Not Doom related, but it's FPS related...

Okay okay, so I constantly bitch about how it's impossible to make a level for any game other than Doom. Sue me. I just said screw it and began looking for tutorials on the Unreal Editor (since it's the only one I hear good things about anyway).

I stumbled across this site:
http://www.planetunreal.com/unrealed/

My first assumption was that it wouldn't be a completely idiot proof tutorial. I was right... there were a few things in the section 1 of the thing that held me up for a good TEN DAMN MINUTES... namely, the 'subtract' button, it's function not quite explained, and the fact that UT's Editor doesn't even HAVE the damn thing as a button... but it's in the menu and I found it.

Poof, suddenly I got past the dotted cube phase. I had a game box. I tried editing the texture... and it worked. To my fucking surprise what I see is what I get. I even added lights and separate rooms (intersect, not subtract... wow) and apparantly this fucker works. It's amazing. It even compiles in less than 5 seconds on my P3 (although when I get about two hundred brushes in there it'll probably take a couple of minutes... still nowhere near the ungodly build time of Worldcraft).

I'm still in shock... I can make a level for a game that's older than Doom. Wow. Apparantly UnrealEd DOESN'T suck... in fact, it has all the best features of any editor I've ever seen, and then a few more. 800 by 600 is a little cramped, though, but I'm sure as hell not going to up my resolution to edit a level unless I've built my day around it. =)

Actually... that doesn't sound like such a bad idea...

Anyway... I guess I'm going to make a level for Unreal Tournament now. What I really want to know (Zaldron, Flathead)... is making a level with Radiant similar to this or is it fundamentally different? This making boxes, pressing a function to have that box become a piece of the level, then just clicking on what I see and further editing it... I can handle this kind of shit.

However, the thing that kicks me in the teeth about editing levels is saving and loading... saving and loading... just to test and see how things look. This see as I go shit works in my favor, and it certianly keeps me from drop kicking my monitor out the window (or breaking my foot trying).

Suddenly, the thought of making Doom 3 levels isn't depressing as hell. If it's as simplistic as this I think I can handle it... and considering that the level editor will be built right into the same damn .exe... WYSIWYG is practically guaranteed.


Okay... so Zaldron, Flathead... whoever the hell else I slandered... I guess I apologize. It DOESN'T take a few college degrees... it just takes someone to fucking explain it to you in ENGLISH. =)

Wait, neither of you speak English well... oh fuck it, I'm done.

UnrealEd?!!! Ewww!!@#

VB App Alert!

Anyway, it's not supposed to be that hard, yeah. Heh.

Yeah, both games use the CSG brush system. But Radiant is WAY less newbie-friendly. The editor is designed for speed, not ease. After you dominate UnrealED (wich I hate because of the UI), you can try it. I recommend GtkRadiant.

The substract/intersect brushes thing is a little different. In Radiant you basically create imaginary volumes that you fill with a primitive (cone, square, sphere, that kind of crap). You have to select if the brush becomes a world brush or a detail brush (in wich case it won't be processed by VIS and RAD).
While UnrealED can cut out "pieces" of the "everything", Radiant FEELS like the other way.

You have non-id computer games?



WRETCH! HERETIC!
BURN HIM AT THE STAKE!!!

Cool, more power to ya. =)

I've been stuck in the same place you just dug yourself out of for a while, but I haven't tried UnrealEd yet...maybe I'll check it out.

I love how damn easy it is to make Doom levels(especially with WadEd), but I do kinda want to try something a little more advanced. After all, when Doom 3 comes out, I want to be ready to mess around with it. ^__^

Arioch said:

UnrealEd?!!! Ewww!!@#VB App Alert!Anyway, it's not supposed to be that hard, yeah. Heh.

Better a VB app than a QuickBasic app (*gag... choke... WadEd*)

So true. Delphi apps are also up there, though. Especially ones where you see they haven't even bothered to change the default icon. Then you know it sucks.

Arioch said:

UnrealEd?!!! Ewww!!@#

VB App Alert!

Anyway, it's not supposed to be that hard, yeah. Heh.

VB seems ok, son has done his 1st prog using VB pro and it's ok

Well I've never really made anything in UnrealEd (mostly because I see Unreal 1 as a waste of time and money and I don't have the full version of Unreal Tournament), so I can't compare.

