Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DM-MCC-Hangar [PC][PS3]

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

    #31
    This map flat out ROCKS!!! It's my new fav. Unbelievable work put into the kismet on this level. I have never seen anyone put the effort into animating a level like this - flying ship in and out of a bay, necris walker loaded onto the mother ship, great theme tie into HEAT RAY (one of my other fav's). There is nothing out there I have found that compares to this. The real bonus here is this level isn't just another pretty level with great looks but so-so on the play. This level is super fun to play, a little bit of arena action with close quarters upstairs in your control room and amp room corridors. It's an Excellent layout. Dude I've rarely come in to comment on anything in these forum, but I had to say something after I dl'd and played your level. Please tell me you entered this into the contest!

    Comment


      #32
      Do you honestly think that my config could be that "rig with some grunt"? Thanks, eh

      Seriously, Hangar is probably one of the best fan-made map I've ever played... And wtf, it's rated 86/100 because of a very debattable issue. I mean, it should easily, easily reach the 90~95 score that some other excellent maps have had on UT Unlimited!

      Bah, I'll stop over-promoting that map, people have just to play it and see

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by Firmament View Post
        This map is completely under-rated on UT unlimited. Its scores for gameplay and eyecandy are nearly perfect, and it simply looses many points due to performance. I have an E4500 2.2ghz + Geforce 8800 GT 512mb + 2 gigs of ram and I can play it with 8 bots in *full* details (only thing is that I disable the dynamic shadows, lol), with both antialiasing and anisotrope settings set to 8. So meh. I know certain maps that would deserve to be downgraded because of their bad optimization, that one is clearly not one of these, as far as I can tell.

        The result is that the map is fantastic, and it's rated below the 90 that all excellent maps should deserve, simply because of someone's bad view on performances. That's really sad.

        I like and support UT Unlimited, but that review is just not very accurate...
        First off, thanks for supporting UT Unlimited. I always value comments like this.

        What resolution are you playing at plus your rig is a little higher than the review rig? The performance score is based on the rig it's reviewed on. That's why I post a link to the system specs on every review.
        Also, I could have marked it down a little as the theme wasn't Necris yet the story behind it was based on the Necris. But that would be being overly picky.

        I don't have a Kismet score as very few maps use it which is a shame. BTW, the score would have been 8.5 or 9 not 10 as the robot isn't animated.

        Thanks for the feedback

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by firefly View Post
          First off, thanks for supporting UT Unlimited. I always value comments like this.

          What resolution are you playing at plus your rig is a little higher than the review rig? The performance score is based on the rig it's reviewed on. That's why I post a link to the system specs on every review.
          Also, I could have marked it down a little as the theme wasn't Necris yet the story behind it was based on the Necris. But that would be being overly picky.

          I don't have a Kismet score as very few maps use it which is a shame. BTW, the score would have been 8.5 or 9 not 10 as the robot isn't animated.

          Thanks for the feedback
          Thanks for the comments everyone. And thanks to Firefly for the community commitment running your site. It's MASSIVELY appreciated! You've definitely thrown down a pretty tough gauntlet with your test rig. The 8600 (even two of 'em) and an Athlon is not a great rig but it represents a good challenge for mappers and I fully understand wanting to keep that rig to give proper A to B comparisons.

          Something to consider: Rigs have progressed pretty far since Nov 2007 and mappers may want to push the limits to advance the game beyond what was done on the day of release (I personally don't think I've done that, rather just made design mistakes). I've seen in many other games I've played that user created content that was created in subsequent years after a release often requires a much more powerful rig than what was required on the day of release. Point being, I actually would be bummed if mappers were reducing visuals to get good performance on an 8600!

          Comment


            #35
            Thanks It's nice to be appreciated

            I can get 35 to 45 on the stock maps as well as the most stunning custom maps with everything set to the right. I don't think a reduction in visuals in maps is needed. I too would not want that. Remember it wasnt the visuals that hurt the FPS.

            Looking forward to the next and also you've set yourself a high mark to beat. People will be expecting a lot from you now.
            Good luck

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by firefly View Post
              What resolution are you playing at plus your rig is a little higher than the review rig? The performance score is based on the rig it's reviewed on. That's why I post a link to the system specs on every review.
              I'm still using my old 15" screen that won't allow me to go over 1024x768
              I have to admit that I didn't notice the reviewer's system specs, which is why I've been a little surprised to see the map loosing that many points on performance... Still, I mean, I think the final score is, how to say it, weird.

              Like I said it above, I have much respect for all the work you have put into that nice site, and I usually agree with most things I read in there.
              Tbh, while I understand now why certain highly memory-consuming maps may be a little severly rated on performances, I'm unsure on whether you should keep it that way or try to relax it a little. Since you are a reviewer, what would be interesting for you would be to know what is, more or less vaguely, the average system specs of the ut3 community... I can't help on this; my own opinion is just that many, if not most players have at least what I have, or more. But I don't know, perhaps I have it all wrong

              Did you ever try the contest map called "Feature Creep"? I wonder what kind of score that one would recieve, because, though absolutely brilliant in all areas, it is extremely greedy in terms of video memory...

              Comment


                #37
                If I can add my grain of salt in regard of the "test machine" or whatever "test machine" for a serious review score on any website.

                As other, I found that having a score based on hardware performance is extremely inaccurate, not useful & won't do a map justice.

                In regard of the UT unlimited "test machine" specs, no offense but it's pretty low. AMD Athlon 64 X2 cpu's are way slower comparing to any Intel Core 2 Duo cpu's you can buy, even the cheap one. As The GF8600 in SLI mode is not bad either, you will have around the same performance of a single GF8800 GT depending of your setup resolution. Still the total bandwidth of SLI GF8600 gpu's is very limited specially when you start to use HD which 1680x1050 is the entry level resolution.

                That mean since more than 1 years, you can go at a computer store, buy a cheap Intel Core 2 Duo with a single GF9800 or ATI 48xx series & you will have huge performance benefits comparing the actual UTU "test machine".

                Now comparing stock maps & custom maps. The average stock maps are about 1 to 2 millions triangle which custom maps use much more than that. Speaking about my maps, Station12 as more than 3 millions triangle & Nano more than 4.5 millions, other maps I know are around 5-6 millions triangle or more. So in the end, you have 2 or 3 times more triangles in custom maps than stock maps to render. Also, more & more maps are using kismet now which in the majority of stock maps is use it only a bit & really not comparable to this map.

                Now, you comparing a map that as a high triangle count, more than the stock one plus a complex kismet setup and some material that look way better that vanilla maps that where made in 2007. There is no comparison at all here. This map is up-to-date in term of visuals quality so you need an up-to-date pc to enjoy it not a 2 years old rig.

                Comment


                  #38
                  Originally posted by stevelois View Post
                  Now comparing stock maps & custom maps. The average stock maps are about 1 to 2 millions triangle which custom maps use much more than that. Speaking about my maps, Station12 as more than 3 millions triangle & Nano more than 4.5 millions, other maps I know are around 5-6 millions triangle or more. So in the end, you have 2 or 3 times more triangles in custom maps than stock maps to render. Also, more & more maps are using kismet now which in the majority of stock maps is use it only a bit & really not comparable to this map.

                  Now, you comparing a map that as a high triangle count, more than the stock one plus a complex kismet setup and some material that look way better that vanilla maps that where made in 2007. There is no comparison at all here. This map is up-to-date in term of visuals quality so you need an up-to-date pc to enjoy it not a 2 years old rig.
                  I know we are getting off the point of the thread, but it's an interesting conversation fueled by this map, so why not.

                  It doesn't matter that much how many milliions of static mesh tris you have in an entire level when you talk about optimization. The total number is more related to load times and file size. What matters more is when and especially where you place them.

                  I haven't done the numbers for this map, but usuaully, hitting the 750K+ mark is when you should start to be concerned. There are other factors involved though (terrain, animations, lighting (dynamic lighting). But as a map maker, you need to constantly be keeping this in mind when designing a level.

                  I have found that this map does have lower frame rates than other custom maps and even stock maps (which I use as a standard). Do I mind? No, because the frame rates are still good and I understand why they are lower, there is a big open hanger with enough detail and a lot of animation happening. Lower frame rates are inevitable.

                  While firefly's machine may not be the ideal machine to play the game on (don't know what is though), I think if he has reasonable settings for his machine, he can compare a map's performance based on the stock levels.

                  I find this to be true with my machine (with everything maxed out). So when a map runs in the lower frame rates, it's more than likely the map and not my machine/system settings.

                  *Ramble complete*

                  Comment


                    #39
                    I know that scoring on hardware is always going to be tricky. Please feel free to use the ratings at UTU to give your own score and the comments if you think I've missed the mark. I might put a survey together to get a better idea of the average system.
                    Remember how popular the HOLP maps are. This is due to people wanting better performing maps as well as clutter free ones. There's also a small number of mappers going back to bsp becuase of performance issues. Anyway, a survey should prove interesting.

                    Still, the fact that I can get good a 30 to 40 frames on stock and other beautiful maps means I have a rig capable of running UT3 nicely.

                    Comment


                      #40
                      NOTE: The Beyond Unreal network appears to be down at the moment and that means I can't get into UTU to do anything. This includes putting a survey together.

                      Comment


                        #41
                        Originally posted by firefly View Post
                        I know that scoring on hardware is always going to be tricky. Please feel free to use the ratings at UTU to give your own score and the comments if you think I've missed the mark. I might put a survey together to get a better idea of the average system.
                        Remember how popular the HOLP maps are. This is due to people wanting better performing maps as well as clutter free ones. There's also a small number of mappers going back to bsp becuase of performance issues. Anyway, a survey should prove interesting.

                        Still, the fact that I can get good a 30 to 40 frames on stock and other beautiful maps means I have a rig capable of running UT3 nicely.
                        Seriously 40 FPS for a game is rather low. 60 FPS is the strict minimum you should aim for, specially with a digital screen. After 60, the more the better. The game will be playable even at 15 FPS, but you really don't want that

                        It's my last post about this subject. I won't continue to talk about that since it's off topic but the survey would be a nice idea

                        Now, let's get back to Martin work

                        Cheers

                        Comment


                          #42
                          Originally posted by stevelois View Post
                          Seriously 40 FPS for a game is rather low.
                          That is very subjective but it's my last word on it as well. We've hijacked this thread enough.

                          As soon as I can get back into the site I'll get the survey up and running.

                          Comment


                            #43
                            Just to wrap up the performance discussion before we return to the topic of the map , I'd like to reiterate my stance on a few things that I've mentioned both in this thread and the beta thread:

                            1) This is my first map and I made design mistakes early on. It wasn't until I was well into it that I read DGUnreal's post about monitoring the number of triangles in a scene with the "stat engine" command and trying to keep them below 650K (if I remember correctly). This map exceeds that amount in certain areas even with a culling volume. I wasn't motivated enough to start the map over so I kept forging ahead.

                            2) I appreciate the support for my map from everyone here but I was prepared to take a hit on performance when it got reviewed so I wasn't surprised at all and I'm okay with Firefly's review.

                            3) I didn't set out to make a map for high end machines only but unfortunately became addicted to Kismet as a "game" all of its own and was just enjoying playing around with that with the intention of just having friends play the map and not really considering a wider audience and a wider range of computing power.

                            Comment


                              #44
                              Now back to our regularly scheduled program... how many ways have you guys found to get to the redeemer?

                              Comment


                                #45
                                I updated the download link after having the previous upload ruthlessly removed by Filefront after almost 300 downloads and absolutely no email warning that is was in the deletion queue!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X