Create an account


Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
How good is darkplaces really?

#51
If I understand correctly, no map textures are >512 besides skyboxes. Even facility114 textures, which could totally be done in svg.
(07-18-2010, 10:59 AM)Flying Steel Wrote: How could anyone with ADHD tell its a high damage weapon if it wasn't a gigantic metal cock fucking the map whenever a player gets within 3 meters of a wall?

[Image: di-712770583645.png]
Reply

#52
Tech Panel is 1024x1024.
Ex2x has some 1024x1024
eXx has one.
Reply

#53
(08-25-2010, 08:35 PM)Ihsan Wrote: PLEASE use and add to or create a GIT branch or something!

PLEASE get GIT access NOW and start mapping/editing maps right away Smile Smile
You should be one of the texture/lighting/detail experts, you certainly seem to know how to make stuff look good there Smile
Layout looks brilliant too from the little you see of #5
Links to my: SoundCloud and bandcamp accounts
Reply

#54
[Image: dm-612824142815.png]
(08-25-2010, 08:35 PM)Ihsan Wrote: Try it yourself by downloading ihsan.pk3 (temp hosting)
Type "map hires" in the console for the test map shown there.
Type "map test" in the console for basement with handrails everywhere.
There are some PSD's in the ihsan_copied folder (i don't have the main one i used for nearly all the metals on this comp Sad ) and map files are all there. GPL yadda yadda yadda....

The download link is easy to miss so i quote it above with a thumbnail. I encourage all mappers who think this looks good to download it. If you open the maps in radiant you would see that i didn't do anything special in the map or with my textures. This is a basic darkplaces test map.

Back to the point of this thread: Is darkplaces good enough to look as good as a "modern" game to the average gamer? And if not what is it missing really?
Reply

#55
Quote:Anybody who shows nexuiz to one of his hardcore gaming friends immediately gets asked the same question: "Why does it look so shitty?"

Never understood the point of having beautiful graphics in a competitive game. Eye-candy only distracts you from the gameplay (which is the main thing in such type of games), while eating a lot of resourses. In my opinion, the less unnecessary stuff you see - the better you can concentrate on your main goal, and this is one of the reasons I like the DSN project.
Reply

#56
(09-11-2010, 10:28 AM)Akari Wrote:
Quote:Anybody who shows nexuiz to one of his hardcore gaming friends immediately gets asked the same question: "Why does it look so shitty?"

Never understood the point of having beautiful graphics in a competitive game. Eye-candy only distracts you from the gameplay (which is the main thing in such type of games), while eating a lot of resourses. In my opinion, the less unnecessary stuff you see - the better you can concentrate on your main goal, and this is one of the reasons I like the DSN project.

Not always, though that CLUTTER they tried to pass off as graphics in most of UT3 was VERY distracting and Nexuiz looks pretty damn good when set up right (I think my config file proves it, see below).

http://forums.xonotic.org/showthread.php...0#pid12950
ECKZBAWKZ HUGE LIST OF ACHIEVEMENTS GOES HERE....


Oh wait.
Reply

#57
(09-11-2010, 10:28 AM)Akari Wrote: Never understood the point of having beautiful graphics in a competitive game. Eye-candy only distracts you from the gameplay (which is the main thing in such type of games), while eating a lot of resourses. In my opinion, the less unnecessary stuff you see - the better you can concentrate on your main goal, and this is one of the reasons I like the DSN project.
The fact is that in any First Person Shooter there will be only a few tournament maps and the others will be casual. The tournament maps should be minimal (graphically) and designed for smooth framerates but the others need some visual flair.

Graphics are important because games are played by people. Guess which game is played by millions every day.
[Image: 250px-Shariki.jpg] [Image: 250px-Bejeweled_deluxe_sc1.jpg]
Reply

#58
(08-25-2010, 03:43 PM)Ihsan Wrote: [Image: dm-11128069372314.png] [Image: dm-4127689989313.png] [Image: dm-6127672310414.png] [Image: 4p605cy7pwr11dz37mvx_thumb.jpg] [Image: dm-612824142815.png]

(08-25-2010, 04:45 PM)PinkRobot Wrote: In a single line: 1,2,3,4 looks crap and 5 looks amazing, but is 5's high quality going to drag DP to a grinding halt?

I find amazing that some people are saying #5 is the best looking there. IMO #2 is above every other of these shots. It has proper lighting, proper texture detail, color contrast and volume. #5 is grayish, with magic lighting coming from nowhere, and blurry.
Reply

#59
Stop quoting me on that :[ I was only trying to interpret the meaning of the previous post and don't agree on it at all! I like brush maps with enough light everywhere (preferrably with decent texturing) that are simple and play well! Yes you can quote me on THAT :p
"Yes, there was a spambot some time ago on these forums." - aa
Reply

#60
Sry, I just took your quote because it summed up better than anything else the opinions dropped in the thread. I'm not replying specifically against you.

(09-17-2010, 05:24 AM)PinkRobot Wrote: I like brush maps with enough light everywhere (preferrably with decent texturing) that are simple and play well!

