PDA

View Full Version : UT3 vCTF-Defection [BETA3] [PC]


Cr4zyB4st4rd
4th Sep 2008, 06:33 AM
Now Second Edition Final out -

http://forums.beyondunreal.com/showthread.php?t=180852

Improved performance + other little things

Cr4zyB4st4rd
5th Sep 2008, 10:24 PM
Final :)

_N_
10th Sep 2008, 04:17 PM
Finally had a chance to play it. Visually, it's very nice. I was worried that, being a desert map, it might end up being kinda mono-chromatic like WAR-Valley, but the little bit of vegetation and tiny details help prevent that from being the case.

In terms of layout and gameplay flow, the sheer number of routes for the flag carrier to take out of the enemy base will help keep the game from being too camping-based. I worry it's almost too easy to capture the flag, but it's better to err on the side of too easy rather than too hard. The layout also seems to be very original and unique and I like how it features both close-quarters fighting in the side corridors in addition to wide-open vehicular combat in the centre.

The only real issue I see is the performance issue in the centre. In the tight-corridors, along the sides and near the flags, the map has awesome performance. Better than the stock maps, even. However, the framerate just plummets as you enter the centre area. I tried to check why, and it seems the issue is just a plain ol' case to too many polygons. On average, most stock maps average about 200,000 static mesh triangles most of the time, and often max-out at about 400,000-500,000 in a few certain areas (for example, if you stare down the length of the bridge in VCTF-Suspense). However, in the centre area of your map, you readily exceed over 1,000,000 static mesh triangles, compounded further by over 70,000 of the more expensive terrain triangles. It isn't quite as bad as WAR-MoltenCore, but it still results in fps below 20 on people with more mid-range to low-range GPUs.

But other than the performance issues (nothing a little distance-culling can't cure ;) ) I see no other major changes :).

Cr4zyB4st4rd
10th Sep 2008, 05:41 PM
Wait, only 1'000'000? Damn! wanted more :P

That's the one thing i totally forgot to check with the map :x

Thing is when i play tested it i rarely felt issues, and i play windowed mode, 1680x1050 with a second monitor. I tried at 5/5 and 1/1 details and was hitting my capped fps all the time. The lack of feedback on BETA3 didn't really tell me much and there really wasn't many more meshes introduced to the final. Just a hell of a lot of emitters although they're mainly off.

Originally when i started mapping this i was more concerned on the environment than game play, but i'm glad you and others seem to like it.

I might get round to doing more performance optimization to it. Being so open in the center doesn't make it easy to cull half of it either. Maybe im just a nub at optimization.

SmokeRingHalo
10th Sep 2008, 05:50 PM
Haha, least you weren't spanked as hard as my WAR-Moltencore.
I think it looks good, downloading now.
...and thanks for the help earlier today.

Ok I played it and I enjoyed it. Yes, it could use more optimization, but most maps could use more optimization including the stock maps.
My frames were cut in half in the middle section but the rarely dropped under 32 on high settings. The only thing that troubled me was that the file size was rather large for the map size. A medium sized map shouldn't be pushing 90 MB. I'm guessing either the lighting is to blame by not being light mapped correctly, or your terrain resolution is way too high.
The map played very well and the bots defended the flag admirably. I didn't care much for the vehicle spawn locations but they necessarily a problem either. All in all, its a solid map - better than most I've played. Good work.

_N_
11th Sep 2008, 01:00 AM
Haha, least you weren't spanked as hard as my WAR-Moltencore.
I think it looks good, downloading now.
...and thanks for the help earlier today.

Lol, don't get me wrong, I LOVE Molten Core (almost as much as Beach front ;) ) but it's just that my machine (and others like me) struggle to play it. The centre area in particular is murderous to my GPU (an "old" nVidia 8600 GT).

http://img392.imageshack.us/img392/9972/moltencore2duorf6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
By raybulba (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/raybulba)

There are a few areas where the static mesh triangle count skyrockets to over 1.3 million, and the terrain triangles count is pretty high too. Online, I often find myself consistently at about 8-9 fps in these areas... pretty much impossible to play ;) which is a shame because otherwise, it's a perfect Warfare map.

_N_
11th Sep 2008, 01:04 AM
The only thing that troubled me was that the file size was rather large for the map size. A medium sized map shouldn't be pushing 90 MB. I'm guessing either the lighting is to blame by not being light mapped correctly, or your terrain resolution is way too high.

Heh, I saw this too, but then relised it's just because he included about 45MB of uncompressed .bmp screenshots. I'm not sure why he didn't compress them to .jpg or even just .png (a loss-less format like bmp, but with compression);).

Cr4zyB4st4rd
11th Sep 2008, 04:09 AM
Yea I thought they were saved in png :p only realized after I'd uploaded. Damn screens being bmp by default.

SmokeRingHalo
11th Sep 2008, 09:05 AM
Lol, don't get me wrong, I LOVE Molten Core (almost as much as Beach front ;) ) but it's just that my machine (and others like me) struggle to play it. The centre area in particular is murderous to my GPU (an "old" nVidia 8600 GT).

There are a few areas where the static mesh triangle count skyrockets to over 1.3 million, and the terrain triangles count is pretty high too. Online, I often find myself consistently at about 8-9 fps in these areas... pretty much impossible to play ;) which is a shame because otherwise, it's a perfect Warfare map.

I respond to this briefly as I'm not here to hijack this thread. Moltencore is my very first map from scratch and although it uses cull distances, I've learned much more since its release. The very first thing I did for the next version is *Deleted NEC Lights from Walkways effectively eliminating 720,192 Instance triangles* - and that's just one change. I guarantee that version 2 will run much better.

Heh, I saw this too, but then relised it's just because he included about 45MB of uncompressed .bmp screenshots. I'm not sure why he didn't compress them to .jpg or even just .png (a loss-less format like bmp, but with compression).

I didn't notice the screens were .bmp but yeah, that would explain it.
Thanks for pointing it out.