Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Finished BSP ports from UT99 and 2k4 Maps

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • replied
    I'm inclined to think you know more than I do.... far more (not debating that ). My view is strictly from a gameplay standpoint though. You mentioned you have Malevolence and Nitro's opinions, now you have mine . I'd like to hear more opinions from people who are playing these maps for the first time or consistently. What was you feeling from the outset? How do you feel about them now that you played a few matches?

    Like I said, a lot of us were in a agreement about the scale when I played last night, and those conversations didn't pop up until after we played a few matches. I'd hate to see mappers go thru the trouble of porting these maps only to have them play worse than the original.

    Ported maps, if anything, should be scaled slightly too small than slightly too large (which is what we have now). There's a reason the new UT4 maps from Epic tend to feel crammed in certain areas. This game plays better (right now) with less space.

    When you're working on a map, if I were to tell you that 1 extra hour of hard work guaranteed your map would play better, would you do it?

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by MoxNix View Post
    2.46 is a terrible number to use, if you use that nothing will fit the grid at all and you'll have a terrible time working with the brushes.

    2.5 for UT99 maps
    1.5625 for UT2k4 maps

    IME those numbers work best for most maps. It feels right when playing and most brushes will fit the grid perfectly too. If those numbers don't work for a particular map 1.875 might work better. If you don't like the results with any of those numbers save yourself some grief and do a little math to find a good scaling factor that will convert powers of 2 numbers to powers of 10 numbers. That way at least most of the brushes fit the grid properly.

    Other useful scaling numbers include 1.25 and 1.875.

    If using the UT3Converter tool (most are), make sure when you convert the original to UT3 format it's not scaling the map up (iow, make sure scale is set to 1.0 in the conversion step). Convert first, then use the same tool's menu option to scale the t3d file up, you get a lot more fine control over the scaling factor that way.
    Anyone have a solid number for UT3 to UT4 scaling?

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by LeMNaDe xD View Post
    I get that. I simply took 2.46 came from Entropy's post...



    But that's beside the point.
    Actually that is the point I was making. Use good numbers in the first place instead of some technically exact metric to standard conversion factor that's going to cause all kinds of problems for the mapper because it doesn't fit the grid at all. The difference between 2.46 and 2.5 is so little nobody is going notice it playing, but it makes a huge difference for mapping.

    for example:

    4uu x 2.46 = 9.84uu off grid!
    4uu x 2.5 = 10uu perfect fit!

    8uu x 2.46 = 19.68uu off grid!
    8uu x 2.5 = 20uu perfect fit!

    16uu x 2.46 = 39.36uu off grid!
    16uu x 2.5 = 40uu perfect fit!

    Etc...

    Nothing fits the grid with a 2.46 scaling factor. It's a PITA working with brushes that don't fit the grid. Most brushes except very small and oddly sized brushes fit perfectly with 2.5.

    Originally posted by LeMNaDe xD View Post
    When you refer to 2.5 being the "best"... best for what? If tonight's play test is anything to go by, definitely not for gameplay. I hugged the wall for basically every UT99 map to compensate for the overly big/long hallways (i.e. wall-dodging the whole way). It quickly became boring, predictable, and monotonous.

    I'd like to think we can come up with a scaling factor that works best for gameplay, but then again maybe that's not possible. Maybe these maps highlight the flaws in the current movement design, with wall-dodge spam becoming the new dodge spam (...and Epic thought dodge spam looked dumb. Wait until they see this... ).

    My suggestion is a scaling factor below 2.40, something closer to 2.30, but I understand that's a hassle. Anyone looking to port their favorite maps should weigh the costs/benefits of each approach. Yes, one will be easier to work with, but one is better for gameplay. Maybe it's a good idea outline these values in the OP so mappers can pick their poison?
    I meant simply it's the best... For both mapping and playing. Sure there are some maps that another scaling factor might work better but for most UT99 maps 2.5 works best... For the ones it doesn't work as well you'll just have to do some math, experiment and find a number that works better. There is no magic number that works perfectly for all maps, but 2.5 does work very well for most UT99 maps.

    Feedback on my Malevolence and Nitro remakes suggests I got the scale right on them so maybe I just might know a thing or two about scaling remakes.

