Advertisement
Whos entering the new contests?
#11
Posted 03 August 2010 - 08:35 PM
I've been considering the lack of participation in the new contests so far (at least as far as I can see,) and have a few comments;
1. I think Delirium's 9-day timeframe was a little less daunting of a commitment than the 30-day rolling thing. And the 9-day starting on Saturday was more 'fair' since people with only weekends to work on maps got 4 days, compared to 5 weekdays, when in a given 30 days there are a lot fewer weekend-days to weekdays.
1a. I would suggest that if the 30-day thing is kept that any contest that fails to attract any contestants be removed after the first 30 days and replaced with something else. (Opening it up for community suggestions for the next contest would be cool.)
2. I think the bump/normal-mapped textures section could stand to be opened up to any and all textures, not just bricks, until a 'release' version of both the bumpy compiler and bumpy-enabled engine binary has been established. Right now to use the bumpy stuff you have to slog through a 100+ page thread of mostly irrelevant information to even get started - and then you have to maintain a semi-separate mapping environment unless you want to trust that the bumpy compiler and binary aren't going to mess with your main environment. As someone who has done this, it's not trivial. When the binary released with the game supports bumpy 'out of the box', as it were, that seems like the time to have more specific challenges. For now, I think anyone who has put the effort into getting bumpy working and making something with it should be able to put up whatever texture they want.
2a. Specific shader or particle contests might be more appropriate until the bumpy stuff is more approachable. There are plenty of cool things that could be done that are already supported in the release engine.
3. Maybe I'm wrong in this, but the ultimate goal of mapping is to hopefully end up with something that either in part or in whole be usable in-game. To that end, I don't really understand the point of making a super high-detailed model or map, since importing into UrT would most likely result in something unplayable. I totally appreciate the skill it takes to create a highly detailed structure or object, but if running it in the game drops the FPS to less than 30 with a single player, it's not useful for play and therefore not really useful. My humble opinion is that all mapping competitions should be designed with the goal of fostering the development of solid playable maps.
Sorry for the long post, just wanted to throw in my two cents.
1. I think Delirium's 9-day timeframe was a little less daunting of a commitment than the 30-day rolling thing. And the 9-day starting on Saturday was more 'fair' since people with only weekends to work on maps got 4 days, compared to 5 weekdays, when in a given 30 days there are a lot fewer weekend-days to weekdays.
1a. I would suggest that if the 30-day thing is kept that any contest that fails to attract any contestants be removed after the first 30 days and replaced with something else. (Opening it up for community suggestions for the next contest would be cool.)
2. I think the bump/normal-mapped textures section could stand to be opened up to any and all textures, not just bricks, until a 'release' version of both the bumpy compiler and bumpy-enabled engine binary has been established. Right now to use the bumpy stuff you have to slog through a 100+ page thread of mostly irrelevant information to even get started - and then you have to maintain a semi-separate mapping environment unless you want to trust that the bumpy compiler and binary aren't going to mess with your main environment. As someone who has done this, it's not trivial. When the binary released with the game supports bumpy 'out of the box', as it were, that seems like the time to have more specific challenges. For now, I think anyone who has put the effort into getting bumpy working and making something with it should be able to put up whatever texture they want.
2a. Specific shader or particle contests might be more appropriate until the bumpy stuff is more approachable. There are plenty of cool things that could be done that are already supported in the release engine.
3. Maybe I'm wrong in this, but the ultimate goal of mapping is to hopefully end up with something that either in part or in whole be usable in-game. To that end, I don't really understand the point of making a super high-detailed model or map, since importing into UrT would most likely result in something unplayable. I totally appreciate the skill it takes to create a highly detailed structure or object, but if running it in the game drops the FPS to less than 30 with a single player, it's not useful for play and therefore not really useful. My humble opinion is that all mapping competitions should be designed with the goal of fostering the development of solid playable maps.
Sorry for the long post, just wanted to throw in my two cents.
