Forum posts

I can't say you've been very friendly lately, ZL, but about those images, I agree.

The light beam is too strong. Subtle beams work better sometimes (or perhaps, most of the times). That foggy sprite is nice (though a more subtle approach is better here, too), but it's hiding some ugly texturing (a wall shouldn't look like a section of support beams). Apart from that, the screenshot shows little.

As for the wallpaper, I think it's ok. But I believe it's better to work on your levels some more rather than creating wallpapers because every mod tends to do so these days.

Ow, I believe you can't target the player. Using the keyword 'player' focusses on the info_player_start's position rather than the actual player location, afaik.

Perhaps using a system of triggers, where you move around the camera's focus entity to the general area the player has moved into?

For the right textures, play through the level that contains them, and type 'impulse 107' in the console to get the texture name of the surface you're looking at (at least, I believe it's 107, though I'm not 100% sure atm). Using keywords like 'wall' or 'metal' helps, too.

Get some tree models. Easy to use, better effect. There are some free ones around, somewhere (though at the moment I can't remember the sites name).

Do a search for this on the forum. There have been many threads about this subject, and many usefull answers as well.

Answers that teach or guide you how to get idea's, not direct idea's themselves...

Ok, here we go: get Milkshape 3D, decompile the model you want to modify (there's a built in decompiler for HL models in Milkshape), import the .smd files that make up the parts of the model (one at a time), select a different skin for them (in the right panel, third tab, select the material from the list, click on the button which caption is the name of the texture currently used for that material, select your new skin), then export as a new .smd under a different name.
Then, in the .qc file, fill in these new .smd's as options in the bodygroups. For example, take a look at the hgrunt's .qc file (you'll get this file after decompiling a model, it's necessary for compiling one) and you'll be able to figure out how the system works.
Once all that is done, compile (again, can be done from within Milkshape) and in Hammer, add the 'body' key and a value to select one of the combinations. You can always check in the model viewer if there are more options for the body groups, of course.

I'll assume this isn't a very easy guide, but if you're a fast learner, it should be enough to get you going in the right direction.

Lastly, I need to get some sleep, hence the quick info. See ya.

Depends. How skilled are you with modelling or modifying models? I know how to do this, but it requires you to reskin model parts, save them as seperate .smd files and modifying the .qc file before compiling your new version of the model. That goes further than the average model viewer stuff.

Also, for what mod do you want to use this? I may need to do a little research to see if it's useable for plain DM as it requires a modified model anyway (though I believe it's possible to refer to a different model name, I'm not sure about it, the model location and name may be hardcoded).

You don't want to use fit here. Use the align left (L) button, or the right (R) one. Fit stretches the texture over the selected face, so it appears exactly once on it. Looks ugly in most situations.

Actually, that was for HL. But doing the same in HL2 would probably need some custom code as well.

Alternately, you can use animated textures or use camera entities to display another part of your map on a texture (screen). Might become quite some work anyway.

Yeah, a nice tool indeed. vmtCREATE is also a handy one, and StudioCompiler if you're into modelling. And Pakrat as a replacement for bspzip.

Me likes community-made tools.

Exactly what do you mean? Can you provide a screenshot or such?

but wont the sky textures get all funky if it isnt a cube?

It's not about the size or shape of the skybrushes in Hammer. Try using a single brush as a ceiling for a room. You'll notice it looks just normal in-game. In-game it's always a box that moves with the player, the skybrushes in Hammer are just a hint as to where this box should be visible.

Elon probably means boxing in your level, e.g. putting a big (sky)box around it to prevent leaks. That is indeed a bad habit, as it'll not only hugely increase compile times but also decreases performance quite some. But I think that's well-known around here already.

So, a HOM effect? Let me guess, it happens in your terrain area?
This is sometimes caused in area's with complex shapes or angled faces. These area's are quite hard for vis to handle properly, so now and then a HOM effect appears.

It's best to keep the vis job as simple as possible to avoid these problems. Think of putting details into func_walls. The terrain could also be put into one or more func_walls, with a nulled brush under it to prevent leaks. Makes the vis job a lot easier and it's much less likely to get such problems.

I never used hint and skip textures much. I used null some more, but not extensively either. Most optimization comes from some planning and trickery. For example, I know of someone who had created a nice area, but r_speeds were high when looking from one of the corners. The solution? Blocking access to that corner.
I believe the compilers do a fair job on their own already, and only when really necessary I would take the time to manually improve the situation. In most cases, I simply don't need to.

For Source maps it would be more of an issue, as these maps are quite large in filesize so using nodraw textures to cut down on lightmaps isn't a bad idea there.

For me, it comes down to focusing on gameplay and visuals, rather than spending a lot of time optimizing a map. Of course, it takes some planning to avoid a bad performance that way. Some technical insight may also be good to have to estimate the situation.
Then again, everyone maps in his or her own way, this is just my view and way of working.

Indeed.

Right now, I'm onto a mapping project using 3ds Max. I've just started using the program and so far some things are fairly simple to get into, but not everything is as straighforward as Hammer. Do you have experience with 3ds Max as well, Kasperg?

It's definitely an easy-to-learn editor while I still find it efficient. It's much better than modelling your levels in 3DS Max, for example...

Sounds like you need to read up on tutorials some more, there surely are tutorials that cover this up. The Valve Developer Wiki - Level Design department is a good place to visit, and then Halfwit-2 and Akilling.org are some interesting sites. Of course, there's much more tutorials out there, but this should do for now, don't you think?

Oh, and just a hint: some sites have search options...

No coding needed. Some modelling skills are handy here, though, and a little Hammer trickery.

Basically, you can add keys in Smart Edit mode to any entity, in case a certain property that is supported in the code isn't described in the .fgd (and there's quite some of these, afaik). Now I don't exactly know the key to change skins, but there's a key for changing the submodel configuration for sure, I believe it's the 'body' key. The accompanied value controls the combination of the submodels.
Try this one on the human grunt entity. You'll see certain values represent certain combinations of heads and weapons (yes, there's also a 'no weapon' instance for the weapon subgroup, for dead grunts).
Once you understand that principle, and know how to change the models and all, it's not a hard job.

Keep it to a thread per subject, that's easier to manage. Otherwise you get subjects running through each other, that's more confusing.

Just go with displacements with higher power values, or use more, smaller, displacement maps.

If you're going for very steep sides, a vertically placed displacement, aligned with horizontal ones, might be a good solution.

That's fine with me. Saves me some tedious searching (I haven't found the complete password in that mod anyway)...

Yeah, nice idea. Reminds me of a certain mod, can't remember the name, that had letters spread over the game and an extra map where you had to enter the complete password. For those that tried cheating into the secret area, they had a trigger set around it that faded the screen away and stopped the map.

I think those pipes add something, but the vent looks oversized (usually you can't crouch through them anyway) and in the long run, that hallway is still somewhat boring because it's the same everywhere. Add some things to break it up, like the vent ending half down the corridor, or an extra pipe coming from the ceiling that meets another pipe somewhere, just a few things to break up the long surfaces.

The heli platform is quite rough and so is the lighting I think, but it's getting more interesting, yeah.

Thats 100% impossible. The CS source code has not been released to the public, so its not possible to make changed to the mod.

Reverse engineering, anyone? Oh well, that's a horrible job anyway. Using a cycler or cycler_sprite works for getting a model into the map, yep. I believe the helicopter from HL has an idle animation where the blades already rotate, so that would work just fine.

it's very frustrating when a guy is camping in the cellar in snarkpit (HLDM) for example. Just sitting there and collecting ammo and battery, never moving.

And there lies a responsibility for the mapper...

It wouldn't be good if there weren't any differences, no...

A more important thing when making staircases is to avoid people falling down rather than stepping down. This is connected with the point you made, Kasperg, that stairs should have a higher width than height.
Anyway, change that texture in the staircase hall. Don't rotate it, applied normal it will give a better impression that the player is actually going down (or up).
The tunnel looks better now. Nice.
While the sewer entrance may be placed well to avoid too easy camping, it doesn't really look like it fits there. Right now it's just a tube that suddendly ends in the middle of a grass-field. You could probably add a more believable exit.

You know how I think about this, Muzzle. Nice, but it's not the exact alignment and stuff that makes a map interesting. Indeed, as Kol said, somehow the original looks better. Athmosphere is hard to grasp in the finer details.

Oh, and think about proportions if you want everything perfect anyway - those metal bar edges on the catwalk are really big compared to the catwalk itself. Feels odd.

Besides that, yeah, going fine, you just know how I think about this. (Or in other words: I wanna see those additional maps! :))

Last time I checked, Spirit of Half-Life supported reflective water, mirrors and several other nifty things that would make this surely possible in HL. Playable framerates might be a whole different story here, but hey...

Looks nice bytheway, Kasperg. Seems you do a good job with your architecture classes.

Looks nice, your map. Seems the textures deal with the smaller details while the architecture does the bigger things, which is just fine.

