Question about the MegaTexture from MWLL

(Keys) #1

Hi there splash damage + fellow internet people’s. Good to see a development team actually responding to the community :slight_smile: . Ok my question is, is will the MegaTexture be able to actually make tunnels, for example you can have a mountain and actually dig out the inside of it and place models and characters on the top and inside the tunnel. Or was the tunnel from videos such as the one on your site http://www.quakewars.com/ a model because it looks like a very good model. Thanks in advance. :smiley:

(Danyboy) #2

the megatexture only covers one surface, if you deform the terrain - or build underneath it, only the brushes with the MT will show it.

You will have to create your tunnel from your own brushes and textures.

It’s similar to terrain application in Q3 engines I guess, though I may well be corrected later on.

(kamikazee) #3

I don’t know if the MT is projected from the top like Q3 terrain did. If it is, you’ll need to cut out the polygons where your tunnel entrances are and make the tunnel from brushes.
If it works more like a model, it should be possible to model the whole thing and texture like you normally would.

This calls for an insider seeing how the MT code is new.

(criminal) #4

Its and interesting concept very few engines have ever supported tunneling in terrain. I’m assuming it’s going to be a model by like my fellow team member said it’s still pretty unsure…we know that there ARE underground areas, and tunnels from the videos going to be interesting to see how they are made.

(RR2DO2) #5

The tunnel in Valley is a separate model with its own textures.

(criminal) #6

And there you have it…simple post from a dev clears the whole thing up. Apreciate the info again RR2D02! SD > Dice

(Sir. Darth_Master) #7

Could you make it with brushes, or should we use 3ds max or maya to make them :shock:

(kamikazee) #8

Another Doom 3 extrapolation here: Modwiki: Models vs brushes.

(Pytox) #9

I think it’s possible with brushes but it would be prolly lots of more work.

(ayatollah) #10

Hmm, I find working with models far more work. But I may have to put in the practice.

(kamikazee) #11

Modeling is ok once you got used to it, though UV mapping and exporting mostly kills it for me.

Luckily the D3 engine can read native Lightwave formats, removing the exporter step.

(BrightSoul) #12

From another thread

We could now derive vehicle traction, particle effects, audio effects and various other gameplay affecting elements from the MegaTexture itself (rather than relying on the underlying polygons)

Then, I wonder what happens when you drive through the tunnel. Do you have to rely on the underlying polygons since the megatexture is wrapped around the mountain already? Is it seamless with the rest of the map?

(criminal) #13

THIS is a VERY good question.

(Keys) #14

Ah so you have your flat piece of land or heightmap then you put your model down then do your mega texture over the whole piece?

(SniperSteve) #15

In the case of the tunnel, you would need to place in your own friction/noise information. I don’t think it would be taken form the megatexture, since the megatexture would not be rendering that area.

I think MegaTexture 2.0 also includes other surfaces and objects, but I’m pretty sure this version in ET:QW does not, and only focuses on the terrain.

(Hakuryu) #16

I’m wondering since you can nest .world files, could seperate .worlds have their own terrain/MT pair, in effect allowing you use to multiple terrains (read meshes) with their own megatexture in one map? Or can a single map have multiple terrain meshes with different megatextures?

The Valley map tunnel model is probably textured in a modelling program since it’s concrete/man made… no need for a megatexture, but when doing caves or natural tunnels that would benefit from a megatexture, it would be nice to know if we could use multiple megatextures in one map. One for the main terrain, and more for any tunnels or even rock formations.

(FireFly) #17

My guess would be that the road beneath the tunnel would be part of the terrain model made in a 3d program and therefor would also be part of the megatexture…

Although I can see the benefits of creating a terrain with the megatexture instead of the “old quake3” way, I truly hope that the megatexture won’t turn into a nightmare for custom mappers… But this is something we only know after the game is released :smiley:

(kamikazee) #18

Admit it, it’s just unreasonable to make mapping easy seeing how many custom maps there would be. :smiley:

(Zarkow) #19

IIRC, the whole mountain is a model, the normal ‘ground’ runs beneeth it.

That’s how most engines handle it anyway since you cannot make holes in heightmaps/landmesh-with-MT.