Before you go snapping at nincompoops, consider this; what are the chances that people who generally annoy you on the thread are actually fairly good players? If you catch what i'm saying, most likely you or everyone else constantly pwn him ingame(so keep it that way). Otherwise there is the option of giving the map only to those you wish to play it; excluding morons.

On a happier note, custom scenery or objects(the stuff you drop on the map when compiling) saves you some polys. Make the sentinel walls scenery or objects maybe? Just a suggestion, but you may find it useful.

You speak the truth. However, I still believe it is polite to assume these people have some intelligence before I go insulting them. I don't want to start a war. Granted, this approach does not always work. Look at SeL's Requiem thread. But nevertheless, it's my policy. Thanks, though.

I considered making the main wall a scenery item, but threw out the notion, considering how large and integral it is in the map. But now that you mention it, it would save some polys, and would solve my problem of how to incorporate it into the rest of the map. However, I am worried about collision between the seam where the wall object meets the map terrain. I'm worried that players may be able to force themselves through that seam, as they seem to be able to do with the POA on Extinction. Still, it may work.

I don't think I can really make anything else major a scenery insertion, though I have placed more emphasis on scenic additions in lieu of more BSP designs. I use minor structures from various campaign maps, such as the towers that emit 'whale' sounds from a30 and b40 (also seen in c20), among other structures. Those would probably be best served as scenic items.

Oh, strangebrew, I suppose in that respect I slacked off in that planning. I personally want to see a wider variety of terrain and structures in my map, so that the map doesn't turn into some vehicular noobfest, as Extinction unfortunately became. All these additions I make will (hopefully) present more opportunities to travel on foot. With that in mind, I lost sight on maintaining a low poly count. I have such a hard time optimizing the detail out of what I create. It's like erasing work.

Looks like it's time to go from beginner to intermediate.

Retopology - Every game designer's best friend. This is the best way to optimize your mesh. Basically, retopology makes a low res model out of you high res model while giving it the same shape. That way, you don't need to worry about the limit until the mesh is completed and you can easily move the details of your high res model onto a texture. This method will also fix your mesh's topology(the way the verts are arranged and connected)

I don't know anything about Gmax's retopology tools but I do know a tutorial on how to use blender's one:http://www.blendercookie.com/2010/08/30/retopology-and-normal/

Edit: Gmax does not have any build-in retopology tools. You will need some external programs to do that for you. You have no choice. Deleting the details will just lower the map's potential.
-Zekilk
Edited by cyboryxmen on May 9, 2011 at 11:43 PM

Yeah...the closest thing I can come up with off the top of my head is an Optimize modifier. That essentially optimizes selected faces. I already performed two of those, and it cut the polys down by ~30K, because I always start of high poly, build what I want, then optimize (for terrain, anyways). I'll look into this, but honestly, the terrain is pretty low poly compared to everything else. I can optimize maybe 5K from that at best, but if I go further, the mesh will start to look horrible (at least more so than it is now).

Mootools Polygon Cruncher is far better that the Optimize modifier used in earlier max versions.

i'm glad you understood the way i was making my point.i really do hope this map will make it ingame and we all get to see the finished product.i have a strong feeling it's going to blow another lets say small map out of the water.

goodluck. ;)

No problem. I appreciate your suggestion, and for not blowing up.

Maniac, can you tell me more about it?

Going on these forums and seeing posts like this makes playing Russian Roulette a more and more attractive prospect.

First test for the halo engine: 132k polygons and 66k verts. Don't have a tri count yet. If this works.... your map will be fine...

132K polygons? Doesn't that equate to roughly twice as many triangles? That assumes, of course, that each polygon is defined as a rectangle, and as such is composed of two triangles. That's normally how it ends up for me in gmax, anyways. Nevertheless, if that works...if even 80K polys works...I'll have nothing to worry about, which would be downright awesome. I sincerely hope your tests return positive.

Well it took a LONG while (about 6 hours) to export the .jms. Finally compiling the BSP in tool. Should have results either later today or tomorrow.

And every poly is a tri. so it has 132,102 triangles.

EDit:

I was compiling and found an error:

building collinion geometry...
### ERROR couldn't add plane to geometry.
### ERROR failed to build collision geometry.
### ERROR faild to import collision bsp.


Might be my fault I am not sure though. A little debuggin should fix it later.
Edited by Skidrow925 on May 10, 2011 at 04:46 PM

Is your test BSP actually designed? Or is it merely a large plane that was uber-tessellated?

I do believe I am finally finished with blue's addendum, in terms of design. Here's the album:
http://img19.imageshack.us/g/blueaddendumfinal.jpg/

Main shot:


I added a small parapet from Halo 2's Sacred Icon to the edges of the light bridge region. Four on the main side, and two on the far side. I modified a snippet of a30 to add a sort of small wall by the bridge region. You can see it as some weird structure just left of center. It's basically there to add a final structure to break up the open space. I also modified Ice Field's teleporter hub to be larger. It is located towards the top of the image, centered in between the ramp and entrance to the atrium (new term for the region surrounding the entrance to the hallway).

I also added in the bridge beam emitters, and twisted/damaged them accordingly. The idea is that the bridge was deployed when it was hit by a large explosion (underlying plot undetermined).

Closeups:


Here you can see the design of that modified bit from a30 I spoke of. I find it interesting. I wanted it to look much more detailed and have a more intricate design, but I swear: I could not come up with any decent design for the life of me. What you see is the result of about an hour and a half of minor adjustments and screen staring.

The two identical, vertical towers ('whale' towers from a30/b40/c20) are not permanent; I do not know if I should include them there, or at all, at this point. Tell me if you feel one or both towers should go there, somewhere else, or nowhere else.

The teal tent is the same tent from Extinction (and thus from other maps). I put it in just to see how things would match up. I figure this addendum could hold clues to an encounter between a small human force and a larger Covenant detail. I plan on including human and Covenant elements throughout the addendum to bear testament to that encounter.

Another view:


Nothing much else to say. I plan on including a second tent, and a tank will likely spawn in that alcove you see by the second tent, under the ramp.

Quickly tell me if something should be changed regarding this addendum. I feel I am done, aside form mapping. If no one says anything, this will likely result in the final work for this addendum. Given that this addendum is now ~12K, I will not be adding as much detail to red's equivalent. I'll modify it so it sits on a more equal basis with blue's rendition, but I don't think I'll be able to add all the changes I'd like. If Skidrow's test returns positive, however, then I will be one happy guy, and will be able to add those changes after all, among adding some more extensions to other elements. These extensions are solely visual, and don't really add anything to gameplay. They just add more mystery to a given area.

Those pics make me want to play your map more and more, Gonzo - they're that sexy.

This may be a bit annoying to you but can you post the topside render of the map and label where your minimap is? I'm just trying to get a scope on all of this.

As for your issue with making the sentinel wall purely scenery(and the gap issues attatched); either make the collision geometry slightly larger than the wall itself (thus making the "gap" unreachable) or leave it be and place a killbox at its base with an autorespawn script for the vehicles there. This will prevent people (IE-me) from making airial vehicles disappear through bsp holes.(i use it for an emergency escape when under attack so keep the flaming to a minimum)

Thanks, UBE.

If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying use a different physics file for the scenery item's collision? Bear with me if I am incorrect; the only times I've ever messed with scenery items were when I attempted to make some simple testing shapes for experimenting with bitmaps and shaders.

I also have a concern with the fact that my model has open edges. Sealing the model is a simple matter, but would create more faces (unnecessary ones, since those faces would never be seen). If I can avoid that, I will. Will using a different physics file (i.e. one that is a simple, box representation of the wall) allow me to leave my model as is, with open edges?

looking good gonzo!

Very well. This brings up a new question, however: the HEK tutorial is not clear as to how special shader symbols are to be used in conjunction with the rather annoying fact that each material used must have a shader of exactly the same name. Every time I add a '!' (as an example) to a material, tool complains that I don't have a matching shader file. I tried simply appending the '!' to one of the material names (i.e. to the actual material name, not the shader name), but then that somehow negated the whole point of render-only. The whole coordination of shader symbols, and shader file names confuses me, and unfortunately, I haven't found a tutorial that has helped.

You can have more than 1 object attatched to the frame.
You can just jamb objects through other objects, intersecting objects are ok too.
They do sometimes cause collision problems, like if you sit a box on top of another box and have the top face of one in the exact same space as the bottom face of the other box.
But if you jamb the boxes through each other, it works fine.
I dunno if that will help you or not.

Again, great pics, Gonzo! Looks awesome. The two whale towers actually look nice where they are, so I would say either leave them or get rid of them completely. And I'm with switchblade, some arial pics would be cool to see how the map as a whole is coming along.

As requested:



The colored dots indicate the rough locations of teleporters. Corresponding dots (i.e. same color) represent links. As of right now, all links are planned to be two-way. I have not finalized this layout, and I still have some hubs designed in that do not have any links right now.

As for the components: the minimap's location should be fairly obvious, and both bases are roughly centered on their respective sides.

Blue's addendum, since it is incomplete at the moment, will be where that green segment of the BSP is. I detached it for editing in a different scene, and when I finish work there, I will merge it back in, replacing the green segment with the new one. It will have a personnel entrance (the circle on the right), and a vehicle entrance (circled on the left).

Red has an energy conduit (which may get a few features deleted from it, to save polys), and its addendum (awaiting modification) is located to the far left.

From the looks of it, it almost seems as though red and blue spawn on the same side (being on the left, instead of opposite corners for the addendums). Do you think that - with this configuration - people will take the time and effort to scope out your entire map, or will they just skip to the chase and go for the kill/flag?

Nonetheless, I would go on LAN just to scope this place out myself. I wouldn't mind spending hours on end trying to find everything, simply because it would look beautiful enough for me to STAY in the map for that long :3

Well I am guessing the 1322,102 tir map didn't work because it isn't a power of 2. I was talking to someone and they said I should try it in power's of 2. Therefore I will try 131,072 tris next. And what I am using is a box, tess'ing the bottom and applying a displace and the texture I used for the displace. Then moving a couple face's around.

