Transmitter-Beta released

[creampuff]

The team door will swing twords you the first time you open it, and then away from you the next time you open it.

[CLOWN_krieger]

(a dancin cactus would be better^^)
:notworthy:

WHERES BETA v.2?!?!?!?!?!

[Elo_U]

nice map! But the start is obviously too hard for allies. I would maybe extend the frozen river to the left and create another passage towards the hut. On the 4 hours I played on Hamster, on two games the allies didn’t manage to capture the hut, even after an xp shuffle. This isn’t too surprising as the allies have basically no strategic advantage, except for the mg nests, which obviously isn’t enough. Just the toughts of a random player.

[Gecko]

I agree with you, its very difficult for allies to capture the hut, so they can hardly win!! :moo:

[CLOWN_krieger]

hmm…
its more difficult to get the objective into the castle, if u have a good axisteam defending…
and on the long way through the tunnels, the axis may dyna the bridge and retake the hut ^^
but they are working on it, so stay tuned for the beta v.2

n0lame rocks!!! :bash: :rocker2:

[heeen]

Buglist
*Bridgemg [fixed]
-forrestmg
+castlemg
*floating trees and bushes
*caulkwand at ammo bunker
+cmdmap markers
[fixed for radioparts]
+light on forrest hut staircase
*covopsdoor at castle [fixed]
+new path-castle
+bridge-second path [added]
+spawn forrest [added]
*arenafile text
*smoke on skybox
*voice commands
+trigger hurt at allied spawn
+signs in castle
+tracemap forgotten
*fix terrain shader seams [fixed]
*sparkles in cave [fixed]
*texture stratching issue at tunnel exit

[G0-Gerbil]

How come people are posting up screenshots with 40 fps yet others are saying the framerate is great?

I still say the framerate on this map sucks (which is a damn shame), but then again, what are you (the map creator) designing on, and for (system spec-wise)?

I just find it odd that people are prepared to play with such low framerates and think it ‘good’ when it’s a fair bit slower than all the official maps bar radar cough slowest map ever cough

If everyone is happy with these kind of framerates then maybe I shouldn’t bother with optimising my maps, since no-one really gives a damn?

What sayest thou peeps?

[MindLink]

So whats your problem ranting everywhere how bad this map is because of the low FPS…?

1. The map is still in beta state, maybe it will change some more till the final…?

2. I for my part am more concerned with gameplay than with FPS, and a constant 40-50 FPS are good enough for me to play a good game…
   (btw. radar has lower framerates on my system than transmitter-beta)

[Ifurita]

For me, FPS is an integral part of making sure my map plays well. My target is to maintain a steady 76 FPS throughout the map since that’s the upper ‘magic number’ at which most people seem to cap their FPS. So, when I think of acceptable framerates, it better be 76+

[chavo_one]

But what does “76 FPS” on your machine mean to me if I’m mapping on a totally different system? I play in 1600x1200 with a 2.4Ghz P4 and a radeon 9700pro. The map that I would get 76 FPS is totally different from the map that someone else might get 76 FPS on. So how does a mapper make sure that everyone gets 76 FPS?! As a mapper with a decent system, how basic of a system should I cater to? There has to be another measurement that is more universal to everyone.

[G0-Gerbil]

I’ve repeatedly said when referring to frame rates that being better than radar is:

A) not hard to achieve
B) not a sign of good framerates in and of itself

Radar is a very good example of a map with a very poor framerate that adversely and drastically affects gameplay.

Glad we got that out of the way

Now what I was doing, as you’d know if you’d bothered to read my post properly, was ASKING what others thought was an acceptable framerate, and whether I should re-evaluate MY opinion of this matter based on what others said.

I have always felt, for visual and gameplay reasons a map should ideally always reach a constant 74 frames-per-second (it may be 72, may be 76, can’t remember off-hand, been a while since I played with my config). If you don’t know why this ‘exact’ figure, then erm… ask and be enlightened

Most players will (or should, if they have any sense) cap their framerates to try to achieve a constant framerate - constant = good, variable = bad. Now obviously, this constant should ideally be as fast as possible (to cater for as wide a range of computer set-ups as possible).

Now, the issue here is:

What is a reasonable minimum framerate for a reasonable minimum spec?

Everything else comes from this. As I stated above, there are several extremely good reasons why this reasonable framerate should be as high as possible. The trouble is, many mappers map for their own setup, or without fully realising the effect that a full server load + crapper setup than their own will have on a map. Or alternatively, the mapper may simply have much lower expectations of a reasonable framerate for a map.

Now there are always going to be times when framerates drop, and some maps are so badly designed that they’ll never run fast no matter what you do. But a map like this, that looks really nice, that runs much slower than it COULD DO, is a missed opportunity in my books.

If you are prepared to put this much effort into a map, why not go the extra mile to make it run that much better?

I have the same opinion as Ifurita here - a decent framerate is a pre-requisite for a decent map.
It could be the best looking map in the world, but without speed, I’ll never want to play it.

The thing is, everyone has a different opinion on this (and if you do, post here!). BUT, we are talking lowest common denominator here.

Say I do a map with high framerates because I’m a mapper who loves high FPS (eg MP Forum has yet to drop below 120 fps on my setup, usually it’s 200+). Now anyone can play it - those who love fast framerates, or those who don’t give a damn.

Now let’s assume I’m a mapper who doesn’t really worry about framerates. MP Forum now runs on average at 40-50 frames per second. The map goes public. Now anyone who hates slow maps will simply never play my map more than once. I’ve immediately discounted an extremely large number of players permenantly because I didn’t factor them in.

As a mapper, it’s a rare person who does NOT want to see their map played as much as possible. If you create a slow map, it’ll never achieve the popularity it could have otherwise, regardless of how ‘good’ it is in other means.

Silly purely discussing framerates here, because all I was really interested in was whether the map maker was going to have a stab at improving the framerate on this particular map in the next release

Was going to cut and paste it into the framerates thread but it appears to have been killed by the mods - nicely done

[G0-Gerbil]

Ullo chavo

Yeah tis hard - and I noticed in another thread you chucked r_speeds around. I never really bothered with them, because I was ‘lucky’ enough to have a minimum spec computer in the past, so if it worked on mine, it’d fly on everyone else’s.
Now I have a better setup, firstly I try to make it run as quick as possible (using knowledge gained from mapping on crap system), but it MUST at least run as fast as the official maps EXCEPT for radar. Goldrush courtyard is extreme minimum end. (if you want to find real speeds, use com_maxfps 0).

This is of course a personal preference, one it seems that isn’t shared by many mappers here

It’s like Venice, you’ve done lots of work in it, but because you’ve obviously been working on it on a decent system, together with your own not-so-high expectations of framerate, it means it runs quite poorly on slower systems, and that’s before 20 people all fight in your gorgeous courtyard

You said at the time that system specs move on, and it’s true, I agree - and I’m loving the extra detail I can put in ET maps over RTCW ones, BUT I don’t think it’s moved on as much as everyone seems to think.

Possibly expectations are lower in ET than RTCW because no-one shelled out 40 quid for it, I dunno. But any map with slow framerates in RTCW died an immediate death. Here, well, seems like people think differently somewhat, but that won’t stop me from trying to get people to speed their maps up - it’s not like I WANT to bitch, wherever there’s a decent map running slow I’m more than willing to lend a hand and piss around on the map in question to improve framerates…

[G0-Gerbil]

Here’s an old fun relevant thread

http://www.splashdamage.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3485

Granted transmitter is not 1/3rd of the official maps, but it’s still interesting reading in places.

[MindLink]

Gerbil now that’s finally something we can work on. The only posts before I saw of you about the map were sounding quite “bitchy” (excuse the word, no offense meant) quoting how bad the FPS are in the map. I’ve got no problem with constructive criticism, but simply saying “Transmitters framerates are bad, it sucks” (well at least in the core) in several distributed threads without any constructive comment about that (yes, it indeed sounds that way reading your posts) is not the way to go.
There will be more work done concerning the framerates of transmitter, I can assure you of this, though even the not perfect framerates of the beta didn’t distract most people from playing it anyways yet, our server is full when running the map and I’ve seen several other servers running the map SO or in rotation.
I for my part am working on a P4 2,4 gig, 512 megs ram, GF3 Machine, and I guess it could still be classified as upper range machine. Heeen (now I hope I remember correctly) is working on an 1,5 Gig machine with 256 megs, and I’d even specify that as a minimum requirement for anyone playing ET.
BUT, we even got someone playing on a Duron 900 and he’s still happy with the map Whatever.
I’m currently not informed what most ppl got as machines, I just know the stats from our forum and appart from the one guy with the 900 Mhz machine most ppl work on 2Ghz or faster. shrug
In my current setup the released beta runs at around 60-65 fps with some drops down to 45-50 at some few places and tops at 100 fps at others. For ME that’s an acceptable framerate, BUT I reckon there are several ppl with weaker systems. There’s still quite a lot of room for improvement in the structure of the map and it will be done when we find the time.
Well whatever…
My whole point is : I still don’t think your way of starting a discussion about the framerates of transmitter was correct, BUT it’s in the works nevertheless.