I actually like detail in maps, and don't always find brushwork satisfactory. But on those shots qualification I disagree. If it's about making the renderer look maxed #5 is weak on lighting and texturing while #2 is only weak at polycount. So #2 beats #5 Wink

I think some people have the image of Doom 3 as "the modern thing" and they take everything that looks "Doom3'ish" as looking more modern. Well, big news, CoD4/5 engine is way more modern and their maps aren't all made of shiny metal panels.

EDIT: IMO, Nexuiz's/Xonotic's art weakness doesn't rely on the renderer, but on the undiscriminated use of art assets. To look better it's necesary to drop old stuff. There's a mix of old and new textures, and a too frequent use of normalmaps that are created from the difuse map, just because you have to have a normalmap. Reduce the amount of textures to have only materials created with the final material in mind (this means, don't make the texture first and then just generate a normalmap) and make good use of the newest q3map2n lighting features and Xonotic will look like making a jump of 5 years in rendering quality.
Reply

#61
I find #1 and #2 pretty. The relief mapping in G-23 looks amazingly great, and there are some very thorough cubemaps. RedPlanet has some cool lighting, very well done. The 5th shot reminds me of Halo 1. "Yay! We learned how to bumpmap!" -_- While the map design is nice, it's missing the detail's, the proper lighting, the offset/relief maps, and the cubemaps, as well as some realtime reflections on that glass. Then it would be both a cool map and a great looking map. Even Warsow, a cellshaded game, has relief mapping, realtime reflections, and detailed cubemaps.
(09-17-2010, 05:31 AM)jal Wrote: EDIT: IMO, Nexuiz's/Xonotic's art weakness doesn't rely on the renderer, but on the undiscriminated use of art assets. To look better it's necesary to drop old stuff. There's a mix of old and new textures, and a too frequent use of normalmaps that are created from the difuse map, just because you have to have a normalmap. Reduce the amount of textures to have only materials created with the final material in mind (this means, don't make the texture first and then just generate a normalmap) and make good use of the newest q3map2n lighting features and Xonotic will look like making a jump of 5 years in rendering quality.

If ya'll haven't used Sculptris yet, you can easily craft and color a texture on a flat surface and use the "Normal Map" surface to create a normal map instantly. It would be a true normal map of the texture, then import to GIMP/PdN/PS and finish the texture. It's a thought.
Reply

#62
(09-17-2010, 05:31 AM)jal Wrote: I actually like detail in maps, and don't always find brushwork satisfactory. But on those shots qualification I disagree. If it's about making the renderer look maxed #5 is weak on lighting and texturing while #2 is only weak at polycount. So #2 beats #5 Wink

I think some people have the image of Doom 3 as "the modern thing" and they take everything that looks "Doom3'ish" as looking more modern. Well, big news, CoD4/5 engine is way more modern and their maps aren't all made of shiny metal panels.

EDIT: IMO, Nexuiz's/Xonotic's art weakness doesn't rely on the renderer, but on the undiscriminated use of art assets. To look better it's necesary to drop old stuff. There's a mix of old and new textures, and a too frequent use of normalmaps that are created from the difuse map, just because you have to have a normalmap. Reduce the amount of textures to have only materials created with the final material in mind (this means, don't make the texture first and then just generate a normalmap) and make good use of the newest q3map2n lighting features and Xonotic will look like making a jump of 5 years in rendering quality.

You miss the point of me posting image #5 but your last edit shows you understand the point of the whole thread. Screenshot #5 is a test map i made simply to practice texturing and detailing. What i found amazing was that it took very little skill and effort to make one of the best LOOKING nexuiz maps i've ever seen (imho of course). Here's the kicker: I SUCK AT MAPPING! The map isn't really playable and (i DO agree with you) is inferior to #2 in every way other than visual appeal. You are right about generating normal maps from diffuses and that's one of the reasons OUR TEXTURES SUCK for the most part. I'm starting to sound like a troll so i'll stop.
What i'm asking in this thread is by how much we are underusing darkplaces. You estimate 5 years but i think even i can achieve that with my limited skills. Coming to think of it you compared my map to doom 3 which was released in 2005... Wink
I'm asking what's stopping a skilled mapper from putting out a 2010 quality map for xonotic.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Trying to understand darkplaces source code wiefie 37 5,029 09-22-2017, 01:37 PM
Last Post: Lyberta
  Module (music) support for Darkplaces (again) [test it] nilyt 8 4,910 04-21-2015, 08:24 PM
Last Post: BuddyFriendGuy
  darkplaces wiki down .... hutty 4 4,828 10-13-2012, 09:47 PM
Last Post: hutty
  Parallelization of Xonotic (and Darkplaces engine) Sarge999 19 14,493 11-21-2011, 03:22 PM
Last Post: Sarge999
  [SOLVED] Compiling from GIT fails: darkplaces unfa 10 10,480 06-20-2011, 07:58 AM
Last Post: unicornsteak
  Darkplaces Code master[mind] 3 4,011 11-28-2010, 05:02 AM
Last Post: SavageX

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

Forum software by © MyBB original theme © iAndrew 2016, remixed by -z-