Ive been working on this for awhile with a few people, and we decided to show a few teaser pics. Dont ask for more, cause I dont have any. No idea on release, etc etc. Some of you will know immediately who the mapper is :)

http://voodoo.dssghq.net/New_Church2.JPG


http://voodoo.dssghq.net/New_Church5.JPG

Textures by Spine, Watchtower (me), Voodoo, and Kominaa, Dod Team to name a few in the pictures.

reference to compare:

http://voodoo.dssghq.net/reference.jpg

pretty bad ass if I may say so

Smooth mapping....;)

Originally posted by spine
Smooth mapping....;)

Indeed wonder who made it ;)

hmm, yeah i wonder..

Wow.

Just...wow.

wow!

Isn't the terrain too smooth to be HL1 Engine? Hmmm...

Or you sourced... Ups, forced the poly limits of Hammer?

;)

Very nice.

There is something in the second picture that remind's me some map... ;)

2 morceaux de robots ... :D

it does look good but im worried about r_speeds

Perhaps my sig will leave you worryless

Originally posted by Mexikilla
Perhaps my sig will leave you worryless

if it's for source ditch hl's low res texture limit and maketh ze 2048x2048 MOMMAS!!!!! :carrot:

looks good, voodoo did say to expect this map to be one of the first fully featured customs for dod:s. Fix the texture up a bit its too dar and not nearly enough poly's

Do you have the Source mapping tools already? :confused:

Ah so this is gonna be a map from a scene in SPR:eek:

Will you be able to import old maps into the new version of hammer and convert them? Anybody know?

Originally posted by PF-B4DG3R
Will you be able to import old maps into the new version of hammer and convert them? Anybody know?
Of course you can, that's how they converted the old CS maps to CS: Source.

Very nice indeed...

That looks really, really good. If you find yourself having to sacrifice the visual beauty you've created there, just hold off till Source. It's only a few weeks away and I'd hate to see something so nice go to waste.

indeed Rob. You hit right on the mark.

Our main concern is loss of texture coordinates atm. We are hoping the 'porting' process goes smoothly so that the amount of work needed to repair the .rmf file for the map is minimum.

Thats why we have held off from a gallery of pictures, cuz its taken as many man hours to texture the damn thing as map it, and dont want to go through it twice.

I cut Spines 1024x768's into 512x512 chunks, and Wally DID NOT like 512x768's, so I had to cut them to overlapping 512x512 bmp's to allow Wally to gasp for air. The Compression stinks atm, cuz we know how well the textures look uncompressed. And Spine's work (i.e. the church) blows our socks off.

Ive made about 2 dozen 512x512's alone but they are not adding
them all in cause no one as any clue how much work will have to be redone when importing/exporting the .rmf to HL2 tools. Im sure its best not to go too overboard until then (2-3 weeks hopefully). But, Im Loving the ability to start textures large and scale down. Cant wait for those tools!!!!

very nice indeed - glad to see the project back up and nicer than ever :D

Phhh, who needs to bring back dod_ramelle, merderet and sturm when you can bring back overlord. Me and a few guys from <b>Last Great War</b> are remakin' dod_overlord for source. Once the new versio of good ol' VHE comes out on November 16th, I'll be mapping away :D

Originally posted by Watchtower
indeed Rob. You hit right on the mark.

Our main concern is loss of texture coordinates atm. We are hoping the 'porting' process goes smoothly so that the amount of work needed to repair the .rmf file for the map is minimum.

Thats why we have held off from a gallery of pictures, cuz its taken as many man hours to texture the damn thing as map it, and dont want to go through it twice.

I cut Spines 1024x768's into 512x512 chunks, and Wally DID NOT like 512x768's, so I had to cut them to overlapping 512x512 bmp's to allow Wally to gasp for air. The Compression stinks atm, cuz we know how well the textures look uncompressed. And Spine's work (i.e. the church) blows our socks off.

Ive made about 2 dozen 512x512's alone but they are not adding
them all in cause no one as any clue how much work will have to be redone when importing/exporting the .rmf to HL2 tools. Im sure its best not to go too overboard until then (2-3 weeks hopefully). But, Im Loving the ability to start textures large and scale down. Cant wait for those tools!!!!

I thought Source will use a different format for textures anyway, so you won't have to deal with limitations from Wally for the target engine of this map...

@Watchtower

Nice one m8, it was worth all the effort.

DoD:Source is gonna elevate this mod way above the rest.

I'm getting seriously worried about the amount of stuff that can be included in a map, I mean - when will you know when to just stop and release the damn thing lol.

