........I was replying to the post about me.........about Unreal. They are a really great group of guys, but sometimes it seems as though when they work on something, they only work until they are content with it, and do not fully complete what the set project needs to be in the end.
Something that was missing from UT2003/4
- Thread starter Deadmeat
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
Actually I don't agree. I think their tech. in UE2.5 was broken.gregori said:
BSP and meshes were lit differently which made lighting levels decently really really hard. To the point where it was almost impossible in some cases.
UE3 in 2K7 should have all that fixed.
I think having Better technology, and more possibilities can have a detrimental effect, as was proved with UT2kx. Alot of the Textures, lighting, meshes and skyboxes were poor quality and lazy compared to the limited tech UT99 was done on. The weapon effects on that engine should look better than UT99, but they don't, they look worse, just compare Pulsgun with Link, Enforcer with AR,
The Old Flak cannon, with the new Flak cannon.
UT99 lava and water effects were also much better looking and more colourful, the UT2kx procedural mesh water are too gaudy and large too look like water. I hope epic doesn't go the route of Half Life 2 by making the water too realistic, clear etc, I'd like to see colourful imaginative water like in DM Turbine, AS Frigate and in the Original Unreal, just done with better tech this time!
Having procedual textures in UT99/Unreal gave it a unique look unlike any other shooter. Now Epic/DE mostly port stuff from Maya/3d studio max but it looks to like stock sci-fi stuff that you could see in any FPS.
Having less options confines designers too make good choices, and be genrally more imaginative and creative, it cuts down on excess, like how excessive the meshes were in UT2kx (you heard me! DM Icetomb)
Compare the Skaarj mothership in Unreal, and the one in UT2004, its unbelivable that the old one on inferior technology is far better and feels more like a real place!
The Old Flak cannon, with the new Flak cannon.
UT99 lava and water effects were also much better looking and more colourful, the UT2kx procedural mesh water are too gaudy and large too look like water. I hope epic doesn't go the route of Half Life 2 by making the water too realistic, clear etc, I'd like to see colourful imaginative water like in DM Turbine, AS Frigate and in the Original Unreal, just done with better tech this time!
Having procedual textures in UT99/Unreal gave it a unique look unlike any other shooter. Now Epic/DE mostly port stuff from Maya/3d studio max but it looks to like stock sci-fi stuff that you could see in any FPS.
Having less options confines designers too make good choices, and be genrally more imaginative and creative, it cuts down on excess, like how excessive the meshes were in UT2kx (you heard me! DM Icetomb)
Compare the Skaarj mothership in Unreal, and the one in UT2004, its unbelivable that the old one on inferior technology is far better and feels more like a real place!
It's really important how the artwork and content carries over into the game. I'm a firm believer in the 'less is more' philosophy. If you give a level designer tons of complicated meshes, chances are they will be thrown into a level in an arbitrary manner without thought to function and form. In the end, it just masks bad level design.
For mappers faced with better technology and tools to recreate just about anything comes the risk of being somewhat pragmatic in the approach to level designing without concerning ourselves with how the gameplay will complement it
Great thread
For mappers faced with better technology and tools to recreate just about anything comes the risk of being somewhat pragmatic in the approach to level designing without concerning ourselves with how the gameplay will complement it
Great thread
Unleashed said:
I believe 'less is less'
Though you are actually correct Epic/DE did coplicated meshes jut for the sake of it in UT2kx. Nothing should be done for the sake of it, esp pointless levels of detail and complication. Anything that doesn't add to the maps always take away from it! Every thing there should serve a gameplay,visual or storyline purpose, or at least help the theme of the map and make it feel like a complete world.This is actually something I like about DM CarbonFire, that big Ring shield isn't completely pointless, it serves a storyline and functional purpose, and yet looks visually cool.
Entr0p1cLqd said:
I thought it might be worth mentioning that the meshes in UT'99 and Unreal also did not light the same way as the BSP, it's not just a UT2k issue. It just wasn't quite as obvious in the early games because meshes were used much more sparingly and the BSP graphics weren't as realistic (sorry gregori I always found the UT2k graphics to be less not more cartoony).
Unleashed said:
Very true. Also worth noting that if your given loads of pre-made meshes you almost guaranteed not to find a single one that you want!! God knows I spent ages trawling thorugh all the static meshes in UT2004, thinking to myself - that looks ok but it's not what I want. If a mapper can't find what they are looking for they either have to:
a) pick the closest match they can and force it into the level
b) change their idea into something that can be made with the static meshes available.
c) not use a mesh at all - which isn't an option at all for the developers mappers who have to demonstrate all the new graphical goodness of the new engine.
You end up with the static meshes dictating the kind of map you can make rather than the other way round and quite often the map suffers for this lack of flexibility.
P.S. oh or d) the mapper can go and make their own custom mesh. It'll fit the map but still look out of place because hey, it's a static mesh !!!
Last edited:
THe meshes in UT99 weren't static meshes either, had much fewer polygons so the lighting didn't look too bad on them, most UT99 maps were completely BSP, unlike UT2kx, were there mostly meshes and terrain.
THe situation already look a million times better in UT2007 because of Real time lighting means you can't tell the difference between meshes and BSP anymore!
THe situation already look a million times better in UT2007 because of Real time lighting means you can't tell the difference between meshes and BSP anymore!
O I know what you meant. Epic/DE went overboard with static meshes in UT2kx (DM ICETOMB to mention one)
Even the Texture for the pavement in that Torlan2 video looks a million times better than UT2k4, they're using shaders intelligently to create a subtle realistic effect, not just to be flashy!
