Thanks. I did download those already. How am I expected to guess that I have to start it from a different place? This is weird.
goes off to try the above
Forum posts
I thought I'd try Source mapping again. Last time I did, the procedure was:
1. Download SDK
2. Run Hammer
3. Make maps
So I downloaded Source SDK, and attempted to run Hammer.
The configuration information for the game you're trying to edit is invalid or missing.
[Run anyway] [Cancel] [Help]
I get this for every version of the Source engine listed. [Help] eventually takes me here but it pretty much says to run the game (let's say, EP2) which I am absolutely certain I've played not too long ago.
The only exception is selecting Half Life 2 (not Ep1/2) where I don't get this message. Great! At last I get to make some maps. File > New...
Failed to load the default scheme file. The map views may be missing some visual elements.
[OK]
...and now the three views show nothing. I can't make brushes, I can't place entities, I can't zoom or move any of the views. A quick search on google didn't tell me anything useful. What went wrong?
1. Download SDK
2. Run Hammer
3. Make maps
So I downloaded Source SDK, and attempted to run Hammer.
The configuration information for the game you're trying to edit is invalid or missing.
[Run anyway] [Cancel] [Help]
I get this for every version of the Source engine listed. [Help] eventually takes me here but it pretty much says to run the game (let's say, EP2) which I am absolutely certain I've played not too long ago.
The only exception is selecting Half Life 2 (not Ep1/2) where I don't get this message. Great! At last I get to make some maps. File > New...
Failed to load the default scheme file. The map views may be missing some visual elements.
[OK]
...and now the three views show nothing. I can't make brushes, I can't place entities, I can't zoom or move any of the views. A quick search on google didn't tell me anything useful. What went wrong?
But at least he gets hit by EMP.
If only I was able to make decent models and textures.
If only I was able to make decent models and textures.
- When in the void area, the skybox bits will look like a chunk of sky floating in the void, which would look weirdIt is exactly what I imagined, because despite looking odd if the map is incomplete, you'd see skybox where skybox would show in-game. An option for it to look slightly less weird and make a little more sense would be drawing as wireframe the visible edges of the brush. The fun of this is that you (as a mapper) could put sky textures in places where there isn't necessarily void on the other side (there are maps where you see sky but there is more map behind it) and still see an approximation of what it would look like in-game.
Of course, your other reasons make your position solid enough.
Now I'm wondering, if you hadn't thought of what I said, what was your idea on how to replace the void with a skybox? I can't imagine it being much different.
Is it that easy to make a 3D game engine? Is there something called Free Simulator Maker 2014 or something like that? The strangely most mundane activities are popping out as simulators (that turn out to be shit). Some keep pushing out things like Road Construction Simulator. Really, what is this? What is going on? Are game devs so dry out of ideas that they just pick a random occupation and turn it into a sim game?
Tomorrow I'll start writing Traffic Light Bulb Changer Simulator 2015. Because why would I come up with something good when the world already has all the ideas just outside my window?
Tomorrow I'll start writing Traffic Light Bulb Changer Simulator 2015. Because why would I come up with something good when the world already has all the ideas just outside my window?
Why almost scared? They're pretty good, especially for a first night shoot.
What... you really made the backdrop in Hammer? D:
That definitely sounds like a sensible compromise.
I'm good with or without it, I've been mapping all these years without it just fine, so pretty much anything is an improvement.
Still just out of curiosity, I'm wondering:
1. Doesn't the renderer already perform real-time visibility calculations for all the brushes/entities in the 3D view?
2. Considering the above, is the following idea too crazy?
Suppose you can have two frame buffers, one of them with the brushes/entities and another one with just the 6 faces of a skybox. It sounds possible that as you render the final frame, you replace the sky textures in the first buffer with what's rendered in the second buffer. Or, in other words, layering the first buffer onto the second, with the sky textures being transparent. The final effect being the skybox being painted "into" the sky brushes and still having a void area.
