Judith on 12/4/2007 at 21:53
I think it's (and will be) hard to make FM on any more or less modern engine while working totally on one's own. Even if there are people like Str8g8, releasing their SM's and textures for the public, you still must be able to make all what stands for visual components of your mission. And it's time-consuming, you know it so well ;)
Personally, I'd love to create some duo, or trio, like we have right now in Cabal, but where I could focus only on the level design, texture and SM creation. I hate writing my own scripts and I'm not good at working on detailed narrative part.
Actually, I'm curious about average time one will need to create FM in TDM, and what will be Dromed community's response.
scumble on 13/4/2007 at 20:25
Quote Posted by OrbWeaver
The only way that editors can make it easy to produce objects without using a 3D modelling program is by replicating the 3D program's features in the editor.
I was thinking in terms of a more parametric or procedural approach, where it's possible to derive variations of object types without the need for actual standard modeling tools. Take SpeedTree for example, that's been integrated into Unreal and Oblivion's engine.
Ziemanskye on 13/4/2007 at 20:56
And of course, sometimes the game-editor is just fine for what you want: UnrealEd letting you carve objects, or create new smeshes out of arrangements of old ones can be a real timesaver.
Obviously this only really applies to fairly basic things like doors and windows and minimal-detail objects, but it is still a mostly valid way of doing such things.
SubJeff on 14/4/2007 at 06:15
Whoa!
Just got back in this thread after a fair few days. I just wanted to clarify - I wasn't accusing anyone from TDM, just stating that the only people who could possibly want someone to not finish a TDS FM would be those with a competing interest. And tbh I didn't think about DromEders.
You guys can't think that I, of all people, would be suggesting that team TDM had anything to do with this, can you?
Dark Arrow on 14/4/2007 at 06:20
Quote Posted by Aristed
I used komag’s tut to make a mission in T3ED (first time a touched a game engine) and got nearly all the way through. Suffered many a crash and series of annoying problems only to find that what I packed wouldn’t run properly. Still haven’t got a clue what’s wrong with it, just seems to ruin the install of GL and T3 when I try to run it. As I don’t have any knowledge of other engines/editors I really can’t rate it, but I found most of the design very intuitive and satisfying. Even the scripts were fairly strait forward.
This is the main issue I had with T3ed. The engine is terrible, the audience isn't as big as it is for T2 and I hate the bugs which may ruin the level when the .ibt file is build. It just doesn't peak my interest anymore to spend months in building a level which could reveal to be unplayable in the normal T3, because of a bug in the T3ed exe.
I'm not saying everyone should stop building their T3 levels. On the contrary, I salute those that can work with this beast, but I don't think I'll open up T3ed again (unless I seek ideas for static meshes). Keep up the good work guys, I'm heading back to the beast I know.
PS. I'm also wondering where the idea for the thread came up. I don't think the TDM team had anything to do with it. That would be a ridiculous assumption in my opinion. T3 is not in any way a threat to the TDM.
SubJeff on 14/4/2007 at 07:01
Word. It's more the other way around. :p :angel:
sparhawk on 15/4/2007 at 11:43
Quote Posted by OrbWeaver
As the standard of game graphics increases, there is more of a requirement to have the precise level of control a 3D modelling application gives you, rather than the simple geometry produced by an editor.
That's precisely the reason why modern games go the direction of integrating modelling apps with a direct interface into their game, instead of creating their own 3D editor.
Angelfire on 23/4/2007 at 11:51
I can't for the life of mine ever comprehend what's the beef between T2 folks and DS. :confused:
No rope arrows or swimmable water... boohoo give me a fargin break. Well T2 didn't have complex lightning and shader support, and what thief games are all about? -> Shadows, stealth, lightning, mood.
Judith on 23/4/2007 at 13:41
I don't know whether it's something between T2 and T3ed designers or not. But I know that doing even simple things under T3ed require such an effort, that most most people simply give up.
If you gave me the gun and showed me the person responsible for buying Unreal Engine assets for T3, I'd shoot him/her without asking a question. For all those long nights spent on figuring out how it all works, creating "workaround" solutions for really simple effects, and for trying to understand totally ridiculous caps and limitations implemented in this engine. If the devs had done Thief 3 on standard Unreal set of tools (like in UT2004 editor), we would have a lot of T3 FM's right now.
Sorry, I'm bloody frustrated for I've spent all night trying to make a simple in-game cinematic...
Flux on 23/4/2007 at 20:30
Totally agree with you Judith...
It is not the unreal engine to blame, rather the short-sighted coders at ion storm for messing up the engine. Matinee tool works like charm in normal, not messed-up versions of unreal engine, like most of the other features.
I can understand the need to re-write the renderer, but who is responsible for breaking the working features of the unreal editor which is totally unrelated with the renderer, that's beyond me.
Ubisoft always re-write their own renderer when they use the same unreal engine for games like splinter cell, raven shield etc. and these games' editor work as normal as any other unreal engine game, which is mostly the same editor with a slightly different interface.
Ion storm coders were bunch of spoiled children, where you give them an expensive toy and they break it in a minute. Breaking features like simple 2dshape editor can't not be explained by xbox limitations, design/art choices, re-writing the renderer or a careless mistake. When you license unreal engine you not only get the source code but the exact stuff you see with the games like ut2004.
Someone worked deliberately to mess up certain features like "breaking the bsp-grid" or "matinee" or 2dshape editor and tons of other tiny but nifty features.
Like Judith says, if we had the normal set of tools of the editor other than trying to fix bugs and working with limitations, we would be discussing if garrett should be riding a horse, as it takes so much to time to walk to different cities in the same level. Not necessarily a horse would be a good idea, but it would be nice to see what the dromed designers would come up with if we had a normal editor.
Of course, they shouldn't have written that bloody expensive shadows renderer. Nobody would blame them for not having stencil shadows for a game released in 2004.
