Trees! Lots and Lots of Trees! Awesome software!

[rattle]

How much a tree? They look like ~500-600...

[aGorm]

Hummm, the big palms are about 650, the fat ones are about 270, the small plants are around than 150.
(tri's not quads.)

I wasn't aiming for mega low polly when i made them... the palm laves could have been done in a more efficient way but then they wouldn't look quite as good as these

aGorm

[smoth]

cool stuff agorm, that will be very helpful, any trees grass or what-not. Also, could I get a copy of your wings files after I get back so I can learn from them?

[aGorm]

Yhe, why not smoth

I realy doubt I know anything you dont though!

aGorm

(EDIT) After new years though... Its busy here right now.

[smoth]

Well, I still think they are pretty good and I might learn something looking at them.

As far as after newyears is concenred that is fine to. I am in no pressing rush, just wanted to learnd from your work. So when you have time is good enough for me :).

[SpikedHelmet]

Now all someone has to do is take these ubercool trees and make more Spring: 1944 maps. >_>

[kiki]

btw that non-free tree making proggy looks like much more polies than this.

[FLOZi]

You obviously haven't bothered to download the trial.

You can go right down to a 2 quad billboard with it if you want.

[Argh]

What we should do, then, is take the free thing, use it to make models that we can raytrace enough for a 3 to 6 quad billboard tree, and voila... as many trees as we could ever want, frankly, and at low polycount. Billboard trees really aren't that awful, if executed well, at least for standard OTA POV...

[kiki]

Im out of my element.

Take it or leave it.

[SpikedHelmet]

Whatever happened to the planned feature pack? IMO, it'd be nice to see a shitton of trees available for map-makers, all in one place..

[Peet]

http://spring.clan-sy.com/phpbb/viewtop ... =13&t=4047 ?

[smoth]

I tried and tried but the final answer was that it would bloat the installer too much to include all the features I wanted to include. If you can get the devs to agree to it again I will resume work on putting it together.

[kiki]

Like built in content? Good thinking smoth. May you rain trees upon us from above.

[SpikedHelmet]

I don't see how a feature pack would be too bloated -- I mean the largest mods are only 40-50MB and thats not too big (you could even split it up into sections, ie trees, buildings, rocks, etc, and have a larger combined pack)

I'd be behind it 100%, as I think it would make map-making (more importantly, good map-making) much more accessible to everyone, in the same way the TAMEChpi helped map-making (and we've got it better -- all features are included as part of the map itself so only map-makers need get it)

[aGorm]

I think Smoth meant, collect them up and included them all as something that any map can access, IE reserve some names and make it so the features are no longer in the map, but are included with spring. And then you can use extra custom one's as well.

That I think is what they disagreed on.... (as the textures and models would then blote the installer...)

I'd be more just for having a repository for map makers that they plunder and add the features to their maps... just as long as it doesn't encourage people to stop using their own features and just reusing all the time. Then things would get stale! A bad thing.

aGorm

[SpikedHelmet]

Oh. Well in that case, I think it's unecessary too, since they can be included with the map and does not involve problems with some people having the features and others not. I'm talking more of a map-maker's resource of features.

[kiki]

No! It IS neccessary! Alot of great looking maps are so great due to their nice features. By having them built in, all maps could access them, and not have to have them embedded over and over again. Thus, you SAVE SPACE in the long run. How could you possibly miss this? Smoth is a smart guy and does just present ideas with no meaning. :)

[smoth]

I think Smoth meant, collect them up and included them all as something that any map can access, IE reserve some names and make it so the features are no longer in the map, but are included with spring. And then you can use extra custom one's as well.

yep

That I think is what they disagreed on.... (as the textures and models would then blote the installer...)

yep

[smoth]

Oh. Well in that case, I think it's unecessary too, since they can be included with the map and does not involve problems with some people having the features and others not. I'm talking more of a map-maker's resource of features.

We have a thread for that in the mapping forum. However, having them included with spring reduces overall redundant file glut along with reduced map size would be great!