    I did have some trouble with the scale on Malev at first because I didn't realize the first conversion step wasn't just converting the map from UT99 to UT3 it was also scaling the map by 1.25x. So when I scaled it by 2.5x in step 2 the end result was actually 1.25 x 2.5 = 3.125, or 25% larger than intended.

    If you insist on using a scaling factor between 2.3 and 2.4 try 2.34375. It won't fit the grid nearly as well as the numbers mentioned above but it'll come closer than just about anything else in the same range. Personally I think it'd be easier to use a scaling factor that fits the grid better, then scale it up or down from there by hand editing individual brushes.
    Last edited by MoxNix; 04-11-2015, 03:51 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    I get that. I simply took 2.46 came from Entropy's post...

    Originally posted by Entropy View Post
    Old uu to new uu = 1 : 2.46
    But that's beside the point. When you refer to 2.5 being the "best"... best for what? If tonight's play test is anything to go by, definitely not for gameplay. I hugged the wall for basically every UT99 map to compensate for the overly big/long hallways (i.e. wall-dodging the whole way). It quickly became boring, predictable, and monotonous.

    I'd like to think we can come up with a scaling factor that works best for gameplay, but then again maybe that's not possible. Maybe these maps highlight the flaws in the current movement design, with wall-dodge spam becoming the new dodge spam (...and Epic thought dodge spam looked dumb. Wait until they see this... ).

    My suggestion is a scaling factor below 2.40, something closer to 2.30, but I understand that's a hassle. Anyone looking to port their favorite maps should weigh the costs/benefits of each approach. Yes, one will be easier to work with, but one is better for gameplay. Maybe it's a good idea outline these values in the OP so mappers can pick their poison?

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    2.46 is a terrible number to use, if you use that nothing will fit the grid at all and you'll have a terrible time working with the brushes.

    2.5 for UT99 maps
    1.5625 for UT2k4 maps

    IME those numbers work best for most maps. It feels right when playing and most brushes will fit the grid perfectly too. If those numbers don't work for a particular map 1.875 might work better. If you don't like the results with any of those numbers save yourself some grief and do a little math to find a good scaling factor that will convert powers of 2 numbers to powers of 10 numbers. That way at least most of the brushes fit the grid properly.

    Other useful scaling numbers include 1.25 and 1.875.

    If using the UT3Converter tool (most are), make sure when you convert the original to UT3 format it's not scaling the map up (iow, make sure scale is set to 1.0 in the conversion step). Convert first, then use the same tool's menu option to scale the t3d file up, you get a lot more fine control over the scaling factor that way.
    Last edited by MoxNix; 04-11-2015, 02:05 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Loving the ported maps so far. Looking forward to seeing more . I am curious though... what's everyone scaling the UT99 maps by when porting them over? 2.46?

    The reason I ask: Me and a bunch of people just got done playing on the )BOM( Chicago iCTF server and everyone agreed the maps were scaled too large. Thanks to the slower run speed you are virtually stuck to the wall... just wall dodging down the hallways. Going out in the open also felt like a death sentence. You were basically naked... no wall to travel quickly and no way to break your opponent's line of sight. This resulted in some of the Flag rooms being a bit too challenging... especially when more than 1 person was defending (you were basically required to get a double kill and then pray they didn't spawn back in the room).

    Is there any consensus on what we should be scaling maps by for each game (UT99, UT2k4, UT3)?

    I think it would be good idea to develop a standard and have it posted on the OP. That way anyone looking to port their favorite maps aren't guessing and settling for a scale that doesn't play well. I'm going to experiment with this a bit on my end, but I am curious to know people's thoughts on coming together to develop a consensus.
    Last edited by LeMNaDe xD; 04-10-2015, 10:09 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    I notice some have a problem with the lighting.
    Sidewinders "Mapscale" tool is also used for scaling the lighting, so may be a solution for some.
    http://mapscale.sidewinder.de.vu

    If it is classic maps to inspire conversion, no list is complete without DM-Zaltag and DM-Zeitkind

    Also, bare in mind that all the standard Unreal and UT99 textures can be found already prepared in much bigger sizes (and I mean huge).
    http://www.uttexture.com
    http://www.oldunreal.com/textures.html

    What we need is all the old UTX files replicated for UT4
    Cooperation of use of a standard set of files will mean less replication and wasted disk space, and bandwidth.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    ctf-switchbackPRO2

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    The converter tools worked great for me thank you. Now, I have no idea how to create a skybox or atmosphere, sunlight. Are there any tutorials for creating skybox or atmosphere, sunlight?

