as the topic says, has anyone started any HL2 mapping projects?

Nope.

Is it actualy possible to map for HL2 yet???:confused:

How?

afaik the new hammer isnt out yet

u can port your maps from old to new hammer ...-_-
i started to build some more highpoly buildings but nothin much...

Seeing as I don't support the leaked HL version, and since I don't have the tools nor understand how the new engine sees maps I'm not going to make some billion poly map because I *think* it's going to work. I'll just wait until real information is available.

you can certainly practice by:
Attempting to edit or create some basic models (tables, chairs)
Practice combining terrain and standard brush based objects, (nems terrain generator, gensurf + hammer)
create 24-bit 512x512 .bmp textures and/or detail textures
Or, try and duplicate some real-life structures from pictures with a good amount of detail in mind.

So you cant neccessarily make a HL2 map yet but there is plenty of things you can be doing to help yourself and keeping busy.

yer this is what i mean, surely you can map HL2 to a degree,

I started making some more detailed train carriages and so on awhile ago, they'd be to detailed for dod at the moment but for dod:s they should be fine :)

im assuming the official dod source maps are allready well on the way if not done, would love to see some screenies! *nudge nudge wink wink* fuzzdad ;) ;) ;) ;)

Yeah watchtower has a point, learning modeling is a must and it's fairly easy for those who are familiar with hammer.
On the other hand, terrain generators will be useless for HL2 as hammer will include dynamic terrain manipulation (said Rick Ellis in some interview).
No doubt official dod mappers have started.

I'm not sure making hi-poly buildings is the way to go. Im sure I read somewhere that in CS:S the buildings are virtually the same, but with a few smoother lines and the rest are models and textures to make it look high poly.

Quite true. In CS:S the detail comes from high-res textures and model props around the map. Also, if you look closely you realise that the huge mosque in the end of the road from CT spawn is actually done with 3D-skybox tech.

If you compare DoD and CS on Half-Life engine, you notice that DoD uses alot more models and i'm quite sure that this is the same thing in DoD:S.

Originally posted by Ginger Lord
I'm not sure making hi-poly buildings is the way to go. Im sure I read somewhere that in CS:S the buildings are virtually the same, but with a few smoother lines and the rest are models and textures to make it look high poly.

From the screen shots I've seen, that's basically it. Buildings look the same a part from archways and stuff that actully look rounded. Maybe things will get more complicated as the engine is developed.

What exactly are we going to be able to do in/on with the skybox in hl2/cs:s/dod:s ?

I remember someone mentioning the fact we can add things like bombers and fighters flying around etc But as Skdr mentioned the mosque is in the skybox so thats a resonable example to me of what can be done, but will we be able to add explosions and etc happening in there?

I don't see why not; so long as the explosion is a sprite (I don't know if HL2 will use sprites or not, but in HL1, I think sprites are also classed as models oddly enough!).

Will we be able to open up areas which had previously been cut down in size for r_speeds reasons? E.g. my map has a large church which you can go into, but I made it so that you can only see the front end from outside; therefore would it be possible to open up the skybox so the side of the church was visible?

For r_speeds... I'm afraid things are getting worse in de_dust although it's the same layout with a few more details...

As for 3Dskybox, I've heard it's a superb feature. In HL1 there are 2 levels: you got the map, and the sky texture. In HL2 you got 3 levels: you can build what will be drawn like a sky texture, between the sky texture and the playable map. Excellent to make endless water for example. The only thing is to scale down everything inside the 3Dskybox, as it will be scaled up ingame.

/me begins making beach map with endless amounts of water and ships lying out to sea :)

Well I'm just about wetting myself waiting for HL2 to be released so I can lay my hands on it and on the new hammer :)

im a pretty crap mapper so im afraid i wont have the necessary skills to map HL2 but immagining the possibilities is enough for me, i can imagine having omaha style with ships out at sea with the skybox ect, should be damn awesome - lets just hope dod doesnt turn into battlefield

Originally posted by RaNd0M
im a pretty crap mapper so im afraid i wont have the necessary skills to map HL2 but immagining the possibilities is enough for me, i can imagine having omaha style with ships out at sea with the skybox ect, should be damn awesome - lets just hope dod doesnt turn into battlefield

I doubt the dod team will change the gameplay very much as it would ruin the cqb feel it has.

though I can imagine the ships out to sea firing etc and then the ships rounds landing behind the shore line to cause more problems for the Axis.

