Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jumpstarting the map creation process

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • replied
    [Closing out this thread.]

    Thanks to everyone who helped out with this process!

    We now have more than enough content to work from. Take pride in knowing that you created some of the first (test) maps for UT. Now let's dive in and see how they hold up with the new movement mechanics...

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    BSP ports from UT'99 and UT2k4
    https://forums.unrealengine.com/show...9-and-2k4-Maps
    ?

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    @Entropy So I edited the Deck16 I sent to you to have working elevators, which required converting the brush into a mesh, and then creating a blueprint. Will sending the map file still be adequate?

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    We're working on a better way to deliver content, but for now, if you could put it somewhere and send me a PM, that would be fantastic.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Entropy View Post
    There are a couple factors at play here:

    First and foremost, UE1 and UE2 were both subtractive engines. UE3 and UE4 are additive. So converting anything from UE1/2 into UE4 probably means adding a giant block and moving forward from there. There was an option to make UE3 subtractive, but all it really did was add a single brush that was the size of the world boundaries before letting you build. In short, it was a hack.

    I find it faster to build subtractively (fewer brushes involved) but there could be some impacts on performance due to triangle counts, etc. and some things (like skies, for example) get tricky if you're purely subtractive. My personal style is a mix of the two... I start from an additive base, but I tend to use subtractions for doors, windows, and quick cuts rather than trying to shape them out of multiple contiguous brushes. Note that this process loses its value when you move from prototyping to full production, as sometimes dealing with subtractions there can get a bit messy.

    Imagine a hallway that is created from a large additive brush with a smaller subtractive brush inside of it. If you wanted to replace one of the side walls with a static mesh, it would be really simple to convert that wall into a blocking volume and add in the mesh if the system were built additively. Sadly, it gets more difficult in the case of the subtractive setup described above.
    Your comments on the past engines I was already familiar with but it was interesting to hear your preference. The rest confirms my thoughts also. I didn't do any work on the level last night... I was so tired. Will do more of it tonight.. hopefully finish it. Once done do I just PM and attach to you?

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    There are a couple factors at play here:

    First and foremost, UE1 and UE2 were both subtractive engines. UE3 and UE4 are additive. So converting anything from UE1/2 into UE4 probably means adding a giant block and moving forward from there. There was an option to make UE3 subtractive, but all it really did was add a single brush that was the size of the world boundaries before letting you build. In short, it was a hack.

    I find it faster to build subtractively (fewer brushes involved) but there could be some impacts on performance due to triangle counts, etc. and some things (like skies, for example) get tricky if you're purely subtractive. My personal style is a mix of the two... I start from an additive base, but I tend to use subtractions for doors, windows, and quick cuts rather than trying to shape them out of multiple contiguous brushes. Note that this process loses its value when you move from prototyping to full production, as sometimes dealing with subtractions there can get a bit messy.

    Imagine a hallway that is created from a large additive brush with a smaller subtractive brush inside of it. If you wanted to replace one of the side walls with a static mesh, it would be really simple to convert that wall into a blocking volume and add in the mesh if the system were built additively. Sadly, it gets more difficult in the case of the subtractive setup described above.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    You could create hollow brushes back then, that was not the issue. I think the id tech engines always used additive maps, so it was apparently a matter of choice for Epic Games to use that as their map creation method.

    Though nowadays you require to choose additive maps in order to create proper convincing skyboxes around it if you want to show the environment surrounding the playable area - which is of course not an issue at all if you stay only indoors with no sight of what's outside.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    My thought was that it was due to the tools limitation in the past.
    With UE4 (not sure about UE3/UDK) you can create hollow brushes and use those as rooms but i don't think there was anything like that
    in the UT99 editors. So it would have been quite a task to create everything based on additive brushes as base.

    And yeah, the sky also worked different then so we have other conditions now and it might be just a matter of choice?

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    While I'm not a professional, I'd say this depends on what one wants to do with the map later on.
    For example, if this was DM-Deck from UT3 being remade (with its windows and open roof), it would be advisable to create an additive map, if it's supposed to be purely indoor with no sight of anything outside the map, subtractive is the best choice, isn't it?

    Considering how Deck was an indoor map in the original Unreal and UT, I don't think you guys made a wrong decision (the task was to rebuild the UT99 version, remember? ).

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Thomson View Post
    This is something im interested in to hear from the devs.
    What are the pro's and con's with additive and subtrative way of building a map?

    Mine was subtractive too.
    I would love to hear a professional opinion about this too!

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Good work Thomson, this deck16 is a VERY close scale replica of the 2nd deck from UT99

    I was able to use this as a base to compare UT99 movement to what's been made in UE4 so far

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    This is something im interested in to hear from the devs.
    What are the pro's and con's with additive and subtrative way of building a map?

    Mine was subtractive too.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    The version of deck I submitted to entropy used a large additive brush, and then I used subtractive brushes to created the level geo.

    Edit: I might make a video showcasing my version of deck later, if anyone's interested (my screenshots didn't really go over well).
    Last edited by SwiftMalachi; 05-19-2014, 05:42 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Entropy View Post
    Thanks to everyone who contributed here, super useful. I'll take a look at these maps (already downloaded them all) and get back to you later today!
    I starting to make deck last night.. if anything to get used to the new UE4 BSP editing tools. In all my past work I would make my levels with a large additive block then I would cut out of it. In the UDK project I am in most of the level ends up being mesh so I have started making the bsp all additive. I have also started DM-deck this way. If it is too late to finish this I would still like to hear your feedback about the others as to best practices in UE4 BSP.
    Bazz

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Thanks to everyone who contributed here, super useful. I'll take a look at these maps (already downloaded them all) and get back to you later today!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X