Wall Set

[_Atti_]

Here are the first pieces of the set..

 

6 types of straight wall ( normal,fortified normal,normal2,fort. normal2,old, fort. old)

 

3 type of post

 

2 type of corner piece

 

1 ruined piece

 

any ideas,critism?

Edited January 13, 2005 by _Atti_

[oDDity]

Heh, you can really tell you came for a morrowind mod) THios is exactly the sort of stuff oyu had to do there.

It would work great for FM authors here too, though I'm not sure how many mappers would want to use prefabs for something as simple as a wall, it would probably be eaasier for them to build them from brushes.

All the little details/spikes and decorations will be useful though.

[_Atti_]

Heh, you can really tell you came for a morrowind mod) THios is exactly the sort of stuff oyu had to do there.

It would work great for FM authors here too, though I'm not sure how many mappers would want to use prefabs for something as simple as a wall, it would probably be eaasier for them to build them from brushes.

 

it wasnt my idea:)

 

What about a 'wall kit' like Fingernail's pipekit, that has various wall pieces with those metal spikes on top that FM authors can use to enclose the grounds?

 

but i still think its more efficient to use things like that than to build custom walls from brushes..hm or not? i donno..

 

 

 

All the little details/spikes and decorations will be useful though.

 

if you point on that..i dont think its wise to leave only the spikes and Fm authors will have to decorate their custom walls with them manually..maybe i dont see something clear but it sounds pointless

[Fingernail]

they are quite useful, actually, oddity. But more useful would be little brick-cornices and pillars and such with more detailed aspects. There is little there (except the railings and posts, which is more what I intended) that could not be built with brushes (probably more light-efficiently).

 

Basic rule of thumb: flat walls are better done in Radiant directly. It's the detail that embelishes them which is better modelled (usually)

[_Atti_]

ok i'll go a bit more wild with details then..

[Fingernail]

and the sections smaller. Not one whole wall, but perhaps one section with a window or pillar etc.

[New Horizon]

Very nice.

[_Atti_]

smaller? are you sure? isnt it takes more resource if you have more separate objects on one map?

 

btw.. window? i meant these as around 2- max- 3 meters high walls/fences

Edited January 13, 2005 by _Atti_

[Fingernail]

No, it's actually better for the lighting engine to have several small models (especially at light source boundaries), than one big one which is lit by several lights in different places.

[_Atti_]

ok

i'll make smaller and more detailed parts then..

[oDDity]

Basic rule of thumb: flat walls are better done in Radiant directly. It's the detail that embelishes them which is better modelled (usually)

umm..that's what I said...

[Springheel]

Except you can't make the spikes, or the broken sections, very easily with brushes. And having the spikes as separate models doesn't make much sense to me.

[_Atti_]

3*3 types of straight piece (pieces that has its left,right, or both side poly removed,)

3* 45deg piece

 

still you may have the problem that theres not much detail..but i cant think of any i should add..but if you have ideas then i wil add them

Edited January 15, 2005 by _Atti_

[sparhawk]

Except you can't make the spikes, or the broken sections, very easily with brushes. And having the spikes as separate models doesn't make much sense to me.

Wouldn't it make more sense to make the top of the wall with a flatter cube stretched along the wall and then add the spikes with a texture using an alpha map for the lenght in between? After all, we are adding a lot of detail because of I don't really think that this will achieve much.

How is an alpha map interpreted on collision? Will it allow the player to climb through in these places, where the alpha is? If that is the case, there would be even less sense to actually model these spikes in full.

[Springheel]

I'm pretty sure you can't travel through an alpha transparency (or shoot through it, for that matter). In terms of geometry, it's the same as a solid brush.

[sparhawk]

Well, in that case we need to take this in to account. Still the spikes wouldn't be anything you should be able to pass through anyway, right? So they can be made with Alpha instead of geometry.

[Fingernail]

but alpha's don't produce proper shadows...the shadow would be of the flat polygon, not the nice spiky railings. I think in terms of aesthetics, they should be very low-poly models.

[sparhawk]

Do we really need shadows from spikes on a fence? I guess mostly these walls will be needed to wall off the map and surround the playable area. And in case of mansions or other playing relevant areas, I don't remember having such detailed shadows in T1/T2 and it was not really a problem. Especially since shadowing is quite expensive.

[_Atti_]

those spikes are not much polys..

anway it wouldnt be too good if player couldnt shoot and arrow between two spikes..

these fences may be used not only on the borders of the map..so

Edited January 16, 2005 by _Atti_

[Fingernail]

Do we really need shadows from spikes on a fence? I guess mostly these walls will be needed to wall off the map and surround the playable area. And in case of mansions or other playing relevant areas, I don't remember having such detailed shadows in T1/T2 and it was not really a problem. Especially since shadowing is quite expensive.

I don't see any reason not to. There could quite easily be only about 20 polys per spike. This is not a big load on the system. D3 can take it IMO.

[Springheel]

These kinds of walls often were used in the mansion grounds to separate sections of the map. I can think of lots of uses for them, personally.

[sparhawk]

If they have only 20 polygons it should be ok. Assuming a 20m long wall with 20cm distance between each spike would mean 2000 polygons if they were all visible at the same time.