Ok guys, everyone always talks about R_Speeds and how they affect this and affect that, same with epolys. I would like to talk with my fellow mappers here regarding this subject. Plz, stay on subject. Examples and pics are good.

Well, the "DoD Engine"

I call it that because its radically differnent than any other mod: more sprites, sounds, particle fx, bigger open maps, models, etc etc.

I have found that even when maps reach 1200 wpolys that they still dont lag. Why? Well for one, our computers these days are alot better. Secondly, texture memory has TONS of influence on the chopiness (or lack thereof) of the map.

Allocating the right amount of texture memory to your map will affect your map more than 200 wpolys will. Also, I have found that generally, maps run far better when compiled with Nems than with Hammer (lord only knows the newbs use Hammer to compile...stop!)

As for epolys, can any give/show an example of a map that wpolys are considered acceptable where epolys arent?? I have seen on DoD_Caen, with custom weapons used, 12,000 epolys on my screen, and no hint of lag what so ever. So tell me, we say "well, your epolys are high", but exactly what standard is normal or acceptable if we are calling something "high"??

See the problem is that what may cause lag for one person it wont for others. AND To top it all off, if you have a crappy internet connection, even if the map has 10 wpoyls, your gonna chop all over the place.

Basically, I believe that the creator of the map will set his own "specs, or Cpu requirements" for the map he made. I know for a fact that dod_ryan runs fine on my comp (gf3ti200, 256mb Ram, 1.2ghzAmd) and if anyone else cant run it, well sorry, but im not making a map that caters to low end pc's (sorry dod team). Games in general require good pc's, so tough ya know.

So, acceptable rspeeds, which is what, 1200 to 1400 these days? Max? What if I had a map that had 2000 wpolys and didnt show 1 bit of chopiness. (not that I do)

Think Charlie. Official/Veteren mappers....Fuzzdad, Izuno, IR, Waldo, Unreal, etc, some of you plz give your comments and thoughts on this...

Remember, your PC, Map Wpolys, Epolys, Net Connection, Latency, all factor in to how your map will run on a dedicated web server. So exactly how far are should we be 'pushing' the envelope here. Mapping for dod is alot different than it used to be.

Voodoo

Originally posted by VoodooChild

So, acceptable rspeeds, which is what, 1200 to 1400 these days? Max? What if I had a map that had 2000 wpolys and didnt show 1 bit of chopiness. (not that I do)

Are you saying that if your map has 1200-1400 wpoly it means that its the new standard?

Sorry to say this but 1200-1400 is way too high. Half-Life is processor based game. It doesnt matter if you have uber gfx card or memory. It takes all from cpu.

Half-Life engine is old and I think 1000 wpoly is the "must max" limit for maps. 1000 is acceptable limit but 800 is the standard for mp based mods.

If your map has 1400 wpoly I suggest you to take a look at it and fix the problems and not just make it a new standard limit for maps.

I don´t map, but don´t even think about creating main battle areas with r-speeds higher than 800. otherwise you get unbelievable chopiness on the server you´re playing on. (That´s from my experience of playing customs maps since over 3 years)

Not sure tho but I think people who play dod are usually players with comps that can handle around 1000 wpoly and a bunch epoly, people with lower end pc's just won't play dod because they can't run it, although I think 1200-1400 wpoly's is still a bit high. I think a map's standard is 900-1000 now but I like to keep everything underneath 800 tho

Anything higher than 800 is unacceptable.

The main factor for playing either DOD or CS, is that they work on old computers. A lot of the players still have old computers, some probably from around the time they bought the original HL.

Anyhow I have a P3, 256 mb ram, TNT2.

Caen is now woefully laggy (I don't understand why, when comparing it to Caen2). Also - HL sucks at open areas, they are a NO NO. The "DOD engine" does not exist! Its the HL engine, a deriviant of the Quake engine, the fancy graphical "enhancements" in DOD are done through the games DLL file, any other mod could do them as well if they wanted (even CS has clever stuff like the smoke grenades).


