Spring RTS Engine

it looked like a blurred map to me tbh.

smoth wrote:many of you guys are too new to remember all of the old photo realistic maps like Egypt etc.

I'm not. They sucked.

Trademark, this is not the answer. Let's get this straight: I LIKED the concepts behind your newer Metal/KP maps. The problem was that they were too simplistic. There was no terrain, no art. Just simple concepts.

We don't want you to switch over to crapping out photo-based maps instead of crapping out geometry-based maps. We want you to put some effort in and flesh out your thoughts into a full, proper map.

One good, solid, nice looking metal-circle-based-map is worth a hundred of these graphical abortions. Imho, that's what I'd do if I were you. Try and make a nice, solid, 3D circle-based map. I'd follow the Castles model of using different metal-values for different terrain-types and a wide extraction-radius.

Make the Spring equivalent of Q3DM17.

/still has no business giving advice, as is not a mapper.

smoth wrote:many of you guys are too new to remember all of the old photo realistic maps like Egypt etc.

that map hurt soo bad... lol

it was like the unbalance king.

LathanStanley wrote:

smoth wrote:many of you guys are too new to remember all of the old photo realistic maps like Egypt etc.

that map hurt soo bad... lol

it was like the unbalance king.

I love that map. Hilariously bad.

Shameless self promotion:
Victoria Crater is photo realistic

http://spring.unknown-files.net/?page=browse&dlid=1939

smoth wrote:for goodness sake, that was just an EXAMPLE, I am saying there were several, egypt was just the first that popped into mind... christ.

what did they say to make you take anything personally? seriously.



anyway, form follows function - being pretty or realistic should always take a backseat to layout. that's not to say any of these aspects are mutually exclusive; having the ability to have a fun map that is realistic and aesthetically pleasing is what seperates exceptional mappers from the rest.

NOiZE wrote:it looked like a blurred map to me tbh.

Yeah, those screenshots were zoomed too near the ground, the normal zoom looks fine.

Too bad we cant have more detailed textures, would be neat to have 2x bigger texture maps in same sized maps as now.

smoth wrote: ! forgot about that goolash and I like that map also my bad man, are you doing any others?
[/color]

I'm not working on any other photo realistic maps but it doesnt mean that i haven't tried.
The main problem is that to make a photo realistic map you have to have several very rare conditions:
1. You have to find a very good quality picture which is straight from above and no clouds at all (victoria crater was a 60mb tiff, 4.5k X 5.5k pixels and was still streched a bit).
2. it has to be simple enough to be converted to heightmap (meaning: no buildings, i think i can get a high res picture of new-york but making the height map will be hell).
3. Gameplay. since you cant create the terrain and it's already created for you, you have to find a picture of a terrain that looks fun to play and not only "pretty".

I'm a huge fan of photo realistic maps and i'd love to create another one, but the conditions required to create one that looks good and plays well are pretty rare.

hmmm... ive got a 10MP dslr

maybe if i shot a tiff of my face, and contributed a suitable heightmap


you guys could have fun nuking it?

erasmus wrote:hmmm... ive got a 10MP dslr

maybe if i shot a tiff of my face, and contributed a suitable heightmap


you guys could have fun nuking it?

Is there any point in asking? OF COURSE the answer is yes

I gotta say... after reading the thread topic this wasn't what I expect. ^^