TDM missions...

[Melan]

The things you mentioned, being able to pick appropriate resources and use them effectively in your design environment to create something cohesive and moody is very much what "spectacular" means in level-building. Lady Rowena's levels are spectacular, and not just in graphics. They just achieve a certain atmosphere that's good. The problem with computer game people is that they have a great eye for technology, but place too much emphasis on it in lieu of all the rest that goes into a good level. That's confusing quantity with quality. Good art (I know, pretentious git term) is good art in any medium, oil, watercolours, Dromed, charcoal or Radiant. It is good in different ways, of course.

 

Obviously, the images Jdude posted are also very good (minus the nucular green light in the cavern scene).

[jdude]

The things you mentioned, being able to pick appropriate resources and use them effectively in your design environment to create something cohesive and moody is very much what "spectacular" means in level-building. Lady Rowena's levels are spectacular, and not just in graphics. They just achieve a certain atmosphere that's good. The problem with computer game people is that they have a great eye for technology, but place too much emphasis on it in lieu of all the rest that goes into a good level. That's confusing quantity with quality. Good art (I know, pretentious git term) is good art in any medium, oil, watercolours, Dromed, charcoal or Radiant. It is good in different ways, of course.

 

Obviously, the images Jdude posted are also very good (minus the nucular green light in the cavern scene).

 

Umh, thanks...

 

You're losing focus of what people in the thread are saying. The general impression I'm getting is "Why can't TDM do this?" When it can and better... To me the thief mission in the first picture looks absolutely horrible when compared to TDM, all I'm seeing is a theme that may be interesting in old crappy technology. It may have nice sounds, or gameplay, I don't know, but people aren't talking about those their talking about the visuals. You could replicate that within an hour if you had the same low res textures in DR. This isn't 1998. And if you prefer that sort of visually old, boxy, low poly and low res gameplay then stay with thief since everyone values different things but to say that TDM can't replicate the environment or mood or feel that is shown in those pictures is insulting imo and shows a huge amount of ignorance and complete misunderstanding of what we've been working on in conjunction with the classical assumption of engine = game.

 

BTW your taking orb's comments out of context. He doesn't mean the process of level designing isn't spectacular he means the IMAGES aren't spectacular...

[Bikerdude]

I'm so sick of these "why can't TDM have missions that look this good?" threads.

I didnt mean to start an argument, all I was referring to was the textures and Serps and Melan are already addressing this.

 

This last shot is stunning, better than anything ive seen in TMA/TDS, but I recognize this from somewhere...

Edited July 7, 2010 by Bikerdude

[STiFU]

I don't even think that the textures are the problem. In my oppinion most of the TDM textures are very good. The reason why the T2 screens look so appealing is the lighting. T2 uses prebaked lighting with ambient occlusion if I remember correctly, which creates a more realistic lighting than the dynamic lighting approach with hard-edged shadows that Doom 3 offers. Apparently we don't have such technology available here, but what we do have is the ability to handdraw light-textures and the clever placement of grime decals to emulate the AO-feeling, both being tasks for the mapper instead of a map compiler. So it's really up to the designers to make the levels look more vibrant/realistic etc.

 

But I honestly don't understand in what way the posted T3 screens are better than TDM content. Tiens sure did a good job, as well as the other 3 mappers, but it doesn't look better than TDM in my opinion.

[Bikerdude]

T2 uses prebaked lighting with ambient occlusion if I remember correctly

AO... blimey, thats awesome for such an old engine..

[Melan]

You're losing focus of what people in the thread are saying. The general impression I'm getting is "Why can't TDM do this?" When it can and better... To me the thief mission in the first picture looks absolutely horrible when compared to TDM, all I'm seeing is a theme that may be interesting in old crappy technology. It may have nice sounds, or gameplay, I don't know, but people aren't talking about those their talking about the visuals. You could replicate that within an hour if you had the same low res textures in DR. This isn't 1998. And if you prefer that sort of visually old, boxy, low poly and low res gameplay then stay with thief since everyone values different things but to say that TDM can't replicate the environment or mood or feel that is shown in those pictures is insulting imo and shows a huge amount of ignorance and complete misunderstanding of what we've been working on in conjunction with the classical assumption of engine = game.

