Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Cjwright79

Dormouse - v1.0 - 66kb; Valanas - v0.65 - 819kb

Recommended Posts

1. Compspan needed for lowers of lines 493, 499, 475, 492, 491, 494, 495 and 498 - stairs.

2. Change the floor/ceiling height of sector 46 to 96/96.

3. Change the floor/ceiling height of sector 111 to -32/-32.

4. Change the floor/ceiling height of sector 92 to 96/96.

Points 2 to 4 - You could even give these sectors a floor flat of F_SKY1.

Share this post


Link to post

holy cow, do you do anything other than map? will download this when I get off work tonight

Share this post


Link to post

Holy crap another map! Didn't recognize you at first with the new avatar. :P

All I'm going to say is that, from the screenshots, you could do with some more floor/ceiling height variety. It almost looks like Wolfenstein 3D (aside from the variable light levels, and the non-orthogonal walls, and the textured ceilings/floors, and all the demons, though that's beside the point).

Share this post


Link to post
StoneFrog said:

All I'm going to say is that, from the screenshots, you could do with some more floor/ceiling height variety. It almost looks like Wolfenstein 3D (aside from the variable light levels, and the non-orthogonal walls, and the textured ceilings/floors, and all the demons, though that's beside the point).


I'll be sure to add another screenshot showcasing the floor/ceiling height variety that's already there!

Edit: Map updated.

Share this post


Link to post

I got stuck outside in the brick area with the green zimmer edge and some former humans and trees, beyond the ceil5_2 and comp pit. Better than your other maps as far as engaging the player goes, pretty non-linear the bit I played.

Share this post


Link to post

1. Texture on line 2049 looks bad.

2. Fix alignment for textures on lines 1261 and 1120.

3. Having floor7_1 as the flat for sector 170 looks odd. Why not use RROCK19 ?

4. Remove the action and tag on line 565. If the player crosses this line, goes to sector 78, hits the switch at line 889, the player in non-jumping ports is then trapped !

5. Wrong texture on lines 2290, 848, 1541, 991, 2095.

6. Fix Y offset for lines 902, 649 and 647, 1622, 1353 and 1630.

7. Looking out of window sectors 216 and seeing the lower sky hemisphere looks bad.

8. Wrong ceiling flat for sector 337.

9. Missing upper textures on lines 2549, 2545.

10. Impossible to pick up health bottles at sector 271. Place them fully at sector 263.

11. Why not a change in ceiling heights between sectors 34 and 35 for the change in ceiling flats ?

12. Sector 42 has a height difference too low for revenants and archviles in gl mode. Their heads disappear into the ceiling. Same for revenant at sector 262.

13. Remove lower unpegged flag for lines 461 and 874.

.... that's it for now ....

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks Hawk -- will get around to ticking off the list sooner or later. :)

Also it's updated, 465kb.

EDIT: updated again, 496kb.

EDIT: and again, 523kb.

Share this post


Link to post

First update during the last five days. 819kb. First room should be a challenge. I let the pressure off a little after that.

Share this post


Link to post

Posting a file size as an update is very vague. You should include the number of linedefs, sidedefs, sectors and things to prove the significance of your updates.

Share this post


Link to post
chopkinsca said:

Posting a file size as an update is very vague. You should include the number of linedefs, sidedefs, sectors and things to prove the significance of your updates.


Um, ok-kay. I see what you are doing.

Share this post


Link to post

You should include the number of linedefs, sidedefs, sectors and things to prove the significance of your updates.


What does that prove exactly ? Genuine question, I've honestly never understood why do so many people post their linedef/sidedef/sector/thing count. You can have tons of useless detail bumping the linedef, sidedef and sector numbers a lot, or on the other hand few linedefs, sectors and sidedefs but an extremely well made and large map. As for things, seeing as it can be imps just as well as cyberdemons or even torches... It doesn't say much either.

I can understand it's slightly better than file size in that at least you know it's about the map, and not textures, music or whatever, but it still seems meaningless to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Phml said:

I can understand it's slightly better than file size in that at least you know it's about the map, and not textures, music or whatever, but it still seems meaningless to me.


