I think it takes more skill to understand the engine and work within the realm of r_speeds but whatever floats your boat...personally I'm not going to play a map with greater than around 1000 r_speed even though my computer isn't too shabby. Because why? It's an engine limitation and anyone who says otherwise has to be fooling themselves. Either that or they like playing at 15 fps :smile: ah the fps debate is another one of the biggies. Some people seem to be happy with 30 fps and r_speeds >1000 whereas I'm in the train of though of 100 fps and r_speeds <750 or so. And that's in a calm area away from action...if it's in action you need to compensate for the amount of people that'd be in the area at the time. Etc. etc. etc. not intending to start any wars, just stating my views on the situation and how mapping seems to be getting sloppier.

Crono said:
Post so well? whachoo talkin' 'bout Willis?

you hesitate to assume ill intent.. a refreshing concept for a new arrival.

several times now we could have crossed swords, but you showed a level of restraint i like..

i am pleased to say the least... and find it refreshing.

tis a rarity around here.

Post so well? whachoo talkin' 'bout Willis?

Do you mean my grammer, spelling, or ideas?
In all honesty I think I'm a horrible writter, if someone compliments me on writting I glare at them, because they're lying.

I write WAY too much, I don't nessesarily get what I need said in short descriptions, so they get long and overdrawn, which leads to things being explained too welll.

Here's an example . . . . well you're done reading it now :biggrin: lol.

Thanks for the compliment nonetheless, and yeah I am pretty new here. I'm just surprised people respond to things I say.

you're pretty new to SP crono ( no insult intended)

you missed some pretty lively, and in the end, somewhat informative debates over the r_speed issue vs. machine specs.

i really wouldn't know how to search for them via leps search option, but i can guarantee, they will keep you entertained.

i faired poorly in them, tis why i tend to be conservative about the issue now..

frankly, i find it refreshing that you can post so well..

Based on the maps using the original HL textures in a read world scenario:

The architects and construction teams who worked on Black Mesa must not have a very nice running record . . . everyplace they build gets infested by people killing each other, or aliens . . .

Also, I must of mis-read your post, Orph. I thought you were saying that high-end computers can't go past the 800 wpoly realm so I was retorting with an example. :biggrin:

It is sad that Charlie does reach 1850 or so, but if everyone could run it, there'd be no problem lol. (Don't respond to that last remark)

Cassius said:
Indeed, HL textures can be used quite artfully - look at parts of ETC and a few areas in HL singleplayer.

What I mean...is that they should stay in HL single player, they're nice in their original context, but seeing a new map with old textures...no thanks.

Any kind of feedback is most welcome!

Surely that is a complete lie.

Crono said:

Orpheus:
i have a very large PC and i still find r_speeds to be my main issue of concern.. PC specs cannot overcome the 1000 barrier.. no matter what anyone thinks to the contrary.

Well I guess Vavle is wrong then . . . taking that some of the maps in DOD 1.0 and up have r_speeds of close to 2000. (charlie tops at 1850)

as i said in my posts above the part you quoted, this has been hashed and re-hashed to no ones satisfaction.. wars have been fought with less debate than we have allotted to this ideal..

sighs

can maps be made with r_speeds in excess of 1000 DAMNED STRAIGHT

will a large pc make a difference in how well one plays.. YES

will a large pc compensate enuff to make r_speeds a non-issue- NOT IN OUR LIFETIMES

bottomline folks, make your maps any way you wish, thats the joy of doing it, but when you require others to share it with you, remember that they might not be quite as enthusiastic as you... if you ask for honest feedback expect it.

Orpheus:
i have a very large PC and i still find r_speeds to be my main issue of concern.. PC specs cannot overcome the 1000 barrier.. no matter what anyone thinks to the contrary.

Well I guess Vavle is wrong then . . . taking that some of the maps in DOD 1.0 and up have r_speeds of close to 2000. (charlie tops at 1850)

Oh, by the way, Lekki, your map has too high of r_speeds (OBVIOUSLY), but it doesn't even look that nice, the architecture up towards the top of the building is a little fancy, but . . . other then that there's nothing. There were fancier maps in HL with r_speeds aroun 500. . . If you're going to have high r_speeds, have an excuse. Like. . .move able rocks and pebbils lol. (jk, that's overboard) but your map should look amazingly better if its going over 800 . . . I mean from the images it looks like it should top at maybe 650, obviously it doesn't, so that's my point . . . clean up what you've made, then add nice details, like attachment metal rods coming out of the beams that are broken, just somethign so you have an excuse for the r_speeds, not just poor design.

By the way, I mean no offense about anything I said here.

The other day I was talking to my friend, and he was having troubles with an rmf file, it wasn't compiling and he sent it to me I was looking at it and he asked why it wasn't compiling and I told him the honest truth, that he did a sloppy job. He got really pissed off, because he's new to mapping and he just thought I was being a dick. (He had brushes going into each other for like 80 units . . . it was awful.) so, I'm kind of trying to watch how I word things from not on.

So, it's all contructive criticism :biggrin:

There are DoD maps that are waaaay bigger with r-speeds lower than this ... It really IS possible to make an eye-popping map with low r-speeds that runs fluently on "archaic" hardware.