or get lotsa new ones.
Advertisement
A few Screenshots
#52 Guest_Sage
Posted 15 April 2005 - 09:21 AM
I dont think I will be "messing" up the textures any time soon unless I can find some decent photoshop tutorials explaining how its done!.
I dont think its really that obvious anyhow. Yes it does have a clean-ish feel to the map but no more or less than any other map. If I can find some tutorials then I am up for giving it a bash.
Stu not only is your signature offensive (mods cant this sort of signature be banned?) ..but some of your comments are meaningless ignorant or/and just plain stupid. Not just in this thread but in many others I have read.
I dont think its really that obvious anyhow. Yes it does have a clean-ish feel to the map but no more or less than any other map. If I can find some tutorials then I am up for giving it a bash.
Stu not only is your signature offensive (mods cant this sort of signature be banned?) ..but some of your comments are meaningless ignorant or/and just plain stupid. Not just in this thread but in many others I have read.
#53
Posted 15 April 2005 - 09:30 AM
The map is looking better and better!
As for the clean-look I would not make a building out of 1 (or 2) textures. You've got a lot of buoldings that have almost the same streched texture aplied to them. This is good for background buildings but avoid them for this use. Try to make a window a real window (out of brushes) and then make the windowframe out of wood and give the window it's own texture and the wall and etc. This way you can give the buildings more depth, wich also gives them a more realistic look. GL
As for the clean-look I would not make a building out of 1 (or 2) textures. You've got a lot of buoldings that have almost the same streched texture aplied to them. This is good for background buildings but avoid them for this use. Try to make a window a real window (out of brushes) and then make the windowframe out of wood and give the window it's own texture and the wall and etc. This way you can give the buildings more depth, wich also gives them a more realistic look. GL
Advertisement
#56 Guest_Sage
Posted 18 April 2005 - 10:51 AM
Quote
Quote
Must admit ive had a few strange looks , especially when taking pictures of brickwork.
[latest batch of screenshots]
[latest batch of screenshots]
Thank you for taking my suggestion into account. The curbs are looking great!
No problem Glad you like it.
Now its getting dirty
#58 Guest_Sage
Posted 18 April 2005 - 06:15 PM
Quote
There we are, that looks ten times better.
On another note, the lighting looks very flat. Are you using ambient or minlight?
On another note, the lighting looks very flat. Are you using ambient or minlight?
// entity 0
{
"gridsize" "64 64 128"
"_blocksize" "1024"
"message" "Thingley"
"mapcoordsmaxs" "-64 -1216"
"mapcoordsmins" "-4992 3712"
"_color" "1 1 1"
"_minvertexlight" "38"
"_minlight" "34"
"_mingridlight" "53"
"classname" "worldspawn"
"amibient" "57"
Is this wrong?
#59
Posted 18 April 2005 - 06:47 PM
Not wrong as such, but I wouldn't recommend using some of those keys.
_minlight, _minvertexlight & ambient have a nasty habit of flattening out a maps lighting.
_mingridlight is alright, it helps make the player models more visible.
If I was you id take the time to experiment with -bounce & -bouncescale switches and the values of q3map_sun(EXT) and q3map_skylight in your sky shader. Until i got a result that looked reasonably realistic, without being to dark(/light) in certain areas.
_minlight, _minvertexlight & ambient have a nasty habit of flattening out a maps lighting.
_mingridlight is alright, it helps make the player models more visible.
If I was you id take the time to experiment with -bounce & -bouncescale switches and the values of q3map_sun(EXT) and q3map_skylight in your sky shader. Until i got a result that looked reasonably realistic, without being to dark(/light) in certain areas.
1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
Advertisement