Test

Due to the lockage of the first "Combine staging area" thread, I have made the effort to get off my arse and make a new one. Now I'm not particularly fond of accepting help with my maps but since I don't have much to go by I would be glad of some advice from experienced mappers. I'm gonna show you guys the map in fullbright and with no cubemaps because lighting is really not a problem for me, it's just trying to make an area look interesting that wasn't been done in the game that I fail with.
Here are some screenshots of the current areas:

Here's the initial area where the player arrives outside:



And then here is the main "staging area":







Now here's a second staging area where they work on gunships:





And this is a third staging area where they work on dropships:





I've got a technical question here- at the moment the only things blocking visibility are nodraw brushes that are seperating the areas the concrete walls are func_details.

Is this really needed or am I just creating more work for myself by sandwiching and nodraw brushes in my actual visible walls that func_details?

Or should I just leave the concrete walls as world brushes?

You see at the moment I need two walls- the actual visible concrete walls and the nodraw walls to seal off the world, what I would like to know is; is it really necessary?

Geez, posting this was an absolute disaster. I had to post it twice before and it didn't go through the pipeline.

---

Just Kidding

Just Kidding

Flynn said:
even if they are just opinions.

Personally, I'd like another definition of exactly what it is we do around here if "just opinions" isn't it.

Dude, you have a very unique way of introducing yourself with regards to acceptance.

I am quite sure Snarkpit will help you, but you truly need to learn how to abase yourself a bit better.

Besides, if opinions isn't the route you intend, we can find someone to bop you over the head if you want.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Okay I'll edit that bit out. Gee I'll have to look up what "abase" means first before I can reply to that one. EDIT: Okay I looked that word up and I don't know what to be humble about really. The reason I said that I don't normally like to accept help is because architechere (I can't be arsed to look that word up) is a very personal thing and it is also what I need the most guidance on.

---

Just Kidding

Just Kidding

should I just leave the concrete walls as world brushes?

YES. Never I answered a question in this forum with so much confidence. Yes, yes and yes again. Detail brushes are for stairs and scaffoldings.

I also believe you place nodraw brushes as vis blockers additionally to your normal walls? Nodraw is more of a texture you put on top of a world-brush when you're quite sure the player will never see it (thus it shouldn't be "drawn"). Mostly, you don't have to use nodraw-brushes, really. It hasn't much to do with vis-blocking at all.

besides that:

Your shots are almost entirely dominated by prop_static models. I don't see much "architecture", really. My tip: Delete or hide the prop_statics for now and work solely on the brushwork. Basic lighting (a light_environment that comes in in a light angle) is necessary to make the polygon-edges more visible. It's hard to see anything of the architecture because you can barely make out where one wall ends and the other starts.

Also try and think of more vertical changes. The wall has the same height everywhere, no buildings connected to it, ect. It's very bland.

---

Why snark works.

cubemaps aren't that important as far as how most screenshots will look, but lighting certainly is. lighting will help people to see the depth and shape of your architecture, and will result in more accurate feedback. if you're not too confident with lights and haven't played around with them much, then do, and you'll be pleasantly surprised at how much a few of them can change the feel of an area. even if you only mess around with a light or two every time you compile, you'll soon get a feel for the various settings.

---

i eat paint

on top of the other comments, your supports for the vehicles that are being worked on seem to be fake, i would imagine the combine having something a little less primitive and block looking [/2cents]

Okay, I have eight whole shots of the very bare bones of the world without prop_static models and with light_environ:

Again, the initial area where the player will emerge from the underground base:



Again, the first staging area that the player will know:









And the second staging area which is rather plain without it's props:



And now the area where they service dropships:

---

Just Kidding

Just Kidding

I lost my long posts twice:oops:

Reaper47 said:
I also believe you place nodraw brushes as vis blockers additionally to your normal walls? Nodraw is more of a texture you put on top of a world-brush when you're quite sure the player will never see it (thus it shouldn't be "drawn"). Mostly, you don't have to use nodraw-brushes, really. It hasn't much to do with vis-blocking at all.

Rest assured Reaper47 I was only using nodraw brushes because the actual walls where func_detail. When I redo the map I will not make nodraw sandwiches.

FatStrings said:
on top of the other comments, your supports for the vehicles that are being worked on seem to be fake, i would imagine the combine having something a little less primitive and block looking [/2cents]

Yes I have decided I am going to replace the concrete blocks with the "Breen Arm" model rested on a Combine metal base.

---

Just Kidding

Just Kidding

Now that already gives a much clearer picture of your map. I think it's height variation that is lacking. All these identical, concrete walls aren't too exciting as a background.

