|
01-11-2006, 04:49 PM | #1 |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Carlisle, UK
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
FF_Amped
Righty-ho. Now I have got the source for this, I've started a new thread so we don't get lost in ther abyss of the old thread. What do you like about Amped from the screens and old beta release? What would you like to see changed?
Heres the old thread for the mentally incapable and visually impaired: http://forums.fortress-forever.com/viewtopic.php?t=1225 Whilst I did a quick run around previously doing some optimisation it looked good, now I have dug deeper the map is quite well constructed but with some glaring problems with the actual build method of it. I could just glaze over it but that would come back and haunt me, so I'm going around and redoing each room at a time. |
|
01-11-2006, 05:29 PM | #2 |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
What exactly is proper build method? If you could perhaps briefly explain? I'm curious because I've started mapping recently and I do not want to start learning bad habits which could cause "glaring" problems to my map, resulting in me redoing it.
|
|
01-11-2006, 05:42 PM | #3 |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Carlisle, UK
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Well, everyone maps differently so there is no "proper" method but you should never:
Ambex had a large amount of the last two before I optimised his map earlier, just doing about 1/4 of the blue base knocked 10 minutes of the compile time and put the fps up by 30-60fps. Most of this was the dynamic lights. Whilst the map is a work of art, it could have been made a lot simpler and is giving me headaches now. Its workable but its about twice as complex as is needed. |
|
01-11-2006, 05:53 PM | #4 |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Yorkshire
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Make (sure) that it's concable and you can bunnyhop around the map without getting blocked by random stuff on the walls/ceilings, which it looks like you cant do in beta2, from the screenies. Don't know how you'd achieve it though, without destroying its looks...
|
|
01-11-2006, 05:56 PM | #5 |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Carlisle, UK
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Clip brushes are your friend, I intend to make prop objects non solid (obvious larger things will be, little stuff will be non solid) and the roof area will either be clipped off or clipped so that you can conc up into it and rather than be stopped by a invisible ceiling, Ill clip it at an angle so you can go up there and slide back out rather than get caught up.
|
|
01-11-2006, 08:05 PM | #6 |
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: The Peoples Republic of Harmfull Free Radicals
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
You mean like A instead of B or C?
|
|
01-11-2006, 08:44 PM | #7 |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Carlisle, UK
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Sort of, I'll get a Hammer pic to explain later.
|
|
01-11-2006, 08:56 PM | #8 |
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Saw you started a new thread, looks allready good comparing to 14 pages and 1.
To Gingerlord: yes in some areas the brushwork goes overboard, (flagroom for example) that part is kinda hard to do. erm.. and many of other rooms looks clean, but as mentioned before the north side is kinda messed up.. would be great to see how it will look like when you will spicy it up. That idea about conc jumping doesnt sound to be necesarry or is it? Well keep going pushin on this map while im going to work on amped2. (yes, not surprised yet kids? It's on the way from the hammer factory with more eyecandy and all the stuff amped1 was missing.) But this all is after my studies. Honestly gingerlord can do maps and on some way i still feel that i sucks on mapping, dont know but the clipping tools is kinda awsome now. I would also see some kind of a new elevator (my old one sucks, had to use the enteties from the tuturial sites because i had like had much interest in making elevators and trains.. and all that stuff you know. My head was thinking more on layout, the look of the map and eyecandy, btw gameplay was also an important thing for tfc.. Well.. Go ahead. |
|
01-12-2006, 01:25 AM | #9 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Finland
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Ambex gave the project to the right guy
|
|
01-12-2006, 01:48 AM | #10 |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Carlisle, UK
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
|
|
01-12-2006, 01:59 AM | #11 |
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Tampon, FL
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
very nice
|
|
01-12-2006, 04:37 AM | #12 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Markham, Ontario, Canada!
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Hah.
Anyhoo, fix the lights! And why is it FF_Amped? What's wrong with just Amped. I don't like the FF prefix. |
|
01-12-2006, 04:39 AM | #13 |
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Tampon, FL
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
thats just the source method of titling maps i guess. mod abbreviation as a prefix. all mods have done it (that i have seen). of course, some have different prefixes based on different game modes, but yeah.
|
|
01-12-2006, 05:00 AM | #14 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
i thought devs said maps would have to EARN the ff prefix?
|
|
01-12-2006, 05:07 AM | #15 |
Useless
Retired FF Staff
|
I don't remember seeing anything about that, although I vaguely recall them not liking it except that it'd make it easier to search for them.
__________________
Look at all those dead links. |
|
01-12-2006, 05:08 AM | #16 |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Texas
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
why not just abbreviate with gametype, as said before. CTF_Amped or AVD_Amped or Hunted_Amped or IloveTacos_Amped
|
|
01-12-2006, 05:15 AM | #17 |
Useless
Retired FF Staff
|
Because 1. what if a gametype doesn't fit into a neat abbreviation? You don't want stupidly complicated prefixes... and you can add the gametype to the beginning anyway, and 2. that doesn't facilitate searching at all.
__________________
Look at all those dead links. |
|
01-12-2006, 05:33 AM | #18 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Markham, Ontario, Canada!
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
How about...
get ready for it... you ready? Amped! |
|
01-12-2006, 05:37 AM | #19 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
im fairly sure there was a 20 page arguement about CTF and AVD prefixes a while back and it ended up locked due to degenerating into a flame war.
|
|
01-12-2006, 05:38 AM | #20 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Markham, Ontario, Canada!
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Like so many other threads here. It's a shame that's what happens. At the Snarkpit you can have huge debates, but it never sinks to insults, so they go on.
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|