 

BTW your taking orb's comments out of context. He doesn't mean the process of level designing isn't spectacular he means the IMAGES aren't spectacular...

That's not the case, although the thread has drifted a bit. I understand orbweaver's as well as your comments, I just disagree with them. I am specifically calling the example images from LR's mission spectacular:

1) they are visually cohesive

2) they are visually interesting with good variety and a pleasing irregularity

3) the terrain is emphasised well with excellently placed and well-coloured lights, producing good visuals.

 

You are arguing from a technological mindset, about quantity. I am arguing that technology is a medium, and something created with the technology is the expression, or product. A gothic church in a small town is a simple structure created with outdated and primitive instruments, but it is not worse architecture than a significantly more advanced modern office complex. Its power lies in conveying something to us, and that does not get "outdated" or "crappy". We don't build gothic churches (although we could if we wanted to - witness the 19th century revival movement), because our age is based on different needs and different means to satisfy them. They are, however, valued as works of art for qualities that are independent of the technology used to construct them, and which limited the forms of expression in the age they were constructed in, and which was denounced as "outdated" and "crappy" during the Renaissance (the term "gothic" itself is an insult, it is saying something is barbaric and backwards).

 

Turning back to games, it is perfectly possible to develop one which is technologically state-of-the-art but creatively empty. That is the common face of modern gaming, and why I don't bother with it. If we accept the notion that game visuals determine quality to the extent you seem to suggest, then I can safely say that you should scrap your level the soonest you can, because modern engines are capable of far better. Don't do that. Don't be a computer game person.

Is it possible to build levels that are as good as Lady Rowena's using DarkRadiant? Yes, with less headache and more glitz. But it will take a lot of talent and effort, not just 1024x1024 textures and 1000-poly objects. And again, you personally are going in the right direction with most of those shots.

Edited July 7, 2010 by Melan

[nbohr1more]

Sorry to say but I think that the "TDM" cant do this attitude is inspired by things like Melan's RttC where other engines don't really mind those open spaces as much due to baked lighting and LOD. I agree that TDM can produce visuals that exceed all it's contemporaries (and predecessors?) but the spacing rules are very un-natural to mappers. I honestly feel that even the external LOD system that Tels is cooking up (which trades CPU geometry for less CPU LOD calcs...) will help relieve the situation a little (not that all the mappers here should throw away their visportal manuals). Once we've got the LOD meshes in place when Id tech 4 finally does go GPL a more low-level LOD system can be created and a good portion of the LOD asset work will already be done.

 

I think it's telling that Orbweaver essentially said that mappers should not be creating forests or large outside areas as that is not what the engine was made for (see the Ground Zero LOD thread). And that is certainly a reasonable POV but it makes mappers feel limited in spite of how much CAN be done.

 

But I'd say that Biker's motivation is more about lighting and the look of his exterior for his Vertical Contest entry. That much bare wall is bound to look bland without subtle and complex lighting and a light baking method would sure help. Yes he could re-design and add all kinds of architecture to the wall but again this is an un-natural limit for mappers that are used to having light maps at the ready. So if he really wants his intended look he will have to learn to that "Strombine" technique or will have to make a whole shit-load of custom textures in Blender with the lighting baked into them (or make a shit-load of shadow decals).

 

I can see why he's posting out of frustration but I also agree that in spite of these limits TDM has GREAT visuals and will keep getting better.

[OrbWeaver]

I think it's telling that Orbweaver essentially said that mappers should not be creating forests or large outside areas as that is not what the engine was made for (see the Ground Zero LOD thread).

 

I didn't say that mappers shouldn't aim for this, just that the engine is not optimised for these cases and therefore does not include techniques that are important when rendering large open spaces (like LOD, baked lighting etc).

 

If mappers and developers can build playable and attractive open spaces by working either with or around the limitations of the engine, more power to them.

[nbohr1more]

Yeah, I read too much into that reply... But I'd say that there are probably two camps here:

 

1) Those who wish that open complex areas like RttC would work well and scorn Id Tech 4 for preventing this...

 

2) Those who feel that Id Tech 4 has so many advantages that it's worth the sacrifices and only "crazy maps" like RttC are the problem anyway

 

Camp two is a more realistic view but Camp one is where the heart of many old Thief fans resides. I can't say too much here as I haven't played much Thief (I'm a heathen) but the screen-shots from Thief with open areas certainly look compelling...

