News:

One Minute Game Review by The Happy Friar: https://ugetube.com/@OneMinteGameReviews
Also on Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-1115371

idTech 4 (aka Doom 3 tech) Discord Server! https://discord.gg/9wtCGHa

Main Menu
Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - aphexjh

#121
The Zbuffer maya MD5 exporter does work with Maya, confirmed. Maya ASE exporter from zbuffer also works, but I am uncertain whether exporting vertex colors works atm.
#122
id Tech 4 Discussion / Re: Unreal vs id Mapping
October 30, 2014, 12:32:31 PM
Quote from: motorsep on October 30, 2014, 12:17:36 PM
Quote from: aphexjh on October 30, 2014, 11:55:05 AM
subtractive: traditional unreal engine style, you carve spaces out of a big block
Yep, but first you carve out room, then add brushes to build inner walls/doors/etc. Unless they changed that concept in UE3/UE4.
Edit: Yes, I didn't understand what you meant at first, but I think you are describing the basic method of creating the brushwork, which is the same in both cases.
from the thread i linked:
QuoteNot quite. Subtractive mode also is an infinite space of nothing, but a giant cube brush was added, which fills the entire space covered by the grid in the 2D viewports. It's just a hack for people who don't want to adjust to UE3 starting out with an empty world. (UE1/2 started with a filled world.) But like all hacks, this comes at a price - in this case way longer lighting build times and losing the option to create an outdoor map. And "outdoor" here means even maps with indoor-only gameplay if there are with windows.
The picture from my previous post is what it shows in the UE3 editor when you make a new map. it is also the method showed in the 3dBuzz intro to UE3 tutorials.
#123
id Tech 4 Discussion / Re: Unreal vs id Mapping
October 30, 2014, 11:55:05 AM
I approve this derailment.

Unreal supports additive and subtractive level builing
additive: doom 3 style, you build brush hulls
subtractive: traditional unreal engine style, you carve spaces out of a big block

here is a thread that goes over this material https://forums.epicgames.com/threads/719092-Additive-VS-subtractive

BR: Unreal is not so bad, I feel like you must be joking me, since you would probably blow people away if you made an environment in udk, plus with all the matinee stuff, your mover/crusher/obstacle stuff would be a breeze. Unity is basically a level editor like unreal, but building entities/prefabs is integrated with the level editor. It also has a C# scripting language. It is probably the easiest editor to learn from all those I have used, but I prefer blocking in radiant. Also unity has some great built-in animation stuff like Unreal, which you might like to use. 

Unity and Unreal offer a lot of lighting options, which is really robust and something we don't have in Tech 4, but with it often comes long light compile times and lightmap atlases, so its not without its drawbacks.

The real difference between these is the amount it costs to license them. Last I checked UDK was 99$ and 30% royalties  which changes depending on how much you make and Unity is $1500.  Unity also has an amazing asset store with all kinds of plugins and asset packs, which range in price and quality. But we here love to toil, so we wouldn't want any of that anyhow.

#124
It would be nice if Id Tech 4 could offer a cheap or free alternative to teams and designers, that didn't want license fees or royalties cutting into their profit, that could potentially build interest in it as a platform. That is undermined in some ways by not allowing developers certain protections under the GPL, since they will have to provide the source upon release of their product, which would make pirating the game quite simple. It might also introduce vulnerabilities in the security of their software, particularly if it has any networking components. Now there are definitely arguments to be made against me here and I welcome them, since I really don't know much about open source development paradigms, so please educate me.

As to it being old, lots of things are old, lots of things are clunky compared to more modern engines and tools, but people still play games from different era's and based on older technology because those things have something unique to offer. Something about a sprite-based game is still satisfying, and I don't think it ends with nostalgia, though it may. Id tech has always had something that makes it satisfying, it could be the way the engines are tuned, I don't know.  Obviously there is something about them, since companies like Valve and others still use them as a foundations and their games make money and are generally well received. Obviously the doom 3 engine is an exception to this in some ways, but I am not sure why that is.

