Can you show us the map? You can upload it to the problems section. That'll give us a chance to look at it and give more detailed explanations.
Just a question about those wires bytheway, are they func_walls or normal brushes? You'd better make them func_walls or even better, func_illusionaries in this case, since these don't block the player. Entities in general are easier to handle for the vis process since they don't cause extra face and node splitting. As a rough thumbrule, make every small, detailed brush a func_wall, or if it's better that it doesn't block the player (small wires and stuff for example), then make them func_illusionary.
Forum posts
What do they call themselves?as waypoint maker? [not sarcastic] unsure - :Waypointers, or guides perhaps?
@Atom: maybe I'll have some old stuff in playable state, probably not. But you could put L00T DM on it... I can fix up the GMG model a bit so you'd actually be firing with it... 
Heh, fun time. It seems I'm not that bad at playing at all (not the best either, but that's obvious methinks ;))...
Cut down on the smoothness of those cylindrical shapes, especially the wheels take a lot here as far as I can see. Those eat poly's like popcorn. Anyway, could you post a wireframe shot (and a wireframe overlay shot perhaps)? That could give us an indication of where you can cut down on poly's without loosing too much detail.
How many vertices do you have, then?
About transparant textures, there's an article on the VERC about it and it requires a custom version of studiomdl, which isn't downloadable at the VERC anymore but I've still got it if you can't find it elsewhere.
Nice jeep, bytheway. You could add some more distinctable detail to the textures though, some contrast would do good methinks. Nevertheless, looking good especially for a first model.
About transparant textures, there's an article on the VERC about it and it requires a custom version of studiomdl, which isn't downloadable at the VERC anymore but I've still got it if you can't find it elsewhere.
Nice jeep, bytheway. You could add some more distinctable detail to the textures though, some contrast would do good methinks. Nevertheless, looking good especially for a first model.
You must export each animation to a seperate .smd file and select the animation option while exporting. Then, in the .qc file, you refer to these animations. Look in an existing .qc file for an example.
You kinda look like a lion there, Seventh-Lion...
Anyone who needs missile support? 
And to add to Muzzle's words: cylinders and vertex scaling (Alt + E, once you're in vertex mode (Shift + V)) for a smoother result.
You tell me... I've necer even heard of podbot.dll... maybe it's not even open-source. That's up to you to find out.
I'd say, use Wally's batch convertor. It creates a custom palette for each image to keep the colors as close to their originals as possible.
Those weels are probably flipped inside out. Turn off backface drawing and see if they disappear (or, actually, you get to see their inside but not their outside). To fix this, simply select the wheels and press Ctrl + Shift + F to flip the face normals.
As for lighting, that's going to take some coding. It has little to do with modelling.
Actually, the code uses bones as attachment points, you may want to decompile the plant model and look in the .qc file to see how that's done, but in order to use these attachment points, it'll take some coding.
Those weels are probably flipped inside out. Turn off backface drawing and see if they disappear (or, actually, you get to see their inside but not their outside). To fix this, simply select the wheels and press Ctrl + Shift + F to flip the face normals.
As for lighting, that's going to take some coding. It has little to do with modelling.
Actually, the code uses bones as attachment points, you may want to decompile the plant model and look in the .qc file to see how that's done, but in order to use these attachment points, it'll take some coding.
You can have multiple but Zoners tools only use one for the lighting of all skybrushes. Older tools only caused sky brushes to cast light when they had a line of sight to a light_environment, hence the need for multiple light_environments.
If you want your different skies to emit different sorts of light, then maybe there's a parameter for the rad program, otherwise it's going to be some lighting work of your own...
If you want your different skies to emit different sorts of light, then maybe there's a parameter for the rad program, otherwise it's going to be some lighting work of your own...
You've probably created vertices at the same position, or something like that.
Instead of selecting 3 vertices and pressing f, you can also go into Face creation mode (F6) and click on 3 vertices in a row. That prevents your problem (though it takes some planning and sometimes vertex hiding to get the right ones).
Try to use the block, cylinder and other basic shapes as much as possible, take advantage of symmetrical parts (duplicating and mirroring them), to make the process faster.
About joints and animations, take a look at this. Have fun.
Instead of selecting 3 vertices and pressing f, you can also go into Face creation mode (F6) and click on 3 vertices in a row. That prevents your problem (though it takes some planning and sometimes vertex hiding to get the right ones).
Try to use the block, cylinder and other basic shapes as much as possible, take advantage of symmetrical parts (duplicating and mirroring them), to make the process faster.
About joints and animations, take a look at this. Have fun.
ok thanks for your help.. although, I figured out a way to select vertex's in the 3D view.. simply hold down Alt-Shift while clicking..Ah? Nice... I didn't know that Alt button behaviour. Thanks.