I think that DoD:S gameplay and maps doesn't change at all. Same size maps but more detailed. I don't expect anything similar to BF42 maps for example, cause people won't like it.
Maybe there will be few new maps which were hard to create in DoD, like beaches.
Other - in DoD2 probably.

the max player slots for HL2 based games has been upped to 40 hasnt it? i can immagine a nice beach map with 40ppl but that would be a rare occasion, i can only immagine the resource usage of a dod:s server with 40ppl :O!

Originally posted by RaNd0M
the max player slots for HL2 based games has been upped to 40 hasnt it? i can immagine a nice beach map with 40ppl but that would be a rare occasion, i can only immagine the resource usage of a dod:s server with 40ppl :O!

not true, the max is 64 players. its just in de_dust in cs:s there are 40 spawn points so 40 ppl can play, the rest are spectators.

so its possible to have a 64 player beach map, that would be realistic, and dam crazy.

the cs:s net code is actually very good, better than HL1 imo, and even on the 64 player servers the pings are very good. but dod being what it is would take a bit more.

on my boxes dod takes up twice as much resources as cs, where i can run 1 20 slot dod server full, i can run 2 16 player cs servers full, i would hate to think about dod2, you would have to have some awesome specs to handle multiple large servers off one box, but then again ive only got 4 x p4 3.2 with 1024mb DDR ram, im praying for a few dual xeons to fall into my lap ;)

CS maps has quite low requirements, maps are simple, players number decreasing during match (in DoD is quite constant due to reinforcement respawns), no built-in "dynamics" (like DoD's artillery explosions, complicated objectives, doors, breakables, etc) and this won't change in CS:S (except HL2 physics). So I think DoD:S will require at least 2x more CPU power than CS:S.

you just have to look at cs maps to see how little they really have in them compared to dod maps, CS maps seem so 'clean' and lack for better a word the 'Junk' dod has all over the place.

CS is mapping is more about making the map very even for both sides, simple, and have that polished clean look they all have. Where as dod is all about the dirt and junk and also of course making it evenish as possible for both sides :)

Dont let that CS:source Video fool you at all. The screens were simply "Ports"

Nothing was really updated because it was mostly HL1 content ported to the new effects and physcics engine of source. Thats what they are showing us. Obviously they arent gonna show top-secret brand new levels.

I expect the DoD team's first port will also be mostly HL1 content with physics and effects of Source used as a "test run" of things to come.

It will probably be much of the same lineup for a bit until the coders catch up on what they can do and what they want to do with what they have.

Valve also is using a LoD (or Level of Detail) engine that will allow mappers to use the detail they want and the engine will render these things appropriately for each person's computer specs. Check out TF2, thats what they are doing.

With that in mind, dont be afraid to expand out Unreal or Call of Duty like maps, which both run very fast and smooth with a good amount of size and enough detail. I think the main concern is that ppl have no clue how HL2 will run on their PC but will probably be quite surprised how smoothly it will run.

For me CS:S dust looks like brand new map build from ground (or very heavily redesigned) keeping just paths from old map.
We'll see how it works, I don't think it will look nice and work good on 1+ year old computers. CoD and UT04 have lower requirements and offer less visual/game features than HL2, so they aren't comparable.

Originally posted by TheNomad
the cs:s net code is actually very good, better than HL1 imo, and even on the 64 player servers the pings are very good. but dod being what it is would take a bit more.

ive been told the netcode is very buggy with a lot of people experiencing dropouts for no good reason ect... i havent played source myself so that just what i hear.

Originally posted by RaNd0M
ive been told the netcode is very buggy with a lot of people experiencing dropouts for no good reason ect... i havent played source myself so that just what i hear.

as with alot of betas there will always be problesm like this and others of course we can't expect it to be perfect off the bat ;)


One question I do have about the new way of mapping for hl2 etc is I remember watching a vid on hl2 where it showed someone making a texture that had been layed over top of some brushes in hammer to represent a cliff wall then once the 'texture' was done it looked exactly like the brushes it had been made on. Except the texture was put onto a flat brush.
Now is that what bump mapping is or what ever its called?

yes i think this was in the 2003 E3 trailer but no i dont think that was what they call bump mapping :P i believe it was an exaply of there texture/light shading capabilities with HL2


*edit* obligatory parrot :PARROT:

Here is an example of bump mapping, theres a tile, its a 2d texture on a 2d brush, but the texture is given certain properties so that light reflects off it in certain directions, which makes the tile look 3d, and pretty realistic.

thats in the tunnel in de_dust.

