Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Finished BSP ports from UT99 and 2k4 Maps

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

    #76
    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.

    Comment


      #77
      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.

      Comment


        #78
        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?

        Comment


          #79
          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.

          Comment


            #80
            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?
            Unreal Carnage.com UT4 Maps: DM-Maelstrom DM-SpaceNoxx

            Comment


              #81
              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?

              Comment


                #82
                I'm may have to rescale Coret and maybe Morpheus.

                I can confirm the 2.5 scale will snap to the grid in UE4. Although I refuse to use the 99 BSP, It's going to be very helpful that it's on the grid to rebuild from scratch.


                ~Rich
                Portfolio / DM-Morpheus / CTF-Coret

                Comment


                  #83
                  Originally posted by LeMNaDe xD View Post
                  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.
                  It might help if you specified which maps you felt were too big. And if you know who made them that'd help too since some of the old maps have been remade more than once by different people.

                  If Malevolence or Nitro are among the remakes you feel are too big, I'd sure like to hear about it with specifics on why you feel differently than others do. But if it's Malevolence, the first thing I'd want to clarify is whether it's my version, Code's or yet another version of Malevolence you're talking about.

                  As stands now making blanket statements about map scaling isn't helping. In fact you're making it worse by suggesting mappers use terrible scaling factors.

                  The main reason I responded is I wasted several days trying to work with 2.46 and other weird scales suggested in these forums and would like to spare others the trouble by steering them towards starting with numbers that work far better.

                  And I'd sure like to know where people come up with the idea it only takes "1 extra hour" to rescale a map properly or just a day to make a complete finished map. If was that simple don't you think we'd have thousands of amazing finished maps by now?
                  Last edited by MoxNix; 04-12-2015, 03:14 AM.

                  Comment


                    #84
                    My very own experience so far (a few convertions for my own usage + DM-Coma) is that 2.5 scaling factor is simply very far from being correct. Simply put - it ruins map's scale in-game.
                    Yes, it's useful in editor, as old 256 transforms nicely into new 640 which fits on the 10-based grid, but ingame everything ends up being too big. I haven't seen all these UT99 remakes flooding the forums, so cannot really say how they've turned out. There are too many of them for me.

                    Personally, for my own UT99 maps I use something around 2.3 +/- 0.1. For only one UT3 conversion I made, I used 2.0, though 1.90-1.95 feels a bit better. Lots depends on map's architecture. If the original one was a bit tight, it will simply suffer with 2.5. More opened, spacious and jumpy (with lots mid-air traversing) maps will be more forgiving with 2.5 in-game as their pacing is faster and the overall feeling seems more ok. There is no one universal scale factor. 2.46 is great as a starter - you do it initially and then iterate it down untill you see a map starts to feel too cramped. Though, it's my point.

                    I am aware values like 2.3 or 1.95 are in fact terrible and make things out of grid. They also require a lot of work further on (simply redoing BSP), but well, as a mapper myself, all I can say is there are no shortcuts in the process of making a good map - including remakes.

                    The first thing I've done with new UT as a mapper was staying away from the editor for a couple of days and playing the game itself on Epic's maps. Why? To get a better feeling of game's scale, pacing, movement. Things are different, really. And it's not only the scale that matters. I know it's not easy while having all those habits from previous games/editors. If I can point out any kind of advice, though I do not feel like being in position to do so, I think it's a thing every mapper should do at the very beginning - feel the mechanics at first.
                    Last edited by insomnaut; 04-12-2015, 07:21 AM.
                    @insomnaut aka charon / DM-Coma / ArmorWare

                    Comment


                      #85
                      I can't say what factor exactly I used with mine, but honestly- you're going to wind up redoing everything anyway, BSP included, so it doesn't really matter whether the scaling factor is on the grid or not in the long term, as long as the BSP doesn't rip itself apart in the short term. The way UE4 seems to work, everything is built with meshes, I'm not sure if Outpost23 has a single brush in it. Just block out the important parts, don't bother getting too fancy or decorative- you're just going to replace that anyway at some point.

                      The scaling factor probably shouldn't be universal, either. A universal scaling factor would make sense if everything from previous UT iterations were the same in this game, but scaled up- that's not the case though. Walking is slower, dodge and jump distance proportions are different, the grid units are different, weapons have different splash damage radii, the movement options are different (walldodge, etc). These things all have to be taken into account when making a map, and it's going to require some fudging to keep the "feeling" of a map correct when you port it over.

                      Comment


                        #86
                        EDIT: Redacted Last Post.

                        @ MoxNix I just realized I made a comment your ports of Malevolence and Nitro. I thought those were players lol (I'm a quake guy. I'm still not up to speed on all of the UT99 map names). I now understand why you may have been a bit defensive. Sorry about that . I haven't played your ports of these maps, so that could be the cause of some confusion here.

                        Just to summarize what I was suggesting. I though it was a good idea to not just include "How" to port maps in the OP, but also "What to consider" when porting (now that I agree a universal scaling factor is probably not the best approach). Now that the editor is widely accessible and easy to use, we're starting to see seeing new mappers porting their favorites from UT99 and UT2k4. Since I thought some of the maps were scaled slightly too big, I thought it would be a good idea to put something up in the OP so that people porting for the first time have some perspective on how to make their maps fit UT4's playstyle.

