DECOMPILE/q3map2 HELP

(ronboy) #21

I’ve noticed that the sample maps that come with Radiant (both escape maps as well as mp_beach and mp_base) have offset texturing as well as a lack in caulking. Not really the best examples to have for mappers, especially new mappers.

(-SSF-Sage) #22

Use grid 1 and snap to grid ctrl+g. It will help to make sure you dont have much bad vertices.

(ailmanki) #23

There are some mysterious switches for decompiling and apparently compiling.
Now if you modify -ne and -de while decompiling it can have huge impact on result. You might be able to decompile more of the original with higher precision, or less… dunno anymore. I experimented with this when I was doing terrain out of patches.

from netradiant changelog:

  • q3map2: added parameters -ne to set normal epsilon, and -de to set
    distance epsilon (to customize plane snapping)

from ydnar’s q3map2 changelog:

  • Added new -ne (normal epsilon) and -de (distance epsilon) for tuning precision
    of plane snapping to correct potential AAS/BSP issues

From source code:
#if Q3MAP2_EXPERIMENTAL_SNAP_NORMAL_FIX
// Increasing the normalEpsilon to compensate for new logic in SnapNormal(), where
// this epsilon is now used to compare against 0 components instead of the 1 or -1
// components. Unfortunately, normalEpsilon is also used in PlaneEqual(). So changing
// this will affect anything that calls PlaneEqual() as well (which are, at the time
// of this writing, FindFloatPlane() and AddBrushBevels()).
Q_EXTERN double normalEpsilon Q_ASSIGN( 0.00005 );
#else
Q_EXTERN double normalEpsilon Q_ASSIGN( 0.00001 );
#endif

#if Q3MAP2_EXPERIMENTAL_HIGH_PRECISION_MATH_FIXES
// NOTE: This distanceEpsilon is too small if parts of the map are at maximum world
// extents (in the range of plus or minus 2^16). The smallest epsilon at values
// close to 2^16 is about 0.007, which is greater than distanceEpsilon. Therefore,
// maps should be constrained to about 2^15, otherwise slightly undesirable effects
// may result. The 0.01 distanceEpsilon used previously is just too coarse in my
// opinion. The real fix for this problem is to have 64 bit distances and then make
// this epsilon even smaller, or to constrain world coordinates to plus minus 2^15
// (or even 2^14).
Q_EXTERN double distanceEpsilon Q_ASSIGN( 0.005 );
#else
Q_EXTERN double distanceEpsilon Q_ASSIGN( 0.01 );
#endif

Some information about those values.
http://icculus.org/pipermail/gtkradiant/2011-January/011510.html

(.Chris.) #24

You shouldn’t really be ripping content anyway.

(WL6) #25

There is nothing wrong with ripping content from the standard maps that came with RTCW, only from user made maps is it questionable.

[QUOTE=ailmanki;473411]There are some mysterious switches for decompiling and apparently compiling.
Now if you modify -ne and -de while decompiling it can have huge impact on result. You might be able to decompile more of the original with higher precision, or less… dunno anymore. I experimented with this when I was doing terrain out of patches.

from netradiant changelog:

  • q3map2: added parameters -ne to set normal epsilon, and -de to set
    distance epsilon (to customize plane snapping)
    l[/QUOTE]

This actually worked much better, the brushes weren’t as skewered as previously. Still some brushes are going into odd shapes, but the general shape is there to work with.

(Mateos) #26

They would have released map sources then ^^’

(ronboy) #27

There is nothing wrong with using brushwork from other Rtcw maps, unless the author has stated not to in the readme file.

(WL6) #28

I don’t know what that’s got to do with it.

Certain textures in RTCW were designed with particular bush combinations in mind (e.g. castle_c17) so it seems a waste of time re-creating them from scratch when you could readily just take them from the standard maps, and bare in mind that taking from the standard maps doesn’t affect the game in any copyright sense since you first need to have a copy of the game in order to play any of the maps.

It’s also important in order to gauge the scale of the game world, as things like doors/chairs/generators/etc give a sense of scale when mapping.

(obsidian) #29

That’s rather selective thinking, isn’t it? What makes you think ripping content from maps created by people working on RTCW is okay, but not okay if it’s made by people from the community? All game assets (including maps) in RTCW is still very much protected by copyrights.

The purpose of decompiling a map is so that you can see how something was built: how big the doors are, how they designed certain objects, look at the brushwork, how the triggers and entities are put together. Once you understand how things were done, you can go build your version completely from scratch. Decompiling maps is NOT for copy and paste jobs.

Actually, I would say that the reverse is true, you shouldn’t copy brushwork (or anything else) unless the author has explicitly granted permission in the readme or through other contact. If not specified, assume that you do NOT have permission and ask the author.

(ronboy) #30

This is a very debatable topic. I don’t see anything wrong with using brushwork from other maps, unless the author has stated that using the brushwork in your own works is not allowed.
By the way obsidian, is the Q3map2 dev team having any luck finding a fix for the Rtcw sp shader overflow bug?

(WL6) #31

Taking that argument to it’s logical extreme, if all game assets are protected then you shouldn’t use ANY of them for copyright grounds (textures/models/sounds/etc), and instead do everything from scratch.

(Mateos) #32

If the map is compiled in the first place, there’s a reason… Models, textures; all these assets aren’t.

(obsidian) #33

The issue isn’t “using” assets, it has to do with “distribution”, and that’s where you can run into trouble.

The game assets ARE protected from distribution. You are not allowed to take any content from the game and distribute them, this includes models, textures, levels, or any other files as they are all copyrighted. When you make your own maps, you can use the textures and other files in your map, but you are in no way allowed to include them in your distributable .pk3 files. Your maps still work for other people because they have a licensed copy of the game and therefore all the official assets that came with the game. In the same way, if you are copying and pasting brushwork, you are distributing the original work.

The rule of thumb is to always ask for permission if you’re going to be borrowing any assets from other people, it’s just the polite thing to do. Otherwise, things can become a really slippery slope of gray areas leading to flat-out theft. I mean, what percentage of brushwork is someone allowed to “borrow” before it becomes a complete ripoff? If I were to take one of your maps, flip a brush or two, and put my name on it, I could just say that I “borrowed” 95% of your map. That seems as ethically wrong as taking just 5% of your map, because the argument for it are the same. Either stealing $10 or stealing $10,000 doesn’t make one not stealing.

I like to think of the entire level design community as a particularly friendly one who will jump at the chance to share and help each other out. So you might as well treat other people’s work with the respect that they deserve and just ask for permission if you want to borrow something. I don’t think anyone will say “no” but just asking is polite and it pays respect to the authors. Anyway, that’s how I see things and I think it’s always better to spend the time to do the right thing.

Ronboy, replied here regarding your query:
http://forums.warchest.com/showthread.php/37385-GtkRadiant-1-6-4-going-to-support-RtCW-again

(ronboy) #34

I have something to add to this conversation. Taking something small out of a map, such as a machine made of brushwork, isn’t being disrespectful to the map’s author, in my opinion. You are just taking a small “prefab” out of the map, not an entire area of the map, which doesn’t seem wrong to me.
I understand that taking half of a map’s layout, and using it in your own works is wrong, but just a prefab (torch, machine, light fixture, etc…) is nothing to be concerned about.
Also, Obsidian, thanks for your reply to my query. :slight_smile:

(WL6) #35

I think it should be pointed out that it is impossible to determine whether brush work is copied or made from scratch. For my own part I have constructed all the prefabs in the prefab thread from scratch, using the originals as a template - they just come out too skewered to be copied directly. I do however fail to see how, if they were copied directly, it would infringe on any copyright issues when one requires having a fully working copy of RTCW in order to play them. While I understand distributing models and textures could in itself be a breach of copyright (since the textures can be ripped by people who don’t have RTCW and used in other games)… brush work is too vague an area to be strictly enforceable.

And that’s all I’m saying on the issue.