I just noticed you are using hi-res textures, above 256x256. Generally this isn't recommended, as it could cause issues on older systems, so you might want to consider resizing them in Photoshop / PSP / paint / wally.
Like Vash said: "Welcome to the snarkpit. We'll eat your legs"
Finally, someone realizes my infinite knowledge!!!11
/runs off into woods without pants
Like the others said, you are not even close to HL2. Did you forgot about static mesh's? Half-Life2 is heavy on them. Once your done actually retexturing your map, you'll find ALOT of static mesh's that'll replace objects you already have, and will cut down on r`s. And dont think for a second HL2 is some superb, r-speed-killer. Sure, it is REALLY powerful, and true in most case's R_speeds wont even be in your mind, but HL2 isnt a PERFECT engine. It still has its limits as well...
Well I think most of the comments here have been incredibly harsh - I must say as a map at the beginning of your level design life its extremely impressive.
1500 w_poly however, is much too high for what you have here. 24 sided cylinders, is miles more than you will ever need, 16 is the most you should ever go for in normal circumstances.
While most people have criticised your choice of limited textures, I think it works to your advantage. What I found striking about that particular set in the film was the material simplicity. The stylised architecture complete with clean materials is extremely atmospheric and personally I think you have done a reasonable job of capturing that. Rather than just use texture lights I suggest you play around with light_spots to achieve the pools of light below the pillars like in that photo. Get new crate textures, vary your concrete textures slightly, get your extra details in (handrails etc...) and I think you will be doing yourself proud at your current experience level.
DO try and lower w_poly to below 1000 though, what you have here does not merit higher.
Posted by 7dk2h4md720ih on
Thu Mar 11th 2004 at 7:49pm
If you're not doing any of the above ground parts you could create a pure white sky and use that to texture the those lights about the pillars. It'd mean you have no texture lights being split up and increasing poly's. Just a thought.
fraggard said: Okay, A few more things I could think of to help:
The recessed lights along the wall could probably be done better with textures
The textures mostly seem like default HL textures. You could get much higher detail from some newer ones. You might find what you need if you look around.
The crates seem terribly boring. Unless you really need them, you might want to get rid of them
Defintely reduce the number of polygons on those pillar tops. 8 usually does just fine. You could mask the blockiness with some proper textures.
The boxy rooms. Try modifiying the actual layout of the room itself, so it looks less like a box full of pillars :/
Those are some great idea's, I think 8 polygons is a bit low for the top of the pillars but should work fine for the pillars themselves, and the textures aren't default HL. I got them from a fairly good site. You should check it out.
P.S. Broadband internet would be recommended for this site. Along with some basic french, although I think it has some english subtitles.
Smoke said: Carve isn't part of my vocabulary, and I appreciate the advice!!!, thankyou and keep it coming. This pillar was made at 24 sides apiece, I could cut the w_polies in half if I switch down to 12, that would bring the r_speeds to about 1500 w_polies. I could also cut the amount of wall lights down.
Okay, A few more things I could think of to help:
The recessed lights along the wall could probably be done better with textures
The textures mostly seem like default HL textures. You could get much higher detail from some newer ones. You might find what you need if you look around.
The crates seem terribly boring. Unless you really need them, you might want to get rid of them
Defintely reduce the number of polygons on those pillar tops. 8 usually does just fine. You could mask the blockiness with some proper textures.
The boxy rooms. Try modifiying the actual layout of the room itself, so it looks less like a box full of pillars :/
I wouldn't know anything about porting it, so Orph's advice is definitely much more authoritative on that. Good luck with it anyway
speaking as someone who has had to repeatedly re-texture other peoples maps on several occasions, i can tell you this... not making a map for HL2 on the pretense that you might have to re-texture it is a poor choice, it can be done, and would be easier since its your map to begin with, i have re-textured several maps in the past 5 years, and none of them were my creations, it was tedious, but not overwhelmingly so.
the stolen alpha hammer has the option of, using the HL2 materials wads, or the HL1 wads, by simply clicking it into the path.. maybe the released version will too.
as to the engines ability to render, it is on several magnitudes greater than HL1 in its ability to draw without slowing down, but no where near U2's ability, as per the alpha, which i suspect, consist of maps not fully compiled properly, so the engine works harder than necessary.
even if porting ends up being a chore, IMO its worth the effort, if you bare in mind some bits of info..
1) the entities will not be the same.
2) the materials will have alternate settings, to allow for wood to act like wood, stone like stone, and steel as steel.. you will need to render these once its ported.
3) from what i have seen, large portions of the HL2 maps are not constructed from world solids as in HL1, you may be forced to reconstruct things such as stairs and brick-a-brack, in order to render a quality release.
anywho's even if i am wrong on all counts, any mapping at all, is good mapping.. keeps those creative juices flowing so to speak..
Well, if you can get the r_speeds low enough, it will work fine for HL. Good luck; the sooner you cut down on polygon counts, the more likely it is that they will be low enough in the final version. If you leave the r_speeds reduction until the last minute, then you may have to start all over again (there's only so much you can get from tweaking; already you are thinking about rebuilding some architecture).
And thanks for your kind offer, but sadly spliffs and essays about modal quantification don't go well together :biggrin:
