I have tested super high lighting detail in a really big map, and at most it was around 60 mb (i think), 3 levels would never accumulate to that much but I understand what you are trying to say.

Enforcer said:
Yes, but i do not mind longer compile times for quality lighting, when it's finished it's finished.

Compile times are your decision... but I just warn you about people looking at a 500 MB file for 3 levels and just skip it because of size. I mean yea, it's less of an issue in the day of 100Mbit DSL. But don't underestimate it. Just a tip.

tnkqwe said:
I have made one nice shadow test.Give it a look:
[URL=http://img195.imageshack.us/i/specialshadowtest0004.png/][IMG]http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4999/specialshadowtest0004.th.png[/IMG][/URL]

Tnk, there is actually a way to get high detailed shadows in goldsource. This is what my map looked like before i ported it to source

PICTUREFINGYLOLZ

I'm not sure what method you used, but those shadows look razor sharp/hard.

Basically, the lower you scale a texture, the more lightmap quality you trick the engine into drawing; so a surface with a scale of 0.25 can have about four times more detailed lighting than a surface with a scale of 1.

But in order to do that without screwing up the appearance of a texture, you need to export the image somehow, stretch it to as high as possible, re-import it with wally then apply it to a surface in game and lower the size (so it will look normal as well since you stretched it for this purpose) and you should then get a surface with high lightmap detail, so then the engine can calculate its own shadows rather than have to improvise with artificial ones.

I have made one nice shadow test.Give it a look:
[URL=http://img195.imageshack.us/i/specialshadowtest0004.png/][IMG]http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4999/specialshadowtest0004.th.png[/IMG][/URL]

Yes, but i do not mind longer compile times for quality lighting, when it's finished it's finished.

Looks nice. If you get those super-sharp shadows by turning up light-patches resolution incredibly high, realize this will increase your compile times and BSP file sizes by a factor of 20 or more. You might want to turn them down a little.

aaron_da_killa said:
That space is lit much better now, would you agree?

Now my leak is finally fixed, yes there is an improvement. It will be a while until i post anything new, I get episodic amnesia and can't remember my original ideas.

aaron_da_killa said:
That space is lit much better now, would you agree?

Well, I'm sure it would look nice, but after fixing all the leaks my map now appears to be pitch black.

aaron_da_killa said:

• I don't remember this thread or posting those screenshots.

I never look at the dates... your post was over a year old.

After you've compiled your map (dosen't matter with or without vis and rad, just a finished compile) go into the hammer toolbar: map > load pointfile. Then find and follow the red line and it will show you where there leak is.

That space is lit much better now, would you agree?