And for me the netcode has been good.

er.. heres the pic :rolleyes:

OMFG that looks insanely sexy! i havent seen any good close up pics of texture quality for HL2 but that looks awesome!

bring on dod:s i say

Originally posted by RaNd0M
OMFG that looks insanely sexy! i havent seen any good close up pics of texture quality for HL2 but that looks awesome!

bring on dod:s i say

Qouted for truth... that and I can't be bothered to write anything else.

How do you make textures that are bump-mappable?

Personally I dont think its worth mapping for it since imo the hl2 engine isnt next generation, its just up to the standard of call of duty etc. Its very dissapointing and to hear people comparing it to doom 3 is a joke (not hear, other places). Doom 3 is next gen and hl2 is not, its insulting to compare them and many people are. Whats especially annoying is the texture thing, hl2 just uses the same old thing for textures (basically nothing special, texure on all, no lighting differences) whereas doom3 has done something amazing and given walls depth by using layers which then the engine lights differently making the walls look like they are thousands of brushes. hl2 will say "amazing new textures" and all that on the box and in the PR stuff but actually theres nothing special about them because they havent done anything next gen.

As for mapping, its going to be the same pretty much, we can see hl2 is all very square again and whether or not it has patches to make curves I dont know, it should have since quake 3 engine games do. Theres nothing to get excited about from what ive seen. If you have mapped for other games you will feel the same, if you have kept to hl it will be new to you. But if you like ww2 games so much you could of mapped in gtkradiant for call of duty, mohaa, rtcw etc

Im really surprised at how low tech hl2 engine is. I must admit the models look good, but the engine is quite obviously not next gen, unless you count call of duty and bf1942 as next gen which I dont.

i think most people accept that fact that the HL2 engine isnt "cutting edge" but it has however been improved upon - i think most people realise that HL2 is essentially the same engine with improvements/additions and overall better performance, valve would have been nuts to start from scratch. Accept it for what it is, also COD i believe runs off improved quake engine? so really these people dont start from scratch we all know this is not cost effective nor is it time effective (please dont laugh @ time :D) iD literally coudnt improve their engine because it is stoneage, so they went all out - we will see the current D3 engine in a few years time upgraded and perhaps you will realise the way of things.

obligatory parrot :PARROT:

Originally posted by eyeronik
Personally I dont think its worth mapping for it since imo the hl2 engine isnt next generation, its just up to the standard of call of duty etc. Its very dissapointing and to hear people comparing it to doom 3 is a joke (not hear, other places). Doom 3 is next gen and hl2 is not, its insulting to compare them and many people are. Whats especially annoying is the texture thing, hl2 just uses the same old thing for textures (basically nothing special, texure on all, no lighting differences) whereas doom3 has done something amazing and given walls depth by using layers which then the engine lights differently making the walls look like they are thousands of brushes. hl2 will say "amazing new textures" and all that on the box and in the PR stuff but actually theres nothing special about them because they havent done anything next gen.

As for mapping, its going to be the same pretty much, we can see hl2 is all very square again and whether or not it has patches to make curves I dont know, it should have since quake 3 engine games do. Theres nothing to get excited about from what ive seen. If you have mapped for other games you will feel the same, if you have kept to hl it will be new to you. But if you like ww2 games so much you could of mapped in gtkradiant for call of duty, mohaa, rtcw etc

Im really surprised at how low tech hl2 engine is. I must admit the models look good, but the engine is quite obviously not next gen, unless you count call of duty and bf1942 as next gen which I dont.

Im sorry but I can only accept this post as some sort of joke.

Have you played CS:S, or HL2.... If you had you would not be making this post.

Are you judging this mearly on CS:S or HL2 screenshots?
.. or the 1 year old hl2 videos.

