Page 1 of 2
..:: Release ::.. Ring Atoll Remake
Posted: 05 Jun 2006, 19:00
by NOiZE
Posted: 05 Jun 2006, 19:04
by Molloy
Good work man. This is one of the most popular OTA maps recently (if TADRS demos are anything to go by).
Posted: 05 Jun 2006, 22:19
by Forboding Angel
Excellent work Noize, looks great!
Posted: 05 Jun 2006, 22:26
by smoth
Pretty map, but it seems a bit too small. Would you consider sizing it up a bit?
Posted: 05 Jun 2006, 22:29
by NOiZE
The OTA version is 21x21... i only made it a little smaller because Spring needs even numbers... so it turned out 20x20
Posted: 05 Jun 2006, 22:47
by Forboding Angel
well 20x20 in spring is 40x40 in ta sizes, so it's actually almost the exact same size in relativity.
Posted: 05 Jun 2006, 23:05
by NOiZE
Forboding Angel wrote:well 20x20 in spring is 40x40 in ta sizes, so it's actually almost the exact same size in relativity.
No not really, please seach the forums about this, and don't make this go off-topic.
OTA mapscale and Spring mapscale are nearly perfectly the same.
If you do want to discuss this again, pls make a thread for it.
Posted: 06 Jun 2006, 19:06
by Michilus_nimbus
Oh yes, good memories about that one!
Please, go on with your delicious remakes.
Posted: 06 Jun 2006, 20:37
by SinbadEV
I think this was the last TA map I played before discovering Spring.
Posted: 06 Jun 2006, 21:10
by Forboding Angel
NOiZE wrote:Forboding Angel wrote:well 20x20 in spring is 40x40 in ta sizes, so it's actually almost the exact same size in relativity.
No not really, please seach the forums about this, and don't make this go off-topic.
OTA mapscale and Spring mapscale are nearly perfectly the same.
If you do want to discuss this again, pls make a thread for it.
No they aren't.
OTA 1:16
Spring 1:8
That why when you export a 16x16 texture out of an ota map the size of the texture is 4096 (which is == 8x8 in spring).
Great map btw.
Posted: 07 Jun 2006, 00:04
by hrmph
Another great remake. Your tropical beaches look perfect! Only issue I can see is that you might want to tile the underwater texture a bit more to save on the hefty filesize.
Posted: 07 Jun 2006, 00:09
by NOiZE
hrmph wrote:Another great remake. Your tropical beaches look perfect! Only issue I can see is that you might want to tile the underwater texture a bit more to save on the hefty filesize.
i tried, but i just couldn't get it just right.... so sorry

zomg
Posted: 07 Jun 2006, 02:47
by Pxtl
z0mg, teh filesize! 90% of the map could be a handful of tiles (all that underwater stuff) and it's 28 megs! Did you use some sort of terrain generator for the texture? Some of the sand looks like an autogenerated fractal instead of a tile.
Posted: 07 Jun 2006, 04:08
by IceXuick
plz, can everybody stop whining about the file-sizes. I know there are people that just can't have broadband, but i'm sorry, this 1% of the players, they just have to download other smaller maps, or wait longer for a bigger and nicer map.
However, i think if somethings (like water f.e.) can be tilable, it should be done if it's not degrading the map too much. This way you can shave of the extra mb's.
Other than this, just make the maps, and make em look OK! (so artifacts for example are, in my opinion, bad, and not ok!) Those that don't want to take the effort in downloading should remain playing small (tiling) maps.
Re: zomg
Posted: 07 Jun 2006, 12:44
by Cheesecan
Pxtl wrote:z0mg, teh filesize! 90% of the map could be a handful of tiles (all that underwater stuff) and it's 28 megs! Did you use some sort of terrain generator for the texture? Some of the sand looks like an autogenerated fractal instead of a tile.
I concur.
As comparison, my latest map is 20x10, and hardly 6mb. Seeing as this map is twice that size, it should weigh in at around 12mb. But this is hardly the case. Like IceXuick said most of us have broadband today, but this is hardly an excuse to be sloppy.
Terragen - which NOiZE uses, iterates upon the noise in the height map when it generates the texture map. This is fast, but it doesn't look as nice as the high-resolution textures L3DT uses for sand. The sand on this map would look even more plain if it wasn't for springs detailmap adding some depth to the texture. Fractals may look decent for far-away shots for wallpapers and such but it doesn't look as nice close-up.
Re: zomg
Posted: 07 Jun 2006, 13:22
by NOiZE
Cheesecan wrote:
Terragen - which NOiZE uses, iterates upon the noise in the height map when it generates the texture map. This is fast, but it doesn't look as nice as the high-resolution textures L3DT uses for sand. The sand on this map would look even more plain if it wasn't for springs detailmap adding some depth to the texture. Fractals may look decent for far-away shots for wallpapers and such but it doesn't look as nice close-up.
This is your opinion. Personally i find the Terragen renders better. And terragen isn't that fast!
Re: zomg
Posted: 07 Jun 2006, 15:31
by Cheesecan
NOiZE wrote:Cheesecan wrote:
Terragen - which NOiZE uses, iterates upon the noise in the height map when it generates the texture map. This is fast, but it doesn't look as nice as the high-resolution textures L3DT uses for sand. The sand on this map would look even more plain if it wasn't for springs detailmap adding some depth to the texture. Fractals may look decent for far-away shots for wallpapers and such but it doesn't look as nice close-up.
This is your opinion. Personally i find the Terragen renders better. And terragen isn't that fast!
Na-uh, that's George Bush's opinion!
D'oh, it goes without saying it's my opinion since I wrote it.

Lmao..

Re: zomg
Posted: 07 Jun 2006, 17:51
by FizWizz
Pxtl wrote:z0mg, teh filesize! 90% of the map could be a handful of tiles (all that underwater stuff) and it's 28 megs! Did you use some sort of terrain generator for the texture? Some of the sand looks like an autogenerated fractal instead of a tile.
+1
Assuming you have photoshop: Maybe you could have made the underwater layer(s, if you're using two distinct ones for shallow and deep water) flat colors, then used the selection wand + fill (with a tiled texture)to make the sea bottom tiled.
But it is already done, the map is already made.
Posted: 07 Jun 2006, 18:38
by hrmph
I'm usually the last person who would whine about large file sizes. I have dsl/340gighd. The only reason I bring it up in this situation is because there would be no loss of detail (or barely noticable) since all the heavily tiled sections would be underwater. (Obviously I would never jump into an IceXuick map thread and start saying this because it wouldn't apply

). Besides lower file sizes are still a good thing, espescially since FileUniverse tends to get slow every once in awhile; making large (20+meg) maps almost unplayable (or atleast a huge pain waiting for others to download the map).
Posted: 07 Jun 2006, 19:18
by OverDamage
Good job, I was going to remake this but I guess you beat me too it.
