logo
Main

Forums

Downloads

Unreal-Netiquette

Donate for Oldunreal:
Donate

borderline

Links to our wiki:
Wiki

Walkthrough

Links

Tutorials

Unreal Reference

Usermaps

borderline

Contact us:
Submit News
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Some words about 227 (and static meshes) (Read 9710 times)
KeeperUTX
God Member
*****
Offline


Magician of Fire

Posts: 605
Location: Slovenia
Joined: Mar 15th, 2011
Gender: Male
Re: Some words about 227 (and static meshes)
Reply #15 - Apr 19th, 2011 at 11:30am
Print Post  
Whoa,wait!

what the cps is a static mesh?!
  

Azhir uval nutarus. Azhir mudas ethanul. Dalektharu il dask daku. Riftuuz e thara samanar utamus. Elas umanes azarathan rakas ibna.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Hellkeeper
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Soulless Automaton

Posts: 2639
Location: France
Joined: May 21st, 2008
Gender: Male
Re: Some words about 227 (and static meshes)
Reply #16 - Apr 19th, 2011 at 6:00pm
Print Post  
KeeperUTX wrote on Apr 19th, 2011 at 11:30am:
Whoa,wait!

what the cps is a static mesh?!


Just one the major features of 227.
  

You must construct additional pylons.
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
TheIronKnuckle
New Member
*
Offline


Oldunreal member

Posts: 21
Location: Australia
Joined: Oct 1st, 2008
Gender: Male
Re: Some words about 227 (and static meshes)
Reply #17 - Apr 23rd, 2011 at 2:11am
Print Post  
I hope smeshes don't become the major focus of new maps. BSP has charm. Good to hear that you've done your best to reduce the chance of BSP errors!  Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Hellkeeper
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Soulless Automaton

Posts: 2639
Location: France
Joined: May 21st, 2008
Gender: Male
Re: Some words about 227 (and static meshes)
Reply #18 - Apr 23rd, 2011 at 9:10am
Print Post  
TheIronKnuckle wrote on Apr 23rd, 2011 at 2:11am:
I hope smeshes don't become the major focus of new maps. BSP has charm.


As this topic demonstrates, SMs are good for improved and quick-made decoration. The engine itself is not powerful enough to display too many polygons, either SMs or BSP. Lighting on SMs is quite bad too. Most of the work will still be made with BSP, I think what will happen is that things that would have been made decoration actors will be made SMs instead (easier to do, easier to use).
  

You must construct additional pylons.
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
creavion
Senior Member
****
Offline


Waiting for the final
release (Bankai)!

Posts: 360
Location: SmirtFISH Fanboy
Joined: Oct 12th, 2009
Gender: Male
Re: Some words about 227 (and static meshes)
Reply #19 - Apr 23rd, 2011 at 9:51am
Print Post  
TheIronKnuckle wrote on Apr 23rd, 2011 at 2:11am:
I hope smeshes don't become the major focus of new maps. BSP has charm. Good to hear that you've done your best to reduce the chance of BSP errors!  Smiley

Ever tried to build a terrain map like my Kamah? Ever tried to remove over a period of around 5 weeks the most retarded bsp bugs? Have you ever testrun your map that much that you begin to hate it? I started that map with a lot of fun, ever keeping in mind, that nobody ever tried something like that before to such extend. It was the major reason why I was able to finish the map at all, I guess. At the end I was that sick of that map that I never played it again, after it was finished. Of course I could not remove any of the HOMs and ICHs... It was such a pain. Mental I smashed several mouses and keyboards and I cursed a lot near the end.
BSP should be actually only used for basic stuff. But reality looked different. Most mapper had to adapt their maps to the mood of the engine. (remove or change several construction because you are unable to remove the bsp bugs). Nowadays I look at my still bsp-buggy map and I have to say to myself: Seriously, was I crackbrained or anything that I tortured myself with something like that? And no you say please stick to bsp as much as possible? If you start to get serious with mapping (this means maps with a visual quality level like Revelation or Swanky), you will see you dont have to take care that much of bsp bugs anymore. You have to be crazy if you would still stick to bsp terrains or complex bsp constructions. I mean then you would have to love pain. Possible that this engine upgrade still relys to 99 % to cpu, but dots development beats epics UEngine 2 static meshes in many ways. They can be created without much worrying in the ed, they even can have smooth lighting (or you can set your materials to bsp lighting if you like), UNLIKE UEngine2. Alignment does not get lost, UNLIKE Uengine 2. Dots will lay the world at your feet with an absolutly user friendly static mesh system.