Well if dod_ryan needs a monster PC to play it... err not many people will be playing it.

What I'm doing ATM on my map (dod burn if you can't be arsed to look at my sig) is doing my best to lower r_speeds yet further (mostly through VIS blockers, ie breaking up "visibility areas" with buildings, etc).

You guys are mistaken... Im not talking about my map, or any map specifically, the numbers I gave are just examples.

No rspeeds in my map are that high...just an example. I was saying my map runs smooth on my comp, thats all, this thread is not about my map what so ever, end of it.

And Cpt Muppet you posted: "anything higher that 800 is unacceptable" ....unnacceptable to who or what? My prob is no one has actual documentation to back these claims.

To what table made by VALVE or affiliates have any of you ever seen that "anything higher than 800 is unnaccpetable." SHOW ME. Link plz.

Is it the "max" before someone in Valve HQ is gonna say, no more? Obviously not, because DoD_Charlie has boasted up to 1150 in the water.

....this is the point of this discussion.

See our problem here is, basically: what systems are you running? Ok then we lets say WE HAVE those stats, the average PC's speed, a majority figure. Now that we have that figure, who has the acceptable R_speeds for that "average" computer that ppl have?? (which goes up in speed everyday!!!)

My point is computers are evolving everyday, and that we are eventually gonna reach a point of no more, but we have all seen the official maps continue to break what we thought was possible. That is a fact.

Remember 2.0's dog1? No one thought that was possible for HL...and now, look at Charlie, its groundbreaking, its huge. I personally never thought a HL map render that beach area.

edit: Just loaded D0D_Charlie, viewed rspeeds from an allied spawn zone using a 'garand class' character. The figure you see below is copied from my console, at the spawn zone, no moving, no custom material in game. This is the actual figure:

26fps 22 ms 1141 wpoly 17308 epoly

So, if you are saying over 800 is unacceptable, or 1000 is too much, then both of you please tell me why valve or the dod team would allow dod_charlie to be in there game? TY. Please remember to keep this calm folks, no one is being rude, this is mature discussion or I delete the thread.

The 800 limit is just an informally agreed thing amongst the mapping community, I was saying that anything above will make a map unplayable for most players.

Anything above 800 has bad FPS for many players.

Valve didn't accept charlie - Activision did. And haven't you paid attention to all the complaints theres been about loads of players not being able to play Charlie or Caen....


Don't bother talking about new computers, cos anyone who has one will buy new games. Lets be honest, DOD is using a wheezing old fart of an engine, and if you had a new computer, the general gamer would go for something prettier (I'm not saying DOD has bad gameplay, but it got minor coverage compared to big games like MOH et al).

Oh yeah, and DOG1 was DROPPED cuz it didn't work on some peoples computers!


Gearbox, Valve, and many other MOD team maps have a fairly stable limit, well under 800 too. Admittedly, its been a long time since we've seen any maps from Valve (err not since HL right? Unless you count the CS maps... but those were outsourced from external mappers, such as Chris Auty).

I try to keep my maps under 800 and never over 1000. Not everyone has a decent PC, look at the box specifications. It must run on that not your l33t PC.

PC:
Intel P4 2.0Ghz
512 DDR Ram
GF4 Ti4200
56k

I can play all the stock maps online with no slowdown. I limit my self to fps_max 30 and I get next to no lag at all. It occasionally dips to 25-30 on charlie but thats no problem.

ok...Valve, activision whatever. Im not gonna argue about who approved it, the point is, it IS APPROVED, its in the game.

So the fact remains that official maps (Charlie, JagD as well) have rspeeds above 1000 anywhere from 1/4 to 1/2 of the maps total viewing area. Steams' FPS problems will be fixed, im certain of that. They will be back to normal soon enough.

And I doubt people who cant run CEAN smoothly are beating the requirements needed for smooth gameplay (and no, im NOT referring to bs numbers underneath a box in a store). We all know that you pretty much have to beat the sys requirements by about 25% or higher if you want smooth gameplay.

