Help
Duke4.net
DNF #1
Duke 3D #1
From a neutral and unbiased standpoint, why would one map for Duke3D instead of Quake (and sequels), Half-Life, or Serious Sam? What are the pros and cons of mapping for Duke3D?
A question to mappers
#2 Posted 05 November 2014 - 11:59 AM
PikaCommando, on 05 November 2014 - 11:22 AM, said:
From a neutral and unbiased standpoint, why would one map for Duke3D instead of Quake (and sequels), Half-Life, or Serious Sam? What are the pros and cons of mapping for Duke3D?
What attracted me to Duke 3D above all other first person shooters was the tile art. It provided the mapper with the flexibility to pull off some amazing designs while having more freedom to do different environments unlike other game engines. I also found the Build / Mapster editor extremely easy to use and more efficient then say Hammer / World craft editor. I also prefer shooting the AI in Duke a lot more than other game titles. The game play in Duke 3D has a great balance between enemies and different types of weapons offering many different strategies such as: Jet pack, pipe bombs, laser trip mines, freezer & shrinker. The weapon selection alone makes other titles boring and even though the story line was a bit of a stretch, it still felt like it could be true to life. On top of that, Duke was Co-op from start to finish and good games do not forget about Co-op play. Multi-player ultimately gives the game much replay value. Presently, there is still an awesome community coming up with fresh new improvements like TROR (True Room Over Room) & HRP (High Resolution Pack, Mods, original custom user maps, scripts, and so much more. So many things aligned perfectly to make this game what it is, which is why the game and the community still thrive today.
The bottom line: Guns and strippers in the same game just make it that much more of a turn on.
This post has been edited by Paul B: 06 November 2014 - 09:51 PM
#3 Posted 05 November 2014 - 12:26 PM
I'll try to explain the thing with some words...
Everything seem to be possible with this game. Any environment, any atmosphere in mapping is still achievable.
The first game at the time which gave me the possibility to make a level... and I had found the result both realistic and crazy ; under the second degree, and above all "kitsch".
"kitsch" is IMO a good way to define that game. I've never found the same feeling with another game.
The editor is efficient, maybe ancient but...
I have that feeling of freedom, to bring to life my ideas or daydreams with that game.
The game's style is widely open, not enclosed into a "theme".
Everything seem to be possible with this game. Any environment, any atmosphere in mapping is still achievable.
The first game at the time which gave me the possibility to make a level... and I had found the result both realistic and crazy ; under the second degree, and above all "kitsch".
"kitsch" is IMO a good way to define that game. I've never found the same feeling with another game.
The editor is efficient, maybe ancient but...
I have that feeling of freedom, to bring to life my ideas or daydreams with that game.
The game's style is widely open, not enclosed into a "theme".
This post has been edited by David B.: 05 November 2014 - 12:29 PM
#4 Posted 06 November 2014 - 03:15 AM
My number one reason: convenience. Levels in Duke3D are simplistic compared to Quake’s levels, but it’s also easier and way faster to achieve.
In Quake and Half-Life (I think that's not completely true for Unreal and LithTech, but I might be wrong, never mapped for these) you work with solid volumes instead of "spaces". Draw the outline of a room in Build and there you have it: a room. In Quake, you have to use multiple solids, each one being a single wall (and don’t forget about the floor and ceiling). Even though there are plenty of ways you can achieve that (carve a brush into another or use the hollow brush tool), it quickly becomes a mess because it's getting harder and harder to know if the line is inside or outside the area you’re designing… or if this line is even relevant at all (if you have multiples floors on top of each other or complex architecture for example). Sure, there are a few workarounds like grouping brushes, regions views, hiding selection and such, but it's still WAY more complex than Build. You also need to be consistent in the way you organize these brushes: should you overlap walls or should you use a 45° angle to join them? Should the floor and ceiling support the walls or be included within the space formed by those walls? This last choice will define how many brushes will spawn whenever you carve a doorway in your wall.
And it gets trickier and trickier if you're unorganized ; but you’ll only noticed that after you tried to compile the map and get the infamous *leak* error.
You can go for truly more realistic levels with true 3D engines, and can do much more complex stuff: you don't even need to model custom objects as it is technically possible to do it with the level geometry. But then there's also all the processing that comes after: compiling a map can take a huge load of time and it gets worst when you have to explain VIS how to do its job properly: adding Hint brushes, breaking the architecture, turning structures into details or entities…
When I was a kid, the thing that mostly impressed me is the way Quake handles liquids: in Duke you had to make the exact same area, tag both sector properly and do all that stuff with Sector Effectors… In Quake, you only had to put a big brush with a water texture on it. That blew my mind back in the days ! "You mean I can put a cube of water floating in the air ?!" "yes, little Timmy. Yes, you can"
In Quake and Half-Life (I think that's not completely true for Unreal and LithTech, but I might be wrong, never mapped for these) you work with solid volumes instead of "spaces". Draw the outline of a room in Build and there you have it: a room. In Quake, you have to use multiple solids, each one being a single wall (and don’t forget about the floor and ceiling). Even though there are plenty of ways you can achieve that (carve a brush into another or use the hollow brush tool), it quickly becomes a mess because it's getting harder and harder to know if the line is inside or outside the area you’re designing… or if this line is even relevant at all (if you have multiples floors on top of each other or complex architecture for example). Sure, there are a few workarounds like grouping brushes, regions views, hiding selection and such, but it's still WAY more complex than Build. You also need to be consistent in the way you organize these brushes: should you overlap walls or should you use a 45° angle to join them? Should the floor and ceiling support the walls or be included within the space formed by those walls? This last choice will define how many brushes will spawn whenever you carve a doorway in your wall.
And it gets trickier and trickier if you're unorganized ; but you’ll only noticed that after you tried to compile the map and get the infamous *leak* error.
You can go for truly more realistic levels with true 3D engines, and can do much more complex stuff: you don't even need to model custom objects as it is technically possible to do it with the level geometry. But then there's also all the processing that comes after: compiling a map can take a huge load of time and it gets worst when you have to explain VIS how to do its job properly: adding Hint brushes, breaking the architecture, turning structures into details or entities…
When I was a kid, the thing that mostly impressed me is the way Quake handles liquids: in Duke you had to make the exact same area, tag both sector properly and do all that stuff with Sector Effectors… In Quake, you only had to put a big brush with a water texture on it. That blew my mind back in the days ! "You mean I can put a cube of water floating in the air ?!" "yes, little Timmy. Yes, you can"
- Honored Donor
-
#5 Posted 06 November 2014 - 05:27 AM
I just really like the gameplay. And I'm guess I'm used to the whole level designing process now. It seemed relatively easy to get into back in the day thanks to the infosuite. Plus the texture set and map effects are incredibly versatile and you can do quite a lot with them.
Btw with TROR you can have a cube of water floating in the air as well
Btw with TROR you can have a cube of water floating in the air as well
#6 Posted 06 November 2014 - 06:25 AM
alias conrad coldwood, on 06 November 2014 - 03:15 AM, said:
My number one reason: convenience. Levels in Duke3D are simplistic compared to Quake’s levels, but it’s also easier and way faster to achieve.
In Quake and Half-Life (I think that's not completely true for Unreal and LithTech, but I might be wrong, never mapped for these) you work with solid volumes instead of "spaces". Draw the outline of a room in Build and there you have it: a room. In Quake, you have to use multiple solids, each one being a single wall (and don’t forget about the floor and ceiling). Even though there are plenty of ways you can achieve that (carve a brush into another or use the hollow brush tool), it quickly becomes a mess because it's getting harder and harder to know if the line is inside or outside the area you’re designing… or if this line is even relevant at all (if you have multiples floors on top of each other or complex architecture for example). Sure, there are a few workarounds like grouping brushes, regions views, hiding selection and such, but it's still WAY more complex than Build. You also need to be consistent in the way you organize these brushes: should you overlap walls or should you use a 45° angle to join them? Should the floor and ceiling support the walls or be included within the space formed by those walls? This last choice will define how many brushes will spawn whenever you carve a doorway in your wall.
And it gets trickier and trickier if you're unorganized ; but you’ll only noticed that after you tried to compile the map and get the infamous *leak* error.
You can go for truly more realistic levels with true 3D engines, and can do much more complex stuff: you don't even need to model custom objects as it is technically possible to do it with the level geometry. But then there's also all the processing that comes after: compiling a map can take a huge load of time and it gets worst when you have to explain VIS how to do its job properly: adding Hint brushes, breaking the architecture, turning structures into details or entities…
When I was a kid, the thing that mostly impressed me is the way Quake handles liquids: in Duke you had to make the exact same area, tag both sector properly and do all that stuff with Sector Effectors… In Quake, you only had to put a big brush with a water texture on it. That blew my mind back in the days ! "You mean I can put a cube of water floating in the air ?!" "yes, little Timmy. Yes, you can"
In Quake and Half-Life (I think that's not completely true for Unreal and LithTech, but I might be wrong, never mapped for these) you work with solid volumes instead of "spaces". Draw the outline of a room in Build and there you have it: a room. In Quake, you have to use multiple solids, each one being a single wall (and don’t forget about the floor and ceiling). Even though there are plenty of ways you can achieve that (carve a brush into another or use the hollow brush tool), it quickly becomes a mess because it's getting harder and harder to know if the line is inside or outside the area you’re designing… or if this line is even relevant at all (if you have multiples floors on top of each other or complex architecture for example). Sure, there are a few workarounds like grouping brushes, regions views, hiding selection and such, but it's still WAY more complex than Build. You also need to be consistent in the way you organize these brushes: should you overlap walls or should you use a 45° angle to join them? Should the floor and ceiling support the walls or be included within the space formed by those walls? This last choice will define how many brushes will spawn whenever you carve a doorway in your wall.
And it gets trickier and trickier if you're unorganized ; but you’ll only noticed that after you tried to compile the map and get the infamous *leak* error.
You can go for truly more realistic levels with true 3D engines, and can do much more complex stuff: you don't even need to model custom objects as it is technically possible to do it with the level geometry. But then there's also all the processing that comes after: compiling a map can take a huge load of time and it gets worst when you have to explain VIS how to do its job properly: adding Hint brushes, breaking the architecture, turning structures into details or entities…
When I was a kid, the thing that mostly impressed me is the way Quake handles liquids: in Duke you had to make the exact same area, tag both sector properly and do all that stuff with Sector Effectors… In Quake, you only had to put a big brush with a water texture on it. That blew my mind back in the days ! "You mean I can put a cube of water floating in the air ?!" "yes, little Timmy. Yes, you can"
Have you tried the Serious Editor? It doesn't need any compiling at all, and anything you put in the editor will be viewed as if it's in-game and acts like that when you test the map within the editor. Is it like that with Mapster32 too?
#7 Posted 06 November 2014 - 06:31 AM
I absolutely love the Build engine. Whenever I play a Build game all I see is beauty everywhere (as long as we're talking about the original renderer at least). Out of all Build games, DN3D is the easiest to map for, the most user friendly (thanks to tutorials, mapster32, and the help you can get) and also the most versatile since you can pretty much do anything you want with the texture set as long as you have a little imagination.
However compared to other games though, I feel very limited by the effects and by enemies' behaviours. Both SW and Blood have better effects, and imo Blood has better enemies too, though both games are harder to map for.
I'm not interested in mapping for Quake or Half-Life. I don't like those games enough to have interest in mapping for them, there are things I like about them but also things I don't really like at all. I'm not interested at all in the few modern FPS that provide modding tools.
If I had to map for other games, I'd rather map for Doom and for other Build games. I've started a Doom map, and Doom mapping (especially modern Doom mapping) seems to be the easiest, fastest and most user friendly mapping I've ever seen; but it is also VERY limited in many ways (which is why so many Doom maps use custom textures and focus on gameplay a lot more, since that's all you can focus on).
I'm also 75% done making a SW map, which is very liberating as far as the effects and their possibilities goes. The surface of what could be done with vanilla SW effects has never even been scratched, it's pretty amazing (I suspect it's probably the same for Blood). However, it is also a LOT harder to get into even if you already know DN3D mapping, and I have to say that the texture set is far from being as versatile as in DN3D. It really is no lie when people praise DN3D's texture set and what you can do with it, I've never seen one as versatile as Duke's.
However compared to other games though, I feel very limited by the effects and by enemies' behaviours. Both SW and Blood have better effects, and imo Blood has better enemies too, though both games are harder to map for.
I'm not interested in mapping for Quake or Half-Life. I don't like those games enough to have interest in mapping for them, there are things I like about them but also things I don't really like at all. I'm not interested at all in the few modern FPS that provide modding tools.
If I had to map for other games, I'd rather map for Doom and for other Build games. I've started a Doom map, and Doom mapping (especially modern Doom mapping) seems to be the easiest, fastest and most user friendly mapping I've ever seen; but it is also VERY limited in many ways (which is why so many Doom maps use custom textures and focus on gameplay a lot more, since that's all you can focus on).
I'm also 75% done making a SW map, which is very liberating as far as the effects and their possibilities goes. The surface of what could be done with vanilla SW effects has never even been scratched, it's pretty amazing (I suspect it's probably the same for Blood). However, it is also a LOT harder to get into even if you already know DN3D mapping, and I have to say that the texture set is far from being as versatile as in DN3D. It really is no lie when people praise DN3D's texture set and what you can do with it, I've never seen one as versatile as Duke's.
This post has been edited by MetHy: 06 November 2014 - 06:34 AM
- Dr. Effector
-
#8 Posted 06 November 2014 - 10:35 AM
Having mapped for a lot of games I think that every engine gives the game it's own personality and it also gives a nice mindset when making stuff.
Doom - Anything goes, you can go for really obscure stuff and hectic enviroments, it will just work out. The engine is so simple when compared to other engines that it automatically results in a very distinctive style, not to mention the texture set which mostly forces you to have really ludicrous re-imaginings of areas. The biggest selling point for this engine is the speed of creating content, I can make a playable good map in just 2 hours and it could be a pretty decent one as well if it was a few more hours. It's something where the limitations almost become a self-aware mockery as while the limitations keep things very consistent, it still means that a lot of things are very predictable. This is also something why Doom is easy to learn but hard to master as there aren't as many unique things you can throw at the player.
With doom it's all about game play and doing more with less.
Duke - Duke is kind of like Doom but it allows so much more, it still has the advantage of rapid prototyping because just like doom the geometry is automatically sealed. However unlike doom, it also has one disadvantage due to the flexibility which makes it a bit slower. Instead of having a generic door with a few variables you are given total control which requires more effort (although logical after some experience). The personality comes from an amazing array of effects and while it could be even more flexible, people have demonstrated over the years on what can be done with the right combinations. Not to mention the room over/in room that is present in the engine itself. Loads of interactivity and the rather extensive access to the geometry itself trough effects always inspires with new ideas while still keeping things challenging.
Not to forget that the texture / sprite sets are already very extensive from more bizarre alien texturing all the way to shopping malls and space stations, Including the really extensive palette options.
Quake - Allows multi-level geometry, unlike Doom, it is a lot slower to work with this as you have to be more careful with grid sizes and making sure that the map doesn't leak.
Stock quake has horrible limitations as you have only 799 polys to deal with, anything more than that in the screen at once and it will start dropping it.
Unlike Doom and Duke, Quake allows much easier slope manipulation and very easy 3D trimming to be done and this design style is something that has carried in to future games and been even back ported back to Doom and Duke designs. While the texture set is rather dull and doesn't evoke the same personality as doom does, it still is rather consistent and the few themes you can do with it are quite solid and very good looking. However, the scripting is very bare and is more or less just a fully 3D version of doom, which is rather disappointing after such extensive development before Quake.
Half-Life - Very similar to quake when actually doing the mapping, but actually improves the texture set and vibrance. The modding community speaks for itself as the scripting is so extensive that you can create a whole immersive storyline with just the editor itself. HL has a lot of features that Quake was capable of but would have to be coded in manually (Quake C for instance). There aren't that many limitations on what you can do and in terms of variety is was more like a step towards Duke as well, however it's still limited when it comes to in-game geometry manipulation. Personally I think that HL1 has a really good balance and doesn't force you to take crazy detours as most effects are rather logical.
Source - This again is very similar to HL1, Source itself is technically just a mutated version of the original half-life that includes 3D displacement maps, models and very extensive scripting options. Moving to Source from HL1 or Quake shouldn't be a big issue (or the other way around) as Source's hammer is almost identical to the older worldcraft, to a point where it's starting to show it's age.
Source mapping can however be quite a bit slower as simple effects like automatic doors can't just be level geometry anymore so a lot of the additional details are done with careful model placement and decals. This hinders rapid map making more as the crude level geometry starts to act more as an insulation for the room while the models provide additional detail. This has moved slowly from "2004 HL2" towards a more and more model based geometry, portal 2 for instance probably doesn't have anything else than the outer geometry (walls, floor, ceiling) as brushes (level geometry) while other things like stairs, catwalks, etc.. are prefabricated models. This takes some of the fun out from mapping as you can no longer quickly manufacture a blocky chair for your map, having to resort to highly detailed models instead... which translates to using modelling software
I think that mapping for different engines makes a nice experience I say..
Mapping for quake really inspired me to try more of the 3D trimming and geometry in doom and duke by utilizing 3D parallax and other tricks. Also with doom being forced to do more with less, along with abstract geometry kinda inspires to try something similar with other games and to make it work. Duke also reminds about how important environment interactivity can be and how much cooler a door with a more exotic opening animation looks or having exploding walls / really crazy secrets etc..
Doom - Anything goes, you can go for really obscure stuff and hectic enviroments, it will just work out. The engine is so simple when compared to other engines that it automatically results in a very distinctive style, not to mention the texture set which mostly forces you to have really ludicrous re-imaginings of areas. The biggest selling point for this engine is the speed of creating content, I can make a playable good map in just 2 hours and it could be a pretty decent one as well if it was a few more hours. It's something where the limitations almost become a self-aware mockery as while the limitations keep things very consistent, it still means that a lot of things are very predictable. This is also something why Doom is easy to learn but hard to master as there aren't as many unique things you can throw at the player.
With doom it's all about game play and doing more with less.
Duke - Duke is kind of like Doom but it allows so much more, it still has the advantage of rapid prototyping because just like doom the geometry is automatically sealed. However unlike doom, it also has one disadvantage due to the flexibility which makes it a bit slower. Instead of having a generic door with a few variables you are given total control which requires more effort (although logical after some experience). The personality comes from an amazing array of effects and while it could be even more flexible, people have demonstrated over the years on what can be done with the right combinations. Not to mention the room over/in room that is present in the engine itself. Loads of interactivity and the rather extensive access to the geometry itself trough effects always inspires with new ideas while still keeping things challenging.
Not to forget that the texture / sprite sets are already very extensive from more bizarre alien texturing all the way to shopping malls and space stations, Including the really extensive palette options.
Quake - Allows multi-level geometry, unlike Doom, it is a lot slower to work with this as you have to be more careful with grid sizes and making sure that the map doesn't leak.
Stock quake has horrible limitations as you have only 799 polys to deal with, anything more than that in the screen at once and it will start dropping it.
Unlike Doom and Duke, Quake allows much easier slope manipulation and very easy 3D trimming to be done and this design style is something that has carried in to future games and been even back ported back to Doom and Duke designs. While the texture set is rather dull and doesn't evoke the same personality as doom does, it still is rather consistent and the few themes you can do with it are quite solid and very good looking. However, the scripting is very bare and is more or less just a fully 3D version of doom, which is rather disappointing after such extensive development before Quake.
Half-Life - Very similar to quake when actually doing the mapping, but actually improves the texture set and vibrance. The modding community speaks for itself as the scripting is so extensive that you can create a whole immersive storyline with just the editor itself. HL has a lot of features that Quake was capable of but would have to be coded in manually (Quake C for instance). There aren't that many limitations on what you can do and in terms of variety is was more like a step towards Duke as well, however it's still limited when it comes to in-game geometry manipulation. Personally I think that HL1 has a really good balance and doesn't force you to take crazy detours as most effects are rather logical.
Source - This again is very similar to HL1, Source itself is technically just a mutated version of the original half-life that includes 3D displacement maps, models and very extensive scripting options. Moving to Source from HL1 or Quake shouldn't be a big issue (or the other way around) as Source's hammer is almost identical to the older worldcraft, to a point where it's starting to show it's age.