Pix

Originally posted by Dark Nation
Phhh, who needs to bring back dod_ramelle, merderet and sturm when you can bring back overlord. Me and a few guys from <b>Last Great War</b> are remakin' dod_overlord for source. Once the new versio of good ol' VHE comes out on November 16th, I'll be mapping away :D

LOL

I always have to laugh when I see posts like this. In its day Overlord was pretty much the most hated map ever. :p

Originally posted by Dark Nation
Phhh, who needs to bring back dod_ramelle, merderet and sturm when you can bring back overlord. Me and a few guys from <b>Last Great War</b> are remakin' dod_overlord for source. Once the new versio of good ol' VHE comes out on November 16th, I'll be mapping away :D

nice to see ppl advertising in other peoples thread :mad:

and yes overload (as i called it) was one of the most hated maps in 3.1

Back on topic. watchtower, that looks dam good, keep it up team ryan! :)

Originally posted by Dark Nation
Phhh, who needs to bring back dod_ramelle, merderet and sturm.

For those not familiar with this project, this is an attempt to realistically capture the Ramelle as seen in the film Saving Private Ryan. We feel that previous portrayals were not true enough to the film. So to clarify things, we are not trying to bring back ramelle, merderet, or sturm but to create an accurate version of the set in the movie, and in doing so, to capture some of the intense battle of the film into great gameplay in DOD.

Originally posted by Mexikilla
...and in doing so, to capture some of the intense battle of the film into great gameplay in DOD.

Can you explain how you are planning to do this? I mean yeah, looks are one thing and it does look good, but I doubt Spielberg layed out the movie set for optimal dod gameplay which is why ramelle/sturm today is setup the way it is today. So how are you planning on making this interesting? Right now it simply looks like a replica of the movie set, which is nice and cool, but perhaps more suitable for a model or prefab set rather than a playable map. I'd like to hear your comments on this. Cheers

I am curious about the gameplay too. What is planned for the objectives? Will it be defend the bridge, or will it be flag capping?

Well, I think merderet is a piece of garbage. Sturm is an improvement, but its still pretty mediocre...so i am looking forward to a new interpretation.

Originally posted by kleinluka
Can you explain how you are planning to do this? I mean yeah, looks are one thing and it does look good, but I doubt Spielberg layed out the movie set for optimal dod gameplay which is why ramelle/sturm today is setup the way it is today. So how are you planning on making this interesting? Right now it simply looks like a replica of the movie set, which is nice and cool, but perhaps more suitable for a model or prefab set rather than a playable map. I'd like to hear your comments on this. Cheers


Well for one, since it's truer to the film, player's will get to experience many of the memorable sequences from the movie, like sniping from the belltower, falling back to the alamo, initially holding out in the craters, ect. Early, early builds of this map from more than 6 months ago already showed how fun the map was to reenact these sequences. The gameplay, with or without these "reenactments", were just plain fun too.

However, I understand that a map is not simply one linear road. I've seen IR and you stress this point which was why Merderet was made the way it was, and less like the film. A one road style of map would just be one endless standstill and would get very boring very quick. Although Miller's plan in the movie was to create a bottleneck, the reason the Americans failed was because they couldn't defend the flanks. It is in the left and right flanks which will make the map much more enjoyable and complete. It is what creates the pushes and retreats of the map. Moreover, these areas will be the creative parts of the mappers' imaginations since very little of it was filmed.

As for objectives, Voodoo and I have experimented with several different scenarios. We've tried everything from flag types of missions to actual objectives such as blow the bridge and hold the bridge for certain time, ect. All of these playtests were fun and unique in their own way, but we haven't decided which we will use yet. Besides I suspect several new possiblilties (vehicles, physics, ect.) will open up new doors and inspire new ideas for objectives. Right now our concern is the main brushwork, since Source will provide the level of detail that HL1 never could have provided. BTW I want to take this opportunity to apologize for not releasing this to HL1. I want to make it clear that r_speeds did not have a factor in it's lack of release. Voodoo did an outstanding job in keeping down the r_speeds and did what nobody believed was possible for HL1. But several other things delayed us that I don't need to get into here, and frankly made us lose interest. However with the arrival of HL2, we are back on the mission. The mission to recreate one of the most memorable, exhilerating battles in the history of cinema.

merderet is awesome :D what are you talking about ... sturm has TOO many new routes, windows, staircases ...

Nice pics, can't wait until you release the map.:dog:

i made a ramelle map for moh:aa, i spent hours watching the dvd, pausing it and making sketches so i could get the buildings perfect in radiant. i put a road around behind the hotel, and another behind the church, which do exist in the film, you just never see them. i made up some houses to go there, put rubble around and stuff, and had the axis spawning in the far end of the map, the allies on the alamo. axis had a useable tank, which allies could destroy. the only objective was for the axis to capture the town. they had to cross the btidge, and hold the far end of the allied side for 10 seconds. once axis got within a certain radius of the bridge though, the allies could use the detonator to blow it up, meaning the axis couldn't get their tank across. i'd post some screenshots if i still had them, i never released the map as final, and the place i uploaded the screens to shut down over a year ago.

the church looks good so far anyway, if it is for source then some of the curves probably could be more curved, the small arches on each side of the door only have 3 edges along the top. maybe more detailed textures would make it look better though.

:hamster::hamster::hamster::hamster:ing A

Originally posted by Mexikilla
Well for one, since it's truer to the film, player's will get to experience many of the memorable sequences from the movie, like sniping from the belltower, falling back to the alamo, initially holding out in the craters, ect. Early, early builds of this map from more than 6 months ago already showed how fun the map was to reenact these sequences. The gameplay, with or without these "reenactments", were just plain fun too.

However, I understand that a map is not simply one linear road. I've seen IR and you stress this point which was why Merderet was made the way it was, and less like the film. A one road style of map would just be one endless standstill and would get very boring very quick. Although Miller's plan in the movie was to create a bottleneck, the reason the Americans failed was because they couldn't defend the flanks. It is in the left and right flanks which will make the map much more enjoyable and complete. It is what creates the pushes and retreats of the map. Moreover, these areas will be the creative parts of the mappers' imaginations since very little of it was filmed.

As for objectives, Voodoo and I have experimented with several different scenarios. We've tried everything from flag types of missions to actual objectives such as blow the bridge and hold the bridge for certain time, ect. All of these playtests were fun and unique in their own way, but we haven't decided which we will use yet. Besides I suspect several new possiblilties (vehicles, physics, ect.) will open up new doors and inspire new ideas for objectives. Right now our concern is the main brushwork, since Source will provide the level of detail that HL1 never could have provided. BTW I want to take this opportunity to apologize for not releasing this to HL1. I want to make it clear that r_speeds did not have a factor in it's lack of release. Voodoo did an outstanding job in keeping down the r_speeds and did what nobody believed was possible for HL1. But several other things delayed us that I don't need to get into here, and frankly made us lose interest. However with the arrival of HL2, we are back on the mission. The mission to recreate one of the most memorable, exhilerating battles in the history of cinema.


people don't behave in dod games the way we saw soldiers fight in movies, regardless of how realistic the movies are or not.

i don't think you are going to capture the feel of those moments...sniping from a tower has been done...hiding in craters has been done. the movie makes it seem that the germans didn't exactly expect the americans to sneak attack that way so you can throw that angle out the window in a dod map. also, the tanks made a big difference in the tension in the scene. and another thing...in a battle one side often does not know the hidingn points in an area the way the other side will. in dod, after enough time everyone knows the maps well enough so the element of suprise gets transformed. when you play now, if you are experienced, you know where to look for snipers, where MGs typically set up, making the battles in dod a more "controlled" experience than in actual combat or a portrayal of combat on film.

so be very careful when you say
...and in doing so, to capture some of the intense battle of the film into great gameplay in DOD.
This sounds like marketing...marketing by people who don't really understand what they are selling. I have no doubt you can make a great DoD map that looks and plays outstanding that looks A LOT like the Ramelle scene..maybe even a close replica. But are you going to transport people into that scene in the movie because the map looks a lot like it? You make up a very hyped up marketing driven statement that I don't think you have fully backed up. When the time comes for a public play test, I'm sure we'll get the verdict and if you deliver on your promises you will be greatly acknowledged for it. Otherwise, I remain skeptical of being transported into that movie that way you claim.

best of luck on your project. I'm looking forward to the results and playing it for myself.

I'm on the same side of the fence as klein and izzy, while it looks nice there hasn't been anything I've seen so far that grips me in a "want to play" kind of way. I know another mapper who doesn't frequent here who makes quite detailed and accurate maps, but they just don't play like a map. Stuff like this is more suited to making little movies in. But like the others I'll just wait until it is released until I make any gameplay judgement. Just voicing a longtime player's opinion here.

push gameplay mixed with the old schwets (sp?) gameplay..

the allies start where the scene in the movie starts (them craters etc) add a defense setup time ( like 30 seconds) so the allies can take positions.. then when the timer is over, the axis can move along.. (be sure that none of the allies is able to shoot the axis before theyre actually in the town or at the edge of it) maybe add a tank that follows a path up to the town so the axis can take cover behind that tank..

after alot of fighting, the axis take the first part (the city before the bridge) then the allies spawn behind the bridge (at the alamo) and the axis spawn near the edge of the city, and let them fight again (maybe add a timer when the axis havent captured the alamo in like 10 mins, the area before the bridge gets bombed etc)

imho it could be done and it could be fun, if the mapper is able to lay down a certain gameplay path and the players cant change that..

you could even reverse the push and make sure that the allies are able to push back the axis back to the craters (spawn points change back to the original)

i like the sounds of this map, im looking forward

Very impressive!

Thanks everyone for your comments.

@izuno: I agree with your argument that just because the map looks a lot like the movie, it will not play out exactly like the film. There is nothing we can do to make it play out in the exact same sequencing to virtually "transport" the player into the film battle. We can, however, after much testing and messing with the layout, control the general "flow" of the battle, just as any mapper tries to do. And in doing so, we'll recreate some of the mini-skirmishes within the entire battle.

For example, there will obviously be the firefights on the main street. I understand the Germans won't slowly march without firing in the opening seconds like in the movie. And I know Americans can't really hide in the craters, since we've seen this battle before in the movie. The craters, church, and rubble pile next to the Vins building, however, are ideal defense positions just like the movie. This will create an opening bottleneck just as in the movie. And fortunately because of the angling of the buildings, even if the Germans know where the Americans are, it is difficult to break the opening line of defense.

In order to break this bottleneck, the Germans will have to use the flanks. If they take the left flank behind the church, they will eventually be met by wannabe Mellish's with a 30 cal shooting out of the cafe hole. If the German's get around that flank they will clear the cafe, in which will the American gunner will hear the footsteps and immediatly prepare to fire at the doorway. The Americans will even have to fall back to the other set of craters like in the movie to cover the right flank around the hotel.

Eventually the Americans might even have to fall back to behind the Bridge, just as in the film. For me, this is one of the coolest spots of the map. Nothing beats playing as a BAR as Rieben, frantically running across the bridge with teammates falling at your side, some brave souls giving covering fire, bullets whizzing by and popping sand up from the sandbags, all the while screaming "Fall Back! Fall Back!". This is when you know it's a good map. This is what we all want in a game. Total immersion. Just those few seconds of adrenaline rush make it all worthwhile.

None of these are just bold marketing statements that we can not back up. We have playtested this map several times. I've been messing with Ramelle for almost two years, and every time I whip up hammer, or the film, I learn something new. I even learned how to map just to make this. I had a few experiments first as I was learning, but the ultimate goal was always Ramelle. Voodoo is the same in that he knows this battle inside out. And the great thing about this project is that it has been a collaborative effort. Spine, Watchtower and MikeB (who tried at a Ramelle in HL1 with dod_suze) contributed with textures, ideas, and suggestions. Several others have made contributions. And we love the feedback we get every time we post something on the boards. So this may not be a perfect transportation to Ramelle, but it will be very similar. Any of my responses are not meant to "sell" this map, sorry that they came out that way. I am just trying to respond to others' posts.

@Gorbachev: I can see why you'd be skeptical. I hope we
impress you when we do release this.

@ S-Bolt-- : We've tried this senario before along with several others and it worked out nicely. Haven't finalized any of that yet tho.

Originally posted by Mexikilla
it is difficult to break the opening line of defense.

Me + Swedish + k98 = win

"Nothing beats playing as a BAR as Rieben, frantically running across the bridge with teammates falling at your side, some brave souls giving covering fire, bullets whizzing by and popping sand up from the sandbags, all the while screaming "Fall Back! Fall Back!". This is when you know it's a good map. This is what we all want in a game. Total immersion. Just those few seconds of adrenaline rush make it all worthwhile. "

You like putting your posts in pretty words. I'd almost say you'd make a good author. But only if I didn't know better, cause what you are doing is basically what all the other bazillions of mappers, mod leaders are doing. I myself, when I play dod, don't often care much for the "brave souls that die by my side giving covering fire while bullets whizz by my face and hit sandbags popping up sand" because they are 14 year old brats telling me to screw my parents over voicecomm. That's what you need to understand. Your post sounds like people are gonna have the ultimate LSD experience when playing your map. Stay to the facts and give us some answers to WHY we should play that map other than because its based on a famous movie scene that you are trying to re-create. We are spinning in circles here.

Jeeez!
Whats up, why are so many of you guys so against this map!?
Cant for the life of me understand whats wrong!!?
There are several other people here with map releases
trying to recreate one thing or another, but I can not remember
any of you guys in here replying with this much effort to blacken the project!

WatchTower is not trying to "sell" the map he is excited to make
this work, and are trying to recreate the scenes from the movie
as acurate as possible.
Off course its not going to be excacly the same, but anyone
with a tad of game experience would understand that...

I'm getting fed up, come clean and tell us why this is such a bad idea, and dont give me that lame layout excuse, caus you have not been represented with a layout yet so you dont know!

It's a map idea like any other, the people on this map project is
doing their very best to make it work the way they want it to.
And off course, as any off you guys should know if you ever tried
to open Hammer, is that you can never give a garanti that
the end result is going to be the best map ever.
You just have to try..

This thread was just to show how things are going, but maybe that was a bad idea if all you want to do is ***** about how this MIGHT not work out in the end...
Jeeez, cant u guys just at least hope that it would turn out as a good map?