About selecting: the Shift isn't necessary, it only adds the selected vertices to the current selection. The left mouse button selects things, the right mouse button deselects things (and without pressing Shift for that, it deselects everything).
It's a good practice to put seperate objects in different groups, both for easy selection and for texturing purpose. That may be hard to do now but you learned something...
For side views, most modellers look up for some reference pictures (or receive reference artwork) and usually they'll draw some sketches themselves as well. No shiny drawings but simple sketches - they often make modelling much easier (the same applies to mapping, I'd say).
As for your other questions, no, you can't select vertices in the 3D view. There's a selection plugin that allows you to select faces in 3D, and seemingly vertex selection is planned for that plugin, but it isn't there (yet).
To assign vertices to a bone, go to the Joints tab and click on the bone you want to assign vertices to. The bone will get selected once you click on it in the list, but that's not so important right now. Just make sure that the bone is highligted in the list. Now, select the vertices you want to assign to it (easy shortkey is F1, 1 (F1 for the selection, 1 for the vertex mode)). Now go back to the Joints list and click the Assign button (be carefull not to select another bone because it will cause your selection to be lost, because then that bone will be selected). That's all.
If you need to assign a lot of vertices to a bone, do it in parts and hide the already assigned vertices with Ctrl + H, to prevent confusion.
Just a tip: hide parts of the model when you're not working on them to make selection easier. I often hide the vertices of those parts only so I still have an idea of how my changes fit with the rest of the model.
As for your other questions, no, you can't select vertices in the 3D view. There's a selection plugin that allows you to select faces in 3D, and seemingly vertex selection is planned for that plugin, but it isn't there (yet).
To assign vertices to a bone, go to the Joints tab and click on the bone you want to assign vertices to. The bone will get selected once you click on it in the list, but that's not so important right now. Just make sure that the bone is highligted in the list. Now, select the vertices you want to assign to it (easy shortkey is F1, 1 (F1 for the selection, 1 for the vertex mode)). Now go back to the Joints list and click the Assign button (be carefull not to select another bone because it will cause your selection to be lost, because then that bone will be selected). That's all.
If you need to assign a lot of vertices to a bone, do it in parts and hide the already assigned vertices with Ctrl + H, to prevent confusion.
Just a tip: hide parts of the model when you're not working on them to make selection easier. I often hide the vertices of those parts only so I still have an idea of how my changes fit with the rest of the model.
I know, Unbreakable, but it's not the kind of ladder we're talking about here (your ladder isn't a func_ladder, is it?). It's a nice workaround nevertheless.
As long as you can make sure that the player can't get on the func_ladder when the visual ladder is still up, you can go with a func_ladder in place just fine. There's no way to actually move a func_ladder in Half-Life so you'll have to fake it, or use another idea.
G_KID's suggestion is a nice idea, bytheway. Did you put an invisible barrier over the ladder and remove it after the visual ladder went down? I'm led to believe you haven't fully tried his method yet...
G_KID's suggestion is a nice idea, bytheway. Did you put an invisible barrier over the ladder and remove it after the visual ladder went down? I'm led to believe you haven't fully tried his method yet...
A hallway just consists of 4 brushes. An easy way to create them is by dragging them while holding the Shift key - this copies the brush you're moving. That means you only have to create a floor and a wall, then copy them and place them correctly.
This may seem more tedious than carving, but it gives you more control and is less likely to give problems later on.
This may seem more tedious than carving, but it gives you more control and is less likely to give problems later on.
Imagine what we'd be without Hammer or Valve.Unreal Tournament mappers, I assume?
I'd have to agree about the latest Steam updates, they're far from ideal for a lot of people. Not a good thing. Steam itself still isn't bad however, but yeah...
Anyway, to me this is something like throwing downloaded prefabs into a map and calling it a map. Granted, technically it's a map but to me, it doesn't deserve that name - good maps are hand-crafted products, not mass-generated things. You don't play a lot of maps, you play the few that you like the most. But hey, that's just rehashing a known opinion...
I'll give my father a biography about Hitler by Ian Kershaw.
But that's because it's his birthday. We don't really give each other presents for christmas, we did when I was young but it's not really a tradition to buy presents for one another, it's mostly the parents who buy for their kids.
We give each other presents during 'Sinterklaas', though.
But that's because it's his birthday. We don't really give each other presents for christmas, we did when I was young but it's not really a tradition to buy presents for one another, it's mostly the parents who buy for their kids.
We give each other presents during 'Sinterklaas', though.
Silly. Asking money for such a package while in fact, you know any game created with it won't be a too good game anyway.
But hey, the more killboxes, the more even normal maps will stand out...
But hey, the more killboxes, the more even normal maps will stand out...
With all that talking, I think most of us are pretty interested to see what has actually been done so far... because without that, you still don't sound too convincing.
