs) as my tomb themed place is both encouraging and scary. Perhaps it's testament to how good those textures are. Looks great, Baal.

Your suggestion has been made several times over the years. Do a forum search. It has been discussed and basically shown to be impractical. And not just for TDM; it happens even for professionally published titles at times. It is nothing new. It is however unfortunately a very, very shortsighted and inexperienced view of the amount of work that goes into a project like TDM. The fact that it took more than 5 years to produce -- and that there is still very, very little help being offered (almost none), particularly in the programming department -- should give some perspective on the scope of the project and the reception at the suggestion. At the same time, nothing stops you from developing such a mod yourself. Heck, you can even use the open TDM source as your codebase. Neither quoting you in a response nor underlining logical weakness in your statement should be viewed as mocking or immature, I think. Don't read hostility into it. Much. Disclaimer: Joking should not be viewed as mocking or immature. Ugh. I even included a compulsory winkie to be extra clear. Pitiful when it comes to that.

Mmm... amusement that the author of the article is named Peter Fried. As for pharmies controlling doctors, ya better believe it. They're called kickbacks and they can be big motivators for a greedy doc. At my former douchenozzle doctor's office, you could sit in the waiting room (for an hour ) and watch the pharmie reps in expensive black suits with briefcases come in, all smiles and friendly with the staff ("Oh hi Jim, he's with a patient but I'll let him know you're waiting...") and then after a 20 min meeting or so, he leaves and next thing you know you've got an appointment with a doc trying to push three new medications on you (for the most common shit they claim everyone has: asthma, depression, insomnia, allergies, acne, uncontrollable farting...). As for protecting drug development interests, ya better believe that too, to the tune of patents galore and huge lawsuits (and perhaps even to the point of quasi-conspiracy). My degree is in chemistry and I worked for a pharmaceutical company for several years (before bailing on that BS and going for software instead) so I do know a bit about it. As for legalization... not quite so black and white for me. I'm not really for recreational drug use, too much (well, that percocet and valium for the back injury was pretty fun...) but I've also watched people dying from cancer. Medicinal, definitely. Legalization? Possibly, if they can demonstrate it won't do too much harm (to society; the users can handle themselves). I'm kinda strict though, considering I think DUI offenders should have their licenses taken away, permanently. My views have softened over the years though. Edit: note that the second article puts forward that combined use of cigs and pot causes the respiratory problems, and that pot alone did not cause such problems. Edit: LOL! And the interpretation from the first article: Were those the articles you meant to link?

Yes you're supposed to walk back to mount descending. The surface you attach to is in front of you (unless the mapper made it really big or odd). Once attached you can look around as normal.