Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Finished BSP ports from UT99 and 2k4 Maps

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

  • replied
    Originally posted by Laambo View Post
    what about the autosave or backup? you cant use any of that? ... I don't know as I have not had the need (yet) to use/check into it!
    Yes, it turns out that Editor autosaves everything. I accidentally stumbled upon all my maps backups, and well... here it is, almost done bsp shell

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by OmgSneakers View Post
    That's exactly why I was doing it, I was studying the editor. I don't even think it would be finalized.

    Not sure about that. Anyway, as much as I liked the way I did it, I don't have it anymore.
    what about the autosave or backup? you cant use any of that? ... I don't know as I have not had the need (yet) to use/check into it!

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by TKBS View Post
    i am just making my maps ... for the sake of practice
    That's exactly why I was doing it, I was studying the editor. I don't even think it would be finalized.
    Originally posted by TKBS View Post
    Would you like to work together on Albatross?
    Not sure about that. Anyway, as much as I liked the way I did it, I don't have it anymore.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by bass3 View Post
    Not Found

    The requested URL /Unreal Tournament/MapProject/ was not found on this server.


    Pls ReUp!
    Bump. Would like an updated link as well, please.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    @ Omgsneakers:

    DM-albatross is already called and done in terms of source (full source is here: https://forums.epicgames.com/threads...batross-4-0-PC), i called it, and someone else also went solo instead of pulling resources together... but that's not a reason for you to stop, you can still do it or join/ help others. People ignored me so i am just making my maps for a specific community, or simply for the sake of practice. The end result is the most important thing, not who completes the map but the quality of the map and having a community to enjoy with.
    You are welcome to the contents since it is Epic's IP but in my experience projects with multiple members working together give a better result than individual's

    All maps i have previously made will shortly be available (for a specific community);

    The ut99/ ut2004 remakes i have made with available source include;
    • DM-Osiris
    • DM-Albatross
    • DM-ArcaneTemple
    • DM-Roughinery
    • DM-KGalleon
    • All of the unreal maps 1998 (50+ maps, full source available, but will be easier when the conversion tool by Xtremexp is complete)



    I would like to see a certain amount of consistency with these levels, i feel that more individual(s) maps = more variance = lower quality because the colours/ tones/ styles become inconsistent. That is not good when maps are from a certain game and had a certain look. Re-makes should be faithful and only improved where needed.

    - You will not get that without using the original content or re-creating the original content in HD. Both of which i have already done so can save people time, and im sure others have better skills than me in some areas so there insight/ help could have been valuable.

    * It still annoys me to this day that people play a different roughinery than mine simply because it was released earlier, despite the performance of mine being better and the visuals being original, but what is even more annoying is people had skills and ideas that could have helped me make that map, because they have higher skill levels at the time, but instead they sit silent.

    The competition is meant to be in-game not in development, but i see the opposite atm. Would you like to work together on Albatross?
    Last edited by TKBS; 04-27-2015, 10:42 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Not Found

    The requested URL /Unreal Tournament/MapProject/ was not found on this server.


    Pls ReUp!

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Map link is broken. Thanks for your hard work

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    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

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X