The proportions and the roof texture of the house looks a little off also. Try copying something from a real-world photo to get more realistic proportions.

---

Why snark works.

How is this for height variation?:







I was abit sceptical when I was doing it in Hammer, but it looked alot better ingame. Let me know exactly what you think of it. Image links have been made much less of a chore since the introduction of the new innovative tabbed browsing system on I.E.7.

---

Just Kidding

Just Kidding

More height variation, more! :smile: I mean blocks twice or 3 times as high. Don't let the skybox-brush stop you, build it higher.

The current shape looks a bit too soft because vrad blends the light at such small angles to hide the corners. Try something more brutal. Thick wall columns or something. Some building instead of the wall as an outer border. Look at existing maps like dm_runoff or dm_underpass. They have a lot of interesting height variation in the background and dm_runoff uses many simple walls also.

---

Why snark works.

Okay the only problem I have with hight variation on that scale is the fact that I will have to be careful about the size of the blocks that I modify or I won't be able to source a suitable Combine fence length. I've made a "high bit" that's about 1/3rd of the hight high and I'm going to post screenshots so that you and anyone else can tell me what they think:

---

Just Kidding

Just Kidding

Have u thought about mounting the gun ship vertically? like they did at the end of HL2 when you were riding through the citadel. the brooken concrete around the landing pad is a nice touch, but maybe you could raise it to about chest level while still making it look like the combine has placed it there.
A full compile with the the props included would help.

You mean the helicopter right? No I haven't thought of that, but I think it would suit the flying bug thingy. I don't honestly remember seeing any gunships mounted in the Citidel. Oh well. I'm still kinda blurry on what you mean by "gunships" normally it would be helicopters but in H-L 2 the flying bugs seem to be refered to as gunships also...so. But making the platform higher up is a good idea :smile: Thanks.

---

Just Kidding

Just Kidding

Ya, thats what i meant. I wasn't sure of the name ether.

Okay, thanks for that clarrification Redwood. So, anyone, about that hight variation?=b

---

Just Kidding

Just Kidding

Technically speaking, upping a wall a bit would give height variation, but imho a very fake feeling one. Add other buildings, hangars, cargo storage halls, and so on. The level doesn't simply lack height variation, it also lacks 'common sense'. If that's the right word. And it lacks variation: it's mostly concrete, concrete and some combine metal.

What I mean is: where on earth would you see such a concrete maze with an occasional house thrown in? Even if such places would exists, they're probably so rare that they simply feel fake anyway.

Such 'walled-in' levels were very common in older games, because these often lacked a 3D skybox system. Yes, it's usefull for VIS-blocking purposes, but on the other hand, you can get too frantic about that. Besides, a tall hangar can block VIS just as well, and on top of that it makes the player feel like he's in a place that could actually exist, a place that makes sense.

---

Create-ivity - a game development blog

So I'm trying to contemplate here. How should I go about making an "open" level? Should I just have skybox brushes instead of some walls and build the bit that the player can't get to in a 3dskybox? Or should I just make it out of normal solids? I've looked in a Valve map. The map in question is d1_town_03. I have observed that things I would generally consider to be part of a 3dskybox are infact in a part of the normal skybox which goes beyond the rest of the level.

Thanks much appreciated, Flynn

EDIT: Alright I have two options:

Option 1, the building is between the walls:



Option 2, the building is in the middle of a box shaped area:

---

Just Kidding

Just Kidding

Whether or not to use the 3D skybox isn't an exact science: some parts are relatively close so you could go for both. Some are pretty far away so almost anyone would use the 3D skybox for them. Depends on personal preference and which one compiles better for you in a particular situation. Note that bullets and stuff won't fly from the normal world into the 3D skybox, so that could be a reason to reserve the 3D skybox for far-away stuff only.

Both screenshots don't look particularly fitting. The concrete walls look bunker-like, while the building looks more residential. That doesn't fit. Personally I don't like the generic concrete walls anyway.
And an appartment building like that wouldn't be placed in such a confined square. Whether or not it's placed between those walls doesn't make much of a difference imho.
Perhaps you could take a look at some pictures of real environments if you find it hard to get idea's. The main problem here is that your area's don't feel like realistic places, but like generic walled-in levels.

---

Create-ivity - a game development blog

Hmm the buildings on the screenshots looks more like a factory hall to me but it's still not very fitting because of the old brick texture. Don't think so symmetrical, try some wilder, more asymmetric shapes placements for buildings. I think you're quite good at keeping efficient shapes for compiles ect. so it's more important to try something on the visual, the atmosphere part. And indeed, try and find some pictures of real places (for example like this).