As to what is best in your portfolio, if you are aiming at being an artist, pick an engine that is comfortable to you and displays your art in the best way. If you make 3d art, that will probably be one of the modern engines.  I emailed a game dev a long time ago asking for pointers to getting hired as a level designer, and he said this:

Quote"doom 3 isn't so widely used in the industry, but the package isn't a dealbreaker.  software can be learned, and if you can become proficient in one engine, you can become proficient in another.  having said that, if you can find out what software your target companies use, and make yourself familiar with it, that can only stand in your favour.  a lot of companies use unreal 3, so that's a good place to concentrate some effort."

As I said this was some 4 years ago, but I think it probably makes less sense now to use tech 4 from a AAA perspective, but then again, it depends what you want to show. Obviously the IW engines and the Doom 3 engine have a fair amount in common, so its not totally irrelevant to show brush-based or scripting proficiency in Doom 3, but I think the point is what you are showing.  If you can show something interesting, creative and evocative in any engine, then that will help you, but if you require less training in a companies engine, that will also help.

I think the larger issue here, and call me out if I need to grab the ol' tinfoil hat, is that ideas are valuable.  Companies want ideas, modders make ideas and give them away, but they should think of themselves as developers and try to get paid for them. Who gets paid for ideas is largely dependent on who has access to distribution and media channels, which might be easier to access if you have lots of money. This is one aspect of Valve's economics I really like, they loop the external components of their game system into the profits, that has worked wonders for their recent games and I would like to see more of it for id tech 4.
#125
First off, it occurs to me that I might have been a bit judgmental in the original post. I don't mean to minimize the important and amazing things that people have contributed to this community, so I want to emphasize how much I appreciate all the great mods you all have worked on. This community, (e.g. doom3world, mod wiki, etc) has really meant a lot to me in the last 8-9 years, so you all deserve my respect and thanks. Thank you.

Quote from: solarsplace on October 27, 2014, 08:53:42 AM
We have gained a few followers on ModDB and I suspect it has only been noticed on this new fine forum due to the early stages of the forum and relativly few posters.
I have been aware of your mod for a long time, since doom3world, it has always looked promising. Your reply was helpful, yes, thank you.  I mentioned it in the original post because your team has put so much work into the mod that it bears mentioning. Keep up the great work.

Quote from: nbohr1more on October 26, 2014, 12:42:50 PM
A final take is that modders looking at Doom 3's asset base often overlooked the organic "Hell" assets and focused on
the sci-fi assets that make up the majority of the game. With that perspective, much of what could've been done with
the game was waylay-ed in favor of seeing the platform as only being a good fit for claustrophobic "Aliens" style mods which
would be hard to distinguish from minor Doom 3 tweak mods. The modding community mostly wrote-off Doom 3 save
a dedicated elite coding crew who knew that it had far more potential than it was given credit for. These folks posted
all sorts of ingenuity at Doom3world but almost none of it was adopted by actual mod-game designers.
nbohr1more, thank you for your reply.  There are so many things I would like to talk about in response to your post. The assets and existing game, which are very alien-like, do lend themselves toward that style of gameplay and level design.  I don't think it has been written-off, but i take your meaning, and I agree that Doom 3 does not benefit from the same audience numbers as some other communities, which has a lot of effects.
There is another thing, that is not immediately apparent from the outside, which is that doom 3 is designed with an almost minimal design aesthetic, which lends itself to people familiar with coding, but will likely alienate primarily artistic people, who are obviously a very necessary part of the equation.
Quote from: nbohr1more on October 26, 2014, 12:42:50 PMWith an existing IP, you don't need to convince other developers that your dream idea is one that they should help come to fruition.
Wow, this, so much this.  I am sad to say that this is one of the most relaxing aspects of working alone.  I have worked on a few teams, mostly smaller games using unity3d for school, but it infuriates me so much when someone doesn't show up to meeting for 2 weeks and then says they don't like the game anymore, or they talked to their Uncle Virgil and he thinks the character should be a cyborg. Guess what Virgil, I don't give a fuck.
Quote from: BloodRayne on October 26, 2014, 04:10:12 AM
Grimm showed me that you can get a 'big' audience based solely on the merits of the game and not it's name and that feels plain good.
BR, really awesome post here, such a great insight into the Hexen mod, I love all the work you guys have done. Its a shame that the old forum was dissembled, it would have been an interesting read/resource. Obviously you don't need me to tell you that you have made some amazing mods. I think its natural to enjoy something that comes from your imagination more than recreating something that already exists, but this is coming from someone who spent many days remaking CS maps, so it's all about what motivates the individual. I don't know if you have heard of the tests done on Orb weaver spiders with lysergic acid or certain blood serums, but I find them to be a profound corollary of my own behavior, so that is probably worth mentioning here. Thanks for the reply.