#12
Posted 03 August 2010 - 09:49 PM
I completely agree with Drewfin on the usefulness of the competition. Well, I build a nice cathedral but what good is it if you can't really use it? Maybe the next brushwork challenge should have a performance limit so that people create something that can be used in a real map. That would also force the mapper to concentrate on efficient brushwork rather than just adding more and more detail without paying attention to good brushwork. I also believe that participation would go up if there was a limit. I'd rather build five small structures than one behemoth of a cathedral. It simply gets boring if you can add more and more detail and there are no limitations whatsoever.
Now the question is why don't people take the tree challenge? It has a performance limit and thus is a smaller project compared to the cathedral challenge. Actually the same goes for any other challenge. I believe it's because if you want to create a map for urt you have to learn radiant but you don't have to learn to create a model or a texture. So most people rather go for the geometry challenge than any other because that's what they can do already. My suggestion would be to add a few more challenges of each type so that we can work on more projects at the same time.
Well, we haven't seen the results of the first month of the competition yet so I don't think we can draw a final conclusion yet. Maybe there are more participants than we thought. I just hope there will be much more challenges for each category in the next round and I hope there won't be one monster challenge but rather more reasonable ones.
Now the question is why don't people take the tree challenge? It has a performance limit and thus is a smaller project compared to the cathedral challenge. Actually the same goes for any other challenge. I believe it's because if you want to create a map for urt you have to learn radiant but you don't have to learn to create a model or a texture. So most people rather go for the geometry challenge than any other because that's what they can do already. My suggestion would be to add a few more challenges of each type so that we can work on more projects at the same time.
Well, we haven't seen the results of the first month of the competition yet so I don't think we can draw a final conclusion yet. Maybe there are more participants than we thought. I just hope there will be much more challenges for each category in the next round and I hope there won't be one monster challenge but rather more reasonable ones.
Have a happy day! :)
#14
Posted 04 August 2010 - 07:51 AM
Indeed, good luck to all those that have entered. Both entries posted here look very nice and deserve praise, sounds like prize if you say it quick.
I've started making a cathedral (a few times) but didn't like my efforts.
I was considering entering one of them to make up the numbers but I looked at it last night and it's just a pile of crap with bent square columns.
I've only recently discovered that miters are a good thing.
drewfin makes a lot of good points, we've been given very alpha versions of client and compiler and if we want to experiment/learn how to make "future" maps and cool looking textures on linux we have to use wine or build the tools ourselves - which is fine but it's probably put a few people off using bumpy for the texturing competition.
I've resorted to reading code and comments to work out how to get better results from -radbump and I'm still clueless.
I've started making a cathedral (a few times) but didn't like my efforts.
I was considering entering one of them to make up the numbers but I looked at it last night and it's just a pile of crap with bent square columns.
I've only recently discovered that miters are a good thing.
drewfin makes a lot of good points, we've been given very alpha versions of client and compiler and if we want to experiment/learn how to make "future" maps and cool looking textures on linux we have to use wine or build the tools ourselves - which is fine but it's probably put a few people off using bumpy for the texturing competition.
I've resorted to reading code and comments to work out how to get better results from -radbump and I'm still clueless.
CUSTOM MAP MAKERS
www.custommapmakers.org
Discord (CMM) Custom Map Makers
www.custommapmakers.org
Discord (CMM) Custom Map Makers
#15
Posted 04 August 2010 - 04:35 PM
yeah it would motivate more people if some things like impressive Brush Groups could parcipate in new Maps. Or whole Areas could be optimized by other Mappers. Also some Things like new MapModels in 4.1 Maps would call more people to the Keyboards.
Call me V | YouTube |Did you know FS is RECRUITING?
CUSTOM MAP MAKERS - www.custommapmakers.org - Discord (CMM) Custom Map Makers
CUSTOM MAP MAKERS - www.custommapmakers.org - Discord (CMM) Custom Map Makers
Advertisement
#16
Posted 04 August 2010 - 04:46 PM
Happyday, on 03 August 2010 - 09:49 PM, said:
...My suggestion would be to add a few more challenges of each type so that we can work on more projects at the same time.
