Command Line Suggestions

(smurkin) #1

Fellers, Hi

I am a newbie mapper (q3). I just dled q3map2 and the tools…and ffs…it has reduced my compile times from overnight to 30 mins & I love it.

Thing is the command line settings and batch file tweaks. I had a good scout round - and I know where there is a lot of detail on how to set the command line (like the q3map2 manual for starters & q3map2 for dummies). Problem is…the science, while not beyond me, is very involved. I was wondering if someone could suggest command lines for

(1) Final top quality map production

(2) As in (1) above but tweaked down for framerate performance yet stilll being acceptable as a final.

(3) A good trade-off between quality and compile times.

You know…stuff like bounce variables…what matters and what matters not (there must be an Uber-Dummies guide somewhere for peeps like me :slight_smile: ).

Many Thanks

Smurkin Gherkin

(rgoer) #2

For final compiles you really can’t go wrong with: bsp -meta; vis (normal vis); light -fast -patchshadows -samples 3 -bounce 8 (or fewer bounces, if you are impatient). Depending on how you lit your map, that shouldn’t take too long and will look pretty good.

If you want an absolute stunning aesthetic to your map, compile with those same options but learn how to use the lightmapscale options correctly for sexy, sexy lighting.

If you want just a quick lighting test to get a general idea of how the lighting will look, but compiles really, really quickly, use bsp -meta; no vis stage; light -fast -patchshadows (none of the other options, just -fast and -patchshadows). That will be done in a fraction of the time of the above “final” settings, and will still give you a decent idea of how your lighting is going to look.

HTH!

(ratty redemption) #3

am I right in thinking -nopassage speeds up vis?

and do any of you guys use vis -fast for test compiles? or is it just as good leaving out the vis stage if were not testing performance?

(HairyPlums) #4

:banghead: Now he tells me… :banghead: Didn’t know you could leave it out - too interested in pretty pictures, and not under the hood…

(ratty redemption) #5

yeah, for two months I`ve been compiling a large box shaped outdoors map.

and I just realized that vis was probably having no effect on frame rate, since nearly all the non sky brushes are detail and I hadn`t got round to building structural caulk inside the hills.

saying that vis was quick, but it still adds up! :banghead: bloody lame rat :banghead:

now I think of it, does the vis blocking method used in hills, mountains etc add much to the full vis compile time? it`s been a while since I compiled a vis optimized terrain map.