Well I've just been through a painfully obtuse discussion on this very point. The idea is that as you add detail to a map, the file size increases. It's a measure of how much work has been put in, and how large the map is. Of course if most of your changes have been with things, that won't change the file size much, but anything to do with vertices, yes it makes a big difference fast.

Share this post


Link to post

The idea is that as you add detail to a map, the file size increases. It's a measure of how much work has been put in, and how large the map is.


Even if specifically considering a wad with no custom resources of any kind, I wouldn't say that's necessarily true. I've got a map with a REJECT lump that is over one megabyte, simply because there's more than four thousand monsters in it. The map overall is about 3mb, yet that doesn't mean I worked on it 30 times longer/harder than another map I made that is 100kb. In fact, looking at the same wad, I have a 700kb map that took me less time and is smaller than two other maps at 200kb, simply because that map has a lot of copypaste and a lot of monsters.

Then there's still the issue I raised in my previous post, which applies to file size just as well as linedef/sidedef/sector/thing count. In a nutshell, quantity doesn't tell me anything. A 5mb map can be terrible and a 100kb map can be fantastic. A 5mb map can be 1 hour of copypaste just as well as 300 hours of careful work.

The only information I'm getting from file size is how long it is going to take me to download, and with connection speeds as fast as they are, well, that's not really something I care about.

Share this post


Link to post
Phml said:

Even if specifically considering a wad with no custom resources of any kind, I wouldn't say that's necessarily true. I've got a map with a REJECT lump that is over one megabyte, simply because there's more than four thousand monsters in it. The map overall is about 3mb, yet that doesn't mean I worked on it 30 times longer/harder than another map I made that is 100kb. In fact, looking at the same wad, I have a 700kb map that took me less time and is smaller than two other maps at 200kb, simply because that map has a lot of copypaste and a lot of monsters.


Ah I see. Well not to sound like a horrendous snob, but copy-pasting monsters ain't in my repertoire.

Share this post


Link to post

More bytes != better map
Longer != better map
More detail != better map
More monsters != better map
Longer buildtime != better map

To reiterate the same argument I made before, I once made a map which was over 2.5 MB of detail, monsters, area, etc. with virtually no copy/pasting, which took me at least 3 months to make, and in the end it's a boring, messy slog. The levels in Scythe average to about 185 kB, and average to less than one day of build time each (not counting Erik's "slacking" :P ) and most of which are fairly short, but are each far better looking and more fun to play than that one level I made. Longer, more detailed maps which take ages to make CAN be awesome, but it isn't a prerequisite for awesomeness and posting all the cool bytes you've put in doesn't tell us instantly that your map will be brilliant.

But...I see you've made up your mind about this. Maybe byte-happiness will lead to a fun map anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
StupidBunny said:

More bytes != better map
Longer != better map
More detail != better map
More monsters != better map
Longer buildtime != better map


Few bytes = limited map
Less detail = limited aesthetic appeal
few monsters = hardly even a wad
small buildtime = small effort, small result, and limited appeal

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, but see, the point I'm making is NOT that smaller means better. The point I'm making is that larger STILL isn't a prerequisite for a good map. You're acting as if posting larger and larger file sizes automatically means that the map is steadily improving. Keep in mind that big maps which take a long time to make can be amazing, but they can also suck really hard. The bigger file size tells us there's more objects, more linedefs, more sectors, etc. than there was before. Does it tell us anything about the gameplay? About things like ammo balance, aesthetic appeal and texture use, variety of battles, ingenuity...things that can't be measured numerically? The file size may be a slightly interesting statistic, but I promise you that nobody attaches any more value than that to file size.

On a side note, I'm suddenly flashing back to Brandon D. Lade and the "stars" argument...

Share this post


Link to post
Cjwright79 said:

Few bytes = limited map
Less detail = limited aesthetic appeal
few monsters = hardly even a wad
small buildtime = small effort, small result, and limited appeal

1024 maps
Can be small with sparse detail and look good
Doesn't need a lot of enemies to be challenging
Some people build fast.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×