 

I myself would be happy if FMS authors kept creating tight closed-in maps like Trapped! or The Outpost for all eternity.

 

Jdude is in another stratosphere because he makes maps like Saint Lucia that have the illusion of open space (but I think Melan will make a comeback with something that lives well in the engine)...

 

With better mapping and perhaps a sprinkle of help from Object LOD things are bound to get better and I'm already over-joyed about what we already have .

 

After all that... Open Source Id Tech 4 will just blow my mind!

[New Horizon]

1) Those who wish that open complex areas like RttC would work well and scorn Id Tech 4 for preventing this...

 

Areas like RTTC can work well. The RTTC map should run better after some vis-portal tweaking. Id Tech 4 doesn't necessarily prevent such maps from working well, it's just knowing how to cheat the performance out of it...like any engine. For RTTC being Melan's first released map, it was an amazing piece of work...but I don't think the current performance is representative of the full maps potential. There are still optimizations that could be performed to increase performance.

[Melan]

NHaT had a city with a lot of open complex areas, as well as a forest with hundreds of trees (I still don't understand how Goldchocobo got away with that one), so it can be done, it just has to be done better than I did in my mission. It comes down to architecture that is well suited for visportaling.

Edited July 7, 2010 by Melan

[Bikerdude]

But I'd say that Biker's motivation is more about lighting and the look of his exterior for his Vertical Contest entry. That much bare wall is bound to look bland without subtle and complex lighting. So if he really wants his intended look he will have to learn to that "Strombine" technique.

Well I dont have the time or the motivation to learn the Strombine method, I just wish I could get the same level of lighting and texture variation, whihc I know will come in time.

Camp one is where the heart of many old Thief fans resides.

which is why my WIp map 'oldtown' needed so much VP work done to it to stop it bogging down on older systems.

Edited July 7, 2010 by Bikerdude

[Bikerdude]

As well as a forest with hundreds of trees (I still don't understand how Goldchocobo got away with that one

I thought it was down to the fact the forest area was a big curving tunnel with distance controlled VP's at regular intervals. And there was enough tree's that the player could never tell when a VP had closed or opened. Even so on my beefy system the fps still dropped to almost unplayable levels.

[Tels]

We will get there.

 

It is refreshing to see that someone knows what they talk about *and* contributes to TDM! Our texture department can use the help Only one thing that I'd like to see: please don't just add new textures, but also replaced old crappy ones. That will also benefit already existing FMs.

[Mortem Desino]

Make that *thousands* of trees.

 

NewHorizon put it pretty well: The way GoldChocobo and I got away with the forest is through cheating. I had two years of Dark Radiant under my belt, three years of HL2 hammer before, and a year of HL1 hammer before that. So...

 

-----

 

I was familiar with visleafs, and how to geometrically make them more efficient.

 

I knew plenty of tricks behind the doom 3 dmapper (and then some).

 

I knew how to optimize invisible parts that most people don't know about (like efficient monsterclipping to nearly halve the size of a dmap file).

 

I knew well what, precisely, gets saved in a savegame file (by having the Dark Mod source code) and how to keep those sizes as low as possible.

 

-----

 

It's the biggest benefit to have familiarity with the engine. Not just the radiant, but the game engine itself. You know even before mapping what will break or have bad performance. You know how to make a prettier scene by using what you have more effectively. Your familiarity makes mapping go faster, and you're less liable to burn out your motivation.

 

It just takes time and experience.

[Fidcal]

It is refreshing to see that someone knows what they talk about *and* contributes to TDM! Our texture department can use the help Only one thing that I'd like to see: please don't just add new textures, but also replaced old crappy ones. That will also benefit already existing FMs.

A word of caution about dramatic changes. Don't replace textures with radically-improved, even different, variations on the theme. Mappers who have already chosen a texture for their FM should be able to rely on them remaining the same. Improved bump map should be fine. Getting rid of 'bad' shadows too. General quality improvement OK. But say a texture tile is 'wrong' so 'fixed' - a mapper might have worked around that - now his alignment might be out of whack. Lightening or darkening too. If a mapper chose a texture he doesn't want to find it darker in his FM. Shinyness - this stone looks too metallic or 'plastic' let's 'improve' it. But what of the mapper who chose it that way. He may be delighted. He may be furious. Who are you to change his original choice. I'm just saying, be cautious.

[Tels]

A word of caution about dramatic changes. Don't replace textures with radically-improved, even different, variations on the theme. Mappers who have already chosen a texture for their FM should be able to rely on them remaining the same. Improved bump map should be fine. Getting rid of 'bad' shadows too. General quality improvement OK. But say a texture tile is 'wrong' so 'fixed' - a mapper might have worked around that - now his alignment might be out of whack. Lightening or darkening too. If a mapper chose a texture he doesn't want to find it darker in his FM. Shinyness - this stone looks too metallic or 'plastic' let's 'improve' it. But what of the mapper who chose it that way. He may be delighted. He may be furious. Who are you to change his original choice. I'm just saying, be cautious.

 

Yeah, we should have thrown out the really bad ones before release, now we are stuck with subpar textures forever, because someone might be furious that we replace them *sigh* (I cannot decide if my post here that is meant sarcastic, jokingly or simply sad.. sorry, nothing personal)

[Melan]

Fidcal: correct. Finding good replacement images is also bound to be very hard, unless there is a high-resolution source image, or we get very lucky (or someone makes it from scratch, like Nameless Voice's T2 object upgrade pack - although even that had problems with too much detail added to some objects, or crispy textures in a not-so-crispy texture environment).

Edited July 7, 2010 by Melan

[jdude]

That's not the case, although the thread has drifted a bit. I understand orbweaver's as well as your comments, I just disagree with them. I am specifically calling the example images from LR's mission spectacular:

1) they are visually cohesive

2) they are visually interesting with good variety and a pleasing irregularity

3) the terrain is emphasised well with excellently placed and well-coloured lights, producing good visuals.

 

You are arguing from a technological mindset, about quantity. I am arguing that technology is a medium, and something created with the technology is the expression, or product. A gothic church in a small town is a simple structure created with outdated and primitive instruments, but it is not worse architecture than a significantly more advanced modern office complex. Its power lies in conveying something to us, and that does not get "outdated" or "crappy". We don't build gothic churches (although we could if we wanted to - witness the 19th century revival movement), because our age is based on different needs and different means to satisfy them. They are, however, valued as works of art for qualities that are independent of the technology used to construct them, and which limited the forms of expression in the age they were constructed in, and which was denounced as "outdated" and "crappy" during the Renaissance (the term "gothic" itself is an insult, it is saying something is barbaric and backwards).

 

Turning back to games, it is perfectly possible to develop one which is technologically state-of-the-art but creatively empty. That is the common face of modern gaming, and why I don't bother with it. If we accept the notion that game visuals determine quality to the extent you seem to suggest, then I can safely say that you should scrap your level the soonest you can, because modern engines are capable of far better. Don't do that. Don't be a computer game person.

Is it possible to build levels that are as good as Lady Rowena's using DarkRadiant? Yes, with less headache and more glitz. But it will take a lot of talent and effort, not just 1024x1024 textures and 1000-poly objects. And again, you personally are going in the right direction with most of those shots.

 

Don't compare architecture to level design. Your comparison is ridicules because they lack any familiarity to eachother.

 

You'd have to be joking if you seriously though doom 1 levels were an art form. I'm not even going to discuss it since it's such a joke in my eyes.

 

And as for me 'going in the right direction' Excuse me if I don't feel like making the same 'break into some guys house or business' mission 100x over I thought maybe people would enjoy some variety in their gameplay.

 

Turning back to games, it is perfectly possible to develop one which is technologically state-of-the-art but creatively empty. That is the common face of modern gaming, and why I don't bother with it. If we accept the notion that game visuals determine quality to the extent you seem to suggest, then I can safely say that you should scrap your level the soonest you can, because modern engines are capable of far better. Don't do that. Don't be a computer game person.

 

...

