Search the Community

Basically someone always asks. We're all grownups here and it's in spoiler tags so...

The map files in NHAT v4 were too large to diff in Notepad++ or Meld ( etc) so I decided to test out the old I18N.pl script and it still works fine for me. Caveats? It doesn't understand campaign packs so you have to split the maps and xdata and create a fake darkmod.txt without the "mission 1 , mission 2, etc" part. Then you have to renumber the "#str_xxxx" entries in the other maps so they don't collide. Luckily find and replace can easily fix that. A lot of work to get this working with the latest NHAT version, phew!

I hope that is not the new TDM version. https://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?/topic/20784-render-bug-large-black-box-occluding-screen/

For free ambience tracks it's as Freky said: you look around on the internet for tracks with the appropriate license to be included in your FM. Fortunately, you likely don't even need to bother doing this as a beginner as there's an entire "Music & SFX" section of the forums full of good ambient tracks for you to use if the stock tracks do not meet your fancy. You might also be interested in Orbweaver's "Dark Ambients", which come with a sndshd file already written for you.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/okqbL9ZZQaM

For the FM? For beta 1 it's here: https://drive.proton.me/urls/H1QBB04GA0#oBZTb1CmVFQb I've already done around 100 fixes though, so you might want to wait for beta 2 which should be ready in a couple of days hopefully. All links are in the first post of the beta thread here: https://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?/topic/22439-the-lieutenant-3-foreign-affairs-beta-testing/

So, that's how it was explained to me. Even though it seems counter intuitive, using Direct X maps has worked for me. I was recently trying to import a bunch of textures from Polyhaven.com (they offer both OpenGL and directX normalmaps) and I used the OpenGL version at first, but when I put it in-game there was an inverted green channel. I then used the directX version and the normalmap worked just fine I'm happy to be corrected on any of this though. Maybe Polyhaven does something different with their normals, or I'm doing something wrong

Is that really correct? Unless TDM team changed stuff from Doom 3 times, if you use Doom 3 as example, normal maps that represent outward surfaces, use OpenGL system, those that represent inward surfaces, aka holes, use D3D system. On real DirectX renders, outward surfaces, use the D3D system instead and the OGL one for inward, is inverted. And to reinforce this the original example by idSoftware, looks to use the OpenGL system see here cyan for top, purple for the bottom, in d3d is inverted. Thou like I said maybe the TDM team changed all of this by now... edit: Incorrect info so ignore it any mod is free to delete this if he/she wants.

I think this is a slippery slope fallacy. Just because the ability to customize exists does not mean most mappers will use it. On the contrary, if one considers the customization that are already available, we see that the overwhelming majority of mappers stick to the defaults. The exceptions are interesting also. Kingsal's the only mapper that readily comes to mind who habitually deviates from presets seemingly just for the sake of being different. However everything they make is clearly in service of cohesive visions. Hazard Pay, no matter how you feel about it, unarguably loses a great deal of its survival horror character if you take away the napalm arrows or the punishing save system. The Voltas don't need to use Thief style elemental crystals in place of TDMs arrow model, but the fact that they are there makes a definite statement about the author's awareness of their inspiration for their work in TDM from the original games, which in turn draws attention to other, subtler creative choices. I think it's also telling that some of kingsal's modifications have been adopted by other authors. As OrbWeaver said, "If the defaults are widely disliked, they should be changed." However, how can the community come to a consensus unless there are maps to showcase the advantages of new innovations? Requesting, or worse requiring, players to go in and manually change settings in order to experience a new mechanic is never going to gain any traction. Certainly it is not worth the effort of creating an entire map built around a new paradigm.

"May his iron mold the current as we were molded. May his instrument expel all obstruction as we are his instruments." - Collected Sermons of Master Plumber Roto Rooter Few would dare cross the Bridgeport Plumber's Guild. Fewer still could glimpse their secrets and live. CC0 POLYHAVEN PLUMBER PACK BETA Includes: Fully modular pipe kit with optimized shadow mesh, two skin variations and near perfect grid snapping at grid level 4 Moveable plunger prop which is fully compatible with the AI weapon system Worry free CC0 license All credit to the great polyhaven.com for the original mid poly meshes - consider supporting them on patreon. I just decimated and then rebaked the assets as well as converted the maps from pbr and made the additional model and material variations.

