NS2 static/dynamic models for structural purposes

Browser_ICEBrowser_ICE Join Date: 2002-11-04 Member: 6944Members
<div class="IPBDescription">What is planned related to this </div>Looking at the colored concept made me realized something.

How much effort will be put into NS2 for realism in terms of map structural details vs static/dynamic models ?


I mean, just looking at this corridor, you see right there a high volume of poly amount if you want it to be that detailed. Now doing this with map brushes is a bit of pain and you loose a bit of quality doing it this way. Doing it as a model static or dynamic, you can achieve a high quality detail. Maybe having some of those pannels or corridor componants as models would be a better approch but then, I don't know what is your budget in terms of model limits.

So what is the NS2 developement team comments on this ?

What kind of structural models are planned for NS2 ? Static or dynamic ?
If dynamic, how dynamic will they be ? Moving parts ?

Having structural models would enable re-usability and modular design for NS2 maps and even give the NS2 future community something to play with when designing their own maps. You could have endless combinations of corridor types just by assembling different pannel models.

Maybe a friendly competition amongst the community to bring some of the models static or dynamic would be a good idea ? The chosen ones would be included as a standard package to NS2.

What do you think ?

Comments

  • MaxMax Technical Director, Unknown Worlds Entertainment Join Date: 2002-03-15 Member: 318Super Administrators, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
    This is something we're working through now and will probably post about it on the development blog in the near future. The short answer is that that yes a lot of the details in the maps will come from props and we're going to design those to be reusable.

    This is good for workflow, but it's also essential with the Source engine since creating complex geometry with the BSP slows down the engine.

    Max
  • NS-SkorpioNNS-SkorpioN Join Date: 2006-10-31 Member: 58101Members
    Don't forget a cocooned human props models! some technician operators traped in webs or something like it, as seen in Aliens.
  • SheepeSheepe Join Date: 2003-12-22 Member: 24650Members
    <!--quoteo(post=1610498:date=Mar 1 2007, 10:59 PM:name=NS-SkorpioN)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(NS-SkorpioN @ Mar 1 2007, 10:59 PM) [snapback]1610498[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
    Don't forget a cocooned human props models! some technician operators traped in webs or something like it, as seen in Aliens.
    <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    mmmm... noooo...

    To much of a direct rip-off

    -Sheepe
  • HarrowerHarrower Join Date: 2005-03-16 Member: 45478Members
    <!--quoteo(post=1610474:date=Mar 1 2007, 09:05 PM:name=Max)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Max @ Mar 1 2007, 09:05 PM) [snapback]1610474[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->creating complex geometry with the BSP slows down the engine.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Creating complex brushwork is more taxing on the engine than creating complex models?
  • douchebagatrondouchebagatron Custom member title Join Date: 2003-12-20 Member: 24581Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
    i think thats true, but im not positive. i know for a fact though that complex brushwork can never look as good as models simply because you cant really make that complicated of brushwork. its much more difficult to work with from the modelling and skinning standpoint, and doesnt look near as good.
  • BuzzouBuzzou Join Date: 2006-12-14 Member: 59056Members, Constellation
    <!--quoteo(post=1610498:date=Mar 2 2007, 03:59 AM:name=NS-SkorpioN)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(NS-SkorpioN @ Mar 2 2007, 03:59 AM) [snapback]1610498[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
    Don't forget a cocooned human props models! some technician operators traped in webs or something like it, as seen in Aliens.
    <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    this was done waaaay back in duke nukem 3D, i dont think it would be suitable for NS...
  • SpaceJesusSpaceJesus Join Date: 2004-07-02 Member: 29683Banned
    Basically BSP is good for using for floors/walls/ceilings etc, the very basic layout of the map - but its very slow to render iirc, meaning that the vast majority of the detail in the map should come from static/dynamic prop models and texturing.

    A good example of how this works is the UT2.5 engine (The engine UT2004 runs on) where BSP is used for the basic walls/floors/ceilings etc of the maps, but all of the detail in the map is used through static meshes, basically prop models which are cached in memory and are then rendered straight from the memory. That means they're rendered a lot faster than having to be rendered through the CPU/GPU as it's essentially only rendered once and then copied to wherever else the prop is used in that map.
    I would imagine a similar method is used by Source to render prop models.

    And if you add onto that the fact that the actual geometry building tools in Hammer are pretty bad compared to an external 3D app such as 3DSMax or Maya ....
  • MerkabaMerkaba Digital Harmony Join Date: 2002-01-24 Member: 22Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester
    edited March 2007
    Ideally for NS2 we are looking to create a good mix of these three aspects:

    Original Half-Life style BSP mapping, using materials in interesting ways
    Reusable props to enhance the detail of the world, architecturally and otherwise.
    'One-shot' props that are made on a per-map basis and are unique to that setting/environment.
  • Carbon14Carbon14 Join Date: 2002-07-29 Member: 1025Members, Retired Developer
    <!--quoteo(post=1610857:date=Mar 3 2007, 06:17 AM:name=6john)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(6john @ Mar 3 2007, 06:17 AM) [snapback]1610857[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
    i think thats true, but im not positive. i know for a fact though that complex brushwork can never look as good as models simply because you cant really make that complicated of brushwork. its much more difficult to work with from the modelling and skinning standpoint, and doesnt look near as good.
    <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Thats not really true, unfortunately in HL2 the only clear advantage in using props is ease of creation and speed of rendering. For everything else brushwork will pretty much look better, since its actually lit properly. It receives shadows and is lit correctly in comparison with the environment, things which props dont do. The props in the source engine are lit from a single spot, they dont even have true vertex lighting. This means for instance a long pipe that goes from a light area to a dark area for instance will often look terrible, either glowing in the dark at one end, or looking like its in the depth of shadow at the other. As far as I know this is how it still works, and its not that much of an advancement from HL1. This lighting style works *quite* well with "realistic" maps with lots of ambient lighting, but not so well for contrasty light and dark areas as we may be seeing in NS2. Hopefully static prop lighting will be getting a serious overhaul after episode2 though! At least I have heard that that may be the case.

    IF what I have said is the case, which as far as I know it is, it could prove quite tiresome working around these problems. In the original NS the theme often involved heavy use of sharp edged shadows and spotlights, unfortunately the way Source's current lighting system is, as soon as you put a prop accross one of these sharp lighting edges you will get an eyesore. I'll be crossing my fingers that we will at least get correct vertex lighting in the update.
  • MerkabaMerkaba Digital Harmony Join Date: 2002-01-24 Member: 22Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester
    edited March 2007
    Have you tried compiling your maps with '-staticproplighting' as one of your HLRAD parameters? It <b>drastically</b> improves the lighting of static props. I'm not sure why it isn't on as default. Props that fall between two contrasting light styles are privy to looking rather ugly still, but for the most part it makes them much more accurate at detecting subtle light positionings and such.
  • douchebagatrondouchebagatron Custom member title Join Date: 2003-12-20 Member: 24581Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
    and yes props dont receive light as well as brushwork, but they can have much more detail added in every other aspect. the creator has much more control over texture vertices and faces. also they can be animated to a much higher degree than brushwork.
  • Carbon14Carbon14 Join Date: 2002-07-29 Member: 1025Members, Retired Developer
    <!--quoteo(post=1612032:date=Mar 7 2007, 05:37 AM:name=Merkaba)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Merkaba @ Mar 7 2007, 05:37 AM) [snapback]1612032[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
    Have you tried compiling your maps with '-staticproplighting' as one of your HLRAD parameters? It <b>drastically</b> improves the lighting of static props. I'm not sure why it isn't on as default. Props that fall between two contrasting light styles are privy to looking rather ugly still, but for the most part it makes them much more accurate at detecting subtle light positionings and such.
    <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    thanks for that, it seems to enable correct vertex lighting at least, I cant expect much more than that I suppose <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" /> I still find it worrysome in a way though, looks like I will have to take into account the lighting aspect when building props and designing their poly distribution based on possible lighting conditions.

    And 6john, your right, props have a lot of benefits, Its just that with source and the way its lighting is done you have to be pretty careful about what you do to make sure everything looks cohesive. Large portions of fairly poorly lit props really stick out next to the crisp realistic light bouncing and shadows on brushwork. I was mainly pointing out that lighting is a huge part of the feel of NS and its maps, and lighting isn't one of Source's particularly strong points at the moment.

    Speaking of which, does anyone know some details about what engine changes are coming along with episode 2?
  • J!J! NS2 Artist Join Date: 2004-11-14 Member: 32788Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester
    edited March 2007
    <!--quoteo(post=1612050:date=Mar 7 2007, 03:52 PM:name=CarbonI4)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(CarbonI4 @ Mar 7 2007, 03:52 PM) [snapback]1612050[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
    Speaking of which, does anyone know some details about what engine changes are coming along with episode 2?
    <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-Life_2:_Episode_Two#Technology" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-Life_2:_..._Two#Technology</a>

