Caffeine Freak

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Caffeine Freak

  • Rank
    black and shiny
  1. That's always stuck out to me. The truth though, is that they are always re-using different ambient sounds throughout the game in many different combinations, so it's sometimes hard to tell if you've heard a particular ambient sound before. But the instance you describe towards the end of the game is one place where it's really noticeable.
  2. Correct. Quite possibly the most geometric overlap of any level we have.
  3. Ctrl + tab cycles you through the front, side and top viewpoints, but even so, you're dealing with a clusterfuck of visual overlap from any perspective in a map like this.
  4. That's a pretty perplexing definition of 'flair'. In any case, I'd suggest the reason there aren't a great number of fights taking place on varied elevations is for the simple fact that that type of design and combat is much easier incorporated into vast, wide open areas(which you see a ton of in Doom 2016)---and as we all know, that's one thing Doom 3 doesn't have a lot of, mostly because of technical limitations.
  5. I don't know what you're getting at.
  6. Are you classifying Doom 3 as a 'new' shooter here? It's going on 14 years old. Aside from that, it has plenty of height variation. Have you played through it recently? Play it from start to finish. You're climbing up ladders, going through floor/ceiling crawlspaces, riding elevators and going up/down stairs through the entirety of the game. Also, height variation being limited to old shooters? What are you talking about? Because Doom 1 didn't *have* any 'complex levels' in comparison with Doom 3. The vast majority of what the AI in Doom 1 does is move from point A to B in a 2.5D-world comprised of simple sectors, bumping into walls, obstacles and other monsters along the way. And in the context of the original game, that's basically all it needs to do. Doom 3 is much more dynamic and complex with the amount of geometry the AI has to navigate through, especially with all the monster-specific functions and animations thrown in, among other things I don't feel like going into detail about. And no, I'm not saying Doom 3's AI is HAL 9000 or some shit, but you're discarding a whole slew of factors in your simplistic comparison of the two.
  7. 'bsp noflood' allows the map to have leaks because it skips the 'flooding' phase of map compilation, where all of the outside and other non-visible faces of the map are removed. It pretty much defeats the purpose of compiling a map altogether, since it won't be optimized and many crucial aspects of the game won't operate properly. So yes, it definitely affects performance. 'bsp noflood' is an easy way to see your map in-game when it won't compile otherwise, but really the better alternative is to use the 'File->Pointfile' option. When you do that, a red line will appear in the editor that shows the geometric path the engine took before hitting an entity inside your map(that's when it stops compiling to tell you there's a leak). Hit 'Shift+Ctrl+K' to take the editor camera view along each point of the red line, and you should be able to see where the leak in your map is. After sealing the leak, you can try again by re-bsping. Note that the compiler will stop as soon as it detects a leak, so if you have multiple leaks in your map, you may need to keep re-bsping in order to find them all. It can be an arduous task, but it's worthwhile in order to make sure your map is better optimized, and it also helps you become more acclimated to map building in general.
  8. I mean, it may be true that it takes less time to create the same room in Houdini as it would in Doom 3, *assuming* that you're running Houdini with the level editors it was designed for, but you're also completely overlooking a number of other factors. Unless you want to just re-use existing model assets from Houdini/UE4/Unity, I'm assuming you'll want to make your own, yes? That's going to take a lot of time and effort when you account for all of the pre-planning that goes into size dimensions and how each asset will be applied to the game environment. This is somewhat similar with brush-based editing, in the sense that you end up re-using a lot of brush prefabs many times through your levels. Model prefabs are re-used countless times across levels, as are brush/patch prefabs. The workflow may vary, but that's one crucial thing that remains the same, except that model prefabs tend to take a longer time to create than brushes, at least until you reach a certain level of geometric complexity. You're also adding a certain amount of work by forcing yourself to do an extra layer of collision mapping, since all the brushwork that the AI would normally use to navigate is now gone. Assuming you want the AI to run well, you're going to need to make sure you don't leave any gaps or areas the enemies can get stuck, or any areas the player can magically hide from them, all of which takes an extra amount of effort when you make *everything* out of models. It really isn't though, not if you know what you're doing. Model-based level editing may be the norm now, but that's not so much because of how much time it saves as it is that it tends to be more memory efficient, plus the fact that modern hardware and game engines are more adept to the task of processing all the extra triangles that tend to come with levels comprised entirely of meshes. (This is another thing to keep in mind, since you're using an older engine.) Both model and brush-based level building involve an awful lot of duplication, and minor tweaking of the building blocks that you're using. The difference is that models can be tweaked in minor ways in modern engines without extra memory consumption, whereas brushes cannot be. This doesn't mean it's necessarily faster to use models, though it may be more advantageous for the reasons I just gave. What I'm really trying to say here is that a crucial part of this is understanding the pros and cons of brush-based levels vs. model-based levels. It isn't entirely one way or the other, particularly when you're talking about using a modern tool like Houdini to build levels for an engine it wasn't designed with in mind.
  9. Okay, so what he's talking about is creating simple volume instances as dimensional guides for the rooms. Houdini was specifically tailored for level editors like UE4 and Unity. I have no real Unity experience, but my experience with UE4 tells me that even if Houdini does create simple BSP geometry that you can use in levels, it's of a different format than Doom 3. Aside from that, I don't know if Houdini would be the best method of creating mesh levels for Doom 3, as certain tools couldn't be used at all---namely, the ability to instance-copy and then physically manipulate models that is used so frequently in the Unreal engines. In Doom 3, scaling up or down a model means using an entirely new mesh. The same goes for any other changes to the model geometry. You could still use Houdini for Doom 3 I suppose, but it certainly wouldn't be quite as simple and free-flowing as the demonstration in that video.
  10. I guess I'd be surprised if that were the case. If it is, that's pretty cool.
  11. Never much used Dark Radiant. D3 Radiant has an option to toggle clip brush visibility on/off, though.
  12. 1. Nothing happens, it's just that models are totally unaffected by visportals. Visportals intersect models all the time in Doom 3 (pretty much every door is made from a model, and almost all doors have visportals in them). So, reduced optimization. If you make a level from static meshes, ideally you should try to make sure your visportals are placed right between where separate meshes connect to each other. 2. No, the AAS only uses worldspawn brushes to build the AAS map. Patches, func_static brushes and models are ignored. (A func_static brush would become detectable to the AI once you converted it to a plain worldspawn brush, assuming it wasn't a material totally nonsolid to the AI, like player_clip). I wouldn't say you need a clip brush for EVERY model, just the ones that can potentially obstruct the AI path.
  13. His point was that you still need brushes to seal off the level from the void. That is an inescapable fact, regardless of which modelling program you use for your meshes. In Doom 3, the only entity that can be exposed to the void is the worldspawn, and worldspawn brushes are the only thing that seal off the void. Commenting more on what Arl said about collision, visportaling and such, it's best to separate your meshes at the places where you use visportals, since visportals won't split up models the way they do brushes and patches. Obviously that requires a bit of extra planning with how you construct your models. You also need to clip the AAS for AI navigation, and it would be best to use monster_clip brushes for that as opposed to caulk, since caulk is solid to *everything*, and you generally don't want the player and moveable objects restricted to the exact same collision layout as the AI.
  14. Out of curiosity, what graphical enhancements are you using in those shots? I mostly used the 2x sized texture pack or the Parallax mapping mod when I used visual enhancements, but I don't recall either looking that good.
  15. Your Cyberdemon speedo isn't the best thing for concealing your undercarriage, dude.