I think 800 polys or higher wont kill anyones fps that bad. If it is bad, it prob was in the first place and hasnt dropped by much.

In dod 1.0, I know for a fact (recently tested this) that certain areas of a map with 800 w_polys were getting around 60fps, which is very nice.

Also, you must remember that alot of people are running different specs and settings on their computers.

Your screen resolution in game will affect your fps, the number of players, etc. The map only does so much, and then the rest add in to the equation. I feel that having rspeeds of 1000 to 1100 arent "taboo" at all, in fact, I encourage people to bring out that detail and larger areas. Tis more fun. If you like the game enough, any game, ull get a sys that will run it good. I KNOW that Im upgrading before HL2 comes out.

From what Ive tested and have gotten actual human responses from, very few and elite ppl can run 32 bit color and 1024x768 resolutions in DoD 1.1x. It just chops to all hell (edit) for the large majority, I will figure about 75-80% (edit)

Im making a good guess on the fact that most ppl are running 800x600 with either 16bit or 32bit color & open GL mode for their video settings for online play, not bot wars. Im also thinking that about 80% of the people or higher are using broadband internet.

I think that is safe to say, but there is no actual way to ever know, so im not saying im "RIGHT"m but thats probably pretty accurate.

If thats the case, 1000wpolys or higher should run fine. There are exceptions, of course, but I think we need to get this magic number of "acceptability" out in the garbage bin. Make your maps bigger and more detailed!

Im using 32-Bit colour and 1024*768

:o

Ummmmm are you READING what we're saying?

This level of acceptability exists so that the majority of players can play the map.

Again, to reiterate what I and others have said - lots of people are using OLD computers; and as GL said, maps should be made with box specs in mind.

R_speeds above 1000 will ensure that players will just say "f**k this", and disconnect from the server.


Just because you get 60 fps in an area, doesn't mean everyone else does.


This is turning into a dead horse topic (no offence).

Maybe its just me, but it just doesnt seem anyone is "pushing the envelope" thats all. Seems DoD custom maps are not going anywhere. Every time someone wants to make something new they get flammed for thinking outside the 5-flag cap points box.

And I think that mappers who are active these days on this forum that are reading this, can do something to change that, right now.

Sure, this is a dead horse topic (it has been discussed many times) however, there are a few people reading about this stuff for the first time. I know for a fact just looking at the editing forums things are picking up around here quite nicely.

Sure you can map for the majority, fine...or you could maybe map for those people who'll be able to run something a little more advanced and would like to see new types of gameplay.

The problem is that "Pushing the envelope" doesnt work because the HL1 engine is heavily overloaded thanks to dod´s heavy graphics already.

You just can´t buy a better cpu and expect to run all those 2000-r-speeds maps fine then... it doesnt work in multiplayer because high r-speed also cause network lag. The HL engine has 6 year old rendering functions which just weren´t designed for maps with r-speeds over 1000 IMO. Charlie is not very popular because of that reason, you´re going to get low fps on the beach with any computer you can buy, since the HL rendering just can´t deal with all the stuff which actually has to be rendered.

Nail on the head, and in the coffin.

Lets be honest anyway VC, not many people play custom maps! Maybe if if you "pushed the envelope", then your map might get played once or twice on a LAN, and nowt much more.

Edit: BTW, up to the end of the 3.1 days, you may remember that the DOD website section on mapping said something like "r_speeds over 600 are too high"...

Originally posted by VoodooChild
Maybe its just me, but it just doesnt seem anyone is "pushing the envelope" thats all. Seems DoD custom maps are not going anywhere. Every time someone wants to make something new they get flammed for thinking outside the 5-flag cap points box.



Nah, not true. The thing is, making a map that isn't the standard 5 flag cap points, is so much harder to make balanced and enjoyable. Usually it ends up with one side winning all the time, or one side just digging in and making the objectives impossible to achieve. But as long as you plan out the gameplay, and test it until your head explodes, you can do it.