Comparing it to another one's (obvious) first map is useless though. This isn't your first map, it's just your first JK map. It's probably his very first map ever...
And indeed, such maps shouldn't be released as being finished playable maps, imho. But oh well, there are mappers, and mappers, so, yeah...

Bratty: I've uploaded an old .wad file of mine here. Anyone else who wants to use it, please contact me first. Not that there's many usefull textures in them but hey...

That Venice map of yours is looking good, Ant. Is the layout finished already or are you building area by area?

So, if people are just animals, so if there's nothing after this life...

why live at all? To have some fun now, and then nothingness?

That can't be all, and luckily, it isn't all. God has made us with a purpose, to have contact with Him, a friendship, a good relationship. That alone is what really forfills our lives.
God gave us a free will, so we can choose ourselves to love Him. The Bible tells us humanity chose against God, and sinned against Him. Which is exactly what happens now: people don't believe in God, deny His existence, make up their own theories on life, create their own religions, go for their pleasure and lusts rather than thinking about God and how He intended us to live. His intentions are perfect, He knows us better than anyone else and despite our sins, still loves us. So much in fact that He let His own son Jesus die for our sins, so we can be reunited with God again rather than having to face the puishment for our sins.

Argumentation? Try it out yourself. Accept Jesus into your heart by simply praying to God and asking forgiveness for your sins. I've grown up with church whole my life, but besides just being interesting it never did anything to me untill I repented from my sins and decided to live for God. That changed my life, in a very good way I might say.

Interesting subject, actually... reminded me of some older games I played years ago when I read 'transport hub'. Hmm...

Those textures make it look funky, not really what I'd expect from a spaceship really. Especially the red and blue is too prominent and those oversized lamps don't do good either.

I'll search for some textures I once made for a spaceship interior this afternoon, after I get back from school. Maybe you could use them.

Currently working on dm_mudanchee for HL2DM, but no big progress since the last media update. School has been busy lately, but now that I'm back on schedule I should be able to get some significant stuff done. More to come later.

The spaceship is nice, but those grunts in space look odd, plus they make the ship feel so much smaller.

No roll-back option to the non-beta SDK? Aww, that's bad... the selection system seems to have changed somewhat and I don't really like it either, it seems to be harder to place brushes correctly now. The rest is fine though so I'm well able to sit out the beta-period untill the real release is done, but it's a bugger for those that have some real trouble now...

Those updates need a roll-back option, that's for sure.

What I've done, is creating a new shortcut for Steam, which refers to

"C:Program FilesValveSteamSteam.exe"

Then I changed that to

"C:Program FilesValveSteamSteam.exe" -beta sdk

When I started Steam via this shortcut, the SDK was updating (from 75% I believe) and once it was ready, I started Hammer 4.0.

Let me guess, you just renamed the shortcut?

If not, then it's just strange...

So, what's exatly in the properties Target field now?

Sounds like it should work anyway, try restarting Steam through this shortcut and launch Hammer, see if you can spot the differences.

@ZL: Read my clipboard content if you want something interesting to read.

Ah well, if you don't like these kinds of topics, don't visit them, unless rules are being broken then it's just the way it goes. Unless you post something interesting yourself the trend will not be broken.

Cant get it work

So what exactly did you try to get it to work then? Just adding -beta sdk to your Steam shortcuts properties does the trick...

Who started the pie spam too? I get it in silly threads like current beverages or whatever but keep it the hell out of mapping discussion.

Agreed.

Get mapping then... stupid threads always existed but with the lack of mapping going on these days, there's little other things left than to post to post...

Good improvements. I'd like to see the inverted alpha bug being fixed too, but for a beta, this is good stuff. I particularly like the in-Hammer model viewer but the fact that models and dismaps show up in the 2D views as well is a nice addition too.

Rotating now only goes in increments of 15 degrees unless you use the Transform tool, so it's obviously still beta, but it's getting there. Good stuff.

Uhh, just what I had on my clipboard, right? ...

Original post by Sandman

Why do you want an RTS without base-building? Is it because you're trying to be different, or do you have a concrete vision for gameplay which does not include base building? Or is base-building simply an aspect of gameplay that you think could be done without?

I believe base-building doesn't reflect nowadays fast wars, where army's don't have time to construct whole facilities in order to fight, or where only small combat groups are sent into a hot zone, having to establish a base of operation before any other troops can come in.
The idea behind my ideas is to reflect real combat better, and emphasize on battlefield tactics rather than base-building and economics.
I see the being different here more as a problem than a novelty, simply because this different style seems to be less popular.

Most decent players don't build a base because they like to feel safe; they do it because it determines how your economy develops, and thus the number and type of units you can bring into the game, which has a profound effect on what you can do. In fact, the majority of the 'strategy' comes from developing your economy in this manner; if you remove it you will need to pick up the slack elsewhere.

I'm planning on letting the player choose his units and tweak their equipment before a mission starts, but then there's indeed the problem that a player can't react to the enemy units if he chose the wrong units (say, no anti-tank units is a pain while fighting against a tank squadron).
To counter that, I want to give the player intelligence reports and maps beforehand so he can plan his unit choice better. I'm still thinking about a reinforcements system. Right now I haven't thought about it a lot but I might mix it up with ammunition and weapon supplies, so you can refit your troops during battle (this should be kept simple and fast to execute) and react to enemy decisions better. Perhaps changing this on a per-mission base, where defensive missions allow for reinforcements and all, and offensive missions, which are more on-the-move, have to do with limited reinforcements?

If we're talking about turtling though, you're right; that's nearly always a 'safety' thing. You have a large map, limited mobile units and a limited ability to control all your men. Lots of large, static, powerful, and tough objects like turrets are a very tempting way of 'protecting' a chunk of the map without having to expend much attention on it. However, few RTS games are really designed with turtling in mind, and it is very rarely a worthwhile tactic - it's expensive, slow, and inflexible. Turtles and turret farmers tend to lose badly to more aggressive players.

I'm talking about the turtling indeed. I've learnt to play aggressive if I want to win, but naturally I like to play it safe. I like to build and design, too, so I got easily distracted by it. I guess it depends on the type of player but I'll assume I should strongly take aggressivenes into account when designing my game. In reality it's an important factor as well.

I'm not sure if this achieves what you want; it seems to me that you lose all of the strategic options that come with the economy development side of base building, but retain the (generally undesirable) ability of players to turtle up.

Think of strongpoints here more as machinegun nests and other soft buildings like tents. I want to limit these, if not exclude, from offensive missions but for defensive missions, I think they can provide interesting options. My game idea emphasizes on cover for infantery (not getting hit is more important than the armor a unit has) so it's not like these strongpoints would be 'building' with a life-bar of their own so to say, but quickly built, protected area's for your units. So no automated turrets or defensive structures, but digging in troops.
Of course, these sandbags would need to get transported by trucks or other vehicles so their use is limited to certain places.

Personally, I think if a non-base-building game is to work you need to make the most out of the terrain. Perhaps you can build certain defensive structures, but are limited in what you can build and where. You can't quickly build a dugout in the middle of a rocky plain because the ground is too hard. You can't build it in soft sand either, because it fills in faster than you can dig it. You can use sandbags anywhere, but sandbags are heavy so you're limited to using them in places near roads where your supply trucks can bring them. Otherwise, you have to use the features on the terrain. If you want a bunker, you'll have to locate one on the map and capture it.

Definitely. I want to use the terrain as more than just offering different routes and area's. Cover is important for units (they get easily killed once hit, cover and visibility makes them harder to hit) as well as visibility, so I want to include these things a lot into the maps. An open field could be turned into a killing zone with well-placed machinegun nests and mines, while these would be much less effective in a dense forest, for example.

Thanks for your thoughts, it's good feedback.

The .bsp you included in your .zip was an unlit version, but the screenshot showed a lit version. Seems to me you included the wrong map or such.

Besides combining those faces into one so they have a continuous lightmap, I don't think there's a real solution for this.

Nice detailed terrain bytheway, but perhaps a bit overdone for HL?

Use the Texture Application. There's a cube with different colored sides on the button, which is located in the left button panel. You can now apply textures to individual faces, or select individual faces to get their properties.

You're talking about brushes, bytheway, not shaders.

I think most people here still map for HL and therefor model overuse isn't really an issue for them. In HL2, the generic industrial theme and the same props get pretty old after a while. Seeing an explosive barrel isn't yet the same as seeing a prefabbed crate, but HL2 only exists for a year so it hasn't been around long enough to get really overused yet. Anyway, I'm not going to use props that are already widely used unless they really fit in a map, because I place high value on a distinct theme and feeling.

Of course, others can value different things and that's no problem. It's just my point of view and the reason why I create my own props and details rather than downloading some prefabs or models.
Then again, I'm also the type that wants to do it all by himself causing long development times, so my way surely isn't the best in every situation.
I like it however, learning things in a lot of different creative area's, and that's why I originally started mapping, because I like it, so, yeah...