I see the human Carrier but not the covenant ship in your overview; does that mean its been removed entirely or is it underconstruction like the addendums?

Also, will the creves at the center of the map be scalable(by hog or on foot) or jumpable via hog? (if not its fine; if it is it will prevent bridge camping but pretty much divert all fighting away from the minimap) Will you be employing the fixed vehicle teleporters from Downflow to ease map travel?

lol what? Power of Two is for textures, not for polies.

Gonzo, you should really make that wall a Scenery. If you want to make sure noone can get through, you can also add Playerclip material or something akind. This will really ease your task. I think the individual model poly size is around 30 000. Avoid Using Optimize. I cannot emphasize enough how much it can mess your mesh and make your map not pass tool. Also, for the poly limit, I would advise never breaching 80 000. In RPG_Beta6.2 I was slightly under that. The problem you can run into is tagspace. I don't know if you've looked into that but here's how it usually works. Tagspace is 23MB - BSP. with 75 000 polies in RPG_Beta6.2, I had about 17MB of my 23mb tagspace dedicated to BSP. This really didn't allow me to add all vehicles, weapons and tags I wanted in the map.

If I remember correctly, most of the spawns will be located in the bases, which are fairly centrally located on their respective sides, with a few spawns in the addendums.


QFT. I usually do that for most new maps anyway, but especially this one.


I believe it will be off to the far left sunk in the ocean, mainly just as a scenery item.


I doubt it, looking at the close ups of the central mini-map a few pages earlier it looks far too wide.
Edited by nick347b on May 11, 2011 at 10:12 PM

UBE: I'm glad you'd find hours on end in my map entertaining. I see what you mean about same-sided spawning. I'm not concerned too much about morons camping. Snipers certainly won't be as easy to come by as they were in Extinction. The cliffs are not scalable, so the only land access to the other side is the bridge or teleporters. I may try to add another means of crossing the chasm, since one method will likely create bottlenecking. I feel most people will go for the kill or flag, rather than camp.

Skidrow: I'm pretty sure that powers of two deal applies only to bitmaps, not models. Maybe 132K is simply too much to construct.

Switchblade: the carrier has been removed. It was costing me 1.5K, and it seemed too convenient to have the two ships crash so close to each other. The ship would have been inaccessible anyway. Not sure what you mean by fixed vehicle teleporters. I would like to include vehicle teleporters that work on all land vehicles, however. My scripting knowledge is not encompassing enough to accomplish that goal, however, so anyone who has the knowledge to do so is welcome to try.

By fixed, i mean there was no jmpiness when exiting the vehicle teleporter and the ports in Downflow not only allowed all reasonable sized vehicles to be teleported will any and all passengers or gunners. (i managed to get the wraith through one so i suppose i'd call that fixed, in comparison with extinction's "hog only" ports.) Also, were you planning to make the broken bridge in the addendum a vehicle port? (cause that would be epic; but only one direction of course, we dont need vehicle noobery.)

The broken bridge is a purely scenic addition. It serves no purpose in gameplay whatsoever. I will incorporate some of the aforementioned fixed vehicle teleporters in as well.

Gonzo: The Covie Ship can be Scenery... at that point it doesn't count towards your poly limit, Especially if you don't intend players to use it.

He designed the epic as a Requiem for his wife
-Zekilk

The horrors of what happened in Reach, the torment suffered by so many individuals, is a story not only of galactism but of intergalacticsm. Nor is it only about the past, or even Earth and her colonies; it is about now and many other areas of the Galaxy where intergalacticsm follows it's twisted logic towards a 'Great Journey'.

Outside the outskirts of Extinction, there is a monument known as 'Requiem' - which means 'An act or token of remembrance':

Even unto them will I give
In mine house and within my walls
An act or token of remembrance
better than of sons and of daughters
I will give them everlasting remembrance;


This is what Gonzo's story does, gives a 'remembrance' to what happened to Earth and her colonies earlier next century and ensures that we resist being 'cut off' from the horrors of intergalacticsm wherever it occurs.

-Archer1
Edited by lemarr on May 13, 2011 at 10:44 AM

The reason I would think the power of 2 would apply to BSP's is because of the way most programs work. Powers of 2 are nice round numbers that are nice to computers. That is why bitmaps are supposed to be power of 2. However only the poly limit would be a power of 2. Also TCK found a way to increase tagspace in a single scenario using child-parent scenarios. He has a tutorial somewhere...





are you being serious?


EDIT: fixed my epic fail
Edited by Skidrow925 on May 13, 2011 at 10:52 AM

Actually, this thread was made and this map publicized 7 months earlier than Sel's, so in reality Sel is the name stealer. Maybe you should do a little more research next time before blaming someone for something they didn't do.

Sorry Gonzo, couldn't help myself.

nop