I understand some changes that break backwards compatibility, long as they're kept minimal and hopefully don't render old FM's unplayable unless patched. We should keep in mind some maps may never get updated, especially ones who's authors might no longer be around... at the same time some things can't be easily improved because keeping it backwards compatible is more challenging, I felt a few things were limited for that reason a couple of times.

Yeah, as I said elsewhere, it's not so much that the missions are broken that is frustrating to me and several other affected authors, it's that there was zero communication to the affected authors that this was going to be happening beforehand. There is no reason why a message couldn't have been sent to the affected authors saying "hey, this will be broken in the upcoming dev build for X reasons. I thought you'd like to know before surprising you." Or even an open discussion beforehand about why these authors decided to make these customizations to begin with. Plain and simple, that's just a lack of respect. If you have the time to break these, you have time to communicate and see if there might be a solution to avoid all this (and there is!). And perhaps from YOUR perspective, you might think this reaction seems silly, unnecessary, and that this is totally fine, but from my perspective and that of a few others, it's not. EDIT: In addition, when creating or modifying existing assets, I and others take great care in making sure that these changes don't break existing maps. And if they do, we do whatever we can to own up to that and fix it. I do expect that same level of respect to be shown to existing maps so they aren't just broken with reckless abandon and no clear path forward.

It's a bummer I'm not personally good in drawing maps.

Funnily enough, I was going to ping you and see if you wanted to draw the map. There is something included which could technically be called a 'map', but it sucks. The issue is the FM doesn't cover a huge area, but there is a LOT of vertical overlap so the options are a single map which provides vague guidance (the option I've gone with), or loads of tiny maps for each area (which would suit an automap probably).

I think that this discussion is probably similar to discussions that idSoftware themselves had about the challenges of texture storage in engines that heavily rely on Normal Maps for real-time lighting. The conclusion was Megatextures ( later known as partially resident textures ) but the suggestion was a little too ahead of its time. Heck, early Megatexture games would probably benefit from detail textures more than idTech4 because they capped the pixel density to allow larger map-sized textures. Many modern games have caught up and use partially resident textures but do so in a more conservative way thus making them part of a hierarchy of texture usage methods that includes texture atlases and traditional tiled textures.

Correctly me if wrong. Apperantly xdata formatting doesn't work well with the lang references. So this: maps/man2/mission_briefing { "num_pages": "1" "page1_body" : "#str_b1" "" "#str_b2" "" "#str_b3" } Doesn't work. You can only do this: maps/man2/mission_briefing { "num_pages": "1" "page1_body" : "#str_b1" } And then in the lang file you have to add the whole text of page 1 and get newlines via \n etc. So writing a (text only) briefing or readable and after that translating, is probably not something you want to do. I didn't actually test this with readable's, but it seems to me it would have the same limitation.

Interesting idea. Not sure about my upcoming time availability to help. A couple of concerns here - - I assume the popup words uses the "Informative Texts" slot, e.g., where you might see "Acquired 80 in Jewels", so it likely wouldn't interfere with that or with already-higher subtitles. - There are indications that #str is becoming unviable in FMs; see my just-posted: https://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?/topic/22434-western-language-support-in-2024/

In post https://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?/profile/254-orbweaver/&status=3994&type=status @nbohr1more found out what the Fixup Map functionality is for. But what does it actually do? Does it search for def references (to core?) that don't excist anymore and then link them to defs with the same name elswhere? Also I would recommend to change the name into something better understood what it is for. Fixup map could mean anything. And it should be documented in the wiki.

Another failure by @kingsal. Firstly the mission is way too short. And like his other missions, the quality is supreme, keeps me playing and neglecting real life duties. Never feeling the frustration of getting stuck, never resolving to walkthrough material. Is it a sign of excellent design or rather a lack of challenge? Also extreme attention to detail, engaging maps from room to a room, gorgeous visually. I understand this is just a free-time effort for someone who could instead make money out of his skills but, I'm sure you could do better.