Even the Texture for the pavement in that Torlan2 video looks a million times better than UT2k4, they're using shaders intelligently to create a subtle realistic effect, not just to be flashy!
The only meshes in UT were used for objects (like health, weapons etc). The levels themselves were completely built out of BSP geometry.
In 2K3 and 2K4 you had a misx of BSP and static meshes. Both responded to the lights within the level differently.
In 2K7 the lighting has been completely re-done so both BSP and meshes should (in theory at least) respond in the same way to lights.
In 2K3 and 2K4 you had a misx of BSP and static meshes. Both responded to the lights within the level differently.
In 2K7 the lighting has been completely re-done so both BSP and meshes should (in theory at least) respond in the same way to lights.
Entr0p1cLqd said:
Good observations about UT, UT2k3 and UT2k4, but theory-wise, it can't be confirmed in UT2k7 until someone actually verifies it from actually playing / looking at the schematics.
They're not observations!, they're stated facts Epic have already previously told us about UT,UT2k3,UT2k4.
As far as i know, Epic is using a combination of, Realtime per pixel lighting that light all surfaces the same way, and soft shadowed precalculated light maps, These may effect the BSP only, or Static Meshes and BSP. Im not sure about them. Epic are also lighting characters and animated meshes with spherical harmonic lighting.
As far as i know, Epic is using a combination of, Realtime per pixel lighting that light all surfaces the same way, and soft shadowed precalculated light maps, These may effect the BSP only, or Static Meshes and BSP. Im not sure about them. Epic are also lighting characters and animated meshes with spherical harmonic lighting.
*sigh*
Ok, explanation time for gregori again.
Regardless, even though they are also stated facts, they can also be observations. Objects in life can be described and discussed in different fashions. Clearly, you couldn't interpret that and jumped to conclusions.
And as I said earlier,
... which clearly rebuts your second paragraph. And that's not jumping to conclusions. It was formulated on the pretense that I already stated something earlier that contradicts.
Ok, explanation time for gregori again.
Regardless, even though they are also stated facts, they can also be observations. Objects in life can be described and discussed in different fashions. Clearly, you couldn't interpret that and jumped to conclusions.
And as I said earlier,
neilthecellist said:
... which clearly rebuts your second paragraph. And that's not jumping to conclusions. It was formulated on the pretense that I already stated something earlier that contradicts.
It's interesting to consider that some of the maps like Gestalt and ElectricFields existed before UT2003 was released, but were not in the game until later because the tech used to build the levels changed during development and they were not rebuilt. Gestalt was one of the first maps we saw in UT2003 previews, but was included finally in UT2004. ElectricFields was also pictured quite a lot early on, but wasn't released until DE did their bonus pack.
neilthecellist said:
No, observations are something you notice yourself, that no-one has just told you, otherwise they're not your observations and calling them that is just stomach-churningly pretentious.
As for my second paragraph, most of the information on the lighting, came from stated facts or was implied by Epic through video interviews and press releases.
hal said:
At least the visual theme for electical field was deadly. They should definetly do a map with that look again, different gameplay, upgraded weather effects, reflective puddles of acidic rain eveywhere. At least that map is already 'Grungified' because of the very nature of its theme.
neilthecellist said:
According to DGUnreal, who claims to be a professional level designer working with UT2007 lighting on static meshes is now calculated the same was as with BSP. This confirms everything I have heard about the engine from other sources (Epic) as well.
Entr0p1cLqd said:
I don't know how many times I should repeat myself. Yes the weapons, pickups, player models were meshes but there WERE ALSO DECORATION MESHES USED. There were pipes, barrels, boxes, space fighters, cars, shields all made out of meshes but they WERE USED SPARINGLY. And the meshes in UT did not light the same way as the BSP - this should have been obvious from the player models and weapon pick ups alone.
hal said:
Electric fields was actually one of the few levels I liked playing in UT2003. It actually incorporated a reasonably inventive setting with something resembling playability. Didn't like the visual style too much though (it was all rusty metal) and the music wasn't the greatest but it was still a pretty good map.
Oh and it had rain (I'm a sucker for precipitation). I would quite like to see a few maps in UT2007 that make use of spectacular weather / environmental effects. I think pouring rain, whistling wind, thunder and lighting are all really atmospheric and you could also have some more 'unreal' effects like electrical storms, aurora's, gas clouds etc... A few more nice little touches could be breathe that frosts up in cold climates, bodies that steam and, erm, stuff like that
Last edited:
Deadmeat said:...
Oh and it had rain (I'm a sucker for precipitation). I would quite like to see a few maps in UT2007 that make use of spectacular weather / environmental effects. I think pouring rain, whistling wind, thunder and lighting are all really atmospheric and you could also have some more 'unreal' effects like electrical storms, aurora's, gas clouds etc... A few more nice little touches could be breathe that frosts up in cold climates, bodies that steam and, erm, stuff like that
Seeing the storms off in the distance in the original Unreal was amazing. Oh and I miss the aurora found in DM-Morpheus in UT99.
Sky boxes need to come back with a vengeance...what happened to our moving clouds? I dont care if they were the same image over and over.....seeing the different layers was still sooo cool and quite a neat effect.
Side Note: What happened to traps in levels? Those were hilarious fun!
Kharnellius said:
I agree. I was playing CTF-LostFaith the other night and stopped to look at the beautiful static skybox.
Could have been so much better. One of the most inspired UT2x skyboxes was one that ExceptOne cooked up for his LavaGiant2 map.