Example : Tolchoks dod_festung. One of the most popular custom maps, and certainly not of the regular 5 point cap gameplay.
Why its popular? Because its offering something new, while still making it enjoyable for both sides.

And about the r_speed discussion, its better to keep it "low" (~800). Why? Because any higher, and some people will experience videolag, and that sucks the fun out of the map at once. The player can blame the map when he dies, because of low fps etc., and stop playing at once.

I have a solution!
Make your maps on a crappy old 566mhz like me!
Then boot up a server with like 18 bots, if it goes more than 5 min without a crash, its a good one!

j/k

It IS possible to make big, open area maps with this engine, just look at the beta 1.0 maps for dod. All of them were huge compared to cs/hl maps of the day, the difference is all the cherry-lookin (but huge poly) models we have now, and all the ubercrisp textures at 512*512.
If you want a big map, you need simplistic brushwork/ good visblocking, and dont drop a dozen pretty trees/bushes in one area.
I think the dod team is trying to keep up with the look of the ww2 games that are all on newer engines, so we end up with tiny little hallway/courtyard/hallway dm-style maps, in a cs layout. All so they can have many pretty models/textures crammed into each tiny battle area.
For me DoD has always been about the gameplay, i dont care how many moles i can see on the enemys face, or how detailed the cracks in the brickwall are, that dont mean shiiite.
Just for the record, charlie and caen are pretty much unplayable on my system, and without the cl_dynamiclights option i cant play at all. Beta 1.0 used to run smooth as silk on the same system.

1000 is ok for good pcs, but not all pcs are good, and dod SHOULD be able to run on an old pc. ive had to upgrade my old pc b-cos of dod, steam etc.

my first few maps (i knew little about r_speeds) were up to 1000, the map im working on atm is all below 700 and i hope it stays below 800 by the time ive finished it. also we should be carefull about the models too. try not to use super high poly ones.

my 2 cents, err pence :)

I try and keep r_speeds to 800 or less in most area's but have allowed minor hot-spots over that (as long as it's not a major combat area) and in testing I try and keep epoly below 4-5000 on a lan game except for singular events like the paratroop drop in flug (it shoots way up for a sec...then I render everything out so the epoly goes away). We all keep tex mem (brush texture) below 4MB (tex mem is why Dog1 was dropped...the map maker didn't want to lower his tex mem below the 7 or so it was). Although I have a sweet system now I held those parameters back when I was developing on my older P2 400 over dialup...they remain the same now w/my P4 2.8.

It's true that the maps are generally more detailed and are definitely more complex than anything other than NS maps and that means you need a hefty system to run the game smoothly and that trend will not stop. There is no "hard-n-fast" rule set other than general guidelines to follow and that gameplay must be good (to valve). Activision had nothing to do with map selection other than making recomendations...as such the maps you see are the maps the dev team voted on.

In a nutshell...you're not going to see simplistic CS-style maps in DoD...we like the more detailed maps and although there's a performance hit for older systems I'm comfortable with it.

if you get in your map one spot with 1000wpoly but 0 epolies, could that be considered like 800 wpoly and a bunch of epolies?

You can never have 0 epoly because your weapon/arm/nade/etc causes epoly hits...although each (wpoly and epoly) has it's own effect it's usually a combination of medium-to-high wpoly and high epoly that causes problems the most. As with everything try to mitigate both. Here's a trick I use in flugplatz:

When the paratrooper guys drop watch your epoly...it goes insanely high for a few seconds...but then it drops away. The reason is I've rendered out the models at the completion of the sequence with a collection of env_renders. If I had just let the sequence stop the models would still be rendered and it would result in a lag-a-thon. Since the paratroopers are dropped off on the side of the map (therfore not in direct view of a majority of the players) and because it's only temporary I and the dev team felt it was acceptable to "go high" on that count.