[heeen]

well put, mindlink!
many improvements can be done by dropping our neat skyportal or optimizing it and today i deleted many unseen terrain triangles that i left there becasue i wasn’t sure wether i’d change the structure
also i could disable the snow detail stage that’s on all terrain shaders but i’m not sure about this
specs:
1,4 ghz athlon, 256mb ddr@266, gf3
i’m getting 40-80 fps

[Spark]

I for one, am very picky when it comes to framerates. You might argue that this is because of my crap machine (P3 1000, but Geforce Ti4600), but I was already picky when I was still playing Q3.
To me, it’s really simple: When I see where the framerates went into, then I can live with lower framerates. Sometimes it will be too low and then I just say “ok, it doesn’t work on my computer but it’s a cool map for those who have the hardware”. When a map runs good for me, then it immediately has a bonus which will make me like the map, even if it isn’t the most gorgeous map ever released. However, when I see a map that runs badly, without offering anything that would make it worth (or if the bad performance obviously is caused by bad layout), then I put it aside as crap.
Now with transmitter, my feelings are two-fold. On the one hand, it’s an impressive map which obviously took loads of effort and with lots of nice ideas. It’s certainly fun and interesting. OTOH, it’s visualy not that detailed and at some places, I really wonder if it wouldn’t be possible to get more vis blocking with some smart layout. For example, when I look at the fortress, the frames go down dramatically. It’s understandable because of the complex nature of the fortress, but it’s also hard to understand for me, why it isn’t possible to block vis to it from the outside almost completely. It’s certainly much more easy said than done, though, so I’m not complaining…

To sum it up, currently Transmitter is a “very nice” map in my book, but to make it a “great” map (like Nachteinbruch :)) to me, it would either need a massive visual overhaul or a massive performance overhaul or a bit of both.
If this map won’t be released too early, I’m sure it can become great.

[heeen]

acttually, i think (no offence) that nachteinbruch is a quite nice map but very boring when it comes to lighting inside of buildings and the atmosphere, there could be done more about this.
(of course you now think i would of course rather push my own map…)
anyways, where do all those fps go in transmitter?
well we have a forrest with an enourmous amount of alphablended tree branches, we have a skyportal with an alphablenmded fog layer and smoke from distant battles.
well of course we could improve the vis at the castle but i don’t want to suppress beauty and realism because of some dude’s gf2mx 32mb getting lower fps.
don’t get me wrong, we do all we can to improve fps to make it very playable, i was one of those dudes that bought a gf2gts and ran q3 with r_picmip 5 to be able to speedjump and circlejump…
anyways, real castles weren’t built to have vis in mind…

[lennyballa]

just a hint “gameplay above realism”

[MindLink]

There is still room for improvement in the castle and it will be worked on WITHOUT losing any detail on it.

[G0-Gerbil]

I have, in threads now deleted ( ) posted many suggestions for increasing framerates in maps.
As an example, the castle in transmitter seems to me to have virtually no vis blocking - I did wonder if you’d made the entire thing out of detail brushes, but r_showtris showed there was a tiny bit of culling going on so obviously not.
Going around it, I can’t really see why it gets such slow framerates - it would benefit massively from hinting, and I’d then be suprised if you weren’t looking at a constant 100+ fps.
My point is, with careful hinting / building, there’s no reason why this map should not become a 80+ fps permenantly with very little visual difference - and I for one would like that because it’d change from a map I won’t play into a map I will play, which seems like a pretty reasonable idea, particularly since you can be sure I’m not the only one who thinks like it.