PDA

View Full Version : Small Objects, Polygon count and Interactive Environments in deathmatch


Coca Lola
9th Sep 1999, 02:16 AM
I think there should be more small objects in the deathmatch levels. The total polygon count for the deathmatch levels must be pretty low compared to the total number of polygons in singleplayer maps in Unreal. As long as you keep the polygons visually separated the amount of total polygons could be increased. That is dont exceed a certain amount of simultaneously visible polygons in any certain place in the map. The count of visible polygons can be shown by writing, "show fps" in the console (press tab for the console prompt). Using zones will tell the editor(or the engine?) that two areas are not visible to each other and will heavily decrease the calculations and speed up your map(info on zones on urealed.net)
Howewer I think that mapeditors should concentrate on making small objects such as toilets and sinks etc, to make the level more intriguing. As it is now mapmakers are concentrating on great architecture and connectivity, that is of course great but if you lack the small things the level gets kind of empty.
I have also read some tutors and they say that you should never make brushes(brush = many grouped polygons) that overlap and use deintersecting(transform brush so no polygons reside inside another brush) before adding a brush to the world. Howewer that will always increase the number of polygons in the the brush. and if you are adding small things inside a room it is better to let the brushes overlap as the z-buffer doesnt really slow down if many polygons intersect(?), howewer many polygons will make it slow down.

Howewer if you are making large brushes such as rooms, deintersecting is an maybe good idea.

Why I'm saying this is that making interesting shapes, use deintersecting AND have a low polygon count is really a pain in the ass. It would be much easier not to use it at all atleast not on small decorational polygons.
If someone knows more on this please respond.+Everyone use the zoomfunction and start to make small brushes!!!!!!

Moreover I think that the interactive environments in duke nukem 3d was really fun.
And there are tutors over on unrealed.net that explains how to make breakable glass that comes back, that could also possibly be applied to breakable walls. Everyone implement!


Btw. the best multiplayer experience I have had was actually with shadow warrior i think that the weapons for that game was really fun especially the very powerful(and realistic?) mines with big explosions, that was a blast in one on one. It was very fun to lay out traps for the opponent on the back of pillar etc. Walk reasonably close and BOOM!

[This message has been edited by Sigma (edited 09-09-1999).]

[This message has been edited by Sigma (edited 09-09-1999).]

RaekwoN
9th Sep 1999, 10:56 PM
I agree with you entirely.

I've been mapping for nigh on a 4 years now, I started doing Doom maps way back when and have slowly progressed, Doom2, Duke 3d and now Unreal. Through all the maps I have seen in the past, attention to detail in deathmatch has been well ordinary. Since I have started playing InF all the maps I have made (or half made as the case often is) have been realistic situations. Details such as broken windows, holes in floors, tables etc are all stuff I have added, but you've got me thinking smaller now...

The level I am currently working on is an oil platform, very Rainbow 6, looking very nice, will be done in a week or so, but with smaller detail now being taken into consideration, it may take that little bit longer.

With real world environments, alot of them are room based, i.e large area seperated by smaller rooms, so high poly counts in small rooms is ok.