But...it's really hard to keep both low with the way we make our maps in DoD...large open area's. Do this: Run from one end of your map to the other end and watch your r_speeds via r_speed and net_graph. You want to keep your general combat area's under 800 with occasional burps up over that given that you're doing something you would not consider normal...like being up on a high building looking down over a large area of the map. If you find that you're over 800 a lot then you need to reconsider your map design or learn how to use hints to reduce speeds.

Now...that said...for a beach map like Charlie a lot of the "rules" are bent...it's super hard to make a cool beach map with low r_speeds...even Dog 1 had high r_speeds...so for that type of map we accept the fact you're going to get some big numbers.

Originally posted by FuzzDad

Now...that said...for a beach map like Charlie a lot of the "rules" are bent...it's super hard to make a cool beach map with low r_speeds...even Dog 1 had high r_speeds...so for that type of map we accept the fact you're going to get some big numbers.

the DoD team and Valve knew this about Charlie going in, and knew it would not "please" everyone, but we had to include a new beach map, so ya, it's got high r_speeds and is still official.

This is all relative, so take everything with a grain of salt. if you release an awesome map that has high r_speeds, perhaps reigning them in a bit may make it all the more popular, but who really cares, it's just a game.

http://www.slackiller.com/tommy14/rspeeds.htm
Nothing more to say.

so is over 800 wpoly completely unacceptable if your e-poly is very very low and your fps is still high? as far as im concerned fps of a map is what ultimately matters. i could care less if your map has average 200-500 wpoly if you put models everywhere making the fps horrible.

It's not anything you can lay your hands on...fps is also purely a hardware-driven number. On my PC I get a fairly consistant 100fps running around in glider. So I consider 800 wpoly and 4-5K epoly just fine. On your PC I might get 25fps with those figures. I always thought 25-30fps was fine too...it's all I got in either CS or DoD when I was mapping on my old P2 400.

But the point is...I don't map for that old PC anymore...I map for what I consider to be the standard gaming platform...a P4 w/a 128MB vid card and 256-512MB RAM. On that system my maps run fine. If you guys want to have a intelligent discussion on what's an acceptable platform to build maps for have at it...but if we're just going to complain about it don't bother.

The only problem I have with the epoly rating is where to take it, the hand models add a few thousand etc. But I don't know if I should take the readings while in spec mode, single player or with a full server...

But the point is...I don't map for that old PC anymore...I map for what I consider to be the standard gaming platform...a P4 w/a 128MB vid card and 256-512MB RAM. On that system my maps run fine. If you guys want to have a intelligent discussion on what's an acceptable platform to build maps for have at it...but if we're just going to complain about it don't bother.


It might be good to get a sense of where the dod community stands in terms of hardware power these days.

This forum/website is the perfect place.

Can one of the mods get a web form together? Easy enough to make & tie into a database.

It would be an invaluable tool for the developers, I would think, to know where the bell curve exists now in terms of planning future additions to the release.

It's a good idea but...I figure most of us will be moving on to HL2 in the coming months and that comes with a completely different set of specs that I have no clue about.

I'd suggest just following the generic 800-5000 rule (800 wpoly and 5000 epoly) as best possible and let the fps chip drop where it does. A system like mine (p4 2.66 w/HT and 800FSB) will run perfectly fine with those parameters.

There's no doubt of two things...DOD maps have become more complex and more demanding over time and the acceptable parameters have risen. What has not changed however...and never will...is that the map itself must be fun and engaging to play...you can never get away from that rule.

Originally posted by Gorbachev
The only problem I have with the epoly rating is where to take it, the hand models add a few thousand etc. But I don't know if I should take the readings while in spec mode, single player or with a full server...

Set up a LAN game with about 15 bots, and play too. Usually a good indicator for me :).

Bumped, because Steam finally allows us to see the average user's specs now. :)

http://steampowered.com/status/survey.html

Wow, nearly a 50/50 draw between AMD and Intel users.

OpenGL 215,976 57.38 %
Direct3D 120,539 32.02 %

Thats scarry!