The skybox itself is pretty simple, after all it doesn't require position calculations, just camera rotation and maybe field of view.
This is entirely theoretical and based on my extremely limited and outdated knowledge of graphics rendering, so I'm prepared to see this post bashed when I return
I'm good with or without it, I've been mapping all these years without it just fine, so pretty much anything is an improvement.
Still just out of curiosity, I'm wondering:
1. Doesn't the renderer already perform real-time visibility calculations for all the brushes/entities in the 3D view?
2. Considering the above, is the following idea too crazy?
Suppose you can have two frame buffers, one of them with the brushes/entities and another one with just the 6 faces of a skybox. It sounds possible that as you render the final frame, you replace the sky textures in the first buffer with what's rendered in the second buffer. Or, in other words, layering the first buffer onto the second, with the sky textures being transparent. The final effect being the skybox being painted "into" the sky brushes and still having a void area.
The skybox itself is pretty simple, after all it doesn't require position calculations, just camera rotation and maybe field of view.
This is entirely theoretical and based on my extremely limited and outdated knowledge of graphics rendering, so I'm prepared to see this post bashed when I return
I might have worded it wrong. It would be harder to find leaks if both the void AND the sky brushes were replaced by skybox (or, well, set to the same colour). I just meant they should be different for this confusion not to happen.
[edit]wait, that's exactly what I said. I'm confused now.
[edit]wait, that's exactly what I said. I'm confused now.
I just meant that if the void AND the sky brushes are replaced with skybox, you can't visually tell the difference between them and holes are the most likely result. Knowing this it would probably be best to render the skybox over either the void or the sky brushes, but not both.
Rendering the skybox where the void shows is possibly the easiest option, however rendering the skybox where the sky texture shows looks like a more rational option to me. It would show skybox where it's supposed to be (after all, that's the purpose of the sky brushes), and unless the skybox was black, the void would show as black spots and it would be easy to tell at a quick glance where or if there are any holes.
Rendering the skybox where the void shows is possibly the easiest option, however rendering the skybox where the sky texture shows looks like a more rational option to me. It would show skybox where it's supposed to be (after all, that's the purpose of the sky brushes), and unless the skybox was black, the void would show as black spots and it would be easy to tell at a quick glance where or if there are any holes.
But the problem with that is that it would be very easy not to see a massive leak. Besides, wouldn't it be silly to render the skybox on the void instead of on the sky brushes? That's the exact purpose of the sky brushes :/
Alberto: I think those rounded corners in the bathroom don't really suit it. And yes, the lighting does suck
I personally don't quite like archways. They are very often misused and it looks like arse. I never made a single arch in my architecture projects, ever.
I personally don't quite like archways. They are very often misused and it looks like arse. I never made a single arch in my architecture projects, ever.
Just to clarify, the skybox will render instead of the void, but sky brushes will still appear like normal? Seems a bit useless, but hey, I'll see if I can do it and you guys can try it and let me know what you think.Rendering the skybox on the void alone is pretty useless. I was actually thinking that the void would remain the void and the sky brushes (the "sky" texture being some sort of special case for the renderer) would be entirely skipped and replaced by the actual skybox. Maybe with their visible edges in wireframe or something.
This way you'd see the skybox where it would appear in game, and it wouldn't get mixed up with the void. The void should remain visible as such, or it would be extremely easy to leave gaping holes in the level of which you wouldn't even remember until you compiled the map. Leaks would be a lot harder to find if both sky brushes AND void looked like the skybox.
Does Hammer for Source do this, or did you make that one yourself?
If anything, basic skybox rendering makes sense IN A LEVEL EDITOR.
I suppose it would be useful to tell if you've made a typo or something (if you typed the filename wrong, it wouldn't render and maybe even give you a message that the selected skybox doesn't exist).
I don't think it's a bad idea at all. Still, if it were to be implemented, I'd suggest that there be a setting to turn it off in case it's too distracting or slows down your system too much.
I suppose it would be useful to tell if you've made a typo or something (if you typed the filename wrong, it wouldn't render and maybe even give you a message that the selected skybox doesn't exist).
I don't think it's a bad idea at all. Still, if it were to be implemented, I'd suggest that there be a setting to turn it off in case it's too distracting or slows down your system too much.
The pink tiles are free for us to add new, or is that space ignored by the game?
Bad links.
You look much older than you probably are.
When I was 14-15 I wore really baggy clothes to hide my slightly-over-weight figure. Then I realised I looked really stupid and tight clothes did the job much better. My weight hasn't changed at all and I still think I should shave off 2-3kg somehow, but people have been telling me I look slimmer all the time. Doesn't make much sense.
Not really relevant, but I just remembered that.
When I was 14-15 I wore really baggy clothes to hide my slightly-over-weight figure. Then I realised I looked really stupid and tight clothes did the job much better. My weight hasn't changed at all and I still think I should shave off 2-3kg somehow, but people have been telling me I look slimmer all the time. Doesn't make much sense.
Not really relevant, but I just remembered that.
Man those are sharp turns on that road.
No, no, it's about Sledge in French, German, Spanish, Swedish, etc. RIGHT?
That has so much potential to go wrong...
I'll have a look at it.
Yeah, I do. I always say I'll try to learn it but... I never do. I'm lazy.
I didn't realise I could also download a browser on my phone. I don't use a lot of apps. I thought I could try it, but then...
On my mobile I use the built in android browser. Used Firefox for a while but my model is no longer supported....it's probably the same with mine.
Congratulations! You've completed this quest [+100XP]. All that hard work wasn't in vain.
D: Come ti osare! TU MASCALZONE!
My Android phone SUPPORTS JS, but it crashes or freezes with some implementations. So I had to turn it off.
Do you have permission from the author?
"Cool stuff like that" is, like you said, cool stuff. Non-critical additions that improve already present functionality. Which is fine by me, because I'm only saying that (to me at least), a website that is completely broken with JS disabled is worthless. Minimum/basic functionality should be provided. Besides, some devices (I'm thinking mobile) aren't fully compatible with JS and will choke when presented with it. That's another reason in favour of not relying on JS for basic functionality. A bit like those websites where all navigation is implemented in flash. I'm old-school like that.
There isn't, unless it's from a mod.
Nice! I never get those to display nicely in-game.
Once upon a time it was considered bad practice to write a website that relied on JavaScript to work. Based on that principle, and seeing how many websites only use JS to do annoying things, I only enable it when it provides useful functionality or when the site is so broken that it won't render without it (which could be under the broad definition of "useful functionality")
@ChickenFist: Yeah well, that's true, but it's also the reason why default settings exist. Don't touch them and things will work out of the box. What's also true is that many programs present you with simple settings AND give you an option to access the advanced settings that simple users don't care about, and by doing that, both types of users are happy. Completely removing all but the simplest settings doesn't help anyone.
@ChickenFist: Yeah well, that's true, but it's also the reason why default settings exist. Don't touch them and things will work out of the box. What's also true is that many programs present you with simple settings AND give you an option to access the advanced settings that simple users don't care about, and by doing that, both types of users are happy. Completely removing all but the simplest settings doesn't help anyone.
- I used to think Stojke was a reasonable person.
I mainly have a problem with devs dumbing everything down and shuffling around randomly what's left every other version. Sort of like MS did with Office when they removed the toolbars AND the menu bar and the only way to do things was through that horrible ribbon bar. They should have at least left the menu bar. AutoCad did it too but at least they left their trademark text input, so I couldn't care less about toolbars in it.
I don't want everything hidden from me. I like to be able to easily access everything I need any time I need it.
If I want Chrome, I'd go and download Chrome (or the fork above mentioned). Making all other browsers look like it is stupid. I appreciate things for what they are, not for how much they look like other things. It's like those japanese girls that get surgery on their eyelids to get big round eyes and look like anime characters. They end up losing their identity and all looking the same (waiting for the first to say they already did anyway).
[edit] I just opened an old toolbox and found inside a floppy disk hand-labeled as "Netscape 3.0 Gold - 2/3". I thought it was funny. It's definitely not mine, but I can't even check what's inside, my computer doesn't have a floppy drive.
I don't want everything hidden from me. I like to be able to easily access everything I need any time I need it.
If I want Chrome, I'd go and download Chrome (or the fork above mentioned). Making all other browsers look like it is stupid. I appreciate things for what they are, not for how much they look like other things. It's like those japanese girls that get surgery on their eyelids to get big round eyes and look like anime characters. They end up losing their identity and all looking the same (waiting for the first to say they already did anyway).
[edit] I just opened an old toolbox and found inside a floppy disk hand-labeled as "Netscape 3.0 Gold - 2/3". I thought it was funny. It's definitely not mine, but I can't even check what's inside, my computer doesn't have a floppy drive.
Well... brace yourselves for the next FF update. It's called the Borealis or something like that. I still tolerate the current version, but I'm probably not updating it anymore. I'm only using NoScript, Adblock, and HTTPSeverywhere. I don't know what other worthy plugins there are, but I like them and that's one reason to stick to FF.
I'm with CT there. I don't like Google and how they corner us into telling them everything about us with G+ and an extremely data-hungry update-pushing and EULA-rabid Android phone.
I'm with CT there. I don't like Google and how they corner us into telling them everything about us with G+ and an extremely data-hungry update-pushing and EULA-rabid Android phone.
Things like configurability. From what I've read, they're dumbing down everything so much (and actually removing functionality in the process) that simple things that you normally use become impossible to use (or find, if they're still present at all). Apparently they're removing things like enabling/disabling JavaScript (I use NoScript anyway, but now it'll become the ONLY way to disable JS). Some things that used to be easy are now hidden... somewhere. And I have to dig through the menu to find them in a much less obvious place.
My limited experience with Chrome was enough to decide it wasn't for me. It pretty much has no settings at all, it's too limited as if they expected every user to be like my grandmother.
I didn't even remember SeaMonkey. I vaguely remember reading about it ages ago. Looks just like Firefox the first time I installed it, on Windows XP... like 10 years ago, lol.
...10 years ago?! D:
My limited experience with Chrome was enough to decide it wasn't for me. It pretty much has no settings at all, it's too limited as if they expected every user to be like my grandmother.
I didn't even remember SeaMonkey. I vaguely remember reading about it ages ago. Looks just like Firefox the first time I installed it, on Windows XP... like 10 years ago, lol.
...10 years ago?! D:
Once upon a time, internet browsers were part of a death race to be the best browser out there. Netscape, IE, Opera, Firefox, Chrome, many were able to make the claim at some point. Now it would seem "being the best" is a long gone fad and now the race aims at being the worst browser out there. The main contenders are doing really well. Removing configuration options, privacy options, turning perfectly usable interfaces into usability nightmares. So much that ever since I read what the next version of Firefox will be like, I straight up turned off automatic updating. I looked at its more well known rivals and it seems they are all going to hell hand in hand together. FF, IE, Chrome, Opera, they are all doing an equally great job at turning into shit.
I think it's time to find an alternative, but I don't even know where to start looking. Even a starting point for my search would be welcome. I've searched the internet and most discussions are about IE, Chrome, Firefox, or perhaps Opera. So I am asking, does anybody around us know of an alternative browser with all of the great features and none of the bullshit? Perhaps an obscure branch of an old version of Firefox, or anything that's decent, really.
I think it's time to find an alternative, but I don't even know where to start looking. Even a starting point for my search would be welcome. I've searched the internet and most discussions are about IE, Chrome, Firefox, or perhaps Opera. So I am asking, does anybody around us know of an alternative browser with all of the great features and none of the bullshit? Perhaps an obscure branch of an old version of Firefox, or anything that's decent, really.
I hadn't seen that tutorial 
It would definitely be an excellent editor feature.
[edit] I seem to have misplaced my FGDs. Care anyone show me a good one?
It would definitely be an excellent editor feature.[edit] I seem to have misplaced my FGDs. Care anyone show me a good one?
From what I've read on your site: You mention "various real life stadia" in it, but your first post here says you need mappers to produce some stadiums for you. Does this mean you need a mapper to replicate real life places, to reimagine them, or to straight up make up new places?
And the most important part, do you have photographer models to put behind the goals that can be knocked over if hit with the ball?
And the most important part, do you have photographer models to put behind the goals that can be knocked over if hit with the ball?
You know how Valve presents the developer's commentary mode, with usable description bubbles and occasionally the camera showing you specific things about the map you're in? Is there any insight on these mechanics in the book?
I was wondering the other day whether it's special entities that are enabled/disabled or just a different compile of the same maps with the commentary entities and cameras added.
Edit: I have a question regarding page 187 and the settings of the button. At least in Goldsource, I'm QUITE sure that if you set the "delay before reset" on a button to -1, it doesn't matter whether you set it to toggle or not, because the button will stay pressed forever. It only toggles between states if you set the delay to something other than -1. Has this changed in Source? I'm mainly asking in case it's an error that can be fixed before it goes out to print.
Also, does the book include an entity reference chapter, or is the reader left to his own devices (say, look it up on TWHL) to find out?
I was wondering the other day whether it's special entities that are enabled/disabled or just a different compile of the same maps with the commentary entities and cameras added.
Edit: I have a question regarding page 187 and the settings of the button. At least in Goldsource, I'm QUITE sure that if you set the "delay before reset" on a button to -1, it doesn't matter whether you set it to toggle or not, because the button will stay pressed forever. It only toggles between states if you set the delay to something other than -1. Has this changed in Source? I'm mainly asking in case it's an error that can be fixed before it goes out to print.
Also, does the book include an entity reference chapter, or is the reader left to his own devices (say, look it up on TWHL) to find out?
Sledge doesn't support Source at all yet and it's been said since day one.
@PB: I haven't used it in forever, but .Net has a function/variable/something like application.directory() that returns the directory where the .exe is. I'm sure that would solve that problem.
@PB: I haven't used it in forever, but .Net has a function/variable/something like application.directory() that returns the directory where the .exe is. I'm sure that would solve that problem.
Doesn't allowing the user to install the program in user space (i.e any folder they have write permissions to) and save all configs there automatically make it portable?
UNLESS you installed the whole program to user space instead of common space.
Yep. No env_fog here.
Because env_fog is for Source, and there is no equivalent in Goldsource.
What I think Rim is saying is a sort of built-in MS Paint in the 3D view. I fail to see its usefulness, though.
Just tie every other brush to the same entity. You'll have a grand total 2 entities per axis (1 for "even" rows and 1 for "odd" rows) and they'll render just fine as long as they don't touch.
It'll be 4 entities if you make it two different directions (N/S + E/W). 6 if you need it to render vertically when looking up too.
You can also have more entities if you want to divide it into different areas.
It'll be 4 entities if you make it two different directions (N/S + E/W). 6 if you need it to render vertically when looking up too.
You can also have more entities if you want to divide it into different areas.
I was a kid, I'm 16 nowYou still are. You're only allowed to say that after 25.
If you're doing this now, I don't want to know what you'll do when uni gets hard.
I don't know, monstermakers are weird. I never liked them. They're not what they appear to be.
I know it's sub-optimal, but as a last resource, how about using a monster_apache in a secluded place and then teleporting it in when you need it?
*when I saw the title of the thread I first thought it was about a web server
*when I saw the title of the thread I first thought it was about a web server