Ok, but you could also load all maps in your campaign, but in a different order. Or you could make a copy of the map and change some things. So it doesn't have to be an entirally different mission (which indeed might be too much work). So for example the first mission has an objective to place the plans to build a bridge over the river in a specific place. Then the next mission has that bridge (map1), or does not have that bridge (map2). Mapper only has to make a copy of the map and remove the bridge (and maybe a small amount of other things). I just think that having only one specific order is pretty restrictive. But if it's a lot of work to implement it might not be worth it.

Another thing, not sure if it's entirally related: If you have a campaign, you might want to have different maps loaded depending what you do in the mission. Currently there's one specific order, but it would be cool if another map could be loaded. So you could get different debriefings, but also different followup missions based on that. I don't want to derail the topic, so if needed this could be split into a new feature request.

Alright, so, I'm a Texture Artist myself for more than 20 years, which means I know what I'm talking about, but my word isn't law at all, remember that. I've worked (mostly as mods, I am a professional but I much prefer being a freelance) with old DX8 games up to DX12. When it comes to Detail Textures, for my workflow, I never ever use it except rarely when it's actually good (which, I emphasize on "rarely"). This is one reason I thought mentioning that I worked with DX8 was logical. One of the few times it's good is when you make a game that can't have textures higher than what would be average today, such as, World Textures at 1024x1024. Making detail textures for ANY (World, Model) textures that are lower than 128x128 is generally appealable. Another is when the game has no other, much better options for texturing, such as Normal Maps and Parallax Mapping. Personally, I think having Detail Textures for The Dark Mod is arguably pointless. I know TDM never had a model and texture update since 2010 or so, but most textures do seem to at least be 1024x1024, if there's any world texture that's lower than 256x256, I might understand the need of Detail Textures. Now, if this was a game meant to be made in 2024 with 2020+ standards, I would say that we should not care about the "strain" high resolution textures add, however, I do have a better proposition: Mipmaps. There are many games, mostly old than new ones, that use mipmaps not just for its general purpose but also to act as a "downscaler". With that in mind, you boys can add a "Texture Resolution" option that goes from Low to High, or even Lowest to Highest. As an example, we can add a 2048x2048 (or even 4096x4096) world texture that, if set to Lowest, it would use the smallest Mipmap the texture was made with, which depends on how the artist did it, could be a multiplication of 1x1 or 4x4. One problem with this is that, while it will help in the game with people who have less VRAM than usual these days, it won't help with the size. 4096x4096 is 4096x4096, that's about 32mb compressed with DXT1 (which is not something TDM can use, DXT is for DirectX, sadly I do not know how OpenGL compresses its textures). I would much rather prefer the option to have better, baked Normal Maps as well as Parallax Mapping for the World Textures. I'm still okay with Detail Textures, I doubt this will add anything negative to the game or engine, very sure the code will also be simple enough it will probably only add 0.001ms for the loading times, or even none at all. But I would also like it as an option, just like how Half-Life has it, so I'm glad you mentioned that. But yet again, I much prefer better Normal Maps and Parallax Mapping than any Detail Textures. On another note...Wasn't Doom 3, also, one of the first games that started using Baked Normal Maps?

Interesting! Does it update all default textures so it's used on everything in the world? I should replay it and check that out: It would give us a good view of how the effect will feel in practice. Looking at the page, they seem to do it the conventional way I was thinking of trying out, which is currently supported by the engine but more limited than a proper implementation. It also looks like they're only doing it for the albedo channel, to be effective detail should be applied to all maps... the normal map is where the improvement should be most noticeable as it responds to lighting and modifies everything else. The implementation I'm thinking of should be universal like all effects and work on any FM new and old. It would be controlled by a menu setting, no one needs to enable it if they don't like how it looks or it impacts performance. Each detail pass should fade and be hidden with distance, we don't want to stress pixel lighting by having it compute thousands of dots on distant surfaces each frame. Just like the TDM ambient method, we'll likely need a special segment for materials meant to indicate what kind of detail each texture wants, then based on settings and camera position the renderer must modify each surface accordingly.