Quake3World

My crappy, blocky, ol'skool quake 3 stuff (at least I've got rocks).



Textures by Evillair and the Tremulous team, thanks to Sock for the Phong-Shading tutorial.

looking not bad. i would consider moving the light texture from the arch/support pieces to the hallway pieces. does that make sense? yeah didn't think so... moving along

also it looks very blue... not that there is anything wrong with that.

It seems like a cold place in winter.

Looks a bit too fullbright, I'd try making the lights in the area a little less bright, so some shadows get in there on the walls, that should help a bit.

You're right. I'll make it less bright and also a but less blue.

Painted a brick and snow texture real quick just to try out this theme for my map. If anyone played episode 3 of Daikatana, that's basically the theme I'm going for.

[lvlshot]http://image.bayimg.com/iagioaabp.jpg[/lvlshot]

Scales dude! Either those are the smallest trees known to man or that maps a little on the odd side, scale wise

o'dium wrote:Scales dude! Either those are the smallest trees known to man or that maps a little on the odd side, scale wise

There's a thread with an alpha of the map in here, maybe you can try it out:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=33456

Haven't heard any complaints on scale from anyone though, so I guess it's the trees that are too small.

I don't think they're too small, maybe the map scale just seems odd when you look at. Compared to the player they're of pretty good size I think.

[lvlshot]http://image.bayimg.com/lahanaaba.jpg[/lvlshot]

Ahh forgive me, its not you, its Quake 3...

The guns will looks huge no matter what. The player models, tiny, but the actual view makes you look larger.

So in other words, double the size of the trees, and you end up with it looking nice and better, but then you get ingame and walk around and the trees are the wrong size.

Its not your fault, more the Q3 scale system. Glad it was fixed in Q4.

tbh checking out this thread makes me want to take a detour back into MP mapping. i miss the way of thinking about the game space, which is totally different from SP mapping

plus i've noticed how Q3 mappers never felt an overwhelming need to always make their maps look vaguely like a real place. in a way, inferior graphics (inferior by today's standards) seems to be an aid to creativity, since it shifts the focus more heavily on to geometry and general the treatment of space vis a vis gameplay

oh shit, i said "vis a vis"

*obligatory architect picture*

ALMighty wrote:I don't think they're too small, maybe the map scale just seems odd when you look at. Compared to the player they're of pretty good size I think.

I thought the tree scaling looked wrong as well before you posted the image with the q3 player in it. Now I am thinking that the castle structures in the background might be a bit to big, but I might be wrong haven't played with q3 in ages.

seremtan wrote:oh shit, i said "vis a vis"
*obligatory architect picture*

Anyhow, not been around here for a while, but nice to see there's still a lot of good work being churned out. Don't think you guys are ever going to stop. As for me I haven't touched a level editor for ages

g0th- wrote:

ALMighty wrote:I don't think they're too small, maybe the map scale just seems odd when you look at. Compared to the player they're of pretty good size I think.

I thought the tree scaling looked wrong as well before you posted the image with the q3 player in it. Now I am thinking that the castle structures in the background might be a bit to big, but I might be wrong haven't played with q3 in ages.

Or maybe the brick texture. I think the highlights are too large, making the bricks look out of scale. Try reducing the highlights in size (or set the texturescale to 0.25), that should look better.

Grudge wrote:

g0th- wrote: I thought the tree scaling looked wrong as well before you posted the image with the q3 player in it. Now I am thinking that the castle structures in the background might be a bit to big, but I might be wrong haven't played with q3 in ages.

Or maybe the brick texture. I think the highlights are too large, making the bricks look out of scale. Try reducing the highlights in size (or set the texturescale to 0.25), that should look better.

I just painted that texture really fast, and I've never painted my own textures before without using photographs. I think you're right about the scale being too large now that I look at it. That's the kind of feedback I need so thanks a lot for opening my eyes.

Usually, at least for me with regards to map scale vs function, I've always gone with a simple rule...

Power of two.

Now, you all know that when you make a texture it needs to be power of two, right? Well, follow that rule but in the same texture.

What I mean is, you dont make a floor texture with 5 tiles on it, because it looks "odd". Not only that but some of the scales will be different (i.e. one tile could be 62x62, another 61.786x61.786.)

Now, the reason I say this is both for a clean visual side of things AND so its easier to map with. Complete and exact power of two scales on objects withen the texture will map 1:1 to the brush work in game, no matter what brush size you use. Its just "Clean".

Just a tip, anyway. Its not a rule I stick to really, its more of a guide line.

o'dium wrote:Usually, at least for me with regards to map scale vs function, I've always gone with a simple rule...

Power of two.

Now, you all know that when you make a texture it needs to be power of two, right? Well, follow that rule but in the same texture.

What I mean is, you dont make a floor texture with 5 tiles on it, because it looks "odd". Not only that but some of the scales will be different (i.e. one tile could be 62x62, another 61.786x61.786.)

Now, the reason I say this is both for a clean visual side of things AND so its easier to map with. Complete and exact power of two scales on objects withen the texture will map 1:1 to the brush work in game, no matter what brush size you use. Its just "Clean".

Just a tip, anyway. Its not a rule I stick to really, its more of a guide line.

Thanks! I'll keep that in mind next time.

i vote for a moratorium on broken floor tiles in maps

this moratorium could last for, say, one thousand years?

seremtan wrote:oh shit, i said "vis a vis"

*obligatory architect picture*

You're full of crap, but in a clever way. I like that in a person.

o'dium, regarding scale, coniferous trees come in pretty much every size--anything from inches-tall bonsai to nearly 400-foot tall behemoths, so I'm not sure what a scale problem would be?

Solidly behind you regarding sticking with powers-of-two when possible for patterned textures though; the example with the 5x5 tiles is a good one. There's always a bit of extra tedium involved when you want to do anything other than just slap them on a surface.

ALMighty, that's a cool look. Q3 needs more snow.

Well, scale in real life VS scale in a video game is a different beast IMO.

You see in real life, you could say "Well, wouldn't there be leaves on the ground near that tree? Wouldn't the roots be visible? In fact if the tree is so close to those walls, the roots may even go up to the wall and pull some bricks away?"

But thats just to complex.

Instead, at least with old game mapping like this, we look at things like a semi blind man would. When you map for MP, you always, IMO of course, map for the hard of sight. i.e. you look at what you have, then examine not the detail, but the block shapes. Its also been linked to Lego.

What this means, is you examine the outline, not the detail. What strikes you at first glance is usually a problem, not a fix. If something hits you in the fact when you look at it, try and figure out why. In this case, I looked at the shots and I had a problem with scales, my mind couldn't quite judge what was going on. Now I'm willing to accept maybe I'm so used to mapping for realistic surroundings these days that Quake 3 has suddenly left my mind. But what do you think of when you see trees like that, in that situation? Well, I dont see 6 foot tall trees I see larger ones that add to the level.

In other words, I may be wrong, I may be spot on. Having not "played" the level, I cant say for sure. I know for a fact that looking at a game as a spectator and playing the game are two different beasts in Quake 3, thanks to the "dwarf code" id software used (i.e your view height is, well, not that great).

Looking back, i still get the double impression... One shot with no player looks so wrong, one with the player doesn't look wrong, it looks off, strange...

Maybe its just the Q3 engine... Maybe I'm so fucking used ot actually placing ROOTS, LEAVES, BROKEN WALLS, and individual patches of dirt these days that my mind has drawn a blank...

Maybe...

Just maybe

that gun looks ginormous, too. (edit: looks like it's probably just perspective)

but on the thought of the tree scale - it's not uncommon for trees like that to be considerably larger than they are. is it possible to scale them up 2x or 3x and see how it looks? following o'dium's point, it likely wouldn't look unnatural compared to either the player or the geo.

alos, to be nitpicky, i was trying to figure out what was going on with the shadows. the trees seem to create their own shadows which don't follow the direction/angle of the shadows create by the geo?

o'dium wrote:stuff

Ah, okay. I see what you're saying. Not just absolute scale, but scale vs. detail vs. overall granularity of the setting as well as the models. You have a point, but yeah, it's a tough one to remedy sometimes, unless you want to start creating all the assets yourself. Most people (including myself) are way too damn lazy.

wattro wrote:that gun looks ginormous, too. (edit: looks like it's probably just perspective)

Nah, it's a known issue that the scale in Q3 (models, geometry, player size, etc.) is weird when compared with anything approaching real life. Note that this statement applies to most games that aren't trying to be ultra-realistic.

pjw wrote:

wattro wrote:that gun looks ginormous, too. (edit: looks like it's probably just perspective)

Nah, it's a known issue that the scale in Q3 (models, geometry, player size, etc.) is weird when compared with anything approaching real life. Note that this statement applies to most games that aren't trying to be ultra-realistic.

nah, it looked big for even q3, but comparing screenshots, it was just perspective.

ALMighty wrote:...If anyone played episode 3 of Daikatana, that's basically the theme I'm going for.

Hardly EVER do I hear anything that sounds like "I'm emulating Daikatana".

More screens, less talk! :X