You should check out Gollum's deathmatch mod, you can find it on the Snarkpit. It has a somewhat similar idea, with some additional traps.
Anyway, the idea sounds funny, yeah.
Anyway, the idea sounds funny, yeah.
Use a point_spotlight for that. Remember to check it's No Dynamic Light flag if you don't need a dynamic light (recommended for performance reasons).
I'd also recommend taking a look at the example maps that Valve provided with the SDK. The .vmf's of de_cbble and dm_lockdown are in there amongst others...
I'd also recommend taking a look at the example maps that Valve provided with the SDK. The .vmf's of de_cbble and dm_lockdown are in there amongst others...
Killing entities it is out of the question in a game where entities should reset every round...
You can give the trigger_multiple a master, to control whether it's active or not (e.g. reacts to players entering it or not). You can read up on it in the entity guide.
Then, you can disable the trigger_multiple after it has triggered its targets, and enable it on round restarts.
Trigger_once is solely built to be activated only once ever, so that's of no use to you here anyway.
Then, you can disable the trigger_multiple after it has triggered its targets, and enable it on round restarts.
Trigger_once is solely built to be activated only once ever, so that's of no use to you here anyway.
Why should my maps become your property when it's clear you have little experience, therefor little chance of succeeding? A lot of mods fail, including some of those lead by experienced people... your mod shows enthousiasm but little planning.
I mean, if the things you want to implement are too much to mention, how much time would it cost to actually create them? Do you have any idea how long this is going to take? Will you be able to keep working on this after a year or two? Will you be able to decide to cut certain features when you need to?
In other words, did you do some investigation before deciding the create this mod, or did you just jump into this because it looked cool?
What I noticed is that you do give away some unimportant details like the name and habits of the main character, but leave out the general description of the mod. It's a FPS, that's all I really know now...
I mean, if the things you want to implement are too much to mention, how much time would it cost to actually create them? Do you have any idea how long this is going to take? Will you be able to keep working on this after a year or two? Will you be able to decide to cut certain features when you need to?
In other words, did you do some investigation before deciding the create this mod, or did you just jump into this because it looked cool?
What I noticed is that you do give away some unimportant details like the name and habits of the main character, but leave out the general description of the mod. It's a FPS, that's all I really know now...
Go ahead, I'd like to see what you'll make of it.
I'm doing a small paid mapping project at the moment. I didn't expect it and it's not that I really aim for a level-designers position in the industry - the game-design industry is small in the Netherlands anyway - but it's nice to do. You get to understand the role of concept art and design documents better and I'll have to get familiar with other tools, which is a challenging experience as well.
I've never done much with music though, while I believe it's quite interesting I don't know if I can invest that much time in yet another area...
I've never done much with music though, while I believe it's quite interesting I don't know if I can invest that much time in yet another area...
Looks like you've set yourself for a too-hard task with the given HL entities. The way teleports in HL work means you'll have to use a lot of teleports, each with their own destination, preferrably controlling these teleport targets using a trigger system that changes their target depending on the available places. All in all, to do this for an entire map, is probably just madness. I wonder if the server likes that amount of entities doing their job at the same time...
Have you considered alternatives for this instant-deathmatch idea?
Also, do you know it will be fun to play? I think it would be good next time to focus on tricks like these and playtest them as soon as possible to ensure your work isn't done for nothing.
Don't get me wrong: there may be a solution, but is it worth it, or would a change of idea give a better result?
Have you considered alternatives for this instant-deathmatch idea?
Also, do you know it will be fun to play? I think it would be good next time to focus on tricks like these and playtest them as soon as possible to ensure your work isn't done for nothing.
Don't get me wrong: there may be a solution, but is it worth it, or would a change of idea give a better result?
In other words, you do this, or would like to do this?
Use a func_train entity. Have it start at the desired location by putting the first path_corner there (if you're unfamiliar with how to do so, read the tutorials and entity guide on this site). Now place the second path_corner somewhere the player won't see the func_train, and loop these two between each other, so that when triggered, the train will move from one to another.
The trick is: in a path_corner you can set the movement type of the train. Set both to 'teleport', and check the 'wait for retrigger' flag as well, so the train stays where it is untill it's triggered again.
As for the train itself, check it's 'non solid' flag, and add a clip brush to it. That should do the trick.
The trick is: in a path_corner you can set the movement type of the train. Set both to 'teleport', and check the 'wait for retrigger' flag as well, so the train stays where it is untill it's triggered again.
As for the train itself, check it's 'non solid' flag, and add a clip brush to it. That should do the trick.
You can't open .dll files to reprogram them, you'll need the source code to them...
Anyone here ever thought about doing this professional, or taking small mapping jobs for money?
Every good thing comes at a price, Elon. And $25 is cheap for what you get.