The whole point of this thread was to discuss the visual components of the game, have you read any of it? The very first post: Why can't TDM be this LUSH, have these TEXTURES, have this LIGHTING, and so on and you even mention the visuals in the 3 points you post. And I'm saying it can, it does, and it does it BETTER than the thief 1 engine so to compare the two is a joke, it's just that the people complaining haven't taken the initiative to make a level with these things and that those who have are still working on them. Or maybe they don't have the creativity to do so, which is what I've been saying since the start. The impression I'm getting is people here are saying the thief 1 engine looks better than the doom3 engine because of what their capable of which is the real topic at hand here because there seems to be this notion that we can't DO what T1/T2 maps have done with D3 tech.

 

And if you don't bother with modern gaming then why are you here?

 

 

As for this whole 'Thief shadows are more realistic than Doom3 shadows' thing, make a shader for the room if you like baked lights so much.

[aidakeeley]

A word of caution about dramatic changes. Don't replace textures with radically-improved, even different, variations on the theme. Mappers who have already chosen a texture for their FM should be able to rely on them remaining the same. Improved bump map should be fine. Getting rid of 'bad' shadows too. General quality improvement OK. But say a texture tile is 'wrong' so 'fixed' - a mapper might have worked around that - now his alignment might be out of whack. Lightening or darkening too. If a mapper chose a texture he doesn't want to find it darker in his FM. Shinyness - this stone looks too metallic or 'plastic' let's 'improve' it. But what of the mapper who chose it that way. He may be delighted. He may be furious. Who are you to change his original choice. I'm just saying, be cautious.

 

Yeah, we should have thrown out the really bad ones before release, now we are stuck with subpar textures forever, because someone might be furious that we replace them *sigh* (I cannot decide if my post here that is meant sarcastic, jokingly or simply sad.. sorry, nothing personal)

 

Fidcal: correct. Finding good replacement images is also bound to be very hard, unless there is a high-resolution source image, or we get very lucky (or someone makes it from scratch, like Nameless Voice's T2 object upgrade pack - although even that had problems with too much detail added to some objects, or crispy textures in a not-so-crispy texture environment).

 

I'm not familiar enough to be anything but guessing here, but...

 

Isn't this maybe an opportunity to just leave _all_ the old stuff in place and start a new top-level "folder" (maybe as a convention going forward) for each new major iteration ("pack") of textures? Wherein, even, the naming scheme, classifications and such, can be improved along with the textures themselves?

 

ETA: Quotes, so'es that what I'm talkin' to is delineated and not confused with the argument erupting (which I personally come down on the jdude side of... not to discount completely the other side, but because I know that if Rowena were to drop that old hat and put on this new-fangled kufi, it would be awesome. And it would be more fun to play in so many other ways...

Edited July 7, 2010 by aidakeeley

[Melan]

Jdude: Since you are unable participate in this discussion without resorting to insults and strawman arguments ("Excuse me if I don't feel like making the same 'break into some guys house or business' mission 100x over", where the hell did you get that from?!), I will ignore further posts from you in this thread. That is all.

[nbohr1more]

C'mon jdude, you know that most of the FMS authors can't "program a shader"...

 

This is why many pine for a built-in light map tool that can bake high-quality light. I think that Doom 3's native light is about as good as baked light in Thief 1/2 era engines but that Strombine article shows that baking is still a visual treat.

 

But so is having artistic consistency... so mixing Doom 3 light and Baked light could also be an artistic disaster ...

 

You have a GREAT eye for using the strengths of Doom 3's look but other FMS authors may be pining for a different flavor... and baking would be the way that flavor was achieved in the past...

 

We all agree that texture quality also plays it's role...

[OrbWeaver]

C'mon jdude, you know that most of the FMS authors can't "program a shader"...

 

He means creating a light shader image (not a GPU shader) containing the required lighting variations to use in the room, exactly like the Strombine example is doing. This is more work than simply placing lights, but should be within the capabilities of the average mapper.

 

A hybrid approach is also possible: using mostly regular Doom 3 lights but also introducing projected subtractive blend lights to create soft shadows in particular places.

[nbohr1more]

...but should be within the capabilities of the average mapper.

 

That ole thread about this Strombine topic seemed to imply otherwise... but thanks for the correction .

 

(I will feel extra silly if there is a wiki tutorial... )...

[Mortem Desino]

No, but I did make some special soft shadows that never made it into FMs. Check your light textures: "lights/shadows/",

 

Nope, scratch that. It seems that the definitions did, but not the TGA files.