Yes, static meshes get only calculated over CPU, like I said, they EVER display - if set - detail textures and they are not able to display decals. Well, not YET, I would say. I will never forget those days last summer where static meshes were still only an idea.
  

UT99.org Community Mappack 2:&&http://www.ut99.org/utr/infopage.html
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TheIronKnuckle
New Member
*
Offline


Oldunreal member

Posts: 21
Location: Australia
Joined: Oct 1st, 2008
Gender: Male
Re: Some words about 227 (and static meshes)
Reply #20 - Apr 23rd, 2011 at 1:02pm
Print Post  
Funnily enough I do love BSP based terrain Tongue I love the fact that you get to, and have to exercise fine control over every vertex.

I hate the actual doing of it though, takes forever XD

Your maps are ambitious, they would benefit from static meshes for sure. When I map, I personally want to avoid meshes at all cost. I prefer the low poly visual experience to a high poly one.

However, in the example map turboman posted up, I had to open up the editor before I realised that the whole map was essentially a static mesh Tongue I was fooled: I knew there were going to be smeshes in there, but I couldn't pick out where they were.
So I suppose you could say the fusion between BSP and static mesh is much less jarring in the old unreal engine than in its later incarnations, and to me that's a good and welcome thing.

Anyways, personally it boils down to this: I look at masterful use of BSP and think "I want to be able to do that", because I can see how they've done it and this gives me the urge to do it as well. I see how they've crammed in heaps of detail using amazing lighting, texture use and BSP alone, and I'm impressed.
Whereas when I see static meshes... sure, I can see that there's way more detail than is possible with BSP, but so what? I don't appreciate that the same EFFORT has been put into the map. I concede that to actually get that smesh, you have to have skills in an external 3d modelling program, and there's effort involved there. But once you get into the actual mapping, you just copy paste and manipulate smeshes over and over again.
It's a different style of mapping completely to BSP, and it's one which I find hard to appreciate.

When I look at a good looking BSP map I am blown away, and feel a real appreciation that sweat, blood and tears went into producing it. A good looking map or game means nothing to me, but a decent looking map built from BSP is something which I can understand, and have a deep respect for.

In any case, I see the addition of smeshes to 227 as a good thing, they allow for details which simply weren't possible before. But due to the 13 years of mapping for an engine that never had them, I doubt they'll completely take over. Trim, texture sinking and other such CSG trickery will still have their place.


I'm interested in the technical details though. There's talk of being able to make static meshes "on the fly". This would explain why I didn't immediately detect the smeshes on Turboman's test map. Am I right in assuming that you can make up a bunch of detail brushes, and instead of converting to semisolid as I usually do, I can just convert to a staticmesh? This could come in handy... Grin
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
creavion
Senior Member
****
Offline


Waiting for the final
release (Bankai)!

Posts: 360
Location: SmirtFISH Fanboy
Joined: Oct 12th, 2009
Gender: Male
Re: Some words about 227 (and static meshes)
Reply #21 - Apr 23rd, 2011 at 1:25pm
Print Post  
Well, nice if you like them, but sorry, then you dont have invested THAT amount of details like I have. Otherwise you would understand me. If you keep it unreal 1 - simple, well it might work. Not surprising at all.
Creating an Unreal 1 typical map would be for me nowaydays however only a matter of style, nostalgia, but definitely not for a more serious map in terms of visual aspects.

@copying of the same meshes: Thats just how it works nowadays. Pretty normal.
UT2004 mapper (and onwards) dont know it any different. Some of them who I know were shocked about the - for them - crappy Unreal Engine 1. Somebody wanted to make a cave for me, some time ago. I told him: Well, as mesh it is useless for me. I told him about the cylinder collision, the disappearing meshes, the retarded lighting (this all happened before 227g) and he was like "WTF are you mapping for?".
ATM I am about to start a project with some buddies, some of them are making additional static meshes, I will take care of the textures. We try to share the content as best as possible, both textures and static meshes. I still like to map for the oldies. I have never really liked UT2004 and it seems I am to old for UT3 .. lol. So why should we make our live any harder if the possibilities are given to make it easier?

