Swanky wrote:Yes, due to its age, most stuff has been lost. DavidM, unrealed.info... even the old unreal wiki contains stuff mostly used for unrealed 3.0.
Swanky wrote:Hey, when UT was released most people still went online by modem so I think the game has had an exceptionally long life cycle.
Swanky wrote:Personally, I also think it's not worth the hassle of investing a week or two making an indepth tutorial on how the editor works and what the game's limitations are -if anything, a more universal approach to making maps
in general might be a better idea given how sloppy a lot of today's maps feel, and not just for UT.
Swanky wrote:Also, UE is pretty stable unless you force vertex on vertex on the same brush and there's better people who still know a lot more about engine limitations than I do - Revelation, Feralidragon (especially coding wise) for example.
Kwoning how to brush comes with time and practice, I was reffering to the very little control over BSP cuts and how it effects building and rendering and the sloppy occlusion calculations leading to flickering textures that you see in pretty much every map that wasn't thoughtfully and extensively checked and reshaped.
Swanky wrote:The UT community has a pretty great archive right now actually. Pretty much everything has been preserved. Issue is sifting through all those files to actually find the good ones.
Swanky wrote:And with regular mapping contests I think UT also gets a good amount of maps even to this day.
Swanky wrote:And I think that back in 2005 when we originally released the FoT mappacks UT was really healthy for its age.
Swanky wrote:Quake 3 had been on a slow decline mapping wise (can't think of that many good community maps for Q3 in general) and CS was played on mainly the same maps for the past two decades or so. So online map rotation isn't that
good an indicator on how many good maps are actually being made. Servers usually load what is most fun. With exceptions, of course.
Swanky wrote:That's actually a pretty easy request. Basically, the bigger and longer your line through one or multiple running and / or undivided polys may cause cuts. The bigger the cut the heftier the chance for holes and flickering.
The amount of nodes may also be an indicator. You actually have a good amount of control over it (by manually placing solids into the cut so it gets forced to recalculate) and you can also force BSP optimization through the build all menu where you can change calculation values and prioritization of cuts vs portals and such. This is also one of the few instances where a tutorial (by Hourences) was actually preserved. Click!
It's been 14 years and you pretty much can only count on the same names to come up of something good consistently. You're drawing the picture of a thriving mapping community when what I see is a handful of people, mostly close friends, doing all the work while the community itself is oblivious to what takes to make a good map and give support when it's needed
All I'm really saying is that the lack of content on the subject plus the pouring out of poor quality content that not only obscures the rest but reduces the desirability of the community for more content and appreciation for what's already available
...but when that's pretty all what's expected...
I hope we're in the same page now. I'm not talking about quality, specially when these come usually from the same authors, I'm talking about community support for mapping throughout the years that couldn't manage to get more people engaged or show awareness and appreciation for what has been made.
Swanky wrote:I'm trying not to take it as a bash against the crew with you trying to paint a picture of an elitist circle.
Swanky wrote: Someone who wanted to get better still could have done so.
Swanky wrote:also don't see how an influx of maps could diminish the actual appreciation of top maps. Why would that make maps like DM-Alcatraz, AggressiveTendencies or LastCrusader not being appreciated?
Swanky wrote:"If you're settling for perfection..."
Swanky wrote:At age 20, UT did have an impressive life and it's only natural that there is only a small core support.
Iacobus wrote: I really want to have the focus back on the map and feedback
OjitroC wrote:Iacobus wrote: I really want to have the focus back on the map and feedback
Hi Iacobus - it might be an idea to indicate here that you've posted an updated version (Beta1_4) as some people may miss it since it's added to your first post - I only saw it because I started reading through the whole thread again.
The_Cowboy wrote:Iacobus wrote:Too bad I'm a sucker for UT!
A few more good lines like that and you gonna see a Mapzilla rising!
sektor2111 wrote:Mainly routes are simple and consistent with less data.
sektor2111 wrote:1.4 Beta has generated more paths too close each-other and I still could see textures not so aligned.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests