Welcome to CMM

The CMM forum software was recently upgraded, some things may have changed and some things may be broken or not working. Please let me know by PM or on IRC if you have any problems using this forum.

Also, I've removed the skybox and shader links for now, the shader generator page was being abused and as we're moving towards a ue4 mapping base, they're redundant.

Mapping for UrT HD

General mapping discussions
User avatar
Rayne
Site Admin
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 5:22 pm

Re: Mapping for UrT HD

Postby Rayne » Mon Dec 26, 2011 4:00 pm

flajeen wrote:End it on radiant, import it in 3dsmax, bake your shadows and export the whole map as a model, put it in radiant and make entities.

That is literally impossible.

flajeen
Posts: 289
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 7:13 pm
Location: Évora, Portugal

Re: Mapping for UrT HD

Postby flajeen » Mon Dec 26, 2011 4:06 pm

Why?
Image

User avatar
Rayne
Site Admin
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 5:22 pm

Re: Mapping for UrT HD

Postby Rayne » Mon Dec 26, 2011 4:24 pm

Cause an .ase file made with q3map2 breaks down into it's basic components when imported in max.
Meaning every single face becomes an object.
If you feel like spending just as much time connecting pieces in max as you spent to create the map in the first place go ahead and do it.
Also exporting it all as one model wont work.
Mainly cause the final model will be so big neither radiant or the compiler will be able to load it.
last but not the least, you have to unwrap it. If it's not unwrapped shadow baking doesn't works. It needs mapping coordinates to know how and where to render the shadows.

FrankieV
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 3:08 pm

Re: Mapping for UrT HD

Postby FrankieV » Fri May 31, 2013 3:12 pm

Hay Rayne sorry about the late late response.


Flajjen is right it can be done and it's only an issue of whats hard to do becomes easy over time which is just the nature of 3d in general.

The problems with putting content into the idtech3 engine is a case of the artist having to work around the limitations of the engine based on a desired result balanced with the need to maintain an optimized result by trading one problem for another.

I think it's safe to say that making a map that others enjoy playing on is hard to do no mater how easy the tools makes building 3d space a snap.

To help you guys along I'm willing to make an offer.

I know you and Johnny are working with 3ds Max so if you two get together and make a small map, say the size of Abbey, and focus 100% on what it takes to make it look good in that application, I'll be willing to take your results and show you what it takes to to get a full renderosity lighting solution, complete with ray traced shadows and light bounce, into the idtech3 engine.

You guys take the time to do this I'll take the time to document the a workable process and solution and give you guys back a working setup and leave it up to CMM to figure out the optimization requirements.

User avatar
DagF
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:40 am
Location: Norway
Contact:

Re: Mapping for UrT HD

Postby DagF » Fri May 31, 2013 11:26 pm

I would much like to see this happend. Ill do what i can do for it aswell.
I have been thinking about learning 3dsmax anyways.


EDIT:

in blender there is a function that merges vextors thats close together that would connect the faces for you.
There has to be somethign like that in max too.
Image

User avatar
johnnyenglish
Space cake
Posts: 892
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 9:23 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Mapping for UrT HD

Postby johnnyenglish » Sat Jun 01, 2013 4:07 am

Yes, we should do this...

FrankieV
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 3:08 pm

Re: Mapping for UrT HD

Postby FrankieV » Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:11 pm

OK lets do some prep work then.

To have complete control over the lighting solution in an idtech3 based game there will be problems and tradeoffs but with a proper set up what will work and what does not become a lot easier as what would take months of work out now takes a few minuets to correct based on the feedback.

At the moment and as far as I can figure out the only way to get a full renderosity effect as a static lighting solution is to bake the entire lighting solution into the diffused map using the painting with lights concept. In other words you are paining in the lights and shadows as you could using Photoshop but using a procedural tool to create the same effect.

The downside is this technique will create an above average number of texture images but as history has proven what use to be a large number becomes smaller as technology advances and the only thing necessary is to work out the problem of making to much less as to what would be a reasonable and deliverable file size.

What is also required is an established budget as to a deliverable and completed map package and FS has set an internal budget requirement, which can and probably will change, of 350 megs that 3rd party developers are not required to follow but even with that limitation with good asset management a map the size of Abbey should come in under budget.

The upside the process it's self encourages team based development of a given map that invites others of skill based on unique and desirable skill sets to become involved in a project based design with out having to buy into all as to what it takes to make a top shelf map from scratch.

How good does a set up map have to be?

The set up requirements can be as simple as it needs to be or as complex as to already available assets but the purpose of a set up is to establish a clear pathway as to already defined requirements.

In this case.

Models needs texture paths as it's material name.
Models needs to be exported as .ase.
Models needs to be in position as to world space but their transform located at 0 0 0
Models needs to be UV mapped either as separate elements or as selection groups.

Bottom line no the set up map does not have to be another Abbey as the set up can scale up or down based on the demands of the design locked in by the map design layout.

If anyone has questions feel free to ask as I can not guess as to what would be an important factor as to problems.

User avatar
Rayne
Site Admin
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 5:22 pm

Re: Mapping for UrT HD

Postby Rayne » Sat Jun 01, 2013 7:35 pm

FrankieV wrote:OK lets do some prep work then.
At the moment and as far as I can figure out the only way to get a full renderosity effect as a static lighting solution is to bake the entire lighting solution into the diffused map using the painting with lights concept. In other words you are paining in the lights and shadows as you could using Photoshop but using a procedural tool to create the same effect.


I can figure out a way, get your engine developer to do some work and raise the base lightmap resolution from 128x128 to 512x512, so )lightmapscale 1= lightmapscale resolution 512x512.
Simple as that.
No Mickey Mouse lighting hacks needed, no shadow baking, no nothing, just compile and enjoy. How many times must this be repeated, you cannot use models made in max or blender with the current lighting system.
You know damn well I'm right and what I'm talking about Frankie. I showed it dozens of times, and yet your team keeps rejecting a simple fact that you can't change one part of the engine without changing another, not when it comes to graphics.

FrankieV
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 3:08 pm

Re: Mapping for UrT HD

Postby FrankieV » Sat Jun 01, 2013 7:45 pm

And I'm gone.

User avatar
DagF
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:40 am
Location: Norway
Contact:

Re: Mapping for UrT HD

Postby DagF » Sat Jun 01, 2013 7:46 pm

:(
Image


Return to “Mapping Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron