WiP in WiP, post your screenshots!

Says someone who puts up with hammer's shit. Seriously, poly modeling is no harder than hammer.

Ever made a playerclip around a prop for collisions? More complex than poly modeling. Ever tried making a displacement for a triangular area and had to hide one corner of the displacement? More complex than poly modeling. Ever had to package new assets into a map's pak file? About the same complexity as exporting models to source.

Good point

Modeling is the best skill once you get the hang of whatever tool you pick. Words can't describe how much more enjoyable it is to drag a vertex to a spot and not have to worry about Hammer pitching a fit about invalid solids.

It pains me when people act all excited about Hammer 2 coming down the pipeline. Valve should really just write a Blender plugin that compiles straight to bsp from within the program.

(but that would never happen because last I heard Valve uses Maya for everything)

I feel like there'd probably still be an optimization advantage to sticking with a map-development model that draws props from a stock library rather than making the entire map a mesh of unique polygons, but I don't do engine development.

Also Blender had a pretty crap workflow when I tried to learn it. That was, admittedly, a while ago, but unless they've completely redesigned it since then, I wouldn't want it to replace Hammer.

YM said:

Ever made a playerclip around a prop for collisions? More complex than poly modeling. Ever tried making a displacement for a triangular area and had to hide one corner of the displacement? More complex than poly modeling. Ever had to package new assets into a map's pak file? About the same complexity as exporting models to source.

Click to expand...

That all depends on the experiences players had before. To me the first 3d editor i learned was RED for red faction. Red faction had a mapping system based around carving (except in that game it works and in hammer it doesnt) and you shaped the map the same was as the vertex tool.

For me it wasnt a large step to modeling. And i definitely would like to be able to model as it solves alot of problems to me.

And also, a triagular displacement can be made without hiding any of the corners. It just requires 3 displacements to make the triangle shape.

YM said:

Says someone who puts up with hammer's shit. Seriously, poly modeling is no harder than hammer.

Ever made a playerclip around a prop for collisions? More complex than poly modeling. Ever tried making a displacement for a triangular area and had to hide one corner of the displacement? More complex than poly modeling. Ever had to package new assets into a map's pak file? About the same complexity as exporting models to source.

Click to expand...

Now I want to learn how to poly model :3

The only reason I started using blender is because it's free. I gave up after 4 seconds.

It took me a week to make a box shaped room in blender
It takes me 10 seconds to do the same in hammer

Tumbolisu said:

It took me a week to make a box shaped room in blender
It takes me 10 seconds to do the same in hammer

Click to expand...

I don't see how this is relevant. Certainly a tool you're just learning to use is going to take longer to use than a tool that you're familiar with? I'm by no means an expert with Blender, but making a room wouldn't take much time at all.

In response to the Hammer v. modeling issue:

Your standard modeling tool is going to be made so that it can make pretty much anything and everything. This is great, because the tools are very versatile! However, tools like Hammer are purpose-built for creating certain kinds of geometry, and they can excel in what they're built for.

An experienced Hammer user could probably make a building quicker than an experienced modeler, and they also don't have to worry about UV unwrapping, vertex density, etc. Plus, it's already engine-ready, and doesn't need to be packed! On the flip side, an experienced modeler can create organic objects much quicker than an experienced Hammer user, and they have a lot more options in what they can make. It's a give and take.

Idolon said:

I don't see how this is relevant. Certainly a tool you're just learning to use is going to take longer to use than a tool that you're familiar with? I'm by no means an expert with Blender, but making a room wouldn't take much time at all.

In response to the Hammer v. modeling issue:

Your standard modeling tool is going to be made so that it can make pretty much anything and everything. This is great, because the tools are very versatile! However, tools like Hammer are purpose-built for creating certain kinds of geometry, and they can excel in what they're built for.

An experienced Hammer user could probably make a building quicker than an experienced modeler, and they also don't have to worry about UV unwrapping, vertex density, etc. Plus, it's already engine-ready, and doesn't need to be packed! On the flip side, an experienced modeler can create organic objects much quicker than an experienced Hammer user, and they have a lot more options in what they can make. It's a give and take.

Click to expand...

To piggy back, there are very few modern editors (and by few, I mean like 2 I know of) that use BSP geometry as the basis of the level design. Hammer and Radiant (which are basically sister tools) are the only ones that I know of that use BSP absed geometry. If you're going to be using anything else, Unity, UE4, Creation Kit and Probably CryEngine/Frostbyte 3 (I haven't used either, so I'm speculating) are mesh based, so you'll need to know how to model to make a lot of your levels properly.

EDIT: the super-recent radiants may have moved more towards mesh based, but I am not sure.

Tutorial I wrote like 14 years ago modeling a basic structure:

http://xzzy.org/halo/tut_interior/

Don't expect anyone to really read it, it's just an example that "making a box shaped room" is not more difficult in a proper modeler than it is in Hammer. It's just a question of familiarity. These days more engines use this type of creation than brush based.. by clinging to Hammer like it's the One True Way people are really limiting their ability to create for other games.

rd_asteroid is a good example of this migration as well. Vast chunks of that map's detailing is props.

Some screenshots from an so-far unnamed PLR map:




To be released shortly (hopefully)!

Idolon said:

I don't see how this is relevant. Certainly a tool you're just learning to use is going to take longer to use than a tool that you're familiar with? I'm by no means an expert with Blender, but making a room wouldn't take much time at all.

Click to expand...

Make a box:
Select a box in 1 of the grid views, size it the way you want.
Then make it hollow

In blender im sure it doesnt go that fast. But then again, in hammer im sure it takes longer to make odd shaped objects which in hammer tages ages using the vertex tool (not to mention it sometimes being a vortex tool instead).

Got started on my new PL map; to the left there's the BLU base, track starts right in front

ffflllaaaaaaaaaaaattttttttttttttt

YM said:

ffflllaaaaaaaaaaaattttttttttttttt

Click to expand...

I'll be adding some vertical area later ;D

EDIT: people complained that my last map was way too vertical so I changed it up a bit ;o

Are you talking about Mannieval? because that thing is stupendously flat as well, and anyone complaining it's too vertical is definitely trying to say something else but failing to find the right words.

i personally liked mannieval a lot. There was height variation, but the various courtyards and 'arenas' were individually fairly 'flat', with the connecting corridors and doorways between the courtyards and arenas hogging all the height rations.

Take a look at the capture point: the area around the platform with the actual point is a large flat rectangle. The 'battlements' are flat platforms connected via staircases, doorways, and corridors to other flat courtyards, rooms, areas, etc.

I'm guessing the complaints about mannievel being too vertical stem from the various chokepoint, corridors, staircases, etc. that players are funnelled through to get to the higher locations (the sniper battlements) give the illusion of a strong sense of "vertical".

As for the orange payload map in progress, the track and the area around it, where most of the gameplay should be, does not have much (any?) 'verticality'. Take a look at the area around the cylindrical building with the weird roof, look at how flat that area is, how little height difference there is. A few steps doesn't really qualify for height variation, and adding battlements at a later state will not fix the lack of height variation.

It's not that you must have height variation, height variation is just a method or make your environment interesting to fight in. making an area interesting and fun to play in is the point of a mapper, and frankly i find large, sightline-prone, flat areas to be quite boring and not-fun. Like all those cp_orange maps out there.

And again we see tf2 map veterans assuming that flat=bad. You people like to jump to conclusions a lot and are great at talking out of your ass.

mannieval is bad. sorry.