Hi and please welcome me to the forum :D

I would like to know if the Source engine is less restrictive on r_speeds than the HL1 engine, i.e. will we be able to build large, detailed (outdoor) maps like in CoD that do not stutter like they do on the HL1 engine?

I always prefered DoD over CoD and I would like to know if it would be smart to continue on my map for DoD: Source (current engine can't handle it :p).

Thanks in advance for any replies

howdy m8

ur in the right place for the info ur looking for im not Mapper but im sure some 1 will come to ur aid soon just hang on for a litte while they wont reply straight away but u will get 1 soon.

and once again Welcome to the DoD Forums!

I beleive in HL2, maps should certainly be able to be much bigger, more open, etc. Cutting a long story short, HL is a crap engine; HL2 should be better - just look how much better all the millions of other engines are which have appeared since HL (and probably run better on your PC too).

One thing to think about though with open areas - camping snipers. DOD is most fun in the medium-range combat maps, but on some really big open maps (eg dod_hill - much as I like it) suffer from Sniping.

Narby wrote an article a short while ago saying that "..having too many open routes will make players paranoid, and more likely to camp..", and although this applies to CS, it would also apply to DOD. Just look at how some matches can deteriorate on Zalec...

Equally though, you don't want the map to be CQB based - thats too deathmatchey (hello Flash).

Hopefully though, HL2 will mean DOD will have a verrrrrrry nice beach map; certainly a revamped charlie would be nice - ideally with more spread out objectives. But erhm! I ramble on.

Back to the main point - you will need to use VIS blockers in HL2, despite the improvements; and curiously enough, relating to the body of my waffle above, VIS blockers actually improve gameplay in my opinion - they provide areas where good cover can be found for the advancing infantry.

Hi,

I know what you mean with VIS blockers (I have some of those where needed), but still the framerate is not bearable at some spots (propably around 2000-3000 wpoly's).

Seeing it run fine on the CoD engine I guess this will not be any different with the Source engine.

Let's just wait and see what time reveals :)

The best way to lower W polies in HL is usually by:

Moving 'props' like crates one unit above the ground, or by making them func_wall.

Using the "u-bend" technique :p get players to walk round a U shaped area.

Using HINT brushes. Yikes.. I don't really understand these either! The literature out on the web won't help you much.

CptMuppet, Hint Brushes are actually pretty easy to understand if you read the literature and actually put all you concentration on it. They help vis split up the map into sections, and if your standing in one section and a straight line can be drawn from that section to another one then the other one is drawn as well
so you use hint brushes to help break up the map into different sections and block vis from seeing into other sections....

I just need a small example map - I still don't understand.

Just some basic box type thing will do.... hmm I really should ask in the help forum.

HL2 doesn't measure in r_speeds. It's a different measure that more or less correlates to the resulting fps. Since experiences can vary and results with r_speeds are often misleading.

The Source engine will be able to create maps equally large, or even larger then maps in Battlefield1942.

The DoD community is loaded with talented mappers... can't wait to see all the new maps for DoD: Source :cool:

I'm also wondering what the HAVOK physics engine (or any simplified physics for multiplayer) will do to the player when a nade explodes :p

In my brief look at the new hammer, heres whats going on:

Total area can be up to 16 times larger than the units of space we have now.

Tons of cool new entities (FINALLY SOME SUN GLARE)

I was able to make gigantic boxes filled with ramps and loops (for mah buggy) and there was no lag, even though it took up half the area.

The new textures are BEAUTIFUL! I literally sat around for about 50 mins, making a map that showcased some of the texs


only 16 more days!

Theres a new Hammer out?!? Just shows how long I've been out of touch with the communnity.

Can you PM me where you get all the gubbins from?

He probably just has the ripped off illegal copy of HL2 :rolleyes:

Well his info DOES help me a bit, but it's clear he's talking about a leaked version of hammer :o

ps. Anyone knows if the new Hammer will be available prior to the HL2 release?

Map space is "just" 4 times bigger than HL1 (in each direction). It's not that much and it's smaller than you can have in BF42.
It is usable for urban maps and closer combat but forget about open space combat (you have to reserve some space for "ambience", so map wouldn't end in sharp cut. Maybe DoD team decide to scale game down 2 or 4 times, this will give some space to play.

maps will prolly stay in the same range for hl2 as for hl1
just way more detailed.. hl1 mp and its mods like day of defeat go imo populair due to the perfect balance between fast pased action and realizme .. nobody likes to walk to the battlefield for 1 minute then get shot by a sniper.. why does large terrain in games like bf1942 work then ? vehicals and the fact that its very arcadish 90% of the time you see airplanes being used as transportation .. going to the battle/flag and jump out .. bf1942 wouldnt work this well for the mass public if it was very realistic and had no vehicals/airplanes ..

so in hl2 you ll see about the same size levels maybe slightly bigger with lots more detail.
best thing to do for a mapper right now is get familair with bsp mapping and learn modeling A.S.A.P

Well all I really care about is that the damn map won't stutter on the source engine :D

I'm at about 90% of the hammer editor grid in length and width now, but I don't think it will get any bigger.