800x600 ? I really do suggest going to 1024x768 (or higher, if your video card and monitor supports this). Having three editing windows, a 3D preview window and a bunch of toolbars in such a cramped frame makes things very fiddly and uncomfortable. I have a 17" screen and it works fine in 1024x768, but for the sake of editing in Q3Radiant and 3DSmax I've gone to 1280x960.


Well anyway, here's a Q&A:

"Is making maps in Q3Radiant fundamentally different? This making boxes, pressing a function to have that box become a piece of the level, then just clicking on what I see and further editing it..."

In Q3Radiant things are pretty simple actually. You start out with an empty space we call "the void". Spooky, ain't it ? If you make a map with a hole (or "leak") in it and jump trough that hole, you'll fall into this grey nothingness and keep falling forever.

OK, assume you want to make a room or something. You just put your mouse over an editing window, and simply drag out a box. From the moment it is created, it is part of the world. You don't have to do anything special - and as it exists in void space, you don't have to carve it out of anything. This box is the basic building block you make all structures with. You can move it, rotate it, resize it, hollow it out by clicking a button, drag the edges and vertices, carve out a piece or use it to carve out another part of the world.

Say you don't want a simple box but, for example, a cone. Just drag out a box as usual, go to one of the menus and click "cone". A cone will appear with the exact dimensions of the box you dragged out. And as no object is fixed, you can still rotate it, cut pieces off, etc.

The new features of Q3 (curves & shader stuff) aren't really that difficult. You don't need the shader files unless you're making something intricate or you're making your own textures. And the curves aren't that complicated (unless try to do really freaky shit like that big mouth thing in Q3DM1).


What I'm trying to say is, it's not as intimidating as it seems. I understand you don't like Q3 much, but it's still a cool engine to make maps for, even if you won't like playing them.


"Neither of you speak English well..."

Fuck you, bitch. I write better English than most American and British people I know online, and I speak it very decently. Shit, I never said "leg fornarm and narg for a leg".


About the Doom3 editor. I've never worked with an "in-game" editor before and undoubtedly it's going to be quite different from Q3Radiant, but my guess is that it will be somewhat like modelling programs like 3D Studio Max, because of all the complexity and detail. 3DSmax seems really intimidating and over-complicated, but it is immensely powerful. And I'd rather have an engine that does what I want, than an engine that doesn't do what I want, but does the rest easily and quickly (e.g. BUILD).

Goodnight.

"I have a 17" screen and it works fine in 1024x768, but for the sake of editing in Q3Radiant and 3DSmax I've gone to 1280x960."

I've got a 17" monitor and I could do 1280 by 1024, although I want the words I see to be bigger than fleas. =) 1024 by 768 will probably be a comfortable setting, although I can reach everything somewhat well in 800 by 600, a little scrolling is required. I think I'll just adapt.

"Fuck you, bitch. I write better English than most American and British people I know online, and I speak it very decently. Shit, I never said "leg fornarm and narg for a leg"."

Fuck you, bitch. I was so fucking drunk I'm surprised I was actually typing and not yelling at the monitor again. =P

"And I'd rather have an engine that does what I want, than an engine that doesn't do what I want, but does the rest easily and quickly (e.g. BUILD)."

Well, after I figure out how UnrealEd works I'll try my hand at a Quake editor... it's figuring out the basic interface that hold's me back. With UnrealEd I make a geometrical shape, edit it and place it as I see fit, then I just 'subtract' and poof, it's a part of the level.

From what you say, Q3 editing is similar although everything I put down is instantly a piece of the level? Hmm.. sounds interesting at least.

BTW, only the first Unreal Editor was in Visual Basic... UE2 is in C++ and it runs just fine. I couldn't even load up the original one without a crash. =P

I run my 17" at 1152x864

fodders said:

VB seems ok, son has done his 1st prog using VB pro and it's ok

"Those students who learn Basic as their first programming language
will be seriously brain damaged and unable to have a future in
computer science"

- E.W. Djikstra

*clap* *clap*

BASIC is poison.

Arioch said:

I run my 17" at 1152x864

Anything less than 1600X1200 makes Linguica something something.

Heh

Linguica said:

Anything less than 1600X1200 makes Linguica something something.

I wish I could go up there, it's my unfulfilled dream...

deadnail said:

UnrealED is a developer tool. You have to install Visual Basic in order to run it properly. Just take a look at your system folder and count the ammount of C++ related libraries...