With your way of thinking "bsp at all costs" you will be limited forever. Funny enough, that I say something like that, because I thought a long time ago like you, however I avoided meshes because of their uselessness (so happened before 227g as well). But things are different now.
Unreal Engine 1 is a relic from ancient times. BSP is limited as you might now and the 65536 nodes is ONLY one of the problems. I mean if you would create a hall with repeating architecture constructions, nowadays no problem at all. Once the static mesh is in the RAM, repeating him is not a big deal.



Edit: This is not meant to be insulting in any way. I just noticed it could be understood wrong.
I just mean, if you keep it simple, Unreal Engine is happy, as long as you dont start to build something more complex, then it starts to act weird.
Its like comparing a Redeemer Cube with extreme detail work. Its just not possible.

Or like:
"Man, its really hot today, this sucks."
"Whats your problem, dude? The weather is nice"
"My a**, have you worked all the day in the to warm office without air conditioner and a cold cola? No? Then STFU"

Quote:
I'm interested in the technical details though. There's talk of being able to make static meshes "on the fly". This would explain why I didn't immediately detect the smeshes on Turboman's test map. Am I right in assuming that you can make up a bunch of detail brushes, and instead of converting to semisolid as I usually do, I can just convert to a staticmesh? This could come in handy...

Yes? Like I said, they can be easily created in the Ed as well. You could also prepare them in the Ed and then convert it as wavefront to any 3D modelling programm, edit them and import them back for example. What about .. you test it out yourself, I mean its not like you have to wait for 227h?
You  can use convert to static mesh as well to avoid (de)intersecting, so as some kind of tool if you want to see it on that way.
  

UT99.org Community Mappack 2:&&http://www.ut99.org/utr/infopage.html
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Hellkeeper
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Soulless Automaton

Posts: 2639
Location: France
Joined: May 21st, 2008
Gender: Male
Re: Some words about 227 (and static meshes)
Reply #22 - Apr 23rd, 2011 at 3:17pm
Print Post  
TheIronKnuckle wrote on Apr 23rd, 2011 at 1:02pm:
There's talk of being able to make static meshes "on the fly". This would explain why I didn't immediately detect the smeshes on Turboman's test map. Am I right in assuming that you can make up a bunch of detail brushes, and instead of converting to semisolid as I usually do, I can just convert to a staticmesh? This could come in handy... Grin


Right-Click=>Convert=>To Static-Mesh. You can't make it easier Wink

As someone who started mapping seriously with UT2004, I confirm that working with meshes is more copy/paste intensive And, in a way, less satisfying. BSP offers absolute control, but you find yourself limited by the engine itself as to polygons and performances. Then again, it's not impossible to do something nice with BSP only, even in an engine used to full mesh-made maps, but it takes a lot more time, creates more problems, is usually less detailed and overall, can be a pretty big waste of time and efforts. The ability to create your map from scratch in the editor with no other programm is what sells BSP to me. I like mapping because of UnrealEd and I like Unrealed because of mapping, I don't feel like creating a map in another program, and I don't feel like creating meshes in UED.
  

You must construct additional pylons.
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
creavion
Senior Member
****
Offline


Waiting for the final
release (Bankai)!

Posts: 360
Location: SmirtFISH Fanboy
Joined: Oct 12th, 2009
Gender: Male
Re: Some words about 227 (and static meshes)
Reply #23 - Apr 23rd, 2011 at 3:49pm
Print Post  
I could SWEAR I told Smirf long time he should please include a function to convert a static mesh in the mesh browser as well... but whatever.

BTW: Nice work, Hellkeeper. I am not sure if I have understood that now right, have you created that with bsp only or not?
  

UT99.org Community Mappack 2:&&http://www.ut99.org/utr/infopage.html
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Hellkeeper
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Soulless Automaton

Posts: 2639
Location: France
Joined: May 21st, 2008
Gender: Male
Re: Some words about 227 (and static meshes)
Reply #24 - Apr 23rd, 2011 at 4:19pm
Print Post  
It's all BSP and thanks.