But principally, Option 1. Try and keep things connected.

---

Why snark works.

to add: the building looks to centered and solitary, maybe you could put a street going off and add a couple more buildings like it, this would fit more and add the effect that your staging area might be next to a residential area in a city[/2cents]

Wow, comment explosion. lol, j/k. Okay we have a corner which has a building going off into it. We also Have an extended boxy bit on the white building. Observe:





But there is a problem. We can see that the building leads off into nowhere. Observe:



Btw, this is meant to be a warehouse type building, not a residential block. Please tell me how well I fare in that respect.

---

Just Kidding

Just Kidding

Now that's what we're talking about. :biggrin:

You already see quite clearly in the last pic, that the actual building in the background looks a gazillion times more interesting than the simple concrete wall.

There's a lot to be done, still. Preferably keep buildings simple (for now) and add a lot of them rather than spending the time making them super-detailed. Make sure they're forming a nice, interesting skyline; connect them in a way it's interesting and logical. Make some high ones and some smaller ones so you get variation and visual landmarks.

Keep in mind that the space between them is the actual layout the player can walk around so consider some interesting points of views and gameplay moments. You have to consider this early on because it's much more difficult to rearrange all your buildings later to make a place bigger or a corridor wider. It's always nice for the player to be able to climb to a higher place where he has an interesting view, maybe you can get a little more hight variation for actual, walkable areas.

I think you're getting on the right track with this.

---

Why snark works.

You can add depth by adding sections that are only visible with some effort. For instance, you climb a rock pile to a small hole that leads no place, but you can see vistas beyond.

Windows to nowhere work too. Doorways opened a crack... Barriers made of rod iron.

Smoke on a horizon too.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

i like the new warehouse, you might add some details, like damage or something to it though, just for artistic effect

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Captain P</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Personally I don't like the generic concrete walls anyway</DIV></DIV>

Okay well I've lowered a wall in one place just to make an example:



I've decided to make the buildings the level boundry here, but I think it could be done a bit better than this. Also, is it me or does the right side of that grey building look sort of odd?

---

Just Kidding

Just Kidding

the building on the right cuts off in a weird way, it looks unnatural, try not to make it look like it just stops, make it continue to the side so it looks like theirs a world out there, maybe add another building to the right of it

ye, the building on the right could be a case for a skybox.

But the lighting looks a little buggy also. Where's that dark stripe coming from. I don't know.

---

Why snark works.

Sorry I'm not quite sure what you mean Reaper47 :razz:

---

Just Kidding

Just Kidding

It seems I'm getting paranoid. :wink:

---

Why snark works.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting FatStrings</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>the building on the right cuts off in a weird way, it looks unnatural, try not to make it look like it just stops, make it continue to the side so it looks like theirs a world out there, maybe add another building to the right of it</DIV></DIV>

No can do I'm afraid. If I was to make that building go anymore so to the right then I would have to open the current area up to the next one, making optimisation an issue. I'm in need of something more...something...magical :biggrin:


This is the best I can come up with at the moment. Maybe it would trigger me to think of something better with some other users comments. I've got some "mappers block" at the moment I think.

---

Just Kidding

Just Kidding

Behold, the new and imrpoved warehouse:



I would appreciate it if you gentlemen and ladies could tell me how I can improve it yet more instead of it look like a tin can.

---

Just Kidding

Just Kidding

Looks a lot better man! You might wanna lose the windows on some of the faces to remove some of the repetition, and perhaps put in some detail like chimneys (complete with env_smokestacks providing nice particle effects), drainpipes or antennae. How about having a door on one of the faces instead of a window, leading out onto a walkway that connects it to a similar building nearby?

---

[img]http://card.mygamercard.net/sig/Default/reno84.png[/img]
Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net

Captain P said:
Personally I don't like the generic concrete walls anyway.

Yes I'm kinda struggling with this bit. You see- apart from the two open areas (the warehouse on the right and the one behind the Combine fence) all I've got is those dreary walls. I'm really stuck on this one :sad: So much so that I can't think of anything.