    I have seen some examples (videos) of the episode two engine enhancements, but I can't remember where.
  • KaineKaine Join Date: 2002-08-07 Member: 1096Members, Constellation
    While i completely understand and support UW's use of the Source engine for NS2, as far as level design, detail and overall effect goes, i believe the Doom3/Quake 4 engine is considerably superior, it lends itself much better to detailed sci-fi environments and dramatic lighting through its unified lighting architecture, which renders both static, player and foreground models at the same time, which basically means that static models as props are virtually indescernable from bsp based architecture to the player in terms of lighting. Unfortunately texture detail often gives them away, but this is true of all FPS engines to date. Having said that, considering what the NS team did with goldsrc, i can't wait to see what they do with Source, particularly with access to the engine code! I have a feeling dynamic environmental detail generation (dynamic infestation) is just the beginning of some jaw dropping new developments on Source from UW.
  • MerkabaMerkaba Digital Harmony Join Date: 2002-01-24 Member: 22Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester
    Personally I feel that when choosing an engine, you're not only choosing what its capabilities are but you're also commiting to a particular style. NS2 on the Doom3 engine would have a very different visual look to that of Source, and if an engine other than Source had to be chosen I would personally opt for the Unreal engine instead.

    However, the benefits of Source's other features greatly outweighs its lackluster prop lighting, in my opinion. And the great thing is that the Source engine gets better with time, whereas the Doom3 engine, so far as I understand, is pretty much decaying already.
  • StardogStardog Join Date: 2004-10-25 Member: 32448Members
    edited March 2007
    <!--quoteo(post=1612050:date=Mar 7 2007, 01:22 AM:name=CarbonI4)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(CarbonI4 @ Mar 7 2007, 01:22 AM) [snapback]1612050[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
    thanks for that, it seems to enable correct vertex lighting at least, I cant expect much more than that I suppose <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" /> I still find it worrysome in a way though, looks like I will have to take into account the lighting aspect when building props and designing their poly distribution based on possible lighting conditions.

    And 6john, your right, props have a lot of benefits, Its just that with source and the way its lighting is done you have to be pretty careful about what you do to make sure everything looks cohesive. Large portions of fairly poorly lit props really stick out next to the crisp realistic light bouncing and shadows on brushwork. I was mainly pointing out that lighting is a huge part of the feel of NS and its maps, and lighting isn't one of Source's particularly strong points at the moment.
    <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    From when I used to map with the HL2 engine it seems to light models/meshes perfectly well, and definately a lot better than the UT2003/4 engine does. Plus, obviously it has bounced lighting making for some realistic lighting.

    BSP for small details is what you did pre to 2003. Engines nowadays should be model based and BSP shouldn't be used for small details. That's why there are no custom maps for HL2/CS:S that look better than the best UT2003/4 custom maps (from what I've seen), since everyone seems to use brushes for everything. It's kinda sad actually.

    Here's an extreme example of meshes/bsp, but it's not the best example since some of these models were probably pre-lit in maya.
    <img src="http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/4382/staticmesheshq6.jpg" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />

    I'm glad they're going in the model direction.
  • Carbon14Carbon14 Join Date: 2002-07-29 Member: 1025Members, Retired Developer
    Me too, it is the future after all! (and It suits me fine, since I know how to model, wheras with the constant advancement of tools soon mappers may become fairly redundant since anyone can do it, have a look at oblivion or the demo of the Crysis sandbox editor for extremes of that) My main problem with Hl2's and any other games props I suppose is the quite obvious lighting quality differences between the brush based and static based map objects. To me unreal has a more "cohesive" look since the bsp geometry and the props are both equally fairly poorly lit in the scheme of things. That screenshot you posted may look good because its complex but because of the utter lack of shadows on any of the props it has a fairly...odd..appearance. (to me anyway)

    Just for example run through ravenholm again, with its extensive use of shadows and light and dark areas there are lots of instances where things just look a little "odd" with the way props are lit.

    Either way, source was by far the best choice of engine for NS, and with its updates it will no doubt start to look better and better!
  • Browser_ICEBrowser_ICE Join Date: 2002-11-04 Member: 6944Members
    That is why when I saw the colored concept, I believed and continue to believe that BSP should be used only for the map's basics. Modeling should be done for details. That's how it struck me looking at their image. Building walls made out of different models would allow a modular design that the community will easily use in their custom maps.

    To demonstrate this further, it would be so much easier if someone would create screenshots that same colored concept image with wall models combined in different ways. Having a modular design would speed up the maping process of the community and therefore bring more diversity. The more modular modeled walls there are, the better.
  • MerkabaMerkaba Digital Harmony Join Date: 2002-01-24 Member: 22Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester
    edited March 2007
    Don't expect all the walls with detail to be models, for reasons that have been mentioned above. If every wall that had some factor of depth in its design was a prop, you would lose a lot of source's gorgeous lighting; normal maps do the job just as well, and you spend less time staring at it and more time avoiding that skulk flying toward your nose. The amount of detail and quantity of props in Unreal has always been a turn-off to me - I find it difficult to focus on the areas of the screen that matter when my peripheral vision is swarmed with polys. Anyway, stick around and you'll soon see some examples of what we have so far in terms of BSP & props.
Sign In or Register to comment.