Get over it!
:dog:

it's called skepticism.

Why is it wrong that people are asking for details on the gameplay? I'm just wondering how the people working on this map want to create this awesome map experience they are talking about all the time. If i hand't seen other people doing it in the past and failing i wouldn't be posting this right now. Of course we could all go and post OMG AWESOME like in all the other threads in this forum but I for my part find just THAT to be very unconstructive.

Originally posted by spine
Jeeez!
Whats up, why are so many of you guys so against this map!?
Cant for the life of me understand whats wrong!!?
There are several other people here with map releases
trying to recreate one thing or another, but I can not remember
any of you guys in here replying with this much effort to blacken the project!

WatchTower is not trying to "sell" the map he is excited to make
this work, and are trying to recreate the scenes from the movie
as acurate as possible.
Off course its not going to be excacly the same, but anyone
with a tad of game experience would understand that...

I'm getting fed up, come clean and tell us why this is such a bad idea, and dont give me that lame layout excuse, caus you have not been represented with a layout yet so you dont know!

It's a map idea like any other, the people on this map project is
doing their very best to make it work the way they want it to.
And off course, as any off you guys should know if you ever tried
to open Hammer, is that you can never give a garanti that
the end result is going to be the best map ever.
You just have to try..

This thread was just to show how things are going, but maybe that was a bad idea if all you want to do is ***** about how this MIGHT not work out in the end... Jeeez, cant u guys just at least
hope that it would turn out as a good map?

Get over it!
:dog:

I can think of a few reasons but meh

Seriously though its a good map ive seen some pics that arent on here and its gonna be great fun to play, some people are never happy, the dude posts some pics of some damn good work better then most of the stuff in this forum and you guys crit it because for some reason you feel it wont live up the the expectation, this is one of those things that you realy cant crit untill you actualy played it.


Damn good textures there spine =)

Originally posted by kleinluka
it's called skepticism.

Why is it wrong that people are asking for details on the gameplay? I'm just wondering how the people working on this map want to create this awesome map experience they are talking about all the time. If i hand't seen other people doing it in the past and failing i wouldn't be posting this right now. Of course we could all go and post OMG AWESOME like in all the other threads in this forum but I for my part find just THAT to be very unconstructive.

Indeed. Klein, myself and others have been around here for years...we've seen it all before...trust us.

Anyway, let me summarize my personal position:

1) I think this is a great idea.
2) I can't wait to play it...the map should look good and hopefully it will be a lot of fun to play.
3) As a map designer and product manager in the gaming industry, I know naive marketing when I see it. Watchtower and the other guys on this project aren't hatching some evil marketing plan, and I am not trying to squash this project. It's just that after so many years in DoD's mapping community, after working with the dev team on mapping, you learn a bit about what cinematic experiences are transportable to a DoD map.
Perhaps we're just debating the language here and we are misinterpretting what Watchtower and the rest of this map's development team are trying to communicate. I don't know.
4) Even if the map is great (again, I hope it will be) I still don't believe the hype. Prove me wrong. Seriously.

Yeah I just wanted to what Izuno said because i totally agree with it... it's not that I dont like the map or the idea, it's just the exagerrated hype you guys are creating that i've seen so many times before and that gives it a bitter taste... It's making it sound like this is gonna be a map that nobody in the universe has ever seen before. Maybe it's the author's pride of making this thing work, I don't know. If it was it would be understandable. But in all honesty if you just left the pretty words to the public to write that would make this map so much more fun to look forward to.

Thanx Cole ;)


Hmm well if u call this constructiv critisism, i must just be reading between the lines...

Originally posted by kleinluka

You like putting your posts in pretty words. I'd almost say you'd make a good author. But only if I didn't know better, cause what you are doing is basically what all the other bazillions of mappers, mod leaders are doing. I myself, when I play dod, don't often care much for the "brave souls that die by my side giving covering fire while bullets whizz by my face and hit sandbags popping up sand" because they are 14 year old brats telling me to screw my parents over voicecomm. That's what you need to understand. Your post sounds like people are gonna have the ultimate LSD experience when playing your map. Stay to the facts and give us some answers to WHY we should play that map other than because its based on a famous movie scene that you are trying to re-create. We are spinning in circles here.

I just think it's strange that you guys, wich i respect, are suddenly
replying to this maptread in a negative tone, no one else get's this treatment,
sure we can take constuctive critisism, but personal aimed attacks and
just pure dissing gets me worked up.
Dont think anyone working on this project have have said anything
that should require that.
We are just excited and hoped that most of u guys would be to...

Ok i've calmed down now, and decided that I really couldent give
a monkys behind what this is all about I just want to make the best
textures I possibly can, and hope that the map turnes out
in a way that would satisfy even the most sceptic person in here...

