Show me where his post say's that. Show me. Right now.

Wait no. Don't. I don't want this thread derailed that so many others....

:)

What he said.

I shall not let you destroy the monument that Gonzo took years to construct for the billions who sacrificed their lives to save our sorry hives. Do you have any idea what this feeling we are going through - when all our hard work is burn down like firewood? This topic is adjourned until further notice. In other words...

DO NOT REPLY

-Zekilk
Edited by cyboryxmen on May 13, 2011 at 11:38 AM

OK
-Selentic
Edited by SeL on May 13, 2011 at 11:16 AM

Whoops didn't see he said that. My bad. Those are my last words on that subject for the time being.



For Gonzo: There is a way that you can put pretty much all the tags you want in your map.



TCK can tell you anything you need to know.


EDIT: messed it up xD Can't have that bad language in there now can we?
Edited by Skidrow925 on May 13, 2011 at 11:33 AM
Edited by Dennis on May 13, 2011 at 11:42 AM

Make the carrier just be scenery. It doesn't add up to your poly limit..


By the way, this map looks beyond incredible.

Gonzo, this is looking better with each update. I look forward to it!

Interesting. Can you direct me to a link for this child scenario tutorial?

Is it a general consensus amongst everyone that the Assault Carrier be reintroduced as scenery?

right here...
http://forum.halomaps.org/index.cfm%3Fpage=topic&topicID=37453

Yes, you should reintroduce the Carrier as scenery - and as an added bonus if you don't want players venturing over there - killbox it.

You do realize it would be most iconic to have a section inside each carrier as the main base, right?

Actually, you'd just end up with an Extinction2 scenario (it had launch bays in both carriers along with a test vehicle in each). The dual carrier hanger cliche has been run into the ground; the fact that he has only the UNSC carrier in map makes this rather unique in that it doesnt copy any other map scenario.

As far as the downed UNSC ship is concerned; have you planned on making its "hanger bay" distorted beyond entry from the "crash" to keep people from doing their usual sniping routine? And will their be destroyed ships and "corpses" around that as well as the bases?

There will be no access of any sorts to the downed UNSC ship. I believe the hanger is overused, as others have stated, and as much as I want to add a destroyed hanger to the model, it would cost me too much polys. Besides, if it were destroyed beyond entry, I feel it would be pointless in including it, considering to be destroyed beyond entry, its entrance would have to be pretty much sealed to prevent anyone from gaining access, thus concealing the majority of the destroyed interior.

By saying in the ship I didn't mean exactly the hangar. And if its not being used, its just a waste of geometry pretty much, same with most of the bsp. Any part of the bsp that isn't being used needs to be as low poly as possible since you probably wont see it.

what kind of vehicles will be in the map?

Well since it was able to handle 75k polies then I will assume the programmers were nice to computers and used the rule of 2. Therefore you can have 131,072 triangles before the game won't handle it. Or till tool won't like you. But do try and keep it somewhat below there. Use 100k as a limit for now and try to stay under, and DON'T USE THE STUPID HANGER. I hate that thing.

Since there's a lot of misinformation going on around here I'm going to step in.

The amount of geometry halo can handle in a bsp is pretty high, the amount it can render at once is not.



The amount of BSP that can be rendered from a single point is around 50k~ I'm not entirely sure as to the exact number though. Now this wouldn't be a problem, but halo renders the bsp multiple times, for reflections, lightmaps, etc (see picture), so keep in mind that just because your model is only so many triangles, ingame it will be significantly more.

I seriously doubt you'll get this to render properly ingame, especially since it's a humongous open box with virtually no way of effectively using portals.

hth

Thanks for your picture. Seeing as how you have 120K polys in memory, I'd say I no longer need to be as obsessed with the limit. I get that I'll have portaling issues, but such is the cost of a map this size. I'm looking at ways to crop it down, but I'm still releasing a large-scale map. The intent is to replace Extinction, so players like you can play on big maps without the fear of a butt-kicking, by noobs or not.

The 120k includes non bsp triangles, which are rendered separately and do not count towards the limit (You should be paying attention to the environment total). The actual model file of the level is 25k Triangles total, and from this camera point over double that is rendering at once. So yeah, the point I was trying to make is that you're going to be rendering significantly more than you think you will be.
Edited by SeL on May 14, 2011 at 09:28 PM

If i read Cereal Killer's post correctly in his Sapien thread, he said that you can add as many objects as you want using a "child scenario" linked through your main scenario. If this is correct then you don't need to worry about objects or scenery limitations. Not sure if i remembered seeing this posted here or not. (http://forum.halomaps.org/index.cfm%3Fpage=topic&topicID=37453)

Also, how is the map coming along?

I think there might be a problem....child scenarios are probably meant only for single-player maps, not multiplayer maps like this one.

I would think it would still work right though. Since it is technically 1 scenario but with separate part's that are brought together in tool/in-game.

Err, forgive me if I am wrong, but IIRC child scenarios (might) need to be loaded separately from the main scenario ingame, ie. through scripts.
This means that unless both players have the same child scenario loaded, they might see different things.
And scripts don't exactly sync over the internet...only if they trigger something such as a biped crush script would they sync, and then with limitations that most of us here would know.

From what I know (which I still need to test this) is that when using child scenario's is that it's all brought together with the parent scenario when compiled. I can test this later except I need some people to help me with it.

I'd like to help.

Looks great, I'd like to see how this map turns out.

agreed.

also. a progress report would be nice :)

Progress report: I have finished the interior of blue's addendum, and completely attached it to the addendum's exterior. I am now mapping the cliff faces and wrapping up the overall appearance of this exterior. Once this is done, it will be reinstalled in the main map, and I will move on to red's addendum. As I am not interested in performing a major overhaul of this addendum, I will simply be adding more 'stuff' to what I have now, rather than completely redesigning it. The idea here is to add more 'stuff' to the addendum, to give it a busier, more important feel.

Also, not too far away from where the addendum will be is a small Forerunner hanger meshed into some cliffs. I may post pictures of said hanger, but it's nothing too special. Just a hanger large enough to house a Ghost or two. It is a little large, in terms of more conventional (and familiar) interiors, such as the insides of bases, but it's not that big. It was actually going to be the original blue addendum, but it was too small and impractical (or so I thought) to dedicate to the intent of an addendum.

The Infinity pipes I had from the beginning have been removed. I never really liked those pipes from the start, anyway, and they were high-poly, considering how simple they were. I kept a few of the connecting structures intact, but the majority of cover for that area will now be composed of scenic additions.

The energy conduit may also be visited, and could see some changes to reduce the polys. It's a pretty big structure, so I may scale it down. I disagree with the large scale, as it is challenging to provide enough cover at a low poly count for something that large and open. Scaling it down will make it a bit more protected, and just makes more sense. I could see the conduits themselves being large, but not the surrounding detail. I created it on a larger scale initially so it would take away more of the terrain from the area, thus adding more variety.

As I draw near to the conclusion of the design stage of the map, I am worried about portaling and effectively limiting possible lag, as others have been keen on pointing out. That said, a possibility in the future may be that I delete red's side, thus constricting the map to one side, and seal the resulting gap between the map and the secondary wall. This will still keep a decent surrounding wall while at the same time significantly cutting down the polys. All of red's components (such as the base and addendum) will be relocated to the one side, and the chasm could be reoriented to divide the remaining side, so the minimap could still be a central aspect of the map.

If there are any objections, speak now or forever hold your peace. This could become reality unless other ideas are offered (note that it is not guaranteed to happen at this point).

Please keep things as they are. (completely removing red's addendum just kills this map' potential for large-scale assaults and loses a lot of credability if it were ever used for zombie slayer like CMT Snowgrove.) As far as the issue with portalling such a large map is concerned, we of the halomaps community can come up with some epic lensflares and smoke effects to limit sight range and cover clipping issues(which was extinctions biggest flaw). Don't cut it if you can cover it up(just like you have done with certain areas with 'collapsed tunnels') Really, for this to be done and done well it will require some major after effects.

I doubt Zombies will become popular on my map, and removing red's side certainly won't hamper its potential. It's too large, and I didn't design anything to seal the minimap (unless someone can implement scripts to seal it off). I was planning on including the Clipping Distance Changer as a solution to the clipping problem, albeit that would no doubt only induce more lag...

The clipping distance changer causes mass lag and didn't coldsnap have something along the lines of an 'anti-base' spawn script?

Seal it to its self, i am unsure how to explain this better but it should be easy.

man this is looking awesome.

How close are you to a downloadable map?

probably not very, about 7/10 complete, seeing the stuff he will need to do to get the map ingame.
But keep your eyes peeled.