Bermuda Cake
L9: Fashionable Member
- Feb 20, 2009
- 679
- 480
WiP in WiP, post your screenshots!
- Thread starter Arhurt
- Start date
Probably has some random seed to add variations to simulations, but usually if a program adds that, it also gives you the option to increase the amount of randomness (or turn it off entirely).
Shanghai
aa
- Jan 8, 2011
- 397
- 393
I can't really figure out what's even going on there (The walls and floor look the same, use different textures for each), but it looks like those bridges to the point would be too campable (one sentry could keep both in range). In addition, the point itself is far too spammable, what with those walls making splash damage really easy to dole out. Players in the pit are also at the complete mercy of those above the point, as that height difference looks way too big to work out. Also, your blue ramp to/from the pit runs right into a support column, which will make it hard to use.
If you want height variation on your point, it's a much better idea to start it off on flat ground and then add balconies and such above it.
If you want height variation on your point, it's a much better idea to start it off on flat ground and then add balconies and such above it.
WolfKit
L3: Member
- Jun 26, 2012
- 128
- 83
I don't really want to make a koth that's just like what everyone makes, though.
My plan for the map is that a pit is being dug under the point, but they want to keep the point so it's being suspended over the pit. That's the concept for this map, and I'm not changing it. If it truly doesn't work, I'll scrap the map, chalk it up to experience, and start over.
On the topic of textures, it's on my to do list. I want to get the general layout done first before doing too much with textures.
The rest of your comments are a result of too big of a high scale and a cramped horizontal scale, I think. I'll work on it.
In blender's case, it seems to be based on how fast the computer is, which is just about the most frustrating thing. Simple physics simulations seem to be exactly the same every single time.
Big ones with hundreds of pieces, like the one I'm doing for stoneyridge, really puts the hurt on my computer. I think when it's starved for resources, the physics simulation skips steps and this results in some really odd variations from run to run.
If I were to try something like this again, I think I'd break the explosion up into several small "pieces" that don't rely on each other, so they can be animated separately. Pretty sure this is what Valve did for their goldrush/badwater explosion. You do lose out on the ability for the bits of shrapnel to interact with each other, but experience is starting to show me that perfect accuracy really isn't noticeable.
TehStoneMan
L1: Registered
- Jun 15, 2012
- 46
- 5
One thing you have to remember with Blender is that some of the physics simulations need to be run in "game mode", which is a real-time simulation, so the results from multiple runs may not be repeatable.
- Jul 31, 2011
- 872
- 1,021
froggie
L1: Registered
- Jan 23, 2009
- 45
- 47
Always being lazy when it comes to modeling, figured out you can use func_physics inside of hammer when it comes to explosions instead of creating an animated model. even though it might take a lot of resources (fps loss) it's still an option if you make it clever.
WolfKit
L3: Member
- Jun 26, 2012
- 128
- 83
Deodorant
L6: Sharp Member
- Oct 31, 2011
- 263
- 214
You mean your toilet doesn't have caution tape on it? That's irresponsible.
Last edited:
