My concern about mapping

[o_sh4x]

I just wanna share my thoughts concerning mapping for FF.

The engine lets us do things that look amazing. That's a given. Just have a look at ff_aardvark's yard, it's a beauty. Everybody prefers playing in a beautiful map over an ugly one, that's for sure.

My concern is that, to achieve such beauty, you sometimes have to sacrifice alot of fps. FF will be a fast-paced game, it's not like Starcraft where 40fps and 80fps doesn't make any difference. In TFC, I couldn't play right with under 60fps, I needed at least 85fps to feel the game was fluid and to play my best. FF will be no different imo.

My PC is alright, Athlon64 3000+, 1gig DDR3200, BFG6800GTOC. With my actual settings, I get 30fps right now on ff_aardvark. To reach 85fps, I'm gonna need to decrease my visual settings alot. Probably to the point where the map will not be so beautiful anymore. In the end, wouldn't it be better to keep the maps a little bit simpler and the visual settings higher? That, I can't anwser. It's a personal preference probably. But my actual settings work fine for every other game, (hl2, cs:s, hl2:dm, etc) so why would I change them to play FF?... I don't want to. And that's why I think maps should stay a little simpler and be played at high visual settings but it's all a matter of preference.

I know it's possible to have a good looking map and still very high fps. If you stay away from reflective surfaces, expensive water and dynamic lighting, you'll notice a really big boost in fps in your map. I think it's important that mappers realise that it's possible to make a great map that's also good looking without using those 3 things.

In the end, when you're in the heat of battle, you don't really notice if the floor is reflecting the walls or not but you surely feel the rocket up your ass eventhough you didn't see it cause of lag!

[o_swampthing]

I basically agree with you. First, upgrade your video card!

All kidding aside, when the map makers are developing it probably is best to try to maintain a decent frame rate on all systems. Well, most systems at least, there is only so much you can do to accomodate everyone's computer.

So I suppose tweaking, and testing on many different specs would be the best bet to try to accomodate everyone as best as they (mapmakers) can.

On a similar note, Q3F went the eyecandy route(maps & just in general), and killed the framerate for allot of people, myself included. What's funny is alot of the "improvements" in graphics didn't improve anything, they looked better before the changes, in my eyes at least.

I hope FF doesn't follow that route. The graphics need to be on par, but the gameplay is more important in the end.

[o_loader]

I see where your going, and I think most of the mappers (the experienced ones) will have something up thier sleeve to combat such problems.

What makes me wonder is what happens to gameplay when lots of items/details are added to the map? I would'nt like a burnt car (or whatever) to be inthe way of my pr0 bhopping

[o_bokko]

Let's not forget that ff_aardvark isn't an official map so it's hardly any indication of what's to come. Also Caesium who is making that map is insane, mad, completely out of his mind.
I doubt there will be midmap areas as detailed as seen in his map, and there's a chance Caesium will have to optimise his map when FF is released =P

COW ASS

[o_sh4x]

Just wanna add that I was mostly talking about 3rd party maps. I'm sure official mappers know better than to boost eye candy to the point where they kill framerate. My concern was more directed at unofficial mappers like myself who tend to make their map look amazing no matter what fps they get.

The first map I started, I will never finish. The main reason is exactly what I'm talking about now. From the start, I tried to make it look good more than I thought about gameplay, and that was a big mistake. Result: I get between 40 and 50fps most of the time. Add to that the player models and the spam, it would have been unplayable.

Now I'm on my second map, and I built it with this concern in mind. It looks good and my fps is way up over 100, most of the time even over 200. I doubt I'll be able to keep it over 200 in the final release but it will surely stay over 100 from everywhere in the map.

I just wanna remind unofficial mappers that gameplay is god, and good looking graphics are important but they come second. If you're gonna kill framerate to have something shiny. Think again, there's probably a way around it.

[o_ginger lord]

Yeah, you can't compare a custom map to an offical one which will (no offense to the author of aardvark) probably be optimised and constructed better.

Also, your CPU is a good limiting point in your system. Anything below a 3500+ is going to struggle these days on AMD's line.

[o_sidd42]

Originally Posted by Sh4x

Just have a look at ff_aardvark's yard, it's a beauty

I share your concerns about fps and aesthetics, but I think they are slightly misplaced.

First of all, you won't quite need tfc framerates in fortress forever. HL2 seems to do a nicer job of drawing things and letting you move smoothly. It's only subjective, but i've found that 130 in tfc is roughly similar to about 80 in hl2.

Secondly, you only need high framerates in places where stuff is actually happening, like deathmatching or concing. If you're having a picnic by the trees on aardvark, or standing at the window looking over the lake, I don't really see the problem with 30fps.

As you pointed out, water is the big problem. The trouble is that there is no single right answer. Beta 2 has a custom normal map and less turbulent reflections, which help a bit. I think it was kam who suggested we use a water_lod_control to force cheaper water. Yes that would work, but we don't really want to force cheaper water. At least the current way gives the user a choice to keep the nice water if they want, or they can force ff to use dx7 water if they want.

As far as different computers go, aardvark has been thouroughly tested on everything from a video card which doesn't even do pixel shading upwards, and we're pretty happy with the framerate in all cases. Yes, if you want more fps you need to turn the settings down from the default hl2 ones, but what would you expect? I'd agree it's all personal preference.