                        I think that's a better way of putting it . I was hoping people like you and others who are experienced working with ports who would be the best to develop this "What to consider" section . Maybe you don't think this is needed, but I still think it would be helpful, especially at this early alpha stage of development when new users are checking in daily.

                        Regarding the "1 extra hour", that was a hypothetical question regarding the extra time needed to correctly align the brushes when they aren't aligned with the grid (Yes, it's a pain in the ***... I would know because I've been doing it). If it takes you 20 hours to get a working port, then it would take you 21-22 if you're using a odd scaling factor. Don't look to far into it. EDIT: Note this is in regard to maps that are trying to be identical ports of their UT99 counterpart (i.e. not simply used as a bsp shell for a remake).

                        @ insomnaut and aniviron Thanks for the input, these are the types of posts that would be helpful for anyone looking to do their own ports. If there's a consensus that a universal scaling factor does not exist, even this would be nice to put into the OP so people are aware
                        Last edited by LeMNaDe xD; 04-12-2015, 07:46 PM.

                        Comment


                          #87
                          I wasn't going to respond on this subject anymore since it seemed to be turning into an argument rather than a discussion, but the last post changed my mind.

                          Originally posted by LeMNaDe xD View Post
                          EDIT: Redacted Last Post.

                          @ MoxNix I just realized I made a comment your ports of Malevolence and Nitro. I thought those were players lol (I'm a quake guy. I'm still not up to speed on all of the UT99 map names). I now understand why you may have been a bit defensive. Sorry about that . I haven't played your ports of these maps, so that could be the cause of some confusion here.
                          Yeah, I figured that, it's why I mentioned them again and made it very clear they're maps not players.

                          Originally posted by LeMNaDe xD View Post
                          Just to summarize what I was suggesting. I though it was a good idea to not just include "How" to port maps in the OP, but also "What to consider" when porting (now that I agree a universal scaling factor is probably not the best approach). Now that the editor is widely accessible and easy to use, we're starting to see seeing new mappers porting their favorites from UT99 and UT2k4. Since I thought some of the maps were scaled slightly too big, I thought it would be a good idea to put something up in the OP so that people porting for the first time have some perspective on how to make their maps fit UT4's playstyle.

                          I think that's a better way of putting it . I was hoping people like you and others who are experienced working with ports who would be the best to develop this "What to consider" section . Maybe you don't think this is needed, but I still think it would be helpful, especially at this early alpha stage of development when new users are checking in daily.
                          Oh I agree it would be helpful, I just don't agree at all with the numbers that were being tossed around. They're just going to cause grief for the mapper, especially if he's new to mapping.

                          Originally posted by LeMNaDe xD View Post
                          Regarding the "1 extra hour", that was a hypothetical question regarding the extra time needed to correctly align the brushes when they aren't aligned with the grid (Yes, it's a pain in the ***... I would know because I've been doing it). If it takes you 20 hours to get a working port, then it would take you 21-22 if you're using a odd scaling factor. Don't look to far into it. EDIT: Note this is in regard to maps that are trying to be identical ports of their UT99 counterpart (i.e. not simply used as a bsp shell for a remake).
                          The thing is it doesn't take long at all to make a quick port no matter what the scale is. A few minutes is all and you've got a greybox shell. The problem with using a scale that doesn't fit the grid comes after that. It really is a giant PITA working with BSP that doesn't fit the grid. Everything doesn't have to fit the grid perfectly, as long as most of the brushes fit, it's not too bad to work with.


                          Originally posted by LeMNaDe xD View Post
                          @ insomnaut and aniviron Thanks for the input, these are the types of posts that would be helpful for anyone looking to do their own ports. If there's a consensus that a universal scaling factor does not exist, even this would be nice to put into the OP so people are aware
                          While there isn't a universal scaling factor that works for every map, IMO for UT99 maps a scaling factor of 2.5 is the best place to start from. If that's too big, then try 1.875. If that's too small then choose the one that's closest (I'll bet dollars to donuts that's 2.5 the vast majority of the time) and scale up or down by hand from there. Sure you could move on to something inbetween but it won't fit the grid very well and I say it'll take less time and effort to rescale by hand from there than to work with some odd number that doesn't fit the grid very well.
                          Last edited by MoxNix; 04-12-2015, 09:15 PM.

                          Comment


                            #88
                            Thanks for the reply . Yea, didn't intend to push it in an argumentative direction. Sometimes its hard to get a point across when you're not comprehending the words in front of you .

                            Anyways, just food for thought, maybe something worth considering once movement is nailed down. A tutorial/"What to consider" section would have certainly helped me a few weeks back when I started playing around with my own ports.

                            Comment


                              #89
                              Map link is broken. Thanks for your hard work

                              Comment


                                #90
                                And here I was, rebuilding DM-Albatross from scratch. Anyway I'm really curious to look at these ported maps, would you update links, please?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X