Doom3 is next gen (I have played it), but it it is very limited to smallish rooms and there isnt even gfx cards that can run it at full level properly. It is bloated.

The lighting is amazing and is better than Source, but most of doom 3's nice looks come from the lighting and high res bump mapped textures.

Of course doom3 is visually better than hl2, but HL2 is conservative, it can have very big maps (far bigger than d3) and still have a great level of detail. the rag doll physics is near perfect (and better than doom3's)

doom 3s AI is pretty disgraceful for such a modern game, and by the sound of it HL2's AI is good if not very good.

doom3s models are extreemly high poly, this makes it look nice, but it means most ppl have to turn settings down to get decent frames. HL2's models could be high poly (they are high, but not extreemly high) if they wanted, but they are catering for older machines too, which is why the source engine is much more versitile then doom 3's.

To say that HL2 is at the same level as COD is just a joke. Not a very funny one tho :kitty:

No one is saying that HL2 is next gen, but it is dam good.
All though I would say the rag doll physics in hl2 IS next gen.

EDIT: and back to the point of mapping for it.
As with HL1 it will be one of the most played fps online. So there is point mapping for it. The only hard part is getting your maps out there and get ppl playing them.

Mapping on the whole will be the same as HL1, but with the added effect of an advanced sky box, and adding "props" models to your map.

well I have doom3 and I have seen the latest videos of gameplay for hl2 and many other things from it. It looks the same as recent games, I mentioned call of duty because it has good graphics, but I was merely comparing it to modified quake 3 engines, which is what hl2 is anyway. Halflife was the quake 1 or 2 engine and they havent bothered to go next gen and apparently only are reaching the quake 3 looks. I am really only talking about graphics in terms of environments and not models, AI skill etc. Maybe hl2 will have next gen bots.

And I wouldnt call rag doll stuff next gen since it has been in many games since 2003 maybe before, It really should be standard on any game being released now.

You are right about the environments and doom 3 being only small. This still doesnt explain why they have taken more than 4 years to make a game that is not next gen. I find it pathetic to be honest, there is no viable reason. Someone mentioned because they didnt want to go too far away from hl, but that makes no sense. If the hl2 engine is not new from stratch then its pretty sad really. People are taking about how large the open spaces can be, but bf1942 has done a great job on that and you know hl2 wont match that so why does everyone think there going to be so amazed? once you add massive spaces like in bf1942 the entire game changes. Farcry has also used big spaces, but always is the case the graphics are the same old stuff because no one has yet to code something high detail from afar and close.

Anyway im glad people are realising hl2 is not next gen in looks terms. Maybe the models will be i dont know. I feel sometimes that people are playing hl waiting for hl2 and not bothering with newer next gen games because they only like hl, which is strange.

Oh and the rag doll comment, Ive seen it in doom 3 and i havent seen in hl2, but ive seen it in ut2003, mp2 etc. And for you to say its better in hl2 is a joke because there all very similar and hard to see major differences.

Also back to the environments, hl2 keeps preaching this but they dont look anything larger than call of duty, rtcw, mohaa, jk2 or u2004. Ive also been on cs source and you can see the level of detail isnt anything special in large spaces, the level of detail you preach is basically non existance, there isnt much detail in anything, its all basic. So yes in those terms they do keep lod in far and away, a basic average boring level of it. There only using bog standard textures on walls there is nothing to increase or decrease the lod that i can see and people have coded this before in say serious sam engine. hl2 doesnt seem to do ANYTHING in terms of lod.

well I have doom3 and I have seen the latest videos of gameplay for hl2 and many other things from it. It looks the same as recent games, I mentioned call of duty because it has good graphics, but I was merely comparing it to modified quake 3 engines, which is what hl2 is anyway. Halflife was the quake 1 or 2 engine and they havent bothered to go next gen and apparently only are reaching the quake 3 looks. I am really only talking about graphics in terms of environments and not models, AI skill etc. Maybe hl2 will have next gen bots.

Source is not a Quake 3 modified engine.

And I wouldnt call rag doll stuff next gen since it has been in many games since 2003 maybe before, It really should be standard on any game being released now.

True, but there is always potential for games to do something better than before. Just look at the "next gen" graphics that you are talking about.