:)
sry meh bad spelling

Ok I think it's time to stop the bickering--both sides. My apologies for writing about my personal experiences with this map so far. My intention was not to hype. I presumed that the best way to talk about the gameplay (since actual objective details, ect. are not yet finalized) was an anecdote of a memorable moment in a playtest. I will leave personal stories out from now on. I hope everyone else's responses will be more constructive than negative in turn. Thanks.

And just a little something to get back on topic and away from the drama: http://voodoo.dssghq.net/bulid_06_middle.bmp

I give up.

The map looks really cool man! One of many things I truly appreciate about DoD has always been its talented mappers and developers and overall supportive community supplying critique meant to enhance the game for their brethren.


Cheers


Hok;}

<predicts b****ing about .bmp usage>

Nice picture.

Originally posted by Mexikilla


And just a little something to get back on topic and away from the drama: http://voodoo.dssghq.net/bulid_06_middle.bmp [/B]

That looks pretty cool! :D I think even if the map doesn't play like the movie, I still think as of so, far the map looks pretty cool and I hope it plays as much as you want " expect" it will. Good luck and hopefully the drama won't get you down. :D

Originally posted by Craftos
Nice to see how DoD team members are "supporting" custom mappers. :-\

They're giving legitimate criticism to help the mappers. They may not like that criticism and maybe some of the posts have a harsh tone, but the point is to help the mapper understand what it takes to create a map that will be widely liked/played.

The basic point is simple and, I think, true. If you create a map that's uber-realistic in terms of layout, it most likely will not be a map that the general player base enjoys because you've not made any concessions to gameplay.

And, guess what, they're nothing wrong with that. If you want to make a map that will only be played more than once by the re-enactment crowd, that's cool.

Wow i can picture this map on source

Originally posted by Mexikilla

http://voodoo.dssghq.net/bulid_06_middle.bmp


Ok let me get to my point here...like I've said I'm not trying to squash this map or anything...believe me I'm really hoping this map turns out great...I'm just trying to offer advice from a veteran (of the gaming industry...not just dod mapping)

I'm going to have to go back to the SPR dvd to the Ramelle scene to really comment fairly but here are my initial thougts on architecture (I won't comment on textures now)
1) That's a better view of the church front...and from this angle it looks good...certainly more detailed in base structure than damaged churches in current DoD maps...hence you're going in the right direction for a DoD:Source map.

2) The building with "SUZE" on it...hard to tell from this one shot but it does have <a bit> more detail than standard DoD maps... Gets me thinking, could it have more detail? Perhas as much (probably more) than a CoD building like the ones in Carentan? I'm thinking Souce should allow for more in a scene of that size....(just guessing without having the raw map file here...)

3) Terrain is pretty good...rather than just flat roads with some rubble piles. This particular image makes me think of the possibilities with displacement maps. I assume that's a crater on the right side...can't exactly tell.

4) I assume you're planning on putting some additional "debris" objects (models?) here and there? That's the problem with rubble in current DoD maps given limits of the engine: all just flat planed mounds if you get my idea. I'd love to see some more "irregular" debris in the road, pending engine limitations. Nothing crazy, just a little more detail.

Anyway...that's all I can say from this one shot for right now.

Really I'm sorry if you got the impression that I'm trying to "squash" this map or that I don't support it. In fact my position is the opposite of that. Good luck and please keep posting more shots as you can.

I'm not touching anything in Source till I know the limits, I'm not even thinking about what I'm gonna do with it.

I'm not wasting time now to find out it wont work. Once I've stressed Source out to its limits, then you can truely start mapping.

Originally posted by Ginger Lord
I'm not wasting time now to find out it wont work. Once I've stressed Source out to its limits, then you can truely start mapping.

yea same. but im all for this map, and it looks superb.

gg

Bump..

what's the status on this now that hl2 and source sdk is released?

I'd love to see it :)

I've never publicly released a map before, but in all the time I've spent on these forums, either posting or just taking a look at the new maps popping up, I've noticed one golden rule for mapping. A good map plays well. If it's not fun, it won't work. And why spend all that time making a map you know that some people won't like and won't really be all that fun to play?

because the makers themselves find it fun to play.

SOURCE PORT, SOURCE PORT, SOURCE PORT !.

Originally posted by 2ltben
I've noticed one golden rule for mapping. A good map plays well. If it's not fun, it won't work. And why spend all that time making a map you know that some people won't like and won't really be all that fun to play?

yea ... good point. I find mappers the worst type of people to trully comment on custom maps and I pay little attention to what most people say about any maps released here. You have to ask the people that play them. I'm not saying my maps are good or bad ... I honstly can't answer that, only the people that play them can tell me.