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    maps link is no longer working. Could you put them up on rushbase or something?

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    A 'straight-forward' UT99 to UE4 port using JUST a converter?

    Not off-topic: Regarding my thread, here: https://forums.unrealtournament.com/...051#post143051


    Originally posted by lawlorz View Post
    It will not work the way you are attempting, you will need to run the t3d through a converter. Refer to the first post of this thread: https://forums.unrealtournament.com/...t=convert+ut99 it has the converters and instructions you need.
    Thanks lawlorz but, well, there're several large problems getting in the way of my attempts to port the UT99 map to UE4 editor.


    1. I don't have UT3.
    2. I don't have UDK.
    3. I have absolutely no experience with 1 & 2, (despite playing UT3 for a few weeks, but didn't edit anything in that time).
    4. I don't have ANY other editor, converter, stand-alone programs for anything related to UT from UT99 to this new UE4. 15yr gap of nothing in between the two.
    5. The instructions given by Thomson are very poor - plus, they're for UT3, yet I have UE4. So, useless.
    6. The poor instructions given in the UT3 converter are for UT3,. I have UE4.
    7. Import menu in UE4 Editor only allows ONE item at a time to be imported, yet it's being said I need to import textures as a package, (select all, make into a package, somehow), - but import in UE4 essentially allows only t3d files to be imported - one at a time. Trying to select ALL the textures as in the UT3 Converter is no go,. can only select one at a time but textures are we all know, not t3d files.


    In short - for ME anyway, UT3 Converter is useless, why is there not an updated converter for Unrealed 2 -> UE4? The UT3 Converter is already 5yrs old,. which as we all know was written well before this pre-alpha of UE4 - far too many GUI mismatches and method mismatches for UT3 Converter to be much use with porting a UT99 map to UE4 without using any other program/s.

    What are my realistic options please? Can this converter be improved/updated to cater to this situation I find myself in? I ask because I very much doubt I'll be the ONLY person with the issues I've outlined. A straight UT99 to UE4 map port with no other software.


    I want to port this from UT99 to UE4:

    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Here's what I did:
    1. Open my may in UT3 Editor
    2. Export to t3d (selected only BSP for export)
    3. Open with UE4-T3DConverter
    4. Convert with scale 1.8
    5. Import in new map in UT4 Editor

    I have a issue that most of my meshes are transparent. I can see the wireframe but they render transparently and there is no collision I think. How can I fix this?

    Here's what it looks like: https://www.dropbox.com/s/tsrmdy2p2r...44.10.png?dl=0
    Here's how it should look like: https://www.dropbox.com/s/98jp9szzy1...49.58.png?dl=0

    Thanks

    EDIT: Nevermind, I'm stupid. I used UE4-T3DConverter to convert UT3 exported map. Using UDKConverter worked fine.
    Last edited by FiOuch; 10-21-2014, 11:56 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by David Spalinski View Post
    Cool. Keep us posted. Also, can you please do killbillybarn
    David, you got it, brother. Already started work on it.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Teddie View Post
    Thanks for this. I've got a few Work-in-Progress maps from the UT2004 days and I was initially redoing all my bsp from scratch. My DM-TDB-JunkJitsu is one of the maps I'm trying to finally finish.

    Going to try the tools tonight.

    Thanks again.
    Cool. Keep us posted. Also, can you please do killbillybarn

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Is there a method to scaling the t3d files you link in the OP? I tried running it thru both tools that scale and it jumbles up all the brushes when I import it into UE4.

    Also having issues with most ports, for example Liandri always ends up with a big black hole in the floor next to the elevator, I've tried doing it numerous different ways. However Gothic worked fine for me, not sure what's up.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X