You are right about the environments and doom 3 being only small. This still doesnt explain why they have taken more than 4 years to make a game that is not next gen. I find it pathetic to be honest, there is no viable reason. Someone mentioned because they didnt want to go too far away from hl, but that makes no sense. If the hl2 engine is not new from stratch then its pretty sad really. People are taking about how large the open spaces can be, but bf1942 has done a great job on that and you know hl2 wont match that so why does everyone think there going to be so amazed? once you add massive spaces like in bf1942 the entire game changes. Farcry has also used big spaces, but always is the case the graphics are the same old stuff because no one has yet to code something high detail from afar and close.

You must be out of your mind. HL2 far surpasses anything that can be done by BF1942. It is on par with Far Cry, which is VERY detailed.

Also back to the environments, hl2 keeps preaching this but they dont look anything larger than call of duty, rtcw, mohaa, jk2 or u2004. Ive also been on cs source and you can see the level of detail isnt anything special in large spaces, the level of detail you preach is basically non existance, there isnt much detail in anything, its all basic. So yes in those terms they do keep lod in far and away, a basic average boring level of it. There only using bog standard textures on walls there is nothing to increase or decrease the lod that i can see and people have coded this before in say serious sam engine. hl2 doesnt seem to do ANYTHING in terms of lod.

This is truly an unfair judgement if you base the argument upon CS: Source. First, the game is a port of CS. Its meant to show off what the new engine can do, not to have remade maps entirely with the greatest textures or level of detail. I bet you were playing Dust weren't you? Lots of detail on that map let me tell you.../sarcasm.

CoD, RTCW, jk2, mohaa, come on man. Sure those games are Q3 based but they can do nothing close to what Source can in terms of environment.

Want to know the biggest difference here? All those games are on an engine which doesn't support the newest graphics hardware / software. HL2, Far Cry, Doom3, these are games which do. They are all superior by nature.

HL2 would have been the first "next gen" game out if it had been released 1 year ago. Instead Far Cry became the first, followed by Doom 3 -- which if you break it down, isn't all that impressive -- followed by, HL2 when it comes out. It is most definately "next gen".

The HL2 engine (Source Engine) was made from the scratch, where have you heard that is a improved Q3 engine?

I think someones missing the simple fact that HL2 would of been out last year before farcry,doom3 etc etc if the source code hadn't been stolen and it would of been cutting edge next gen blah blah blah stuff then.

HL2 like Halflife the original will still be a ground breaking game, maybe not in physics, bump mapping and so on but diffenantly in the fact that it will become once again the most modded game engine around. Name me another engine that has had as many mods made for it as HL one? And I've only just gotten around to mentioning the most popular online game ever made was infact a hl mod for a start untill it was brought by valve, yup thats right CS :p

HL2 will still be a dam great game and thats a fact ;)

Anyway lets get back on track we were talking about what we were looking forward to in the way of mapping for dod:s not weather or not hl2 is nex gen or not so lets get back on topic or I'll find a loveable mod to edit some posts out for me :)

FULL HL2 ENGINE SPECS:
http://www.halflife2.net/index.php?page=engine


Example of HL2/TF2 model meshing:
http://tf2.sierra.com/ (click the "MODELS" link on the left)

Originally posted by Watchtower
FULL HL2 ENGINE SPECS:
http://www.halflife2.net/index.php?page=engine


Example of HL2/TF2 model meshing:
http://tf2.sierra.com/ (click the "MODELS" link on the left)

lol, that tf2 site has been around (and unchanged) for over 3 years.

some interesting stuff on that spec site tho.

and talking about the rag doll. Yes its been around for years even before max payne 2 etc. But I have the say that HL2 (CS:S) rag doll physics is the most advanced and realistic system in a game to date. (and i have played d3, far cry, mp2 etc)

HL1 was based on the quake 1 engine, and as it says on the specs site "Source was built from the ground up " (as was doom 3)

oh, and btw, HL2s enviroment can be about 1.4 square kilometres (IIRC), but it can be made to be bigger if its needed.

Those TF2 screens are so :PARROT::PARROT::PARROT::PARROT:ing old!!

They still use an improved HL1 engine...

Originally posted by Jello_Biafra
How do you make textures that are bump-mappable? http://collective.valve-erc.com/index.php?doc=1091469531-97736200 i saw a faster way in some hl2 forum ;)