My maps never get much comment here yet atm I have 3 on KK rotation 2, Custom mapping is such a strange thing at times :confused:

Oh yea ... nice looking map ... can't wait for DoD : Source :D

very smooth :carrot:

nothing major, but in the last screenshot the windows on the suze building just dont look right. i think it's just that there's too much space between the top of the windows and the roof. looks like the dod maps now, which looks ok for the HL1 engine, but not that realistic on source.


a map does need to be fun also, it doesn't matter if the mapper thinks it's fun or not. the ramelle map i made for mohaa, i had fun playing that with one other person, driving the tank around, shooting at the belltower, blowing the bridge etc. i only ever released it as beta but that version still never got played much, although that's probably due to the lack of servers playing custom maps and no auto-dl feature.
i made this (http://www.edwards124.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/riverscreens.htm) map for call of duty, which i had fun testing. i don't see why other people wouldn't find it fun either, but i haven't seen a single server running it, despite it not getting a single bad comment or review that i've seen. i like big open maps, more realistic to WW2, and that favour teamwork. but maybe a lot of other people don't.



btw, does anyone actually know the brush limit in source or dod:s? during the compile for one of my maps it says i have 1400 out of 8000 brushes used up. i know HL2 and CS:S rely a lot on props instead of brushes, but 8000 is still very low, i've got up to 14,000 in CodRadiant without any errors. all i've got in this 1400 brush map so far is 2 houses. maybe if it is a 8000 limit it'll be upgraded with the full SDK or something.
are any of the things in those screenshots models? the door arch looks like it might be, and the statue, but i never knew you could import models into CS:S yet.

I'm unsure of what the limit is, but here are some suggestions (sorry if these are things you already know)

The following are usually map models now:

-Windows and shutters (Note : Windows you can actually see the inside of are made of brush usually, frames are made of model)
-Fake doors (the sort on houses you can't enter)
-Doors
-Tables, any furniture.
-Flowerboxes hanging under windows
-Doorframes
-Paintings
-Chimneys (pretty sure)
-Sign posts
-Buildings in the background (pretty sure)
-Powerlines, powerpoles, etc.
-Obviously all vehicals.
-Crates
-You know how the sides of European buildigns sometimes have that brickwork on the corners of the building, that's made with model now.


I will ask Tim (Waldo) to come in here and add anything, he could probably answer some of your questions better (I'm just a skin artist).

The real key to mapping is make the map for yourself and your buddies. That's the only rule you should follow. If the map turns out to be fun and has good gaming principles in place (balanced, not a campers map, clear routes, etc) who knows...it might get a look-see by the dev team.

Some hints:

1) Fun to play by all walks of players
2) Mapper can accept change, is flexible to ideas
3) Map is balanced
4) Map looks good
5) Mapper is a "good guy"

Never, ever forget that you are mapping for yourself first and others second. If you post here you should expect critical words from both people who know what they are talking abut and a lot of people who don't. Take all w/a grain of salt. I still get yelled at for the "blue" lighting in flugplatz or a technical error in glider...or whatever. A last thought...when you have the map done save for detailing playtest the crap out of it...20 playtests might not be enough. It's the only way you'll really figure out if the map's worth a damn or not. Good luck...you seem to have a nice eye for mapping...hopfully things will turn out well and the map will play OK. And even if it doesn't play well...think about all the experience you gained by making it so the next time you can apply that experience and perhaps do better.

The above is why FuzzDad is FuzzDad and we are all just proletariats.

Just to put in my two cents...

Travis (Agent~0) put together a really good summary there. Using models (of which HL2, CS:S and DoD:S have a lot of) for "decoration" is pretty key to making maps now. For example you no longer really will use a texture that has a window "drawn" on the wall anymore. Instead you'll texture the wall with a more generic brick, stucco, etc. and then later put a window prop model on the wall in the right location.

I've been writing a bit of the documentation for the next SDK update, and part of what it includes is a section on how to map for Source, written for HL1 game mappers.

Oh and I also really want to agree with what FuzzDad says about mapping your heart. That's where the good maps come from I think - and good games too. You map (or create) what you and your friends would like. It's great of course if the rest of the world likes what you'v done, but really for myself at least, it's great when what you've done is something you like.

Originally posted by Waldo
Just to put in my two cents...

Travis (Agent~0) put together a really good summary there. Using models (of which HL2, CS:S and DoD:S have a lot of) for "decoration" is pretty key to making maps now. For example you no longer really will use a texture that has a window "drawn" on the wall anymore. Instead you'll texture the wall with a more generic brick, stucco, etc. and then later put a window prop model on the wall in the right location.

I've been writing a bit of the documentation for the next SDK update, and part of what it includes is a section on how to map for Source, written for HL1 game mappers.

Oh and I also really want to agree with what FuzzDad says about mapping your heart. That's where the good maps come from I think - and good games too. You map (or create) what you and your friends would like. It's great of course if the rest of the world likes what you'v done, but really for myself at least, it's great when what you've done is something you like.