One more question: will DoD: Source use higher res textures by default in maps or will they be the same as they are now?

If u guys really want information about HL2 map making go here http://hl2world.com/forums.html

Originally posted by SWAT
If u guys really want information about HL2 map making go here http://hl2world.com/forums.html

ah yes found that webby earlier today... most of the discussions in there are around the leaked HL2 beta, right? ;)

Originally posted by IR
best thing to do for a mapper right now is get familair with bsp mapping and learn modeling A.S.A.P

Why's that? What does modeling have to do with hl2 mapping?

models (props) has a big part in Half-Life 2 mapping. Every little detail and eyecandy is done with models. Not really "every" detail stuff but still, you might want to learn modeling if youre moving to HL2 (Source) mapping...

That doesn't really answer the whole question. I thought the advantage of hl2 mapping was the ability to add more detail, is this only advantageous by modeling?

Do you ABSOLUTELY need to model to add more detail to your maps in hl2?

Sorry for not understanding, thanks btw.

ok putting this in simple words,

in source bsp based object are about 10 times more expensive on the resources then mdl based objects .. so if its not blocking vis your best off making it a model.. this does not mean source cant handle more bsp ( w_polies) objects, but models is the way to go.

At least, models will get properly lit in HL2 (and cast shadows) and hopefully have better visiblity detection (bounding box visibilty i hope instead of origin-based visibility). Models in HL1 can work (i've done a super-large map consisting of an entire model with 0 wpoly...). THe only problem lies in the fact of lighting and model origin visiblity issues..models in HL1 can't get lit well or cast shadows. Actually, you can have outside terrain, props and scenery .mdls *outside* HL1 maps, just like what HL2 does with their 3d skybox. Yes, distant towns, falling paratroopers, anything u can imagine... HL1 can do it crudely. HL2 can do it very well and most likely can allow you to interact with these outside objects. (this adds to CPU so each "outisde object" is most likely optional: static or interactive)

Source map sizes isn't that big when it comes to playing area. It's only 4 times bigger than your standard HL map size. That makes it 1.6kmx1.6km. Source can't handle the entire real Omaha beach. Only about half of it. You'll actually need 3 HL2 bsps to create the entire Omaha beach stretch. But i guess tha'ts good enough. I think even BIA's (Brother in Arms) maps ain't that big either. They just *look* big because of the oustide scenery (distant towns, airplanes, shelling, etc.) and you can't walk there anyway. But at least, you've got extremey good unique close-up detail without the use of horrible prefabs ! I guess the strength in BF1942, OFP, and Tribes2 lies in their large terrain maps and modular approach to level design, but that is also their weakness: unimaginative maps. Creating unique imaginative maps on such a modular engine isn't as easy compared to the open-ended nature of level design provided in HL1, HL2, and Brothers in Arms. Then again, i don't know how BIA is like but this is just my guess...Perhaps BIA has a good combination of both modular and open-ended level design. Whatever it is, I''m curious to see how DoD (and other HL2 WWII mods) can work on the Source engine, competing up against BIA in the arena of level design. In Source Engine, it could be possible for an AI sniper (in the 3d skybox) an extreme distance away from some church steeple, to fire pot shots onto players who are inside the game playing area. This is the same as aircraft firing onto Gordon Freeman. I'm not sure whether BIA also supports "outside game-area AI activity and interaction with such AI from within the game-area". I assume both engines support that...It would definitely be intesresting to use a sniper rifle to fight against that steeple sniper in such a wind-affected extreme hard-to-hit range), even though I can't physically walk to that location without a map transition. Then again, most sniper rifles are used at ranges 600 meters or below. Firing such a weapon at 800 meters is pure foolishness and will NEVER hit nor cause real trouble. Thus, such a situation may not be reall possible...but if you could control an artillery cannon, it's a different story!! Would be nice to take out those distant apartments in HL2...is that possible? If it's scripted, it's definitely possible. But if non-scripted, I'm not sure.

So, you don't need to "reserve space for ambience". It's already provided. 1.6km x 1.6 km of playing area is good enough in my opinoin though..

ANd yep, models is the way to go as far as detail is concerned. Models have always been a big part in mapping for Hl1 anyway, especially for DoD.

Should also take advantage of HL2 Normal maps for the intricate detail.

Current Steamed HL uses bounding boxes for calculating visibility of models.

Does anybody know if the player length will stay the same in DoD: Source? I would really like to know this :o

Originally posted by Craftos
Current Steamed HL uses bounding boxes for calculating visibility of models.

Issit? So if the model origin is buried inside a world brush, does the model still get rendered as long as the bounding box isn't fully covered?

Originally posted by Glidias
Issit? So if the model origin is buried inside a world brush, does the model still get rendered as long as the bounding box isn't fully covered?

No, origin needs still to be visible. Its just the engine how it draws the models from distance... bounding box it is.

IR, will that bridge you were showing off not too long back work on source? (the really high poly beauty) *crosses fingers*

Maybe a simplified version?

yes the bridge would fully work on source though id redo the beams and light details as a model

Oh, goody!

Will you make that into a map then?

Pretty please?

*bambi eyes*