BielBdeLuna and Motorstep, those are the things I was concerned about, but it sounds like that shouldn't be much or an issue. If there is anything I can do as a modeler or artist to help you guys make a safe release of the engine, please let me know.

Quote from: oneofthe8devilz on October 25, 2014, 04:59:41 AM
Just like you once said yourself, it is exponentially more comfortable to be "standing on the shoulders of giants" compared to "be the giant yourself".
...
That way we get to a number of roughly 30 guys. 30 guys working on Doom3 for roughly 4 years. Simple math tells you that the work of over 120 man-years has been invested into Doom3.
I think that making a shorter and more interesting experience is feasible, and I think there might be a market for it. It's when I try to make a magnum opus, on the level of Doom 3 itself that I get into trouble. I do think there is a benefit to working with the stock assets as a base, not having to create enemy and mover behavior and a library of functions from scratch is what makes doom 3 modding (and all modding) so fun. So if the motivation is to create a beautiful and engaging experience with a similar visceral core to Doom 3, I think that the parts are all there. MCS and Venture videos look really awesome. Thank you for all your guidance over the years.
Quote from: The Happy Friar on October 24, 2014, 02:51:02 PM
Originals are very fun though.  Steel Storm: BR & it's DLC are awesome.  I tell anyone who likes top down shooters to get it.  I also recommend Flotilla by Blendo Games and, if you want a good short story, Thirty Flights of Loving.  That's why I'm excited about more stuff by those creators, the current stuff is fun.   
Thanks Friar, you're right, and you are also right about the popular IP's bring in players, I just want people to get money for their work. That's what I am getting at. There are ways in other engines for content creators to make money doing what they love, I want that for Doom 3.

Friar, I would like it if you did more contests, like some of the mapping and weapon contests you have given in the past.  We could think of it as a Id-Tech 4 Mod-Jam. Well, its just an idea, but I would like it.  Thanks again for this forum.
#126
Motorstep has a point here, smaller teams make most games. Devilz, its true that we have the advantage of a lot of pre-made assets and stuff, when we are using doom 3 as a base, but everything is there for us to make our own, and if you continue to use those assets, that will keep you in mod-land, but for someone like Bladeghost, he buys and makes a lot of his assets, so if they weren't based on alien or preditor, he could likely sell those games for money.

My main point is that, many of the designers here, can make a simpler game, that they could potentially sell for a few <currency> and likely sustain themselves partially on that income. So I know that I am not a genius for thinking of that, I imagine other people have thought of this.  My question more broadly is what is standing between people taking their projects to market right now?  Things don't need to be 180 hours of gameplay.  I'll pay a smaller amount for Stanely Parable, and I don't know if you ever played that game or not, but there isn't a lot going on, someone like bkt could definitely pull that off, and very likely zombie could as well.  More to the point, that is what i want to see.  I want to see these guys make these small gameplay experiences, and I want to pay for them.

So motorstep, you will probably know this, what do people need to do to legally distribute their own game based on the gpl BFG or whichever?  They need a compiled engine to use, and they need their assets.  What about libraries, I know a lot of these engines require external libraries to compile, do these dependencies pose a potential problem to developers who want to sell their games?
#127
I was just wondering why mods are usually made for existing properties.  For instance, Hexen: EOC, Arx: End of the Sun, Dark Mod, Shamblers Castle, Bladeghost's recent incredible works and others I can't think of, all are based on already established IP's and universes. Why is this?

There are exceptions, some of BloodRayne's mods come to mind.  Obviously Quadrilateral Cowboy and Phaeton, are other notable exceptions, but maybe I should be making a distinction between full games and total conversions at this point.

Is there something about the various usage licenses of doom 3 that makes people uncertain about putting there own ideas out there? Are authors afraid they won't be able to protect their IP?

I have been thinking about games like Team Fortress, Portal, Stanley Parable, etc. that started out as mods and then became (successful) full games. And the workshop system on steam, that allows artists and designers make their hobbies into jobs.  I would like to see the mods in the Id tech community, go from mod to full game, and I am just wondering if there is something in the way of that, other than the work of rewriting scripts etc.

One possibility I can think of is that some of you may work in the game industry, or be under a non-compete contract, which would explain why you don't want to violate that and openly develop a project, just to have it contested.

Another reason might be that people can get others to help them if they have a common interest, like a great old game they want to see revived, to get behind. But having been reading your posts for a long time, it seems obvious that many of you are capable of creating a smaller game experience on your own, which makes it even more of a shame that if you want to take your project to steam for publishing, you would be violating copyright in doing so.

Anyway, please share your thoughts and happy modding.



#128
Another good suggestion, thanks Devilz.  Deleting the editor config (or renaming it to *.cfgOLD as Friar sometimes suggests) might be helpful if you're like me and you go from a 2 monitor setup to a 1 monitor setup and you lose one of the inspectors in the no-mans-land of the other monitor. Thanks for the help gentlemen.
#129
Thanks BR that worked great.
#130
id Tech 4 Scripting / Disappearing Particle Emitters
October 14, 2014, 01:02:24 PM
I am using Doom Edit for doom 3 mapping and I am having the following issue:

When I add a particle emitter to the scene, it appears fine, but when I apply a particle to it, it disappears from the camera and grid views. When I check the entity list, the emitter is still in the scene and I can select if from the list, but once I deselect, it disappears/hides again.

I have checked all the hide/show check boxes in the show menu, so that I am not hiding entities for instance, but nothing will reveal the particle emitter(s). Any suggestions?

#131
id Tech 4 WIP / Re: Doom 3 multiplayer DM_Westwood
September 25, 2014, 02:52:30 PM
Quote from: The Happy Friar on September 25, 2014, 12:19:27 PM
Reminds me of DNF's MorningWood.   :magicpony:
they definitely bare a resemblance, I made a couple versions with a terrain surrounding the town and even making the whole town on a floating island. Neither was ideal, so I stuck with the rigid skybox style of the original, even though it causes some strange occlusion of the map, since it is a large L-shape, it helps make the portal areas into smaller chunks
Generally the whole map needs to have more shoulder room, especially in the interior spaces.
#132
id Tech 4 WIP / Doom 3 multiplayer DM_Westwood
September 25, 2014, 10:28:49 AM
This is a level I worked on for a long time, and only released it a couple of years ago. It is a recreation of the de_westwood map for counterstrike.
http://doom3.gamebanana.com/maps/168431


It seems that the playability suffers in some specific ways, particularly in regard to the windows, but also possibly due to the placement of the initial spawn points.
In any case, here is a short video (in the most regrettably low quality resolution, apologies) 
http://youtu.be/m6-4LZvl9tM