This is a lot nicer because now you aren't necessarily bound to the location and size of the windows on a given texture.

Unless you make the textures yourself.

Originally posted by Gorbachev
This is a lot nicer because now you aren't necessarily bound to the location and size of the windows on a given texture.


that's only right if you're using HL1 style textures - a 128x128 brick wall with a window drawn on. in games like mohaa, you just created the window frame from brushes, and could put a breakable window texture in the middle, so it could be any size you wanted
it's much easier to just create things like window frames and doors in Hammer, especially since XSI is the most user-unfriendly program i've ever used. just draw 4 brushes and give them a texture, instead of modelling and texturing one, and then exporting it and everything, for something that uses up just as many polygons and doesn't look any better. but with an 8k brush limit that obviously isnt possible.

Originally posted by Waldo
Just to put in my two cents...

Travis (Agent~0) put together a really good summary there. Using models (of which HL2, CS:S and DoD:S have a lot of) for "decoration" is pretty key to making maps now. For example you no longer really will use a texture that has a window "drawn" on the wall anymore. Instead you'll texture the wall with a more generic brick, stucco, etc. and then later put a window prop model on the wall in the right location.

Thnx Waldo, that's a bit of information I really have been
wanting, know it's easier to start making texes...

(Btw, I would like to apologize for missunderstanding
the critique earlier in this post, I know see it was ment
as constructive critisism, towards the layout and to make
sure it don't end up as a film set. Sorry klein and izuno...)

EDIT: meh spelling again...

The only problem I've run into with using model windows at the moment is i have to create holes in my walls for the windows to fit.

I'm using the de_cbble ones at the moment as they look the best imo, and they are 3D with quite a deep instep, so i have to clip (never carve!) holes out for the windows to sit flush. They do look good however, I do not know how much this will effect performance on the maps.

But on the whole, the maps look so much better for this. I however dare not show any more pics after the last fiasco!

I see Ginger, that would be for bad r speeds on a map with lot's of houses...

(no, no more pics....:D )

why would you create holes. cant you just stick em on the walls?

I havent checked out the window models yet, but thought
they needed some space behind them for some reason,
guess Ginger has checked it out and found it necesarry...

I thought that too Kleinluka but after some investigation, with the models im using anyway:

http://www.gingerlord.co.uk/images/windowholes.jpg

As you can see the model is quite deep and to have it fitting flush you need to have a hole behind it else you'll get what happens at the bottom.

Obviously I could use other models, but they don't look as good imo, these actually have a 3D nature to them, the others are just textures blocks.

I'm not sure if the modeling SDK tools have been released yet but I'd say with windowframes for houses that you cannot enter make the frame itself go further back, like a tooth and stick out away from the house wall further than it needs to, so that the glass section is in front of the wall.. and you don't need to do that fancy brushwork.

Originally posted by Ginger Lord
The only problem I've run into with using model windows at the moment is i have to create holes in my walls for the windows to fit.

I'm using the de_cbble ones at the moment as they look the best imo, and they are 3D with quite a deep instep, so i have to clip (never carve!) holes out for the windows to sit flush. They do look good however, I do not know how much this will effect performance on the maps.


[DoD]Agent~0, these models foom CS : Source are all that most mappers will have at the moment, so this is all we can do at the moment until other models come out.

My mistake, I was unsure if that part of the SDK had been released yet.

Would it be possible to make window models and add real glass to it in some way? If not i still would have to make the windows with real brushes.

And if Waldo checks this thread again, some questions :

The CS:S player model has the following dimensions : Standing: ~64units tall and ~32units wide / Crouching: ~48units tall and ~32units wide. DoD:Source will have the same dimensions?

And do you think that the current cs:s maps represent the maximum of a multiplayer map in the source engine?

And how would i know with the showbudget command that the map is getting over the limits?

i've made a couple of prefabs in cod:radiant to use in a dod:s map, and i imported those into dod 1.3, and the scale was perfect in those. i've imported the exact same .maps into the new sdk, and ran them in CS:S, and they again have the right scaling. i've also played CS maps in dod, that were just the .bsps copied into the dod folder, so obviously the scale between the 2 games is the same, and i assume dod:s would use the same scale as 1.3, instead of creating a whole new scale.


for the windows, you could create breakable glass inside a model window frame. you'd just create the actual frame, but leave out the glass. then you'd make the glass to fill the hole in hammer.

Would it be possible to make window models and add real glass to it in some way? If not i still would have to make the windows with real brushes.

Yes. Right now we have some models that have no "model glass" just the frame and the wood parts (forget the name), then you can make some brush glass if you want to be able to break it.

Only thing is then you have to make an inside of sorts to the building.


I'm not really sure about your other questions, I'll ask Tim to check out the post.