Put the wish list for porting projects HERE...

[L33F3R]

So why doing it this way? It has one important advantage: versatility. If you don't code this editing support into your world editor people can use whatever 3D modelling application ( given the format is free, which in the case of Stalker had been a Maya plugin for example ) they work fastest with for creating the geometry. Don't underestimate blender and other apps on modeling buildings. Those are highly sophisticated applications so anybody skilled in their use ( and in a real game production you have skilled artists ) produces the required assets with easy and in time. So that's no argument against this technique.

With a modeling program you get absolute control which i really like.

But when you speak in terms of speed in development I would have to argue against that.

My argument is 7 posts above. Give the level a spin and you will see that the technique does not work well for everyone. I'm not sure how long it took them to put "urban warfare" together but it would have taken me 30 minutes to do that level in worldcraft and 1 hour in radiant at most (a year ago and with a redbull). Certainly they could have at least made it at a playable state in a similar amount of time if your augment holds true. Actually it does hold true, but the skill needed is far beyond the vast majority of our development population and requires the years of experience few of us have had. I am speaking in terms of a single digit percent.

If what you say is true then how come the over-licensed Unreal engine 3 boasts unreal ed? It works alot like a modeling program (i admit & enjoy) but its still brushes. Im not saying thats the right way to do it at all - every licensee says it is. Radiant is still heavily used, Crytek has their own special editor, Valve has hammer. Gosh darnit we are pretty much covering the market aren't we?

As you said, not everyone can make their own special sauce or use someone else's. Sucks to be them. Guess they need to be good with the editor or be able to use it more efficiently with plugins or layouts. You can obtain better results if you model 100% of it but as we can see using real world examples, its not practical except for terrain.

Now from your comments I take it you are a brush-mapper?

Both I haven't done any real level building in over a year tho. As far as i know i cant do either anymore XD.

[Dragonlord]

My argument is 7 posts above. Give the level a spin and you will see that the technique does not work well for everyone. I'm not sure how long it took them to put "urban warfare" together but it would have taken me 30 minutes to do that level in worldcraft and 1 hour in radiant at most (a year ago and with a redbull). Certainly they could have at least made it at a playable state in a similar amount of time if your augment holds true. Actually it does hold true, but the skill needed is far beyond the vast majority of our development population and requires the years of experience few of us have had. I am speaking in terms of a single digit percent.

As I expected: a brusher. Don't get me wrong, that's no attack, it's just that brushers work by blocking out entire maps using a convex brush technique ( or a derivative thereof ). The problem here is that this technique works well only for your typical DM style maps. As soon as you crank up the detail of the map and making interesting geometry using brushes can heavily slow you down. I know it, been there done that. There are also some other technical problems but they depend to some degree on the way your engine is constructed ( I have for example what I call 'visibility meshes' and they can only be done fast in a 3D app like blender ). So while brushing had been great in older games they hit limits today. See next point.

If what you say is true then how come the over-licensed Unreal engine 3 boasts unreal ed? It works alot like a modeling program (i admit & enjoy) but its still brushes. Im not saying thats the right way to do it at all - every licensee says it is. Radiant is still heavily used, Crytek has their own special editor, Valve has hammer. Gosh darnit we are pretty much covering the market aren't we?

Concerning UnrealEngine this is not a brush technique after all. It's a carving technique which is the inverse of the brushing technique ( you subtract from solid space instead of adding to empty space ). Not everybody likes this way of editing but that's also true for brushing. Now what is the catch? UT3 has a lot of rather oddly shaped and highly concave level geometry. Done with carving? Nope. What they did is using a 3D app and importing the complex concave geometry into their level. Hence the carving ( like the brushing ) has already hit their limits so they had to resort to importing triangle meshes made in a 3D app since it would have been too time consuming to do it using carving. So as you can see also the big boys in engine design resort to brute force triangle meshes for their current AAA titles.

By the way, Radiant has nothing to do with this argument at all. It's a radiosity precalculation tool. It does not edit or create geometry, it just lights it.

Like always in information technologies it's not a single solution which cuts the deal. I use also in my engine various ways of creating level geometry since some techniques work better with certain scenarios. So the trick is to know your tools and use them properly not just calling them rubbish.

[L33F3R]

God damn man not a soul here can beat you at a debate can they . Nevertheless it is an enjoyable and enlightening one

Best combining the 3 major brush editors is simply CSG. Which is the term i should be using.

As I expected: a brusher.

You either read poorly or you ignore the fact that i mentioned i did both. I personally belive in #2.

UT3 has a lot of rather oddly shaped and highly concave level geometry. Done with carving? Nope. What they did is using a 3D app and importing the complex concave geometry into their level.

This practice has been used for a long long time. It is very effective and highly recommended.

By the way, Radiant has nothing to do with this argument at all. It's a radiosity precalculation tool. It does not edit or create geometry, it just lights it.

I do hope you know i meant GtkRadiant and derivatives.

GtkRadiant is a level design program developed by id Software and Loki Software. It is used to create maps for a number of computer games. It is maintained by id Software together with a number of volunteers.

Like always in information technologies it's not a single solution which cuts the deal. I use also in my engine various ways of creating level geometry since some techniques work better with certain scenarios.

This is very true

So the trick is to know your tools and use them properly not just calling them rubbish.

noone called anything rubbish

BTW whizse The MAW looks like a fun game

[Dragonlord]

God damn man not a soul here can beat you at a debate can they .

One can: Svartalf :P

You either read poorly or you ignore the fact that i mentioned i did both. I personally belive in #2.

You said:

I'm not sure how long it took them to put "urban warfare" together but it would have taken me 30 minutes to do that level in worldcraft (...)

Hammer is WC which in turn is a brush based world editor. A brusher is a Hammer/WC user. That's my line of reasoning.

I do hope you know i meant GtkRadiant and derivatives.

Nope, I referred to the radiant tool to produce the lighting. If you talk about GtkRadiant then write GtkRadiant

noone called anything rubbish

Mark your own words:

I'm not sure how long it took them to put "urban warfare" together but it would have taken me 30 minutes to do that level in worldcraft

For buildings its a total time killer.

So making level geometry in a modeling application is crap according to your words. I could misread you there but this sounds to me like a war declaration on creating map geometry using a modeling applications.

[L33F3R]

Hammer is WC which in turn is a brush based world editor. A brusher is a Hammer/WC user. That's my line of reasoning.

Ahh oke that makes more sense.

Nope, I referred to the radiant tool to produce the lighting. If you talk about GtkRadiant then write GtkRadiant

kk ill remember next time

So making level geometry in a modeling application is crap according to your words. I could misread you there but this sounds to me like a war declaration on creating map geometry using a modeling applications.

Negative. I indeed said it was slow i diddnt say it was crap. Infact i said at 5:24

With a modeling program you get absolute control which i really like.

and

You can obtain better results if you model 100%

[Dragonlord]

If you say something is slow for creating level geometry doesn't this mean it unsuitable ( or crappy ) for making level geometry? Just because to my understanding if somebody labels a tool or method slow then it means it's bad or ill suited.

[L33F3R]

well im alot less productive in GtkRadiant then in Hammer, Although the work i produce in GtkRadiant is alot higher quality. Theoretically if you spend more time on something it gets better but I dont think it applies here (well it does obviosly but it doesnt). I think its because you work at a lower level, Similar to visual basic vs c++. I have heard some people label the difference between 3DSMAX and Maya in similar respects but unfortunately I am ill suited to judge this myself.

I think the same is true when modeling building geometry. You work at a lower level giving you more control. I dont feel the high/low level concept fits well here but im fairly sure you can catch my flow.

[curaga]

Partly related - are there any FOSS easy to use modelers?

Reference: I learned NetRadiant in a few hours. And tried Blender for days and still can't use it.

[Dragonlord]

Blender is the best, no questions asked. You have to simply forget your Windows induced clicky-colorfully way of handling a GUI. Blender is about raw power. You setup the panels to match your work flow. You work mainly with 1-key commands and mouse. Take the time to learn it, it's really worth it.

[Dragonlord]

well im alot less productive in GtkRadiant then in Hammer, Although the work i produce in GtkRadiant is alot higher quality. Theoretically if you spend more time on something it gets better but I dont think it applies here (well it does obviosly but it doesnt). I think its because you work at a lower level, Similar to visual basic vs c++. I have heard some people label the difference between 3DSMAX and Maya in similar respects but unfortunately I am ill suited to judge this myself.

I think the same is true when modeling building geometry. You work at a lower level giving you more control. I dont feel the high/low level concept fits well here but im fairly sure you can catch my flow.

This is incorrect. Blender ( or other modellers ) are in NO way low-level or bad/unsuitable as you claim it to be. You simply work differently. You don't stick brushes together to form geometry you extrude/sculpt/edit your meshes. In fact Blender has a much larger range of possible ways to edit a mesh for different purposes ( mesh/nurbs/subsurf/meta ) while brushing has only one solution. I really object to consider modeling applications bad/unsuitable for level editing giving their larger range of possibilities. And I also object that they are low-level.