Milkshape is fine for low-poly models like in Half-Life. It even comes with a built-in model compiler and decompiler for Half-Life.
So, you can decompile an existing model, modify it, and compile again. Of course, you shouldn't change it's skeleton (or you'd have to redo every animation) and you should keep in mind that the skins should be 8-bits bitmaps (Wally is a good convertor here).
So, you can decompile an existing model, modify it, and compile again. Of course, you shouldn't change it's skeleton (or you'd have to redo every animation) and you should keep in mind that the skins should be 8-bits bitmaps (Wally is a good convertor here).
The best is just to stick to simple terrain - triangle terrain methods are hard to keep under control, and so much detail isn't expected from HL maps anyway.
As for grass sticking out, sprites are a good one, or eventually a plate-method bush (though using models for them is a much better method).
As for grass sticking out, sprites are a good one, or eventually a plate-method bush (though using models for them is a much better method).
The player is 72 units tall, an average ceiling is often 128 units heigh. I usually go for 96 units, because it's easy to create with a grid-size of 32 units.
Anyway, you can fit textures to surfaces when you need to, using the Texture Application, selecting the surface and pressing the Fit button (in said Texture App).
Anyway, you can fit textures to surfaces when you need to, using the Texture Application, selecting the surface and pressing the Fit button (in said Texture App).
Nice, I like these new textures. They give it a much more distinct style, they look much more fitting than the HL textures. I like the progress so far.
I'd say, test the level change without those camera's first, so you'll have it working before you can't walk around the map yourself anymore.
You probably placed the landmarks in the wrong place. Remember that the player starts in the next level at the same distance from the landmark as he was in the previous level - the landmark entities are a solid point, considered to be the same location in both levels (while they don't have to be placed in the same spot, they're the comparing point, so to say).
In other words, if you're 20 units below the landmark in level 1, and the trigger_levelchange is triggered, you'll end up 20 units below the landmark in level 2.
In other words, if you're 20 units below the landmark in level 1, and the trigger_levelchange is triggered, you'll end up 20 units below the landmark in level 2.
Happy christmas secrets. Me likes.
Nice sort of imagery. Reminds me of those 3D images that are displayed in a skybox way, so you can rotate them as if it's completely 3D, while it's just a 3D cube. I believe I saw some of those on the VERC some time ago.
Nice sort of imagery. Reminds me of those 3D images that are displayed in a skybox way, so you can rotate them as if it's completely 3D, while it's just a 3D cube. I believe I saw some of those on the VERC some time ago.
You limit yourself if you only visit one or two mapping sites, in my opinion. You learn the most by searching for new things, by experimenting, by looking at good references and by sharing knowledge. Nothing weird in that.i knew you guys would just point me to some wierd direction
Milkshape is a good one for low-poly models, plus it comes with a HL model compiler. I'd go for Milkshape if I were you.
It's not free though, but compared to other modelling packages, 25 euro is almost nothing.
It's not free though, but compared to other modelling packages, 25 euro is almost nothing.
Looks ok, but it lacks the color markings that the Homeworld spaceships have. That makes them look much better. Why not create your own textures for this one? Doesn't look hard to me, even with Paint you could do something like that...
About BM:S - did I tell you already? I was to about to send you a 'Surprise! I started HL2-modding.'-email, but hey. grin -One of the few times I was on IRC, remember?
Heh, some good things happened to me as well. I've got something else to work on for now, I'll mail you about what's going on.
There's a workaround if you want to put the player in an exact spot. Do a level transition as normal, but add a trigger_teleport at the start of the new level and teleport the player to the desired 'start position'.
Read up on 3D skyboxes. The lack of them in this map really puts it down to just being a displacement map with some props or brushes. You may want to choose another sky as well as the default sky looks ugly on low or medium texture resolutions...
Yeah, I'm easily put off by the look of something, I know, but you can do better, even for a first map. Keep it up.
Yeah, I'm easily put off by the look of something, I know, but you can do better, even for a first map. Keep it up.
Nice screenshot.
The building below seems a bit repetetive, both in shape and color, but the lighting on the dam is sweet. I like the electricity cables going up as well.
The building below seems a bit repetetive, both in shape and color, but the lighting on the dam is sweet. I like the electricity cables going up as well.
Some nice photographs. Where in Berlin do you live? I remember having seen some abandoned buildings but that was more towards the outer regions of town, the centre had some totally different architecture...
How about a texture page on your site, bytheway? I think you could create a nice portfolio with what you're doing for BM:S now...
Good to see you again, bytheway.
Where in Berlin do you live? I remember having seen some abandoned buildings but that was more towards the outer regions of town, the centre had some totally different architecture... How about a texture page on your site, bytheway? I think you could create a nice portfolio with what you're doing for BM:S now...
Good to see you again, bytheway.