Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Don't know what it is about this map.....

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    I must admit that I didn't like this map very much in UT (it was too quakeish for my comfort). :/

    Comment


      #17
      I like this map a lot mostly play it instagib though, as a matter of fact don't think I ever played it regular...

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by xbmod
        mostly play it instagib though, as a matter of fact don't think I ever played it regular...
        You should try it..... get a mid air rocket shot and it's like.. WEY HEY!!

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by Climb@ize
          You should try it..... get a mid air rocket shot and it's like.. WEY HEY!!

          :haha: I like teh w00t smilie

          Yup I remember getting a Rocket shot in mid-air is a lot easier in UT than it was in UT2k3

          I really have to try this time round

          I guess thats what made UT1, UT1!! Its simplicity

          Comment


            #20
            Re: Don't know what it is about this map.....

            Originally posted by Climb@ize
            Awfully bright pic
            That's strange. I seem to recall that map being darkish grey.

            Also, it looks a lot more polygon-y than I remember. At least in UT2k3 you could actually make it round.

            Comment


              #21
              Re: Re: Don't know what it is about this map.....

              Originally posted by Boksha
              That's strange. I seem to recall that map being darkish grey.

              Also, it looks a lot more polygon-y than I remember. At least in UT2k3 you could actually make it round.
              Or maybe it's just that you got used to the look of UT2003 too much.

              And be careful about quoting images, Pezman seems to have returned.

              Comment


                #22
                Originally posted by -=SmileY=-
                I'll make one for UT2004.
                Oooops, I am currently making one. Because the three available remakes don't do it for me.
                Either they have totally changed gameplay (except for the round platform with a whole in the middle, which doesn't make a spacenoxx already) or totally screwed the graphics.

                EDIT:
                I stayed with a 16 sided SpaceNoxx, though, because a 32 sided does look worse than 16 sided, because it looks not round enough to be a round circle and not edgy* enough neither; it only looks messed up somehow.
                More sides (40 or 64 would fit) are too much triangles, because spaceNoxx isn't just a flat platform at the bottom but rises to the middle of the ring (many more polys). Then you have to consider that a least the lower (and the upper ring for consistant look) need to be 64 sided too. this would be too many polys, since you can overview the whole map with it's lowgrav gameplay.


                *) Does the word edgy exist??

                Comment


                  #23
                  Originally posted by -)AO(-Necron99
                  Regular maps > space maps.

                  :up:

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Originally posted by fuegerstef
                    I stayed with a 16 sided SpaceNoxx, though, because a 32 sided does look worse than 16 sided, because it looks not round enough to be a round circle and not edgy* enough neither; it only looks messed up somehow.
                    More sides (40 or 64 would fit) are too much triangles, because spaceNoxx isn't just a flat platform at the bottom but rises to the middle of the ring (many more polys). Then you have to consider that a least the lower (and the upper ring for consistant look) need to be 64 sided too. this would be too many polys, since you can overview the whole map with it's lowgrav gameplay.
                    Dude, the UT2k3 engine doesn't care if you throw 50000 polygons at it, as long as it's not BSP. There is absolutely no reason stick with a 16 sided platform if you take the right approach.

                    (edit) Just did a test in a few maps: DM-Shuddercreek has about 85000 polygons visible, I get 53fps. DM-Inferno: 106000 polygons 42fps. DM-TreeOfAges: 88000 polygons, 40fps.
                    As you can see, the amount of polygons matters, but what matters more is how often staticmeshes repeat. You could for example make one part of the ring a static mesh, then rotate and repeat that part, and it wóuld be possible. It's a matter of taste tho', and it's your map.

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Originally posted by Boksha
                      Dude, the UT2k3 engine doesn't care if you throw 50000 polygons at it, as long as it's not BSP. There is absolutely no reason stick with a 16 sided platform if you take the right approach.
                      I know that, but with a custom static mesh it would be too much work (with all the blocking volumes that have to be adjusted to a round SpaceNoxx). And since it is only a remake that I think will fit into UT2k3 (visually and gameplay wise) I do not want to have too much work with it.
                      I will work on texturing and so on, so that it will look right, I am picky, when it comes to consitency. So I want a map that looks right in the UT2k3-Universe (Most important of all is gamplay, though)

                      So I think it is the right approach for me. I do this map mainly for myself and our LAN. It will be released to the public, perhaps others like it too.

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Yeah, I see.
                        I just made an edit to my previous post. It's your map, and doing it with repeating static meshes WOULD be hard.

                        Comment


                          #27
                          Originally posted by Boksha
                          Yeah, I see.
                          I just made an edit to my previous post. It's your map, and doing it with repeating static meshes WOULD be hard.
                          It wouldn't be that hard, but too hard for a remake of a fun-map-remake from UT1.
                          I am doing it because I like a lowgrav-game once in a while without putting the lowgrav mut on, so I like to put a lowgrav-map into the LAN rotation.

                          Comment


                            #28
                            Originally posted by §uper-]V[oose
                            http://pcgamemods.com/1719/
                            That one seems the best imo.

                            Comment


                              #29
                              Dammit why'd you have to show me this. Now I'm going to go play UT for several hours.

                              Comment


                                #30
                                Originally posted by §uper-]V[oose
                                That one seems the best imo.
                                Hm, this version is ok, but it has less visual detail than the original.
                                And you cannot dodge up the pillars.

                                So if something has been substracted from the visuals AND from the gameplay, I do not know why I should use it. I still think a remake or remix should add to the original concept, at least when it comes to visuals. But taking 3 of 4 ways to get to the upper ring out just ruins the original style, IMO.

                                And in the readme to this map it says something about that you have to adjust gamespeed, add a few mutators and even tweak you .ini settings :bulb: to get close to the original feel.
                                Isn't it easier to doubleclick the original UT-icon on your desktop then... ...especially when you get advanced gameplay and visuals then....

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X