<DIV class=quotetext>[quote=Reno]Looks a lot better man! You might wanna lose the windows on some of the faces to remove some of the repetition, and perhaps put in some detail like chimneys (complete with env_smokestacks providing nice particle effects), drainpipes or antennae. How about having a door on one of the faces instead of a window, leading out onto a walkway that connects it to a similar building nearby?[/quote]</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Yes I've re textured this building but I'm not gonna post screenshots just yet as that kinda detracts from my main objective- relieving the feeling of the map being a walled in level. Which as you can hear I'm kinda struggling at :smile: The only thing I can think of making the walls better is some kind of detruction, but that would not fit in with the story idea I have formulated for what this test map is testing if you get what I mean </DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>I'm sorry to dump a kinda blank post on you guys. </DIV>

---

Just Kidding

Just Kidding

How about deleting the walls in an act of bravery and replacing them all by simple buildings.

---

Why snark works.

Okay I've taken the brave and selfless act of changing the design of one of the wall sections as an example:



If there are any details that anyone doesn't think are right or any that need adding, please let me know. Or even if it's completely wrong I would still appreciate someone to tell me. Just to let you guys know that I realise it doesn't line up with anything else in the world and I notice there is a big circle of Combine metal on the ground but it's just a little example so that's why. Thanks :cool:

P.S., why on the Valve example .vmf's do the buildings have a big block of nodraw inside them?

---

Just Kidding

Just Kidding

Like I said a few posts earlier, you're definitely on the right track.

My only remaining concern is proportion. The door and the chimneys look too big or the buildings too small. It's mainly about realism. The wall in the foreground, though interesting, doesn't look like it has any purpose, like you could see a wall like this in any real-world setting.

Looking at real-world reference photography (google) would be the next logical step to make the virtual world here more consistent and believable.

Also remember that you're building 3D. If the area behind the player (from the screenshot's perspective) looks plain and boring all the things you're doing for this view are in vain. Unfortunately it's lack of detail that gets players? attention, they take the good looks for granted. Put in detail homogeneously 360? around all important areas. Make sure the player sees something at least remotely interesting as he turns into any given direction.

But I'd say you've mastered the basics of visual map composition. The rest is experience and many minor things you'll find out about as you go.

Just compare this to the first screen you posted in this thread :smile: I really enjoyed watching the progression so far.

---

Why snark works.

P.S., why on the Valve example .vmf's do the buildings have a big block of nodraw inside them?

This is from the reference docs found with the button in the sdk start up window. If you new to maping i segest you read the whole thing. Hears the link. http://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Optimization_Tutorial It helped me a lot when i started.

Nodraw:
This magical texture makes all faces which it is put on disappear completely. You apply it as any other texture. You can find it searching for "nodraw" in the texture browser. When you use it on a face, the engine doesn't have to draw that face at all, meaning less load and faster maps. The effect for one face is minimal, but using it massively is a different matter. So when do you use it? As much as possible! Any face the player will never see, should get this nodraw texture. Think about things like the rear of walls the player never gets to see, or the roof of buildings, walls that are covered by entities (e.g. func_details). You can also use brushes with "nodraw" on all sides of a brush to close holes created by displacements (displacements don't seal leaks, but "nodraw"-brushes do). Only one exception: "nodraw" doesn't need to be applied to faces on the outside of the level, or ones that are already covered entirely by other world-brushes or func_details, since those faces are automatically removed by vbsp. Brushes with "nodraw" on all sides (I will call them NODRAW-brushes from now on) are still solid, even though you can't see them! If you look at a brush with nodraw, you will either see a skybox (if your map has one), other parts of your level (if their leaf is visible and are behind the nodraw) or just HOM-effects (halls of mirrors, the effect when a certain part of your view isn't updated, looks like a hall of mirrors...)

You may prefer to build your entire level with "nodraw"-textures and only texture the faces you can actually see, to make sure the engine doesn't render more faces than it has to.

Nodraw can't be applied to displacements, luckily there's rarely a reason for it.
Image:note.png Note: "Nodraw" is also used for creating water, just apply it on all sides apart from the top one.

Redwood said:
This is from the reference docs found with the button in the sdk start up window. If you new to maping i segest you read the whole thing. Hears the link. http://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Optimization_Tutorial It helped me a lot when i started.

Thanks Redwood. I know what nodraw does but what I don't understand is why the buildings are made up of say (for a square building) 4 brushes for walls, 1 brush for ceiling, and then another nodraw brush in the middle. Why not just have the building as one square brush and one roof brush?

Reaper47 said:
My only remaining concern is proportion. The door and the chimneys look too big or the buildings too small. It's mainly about realism.

Well there seem to be some weird door textures floating around wich have the door texture in a corner and the rest of the texture is black. So this makes it more difficult to determine the actual size the door is going to be. But I assure you, this will be rectified.

Reaper47 said:
The wall in the foreground, though interesting, doesn't look like it has any purpose, like you could see a wall like this in any real-world setting.

Well no offense but I Googled "concrete wall" and there wasn't very much in the way of inspiration;) The idea is that the Combine being the practical souls that they are have taken over a portion of an earth military base and are using it for their military operations. Now I'm no expert on military bases, but I would assume that they would have walls around them to keep people out who didn't belong there. So making an interesting concrete wall seems to be where I'm stuck.

Reaper47 said:
Just compare this to the first screen you posted in this thread :smile: I really enjoyed watching the progression so far.

Not really imhao. The biggest change has been adding light :cool:

Reaper47 said:
Also remember that you're building 3D. If the area behind the player (from the screenshot's perspective) looks plain and boring all the things you're doing for this view are in vain. Unfortunately it's lack of detail that gets players? attention, they take the good looks for granted. Put in detail homogeneously 360? around all important areas. Make sure the player sees something at least remotely interesting as he turns into any given direction.

Well the main things that are going to be in the main area are props and as someone (I think it might have been you) said earlier to turn the props off and concerntrate on world geometry which is what I am now doing.

---

Just Kidding

Just Kidding

Try googling for "military base" or "factory", "warehouse", "industry"... I'm always surprised how much completely "normal" architecture there is you completely forget until you see it on a photo. Always helped me a lot.

---

Why snark works.

Yes but things like radars the Combine would have taken away already.

---

Just Kidding

Just Kidding

Well, then I have told you everything I can think of. :smile:
I?ll come back for the first downloadable version.

---

Why snark works.

Well right about now it seems the only troublesome thing I need to combat is making a believeable replacement for the concrete walls. Which imhao where perfect for a military base but...

So how about this metal fence:

---

Just Kidding

Just Kidding

Maybe just... build a bit of architecture and have some fun with it... You could ask for advice for every bit of concrete. And you'll get advice! But it will just take forever to get anything finished.

I dunno, I could fill a page of text with comments about how to build military base walls or how not to build them (I did already) and most snarkpitters could write just as much. Maybe it's best you build some more, and experiment for yourself...

As for whether this wall looks fitting or not I can only, once again, give you some examples for reference photos. Real buildings will always looks stable and fitting so that's the only thing you can compare it to anyway.

If you want to make a realistic map that is...

---

Why snark works.

Thanks Redwood. I know what nodraw does but what I don't understand is why the buildings are made up of say (for a square building) 4 brushes for walls, 1 brush for ceiling, and then another nodraw brush in the middle. Why not just have the building as one square brush and one roof brush?

Were did u see that?

Instead of creating a whole wall of slats, you might consider a single bunker stile horizontal slat, since this is a military base that would cause it to feel more impregnable, if that's what your going for

I'm sorry...I...don't...quite...get...what...you...mean...Fatstringz...dying...

---

Just Kidding

Just Kidding

Well, I think that even though it is a military base, I don't think they would use that many walls to section off areas. Perhaps your gunship bay could be in some kind of hangar. If you want to border some sections with buildings, (suggesting the theme of combine invasion in a city) I imagine a city block gutted out with combine walls blocking outsiders (using the combine texture set). Otherwise, if it was originally a human military base taken over by the combine, I doubt it would be located on a city block, but I could be wrong...

I'm just asking if you know what your theme is; that, to me, is the most important idea to have when going into this kind of project. Like these guys said: find some refrence pictures of real places. It's ok to mimic the designs of real life pics, nobodys gonna know where ya got that idea from. Your mixing and matching, and before long it starts to develop your own little style. Its still your creation!

---

Blog: www.playingarchitecture.net
LinkedIn: Eric Lancon
Twitter:@Riven202

Well some of the guys have said that they don't like the walls a' la' concrete. But is the secret to non walled in level feeling really changing the look of the walls? I don't think so. I think it's clever level design. I realise this, but I don't know how to do it. I can't have any destroyed structures because the Combine would clear them out of a place they are using. So for example I can't have a doorway blocked by rubble. I'm gonna post a picture of a revised wall design anyhow:



Please note that props are turned off, so I realise the area before the walls looks rather bare.

---

Just Kidding

Just Kidding

It won?t look much less bare with props. That?s the trick with switching them off.

This version doesn?t work because the fence could never hold the concree on top of it.

Now, that you have enough interesting things around it you could use very simple concrete walls as well. Or even better thin metal fences you can see through. But I?d suggest to stick with something simple and move on. Or removing those walls in the first place. They?re not worth so much trouble.

---

Why snark works.