"I can make a level for a game that's older than Doom."

Unreal's older than Doom? Sure, if you say so...

The serious sam editor is pretty fucking nice.

I just don't have the patience to make more than a few ultra-detailed rooms before I get bored with the level's theme.

I'm like you...
The duke 3d mapping was impossible! They never worked even when I did the tuturials!

Using a Q2 editor was pretty hard, and never seemed to make sense.

The only editors I have ever completely figured out are DoomCAD and Serious Editor.

Linguica said:

Anything less than 1600X1200 makes Linguica something something.

Mind if I join you?

Lord FlatHead said:

*clap* *clap*BASIC is poison.

Let's see, "Should I scoff at VB and quote Djikstra and threadsafe programming and Fortran and learn how to use Djikstra's algorithms blah blah blah"... or should I find a niche and discover what 6 of the WORLD'S BIGGEST CORPORATIONS need and write a prog in VB, UK estimated sales 2,400 copies @ $1,500 each = $3.6 million, then there's world sales, Nissan sent 4 executives from Spain to see him and look at his prog, it will translate into any language obviously
He CAN code in c++ etc, he is doing honours degree in computing, but he says he can do in one line of VB code what would take half a page of c++
He will earn this year what all the programmers , or wanna be programmers here, combined, will take 30 years of salaried income to earn :)
YES VB SUX :) Sorry if I sound like a proud Dad, but I AM :)

Arioch said:

I run my 17" at 1152x864

I never go above 1024x768 on a 19". I usually keep it at 1024x768 on 21" too. If I had one of those giant 35" flatscreens, I might hit 1600x1200. I've tried higher resolutions on the 21" before, but at the end of the day my eyes are a little more sore than usual, so I keep it at 1024x768 and have no problems.

fodders said:

Let's see, "Should I scoff at VB and quote Djikstra and threadsafe programming and Fortran and learn how to use Djikstra's algorithms blah blah blah"... or should I find a niche and discover what 6 of the WORLD'S BIGGEST CORPORATIONS need and write a prog in VB, UK estimated sales 2,400 copies @ $1,500 each = $3.6 million, then there's world sales, Nissan sent 4 executives from Spain to see him and look at his prog, it will translate into any language obviously
He CAN code in c++ etc, he is doing honours degree in computing, but he says he can do in one line of VB code what would take half a page of c++
He will earn this year what all the programmers , or wanna be programmers here, combined, will take 30 years of salaried income to earn :)
YES VB SUX :) Sorry if I sound like a proud Dad, but I AM :)

> Let's see, "Should I scoff at VB and quote Djikstra and
> threadsafe programming and Fortran and learn how to use
> Djikstra's algorithms blah blah blah"...

when did anyone mention thread safe programming or fortran? and i think you should know that several of djikstas algorithms, particularly the djikstra algorithm for finding the shortest path through a network is one used in the routing protocols which power the internet WHICH ALLOW YOU TO POST THIS. not that it even has any relevance here. my point is, djikstra is a respected computer scientist who, like most people with half a brain, sees basic for what it is - designed for teaching, and it isnt even very good at that.

> or should I find a niche and discover what 6 of the WORLD'S
> BIGGEST CORPORATIONS need and write a prog in VB, UK estimated
> sales 2,400 copies @ $1,500 each = $3.6 million, then there's
> world sales, Nissan sent 4 executives from Spain to see him and
> look at his prog, it will translate into any language obviously

selling lots != quality software. i cite windows as an example here.

> He CAN code in c++ etc, he is doing honours degree in
> computing, but he says he can do in one line of VB code what
> would take half a page of c++

maybe, but i'd like to see how he copes in a year from now when the program expands in size - basic is not a language which scales well - it may be useful for small projects, such as shoddy chatroom clients, but for large projects you need a real language.

> He will earn this year what all the programmers , or wanna be
> programmers here, combined, will take 30 years of salaried
> income to earn :)

whatever. you can make lots of money writing shoddy code. microsoft.

> YES VB SUX :) Sorry if I sound like a proud Dad, but I AM :)

i wish you and your son all the best of luck in the future :P

fraggle` said:

...maybe, but i'd like to see how he copes in a year from now when the program expands in size - basic is not a language which scales well

Prog is finished and under testing by Ford's suppliers, the rest is just changes to whichever EDI code the different companies use