Source mapping can however be quite a bit slower as simple effects like automatic doors can't just be level geometry anymore so a lot of the additional details are done with careful model placement and decals. This hinders rapid map making more as the crude level geometry starts to act more as an insulation for the room while the models provide additional detail. This has moved slowly from "2004 HL2" towards a more and more model based geometry, portal 2 for instance probably doesn't have anything else than the outer geometry (walls, floor, ceiling) as brushes (level geometry) while other things like stairs, catwalks, etc.. are prefabricated models. This takes some of the fun out from mapping as you can no longer quickly manufacture a blocky chair for your map, having to resort to highly detailed models instead... which translates to using modelling software
I think that mapping for different engines makes a nice experience I say..
Mapping for quake really inspired me to try more of the 3D trimming and geometry in doom and duke by utilizing 3D parallax and other tricks. Also with doom being forced to do more with less, along with abstract geometry kinda inspires to try something similar with other games and to make it work. Duke also reminds about how important environment interactivity can be and how much cooler a door with a more exotic opening animation looks or having exploding walls / really crazy secrets etc..
#9 Posted 11 November 2014 - 10:42 AM
By the way, how easy it is to make a new code/enemy/AI for BUILD?
- Turok Nukem
-
#10 Posted 14 November 2014 - 09:48 AM
I wish I could give an answer that wasn't biased but .. hmmm I cant seem to spit it out. Duke is king is why
- Speaker of the Outhouse
-
#11 Posted 14 November 2014 - 10:35 AM
PikaCommando, on 05 November 2014 - 11:22 AM, said:
From a neutral and unbiased standpoint, why would one map for Duke3D instead of Quake (and sequels), Half-Life, or Serious Sam? What are the pros and cons of mapping for Duke3D?
Because I'm stuck in the early to mid 90's for the types of games I like. Duke3D being my preferred FPS.
I used to submit my opinions and reviews of user made levels on the DN-R forum. Certain individuals got a little butt-hurt over my perceptions of their work and used the reasoning: "You can't possibly know how astronomically excellent my map is from a mere player's standpoint. You must have mapping experience in order to properly ascertain my greatness."
So using the readily available mapping FAQ's, tutorials, and documentation I learned how to make maps. With help from a few people in the community (mostly gambini, ck3d & merlijn who took the time to inspect my first map and give some very helpful feedback) I learned the finer points of level design.
Not that I'm any good at it, but it was pretty easy to figure out how to do with all the assets and assistance.
This post has been edited by Forge: 14 November 2014 - 10:36 AM
- Polymancer
-
#12 Posted 14 November 2014 - 03:24 PM
Build is ridiculously easy to use. I did a bit of level editing with the Q2 engine and ran into loads of problems with compiling and leaks. I personally found making levels with Build much easier to make. The only downside is having to print out the manual to find all the keys.
The big problem with Build is the renderer. You can use models and per-pixel lighting in EDuke32, but there are no particles and you are restricted by the 2.5D format to what sort of geometry you can get up to with your level design.
Not tried the SS editor.
The big problem with Build is the renderer. You can use models and per-pixel lighting in EDuke32, but there are no particles and you are restricted by the 2.5D format to what sort of geometry you can get up to with your level design.
Not tried the SS editor.
- Ancient Blood God
-
#13 Posted 14 November 2014 - 04:29 PM
Being able to sketch the map while actually getting the end result at the same time is invaluable. It's 2014 and you have to pre-draw your maps on paper for modern engines to make sure it's buildable doesn't seem very technologically advanced.
- Honored Donor
-
#14 Posted 14 November 2014 - 04:38 PM
Tea Monster, on 14 November 2014 - 03:24 PM, said:
you are restricted by the 2.5D format to what sort of geometry you can get up to with your level design.
Pfft, TROR mate.
#15 Posted 14 November 2014 - 05:45 PM
Maybe TeaMonster is referring to terrain and stuff like realistic cave interiors or other complicated curved and rounded walls,ceilings etc...
This post has been edited by Mark.: 14 November 2014 - 05:46 PM
- Honored Donor
-
#17 Posted 14 November 2014 - 07:48 PM
Mark., on 14 November 2014 - 05:45 PM, said:
Maybe TeaMonster is referring to terrain and stuff like realistic cave interiors or other complicated curved and rounded walls,ceilings etc...
Idk, DanM could pull those things off.
- Music Producer
-
#18 Posted 14 November 2014 - 11:31 PM
Micky C, on 14 November 2014 - 07:48 PM, said:
Idk, DanM could pull those things off.
He already did...
- Honored Donor
-
#19 Posted 14 November 2014 - 11:45 PM
That's what I meant, it is possible if you've got an eye for it.
#20 Posted 25 November 2014 - 05:07 AM
What's the best tutorial around? The one on wiki eduke seems pretty outdated (it says so there "as of 2011"). Is the Megaton Editor the same as Mapster32?
- Weaponized Autism
-
#21 Posted 25 November 2014 - 11:42 AM
Megaton Editor isn't even Duke's BUILD. It's the editor for the KenBuild test game, based on JonoF's GitHub sources.
Use Mapster32. That tutorial should be fine.
Use Mapster32. That tutorial should be fine.
- Dr. Effector
-
#22 Posted 25 November 2014 - 01:56 PM
Infosuite
This page has everything you will need.
Although I would just stick with the basic stuff and ignore all the effects until you are more comfortable with the editor.
I kind of feel like doing some video tutorials on how this works, do such actually exist?
Doombuilder has some from what I've seen.
This page has everything you will need.
Although I would just stick with the basic stuff and ignore all the effects until you are more comfortable with the editor.
I kind of feel like doing some video tutorials on how this works, do such actually exist?
Doombuilder has some from what I've seen.
- Honored Donor
-
#23 Posted 25 November 2014 - 02:34 PM
There aren't many mapping videos at all IIRC
What? I don't understand, if you're going to go through the effort of setting up an editor, you should at least go for JFBuild or something.
Unless Termit intentionally wanted to make the editor so bad that everyone would be forced to use mapster32, which would have been much better anyway.
Hendricks266, on 25 November 2014 - 11:42 AM, said:
Megaton Editor isn't even Duke's BUILD. It's the editor for the KenBuild test game, based on JonoF's GitHub sources.
What? I don't understand, if you're going to go through the effort of setting up an editor, you should at least go for JFBuild or something.
Unless Termit intentionally wanted to make the editor so bad that everyone would be forced to use mapster32, which would have been much better anyway.
#24 Posted 25 November 2014 - 04:08 PM
oasiz, on 25 November 2014 - 01:56 PM, said:
[url="http://infosuite.duke4.net/"]
Although I would just stick with the basic stuff and ignore all the effects until you are more comfortable with the editor.
I kind of feel like doing some video tutorials on how this works, do such actually exist?
Doombuilder has some from what I've seen.
Although I would just stick with the basic stuff and ignore all the effects until you are more comfortable with the editor.
I kind of feel like doing some video tutorials on how this works, do such actually exist?
Doombuilder has some from what I've seen.
I had the same idea, but always run into problems recording the 2D View of Mapster with FRAPS.
- Weaponized Autism
-
#25 Posted 25 November 2014 - 04:21 PM
blizzart, on 25 November 2014 - 04:08 PM, said:
I had the same idea, but always run into problems recording the 2D View of Mapster with FRAPS.
It should work now, since we use SDL2's SDL_Renderer functionality to present as an OpenGL surface in 8-bit mode. It should work best if your 2D and 3D video mode settings are the exact same, with 3D-mode set to 8-bit.
- Turok Nukem
-
#26 Posted 27 November 2014 - 04:05 PM
Hendricks266, on 25 November 2014 - 04:21 PM, said:
It should work now, since we use SDL2's SDL_Renderer functionality to present as an OpenGL surface in 8-bit mode. It should work best if your 2D and 3D video mode settings are the exact same, with 3D-mode set to 8-bit.
It does work and has been working good for a few months now actually
- Honored Donor
-
#28 Posted 27 April 2015 - 04:22 PM
PikaCommando, on 25 April 2015 - 09:48 AM, said:
Anyone know some good tutorial videos?
I'm uploading mapping videos, will be upping the next one soon.
Here's my channel
https://www.youtube.com/user/RealDavoX
#29 Posted 28 April 2015 - 05:59 AM
Just a note from a guy that cannot mod and knows nothing about it: this is a damn interesting thread to read! 
- Honored Donor
-
#30 Posted 28 April 2015 - 04:41 PM
Would be interested to see what you can come up with Blue Lightning!
