Op4_Entrenchment

I liked this one better than "op4_camper_hunting" because better atmosphere. The machine guns, jet and "mayday" in the background were great. The m249 is in a room that is too dark and too defendable. Same with the crossbow. Though sniping swimmers down the tunnel is fun. Both the maps are a fun. I lke these high r_speed maps. But for high are speeds I think outdoors would be better because just adding a lot of small rooms with boxes and barrels doesn't do anything and doesn't seem like hl2.

definetely looks a lot better than the other (rather boxy) map.

PERFECT

Alien_Sniper said:
PERFECT

Alien_Sniper said:
PERFECT

Ditto

i'm sorry bud, but most of us really don't know how to respond to maps like this anymore. it was hashed, re-hashed and never settled to anyones satisfaction.

maps that are released, knowing they are handicapped by high R's are just.... well.. not held in high regard.

all of us sincerely appreciate exactly what it takes to make a map and release it, i just had to clarify, why you are not receiving many responces.... most maps of this type don't fair well here.

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.

/ 2 cents

Geez, there is no reason for what I can see in the pictures to have high r_speeds. That's just poor map-making.

Give him a break guys... I think he got the message that we think the r_speeds should be lower - wheres the sense in telling him the same thing over and over? I think the inside area looks pretty interesting, especially given that it doesn't use any custom textures. I prefer the overall look of the first map Lekki posted, and once again I think if this map was turned into a night themed one, it could easily look better, but it's certainly not horrible. For people who advocate constructive criticism, you sure like beating a dead horse! [/rant] :smile:

I <3 TEH L4G!!!!!!!!!111111111111

You fail to realize, sir, that the r_speed standards in the HL community are not out of concern for hardware anymore, it's more just like a somewhat traditional rule - and really, a test of who can put the most beauty in the fewest polygons.

scary_jeff said:
Give him a break guys... I think he got the message that we think the r_speeds should be lower - wheres the sense in telling him the same thing over and over?

jeff, i had not realized that anyone had said anything yet.. my apologies for beating the horse again, i just felt, since this post had been here a while, un-noticed, that i could ease the pain a bit..

i can edit it out, if you feel it necessary.

hah no, I meant in the thread for his other map, where the only comment it really got was 'r_speeds too high'. I'm probably making too big a deal out of it, I just felt that everybody was a bit harsh on the guy overall :smile:

He seemed to give off the impression that the r_speeds were high but it wasn't his fault - you just didn't own a BEAST OF A COMPUTER to play his AWESOME MAP. You know, like they're doing the community a favor by creating maps nobody can play. Destined for HL2, I hear.

PS - You did run VIS, right?

Aside from the fact that I have a grudge against horses and will beat them mercilessly whenever I can, this map has no reason for high r_speeds.

It would be one thing for it to be a breathtaking level that looks realistic and curvey and heavily detailed etc etc, but from the pics it looks like he just decided that the r_speeds were too high and instead of fixing it he says that was the plan all along...like documenting bugs as hidden features or somesuch.

Also, why would anyone think it's a cool idea to put 6 blue lights next to each other like in one of those pictures? Ooooh, I hope HL2 comes out faster so I can do that too... :rolleyes:

I have a hard time commending anything that uses default HL textures...

It's not so much a problem to use default HL textures. However, using the eye-searing 'babtech', 'tech', and 'gen' textures should be a no-no.

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

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.

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:

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.

Any kind of feedback is most welcome!

Surely that is a complete lie.

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.

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)

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..

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.

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.

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.