I'm not sure I understood what you suggested to Smirftsch: the possibility to convert a Static mesh into... a regular mesh ?
  

You must construct additional pylons.
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
creavion
Senior Member
****
Offline


Waiting for the final
release (Bankai)!

Posts: 360
Location: SmirtFISH Fanboy
Joined: Oct 12th, 2009
Gender: Male
Re: Some words about 227 (and static meshes)
Reply #25 - Apr 23rd, 2011 at 4:35pm
Print Post  
Hellkeeper wrote on Apr 23rd, 2011 at 4:19pm:
It's all BSP and thanks.

I'm not sure I understood what you suggested to Smirftsch: the possibility to convert a Static mesh into... a regular mesh ?

Its really good work. Do you map anymore for .. UT1?

No. I just meant: In UT2004 in the sm browser there is a "Create Static Mesh from Selection" (Icon: that single paper sheet), pressing that button just calls the "Convert to Static Mesh" window.
  

UT99.org Community Mappack 2:&&http://www.ut99.org/utr/infopage.html
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Hellkeeper
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Soulless Automaton

Posts: 2639
Location: France
Joined: May 21st, 2008
Gender: Male
Re: Some words about 227 (and static meshes)
Reply #26 - Apr 23rd, 2011 at 5:26pm
Print Post  
Oh. Then it's not that complicated to just add the SM tot he map and convert it into another static-mesh on the spot.

I am currently mapping or Unreal, mapped for UT2004/UT99 in the past.
  

You must construct additional pylons.
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
TheIronKnuckle
New Member
*
Offline


Oldunreal member

Posts: 21
Location: Australia
Joined: Oct 1st, 2008
Gender: Male
Re: Some words about 227 (and static meshes)
Reply #27 - Apr 24th, 2011 at 1:04am
Print Post  
@creavion, I'm not taking offense, because I can see you're quite passionate about mapping and your strong opinion reflects that Tongue

Here's the thing: I have no use for static meshes. My projects are nowhere near as visually ambitious as yours, or as large a scale as yours. I am quite content with BSP because I reckon you can pull off a good looking map in it without being Super-detailed. To me, super detailed != good looking.

But that's just me!  Grin I generally don't like smesh filled maps, but as I said, Turbomans map has made me reconsider, because for the first time ever, I couldn't tell the difference between smesh and BSP.
I knew there were meshes in there, and every now and then I'd look at something and go "that looks like a mesh, but I can't be too sure....". So when I opened the map and saw that the whole thing was a mesh my mind was blown.

That testmap alone has gone a long way to reducing my prejudice against smeshes. I don't plan on using them myself, and I hope we don't see too many "mesh only" maps (because as I've said, I can't appreciate those as much), but I do hope that good use is made of static meshes where appropriate Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GreatEmerald
Oldunreal MasterPoster
*
Offline


The Great Emerald

Posts: 5361
Location: Vilnius, Lithuania
Joined: May 21st, 2007
Gender: Male
Re: Some words about 227 (and static meshes)
Reply #28 - Apr 24th, 2011 at 6:45am
Print Post  
Personally I like creating BSP maps because it's way faster to do that than making new meshes in an external program. If it was faster the other way round, then I'd definitely go for it, but unfortunately that's far from being the case and it's the main reason why I nearly never create maps from scratch in UT2004 and UT3.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Kajgue
Global Moderator
Betatester
*****
Offline


Super-sexy-Kung-Fu-H
obo-sunva-bitch

Posts: 330
Location: Apophizal (T:S:B) Headquarters
Joined: Oct 17th, 2005
Gender: Male
Re: Some words about 227 (and static meshes)
Reply #29 - Aug 26th, 2013 at 12:25pm
Print Post  
Well if static meshes were compatible with lightmap lighting like world geometry utilizes, i would probably replace all my additives with static meshes for a healthier BSP tree, it's unfortunate that they don't.
  

AKA - ( T : S : B ) Ice-Lizard


Whistleblower Ted Gunderson
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 
Send TopicPrint
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo