I’m working on a map that is based on an old fort in Puerto Rico, El Moro. I havent started doing the texturing yet but the layout brushwork is almost finished. I’ve been having some luck with scripting the objectives in test maps. It’s going to be Axis on the offensive in this map.
I just put a tuck model in, for a sense of scale, that looks fine in the editor but is just black in game…oh well here are the screen shots of what I have so far. Let me know what you think…
wow, thats amazing brushwork, are you gonna add any ambient objects, crates, barrels, broken things etc, to fill the empty space?
Thanks! Yes, this is just the layout. I plan on adding crates/barrels and piles of cannon balls and so forth around the map. The r_speeds are below 7,000 in the worst spectaing spots the average is 4,000-5,000, so I can add lots of details still.
make sure you caulk well - or else this map will be an fps high point - make sure in game you have no fps going over 80 in the current stage. i hope you have made the brushes out of caulk and then added the textures to the sides you can see - you do not know how much fps this saves - my map runs at around 50 fps - if i hadnt caulked it would be running at around 120 fps
Looks nice - lots of open space though. Just make sure there is lots of cover. Love the architecture though - great job. I’ve been to fortresses like that and you’ve done a reallly nice job of recreating them
120fps slows down comps m8.[/quote]
So you can play better with 5 fps then 80??
I agree. The more fps, the better.
Not much to say about the map, brushwork seems ok.
wow, you ppl need some help. If the map is running at 120 fps, and you computer cant handle it(which most ppls cant). THe map would be very jerky. 50 if just perfect, almost everyone can run it, and it looks very smooth. And 5 fps is just stupid, you should be smacked for even saying that.
Your concept of frames per second is back to front Scout. When you run a map in ET, the framerate is determined by the specs of your machine and the complexity of the map at any given point - if the map is designed well and you have a high performance PC, you’ll be able to render more frames every second than someone playing a badly designed map on a low end computer.
More frames per second is good for a variety of reasons, the most obvious one being you’ll get a smoother representation of the game you’re playing.
I think what we have here is a simple misunderstanding of what FPS is. FPS refers to the Frame Per Second that are produced on the client side. Someone else can give a more detailed/accurate explanation but that is the gist of it.
Maps do not ‘run’ at any particular speed. The map is used by the game as a common space where the player entities interact. The amount of features and details in the map require a certain amount of processing and this limits the number of updates the server and client can make, thus varying the FPS that are produced.
Some maps that are very detail-heavy may be beautiful to look at but unplayable do to their resulting low FPS on the client side. The higher the FPS the smoother the animation appears to the player. That is good. Low FPS gives a choppy animation and is very annoying. Choppiness can also be affected by lag but that is another story and unrelated.
EDIT: I almost forgot. The map looks nice. Needs lots of miscellaneous objects for cover but it sounds like you are already thinking about that. I heard cannon balls mentioned. Don’t forget the cannons!
Dawg