Originally Posted by Ginger Lord

you can't compare a custom map to an offical one

I don't see why you can't. We're working within the same constraints (unless they've made their own super good new water shader), so I think comparisons are perfectly fair

[o_kam]

I figure water_lod_control can make water in the distance cheap so you wouldn't be able to notice it anyway, but I've never used it

My PC is alright, Athlon64 3000+, 1gig DDR3200, BFG6800GTOC. With my actual settings, I get 30fps right now on ff_aardvark.

No way man wtf. I get ~25fps in the yard with everything high but shadows on an athlon xp 2000+, same ram and 9600xt.

Something wrong on your end.

[o_darknight]

I have the same CPU, 512MB RAM and a 6600 128mb gfx card. I get looking in/out of the windows around 50 fps, most places outside 50-60fps, inside areas close to the front door looking to mid map about 80 fps, most inside near 100fps and a lot over 100fps.

My video settings are on the recommended ones it gave for my system (the selections that are *ed). I suggest you turn down your settings if fps means that much to you, the map still looks awesome.

[o_donny]

Or you could just update your computer to a monster one

[o_sh4x]

Regardless of my settings, I think FF maps need to be thought out with high framerates in mind since it's a spammy game by default and concing requires precise timing. If you get 50-60 fps right now, it's probably going to drop down to 25-30 when there's action in the screen and that's far from fluid gameplay imo. That's all I really wanted to say.

[o_darknight]

But.... I do get high fps for a machine that's not up-to-date like mine. If the fps drops lower inagme, I'll simply lower my settings or get a new system. All good mappers will take FPS and optimising seriously anyway.

[o_afx]

You do have a point sh4x but i dont think we should be expecting 85+fps on only reasonable machines, I'd rather have a game thats going to look better as time progresses and i get a better machine rather than one thats going to look dated as time goes on. Besides i actually find hl2 runs really well on a decent spec machine even with settings on high and as im sure the official maps will be very well made i cant see a problem really.

I know times have moved on somewhat from when tfc came out and ppl would put up with crappy framerates, but i still think its a bit much to expect a compromise on map quality just so everyone gets great fps.

[Defrag]

You don't really have much to worry about for the majority of maps. Some maps do have areas where it's basically impossible to optimise them to the level we'd like, but life ain't simple.

[o_nezumi]

This article has been linked too before, but deserves another:

http://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Optimisation

Any mappers who haven't read this already shoud, as it's about optimising your map for framerate and compile time.

[o_mescalito]

umm.. sh4x? i don't think it's the map.. it's that window!

i'm on intel 3.0ghz 512 ram radeon 9600xt now i tried the map long time ago so i don't remember what fps i got i just remeber it was decent. better then i get on official CS:S maps, and i get nice fps there too (like 80/60 in not heavy fire fights, 100+ in some places)

it's just when i stare at those huge windows my fps drops from 100 to 30 or something.. there's something wrong with those windowz.

..

i'm not crazy!

[o_caesium]

What Sidd said tbh.

And yes, Shax, I share your concerns that FPS should not get in the way of gameplay, but as Sidd said we've tested aardvark on quite a range of systems and if you lower the settings it's always run absolutely fine. If you want higher FPS, simply put the settings down a little!* It seems to me you're saying you're happy for maps not to look as nice in order to get btr FPS, but that you don't want to have to turn the graphics settings down in doing so...

There's a few things to tweak on aardvark (mainly water and some arches) that will help the FPS, and I'm hoping that when it's all done and FF is out I'll be able to play aardvark fine on full (or v close to full) graphics settings. If I can't, then as Afx said, that's not a bad thing anyway, and also it's not difficult to just lower your graphics settings a little as required.

Mescalito, about the window. Firstly, it's been changed now in Beta2 so that it becomes opaque from the outside at a distance and hence blocks vis into the other base. Secondly, if you have your graphics settings very high it will indeed be expensive to render (big and shiny and and looks v cool we think!), so if your system can cope then it's nice to have it shiny and pretty, but if it can't then players can simply turn their settings down a little.

Finally, for anyone wanting their FPS as high as possible and not caring if it's pretty, there are HL2 configs out there for "ultimate fps". If you try one of these out backup your configs first though!

* Remember that AA (and AF) can be set and locked in the graphics driver settings, and these will have a huge performance hit (mainly AA ofc). Check these if you're getting terrible FPS.

PS I have a standard geforce 6800, and run on 1280x1024 with everything set to full (AA off though), and the FPS is perfectly adequate for me everywhere it needs to be (and I do a lot of "testing"!).

[o_tennovan]

Hell, I'm running on an athlonXP 2500+, 1GB of PC2700, and a 9600 Pro and I get very decent fps. Lowest would be the initial render of yard either through the FR window or the front entrance. Average in the map is probably 50-80 and lowest (like I said earlier) is 30 or so.


This is Medium to High settings.

[o_mescalito]

*snip* never mind
p.s

Caesium, the map is awesome.

[o_sidd42]

I found this thread from about a year ago which covers some similar issues:
http://forums.fortress-forever.com/showthread.php?t=959
Careful with the stuff Balls posted though, cos it might just mess up your hl2 install...

Sh4x, it sounds like you might have AA turned on. Even if it's turned off in hl2, this can get overridden by the driver settings. If it is on and you turn it off, you'll get about 2x the framerate. You can usually only see what AA does if you stand still and look closely at edges anyway. Great for screenshots, but for general play, it's a bit redundant.