I like that idea, more smaller-scale challenges, particularly ones for structures or terrian that can be done in Radiant. I can't speak for anyone else, but my reason for not doing the tree was exactly as you said - a tree seems like it would better be done in a modelling tool, and modelling tools tend to be pretty time-intensive to learn.
Happyday, on 03 August 2010 - 09:49 PM, said:
Well, we haven't seen the results of the first month of the competition yet so I don't think we can draw a final conclusion yet. Maybe there are more participants than we thought.
I hope so, but then if there have been people working on things I wish they would start a thread and show some progress. My favorite part of these things is watching people's progress and process and seeing how everyone takes it in their own particular direction.
#17
Posted 05 August 2010 - 09:45 PM
you can make models in GTK as well, just make it, save it as a map, then its 2 different compile strings to convert to .ase.
to compile to bsp
"c:\dirtoq3map2\q3map2\q3map2.exe" -v -meta -patchmeta -samplesize 0 -v -fs_basepath "C:\pathtomap" -fs_game q3ut4 "C:\pathtomap\mapname.map"
to convert to .ase
"F:\dirtoq3map2\q3map2\q3map2.exe" -v -convert ASE -meta -patchmeta -samplesize 0 -fs_basepath "C:\UrtMapping" -fs_game q3ut4 "C:\UrtMapping\q3ut4\maps\ut4_sidewinder.map"
dont need all the extras in that line. those lines are in 2 seperate .bat files. then actually getting the textures on it is easy instead of 3ds models etc.
yea I agree with the points brung up. I loved the 9day challanges seen I only get the weekdays to map, not the weekends, was small simple and not much required of it, ie build a alleyway, section it off, points for lighting and construction, and also has lots of speed but still look impressive, here is an example go for it... a cathedral in 30days .
as for the bumpy thing, i dont wanna make maps/textures, that work in one release of bumpy then dont work in another release, seen this is gonna be the norm for 4.2 where bumpy is going to be involved and used.. rather the challanges keep to using normal non bumpy stuff, gives everyone a level playing field to work on.
to compile to bsp
"c:\dirtoq3map2\q3map2\q3map2.exe" -v -meta -patchmeta -samplesize 0 -v -fs_basepath "C:\pathtomap" -fs_game q3ut4 "C:\pathtomap\mapname.map"
to convert to .ase
"F:\dirtoq3map2\q3map2\q3map2.exe" -v -convert ASE -meta -patchmeta -samplesize 0 -fs_basepath "C:\UrtMapping" -fs_game q3ut4 "C:\UrtMapping\q3ut4\maps\ut4_sidewinder.map"
dont need all the extras in that line. those lines are in 2 seperate .bat files. then actually getting the textures on it is easy instead of 3ds models etc.
yea I agree with the points brung up. I loved the 9day challanges seen I only get the weekdays to map, not the weekends, was small simple and not much required of it, ie build a alleyway, section it off, points for lighting and construction, and also has lots of speed but still look impressive, here is an example go for it... a cathedral in 30days .
as for the bumpy thing, i dont wanna make maps/textures, that work in one release of bumpy then dont work in another release, seen this is gonna be the norm for 4.2 where bumpy is going to be involved and used.. rather the challanges keep to using normal non bumpy stuff, gives everyone a level playing field to work on.
This post has been edited by KhaotiK-Lord: 05 August 2010 - 09:46 PM
#20
Posted 25 August 2010 - 05:35 PM
Man, I hope something happens soon.. it's going to be tough to keep anyone checking back without any updates or activity.
If anyone wants to take stab at any of the other three contest categories, I'll join in just to generate some movement. Even though I don't really dig the current catagories from a philosophical point of view, I'd hate for the whole contest concept to die on the vine.
If anyone wants to take stab at any of the other three contest categories, I'll join in just to generate some movement. Even though I don't really dig the current catagories from a philosophical point of view, I'd hate for the whole contest concept to die on the vine.
1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
Advertisement