Ziemanskye on 21/8/2006 at 16:32
:erm: :idea: :cheeky:
New Horizon on 21/8/2006 at 16:52
Quote Posted by str8g8
In short, a level like Life of the Party would certainly be a challenge in Flesh, but I belive it could be done (and without the need for loading zones).
I would be interested in seeing if it were truly possible.
str8g8 on 22/8/2006 at 08:57
Well, the only way I can prove it is by spending the next 12 months of my life making it ... which I'm not going to do ... :)
But the thing about life of the party is it's all smoke and mirrors, it makes you think you're on the rooftops overlooking the city but really how much do you see? It's still corridor - room - corridor ... it's just that the corridors and rooms are bigger and have less objects and detail, and of course you never get down to ground level and so on. Don't get me wrong, it's probably my favourite thief mission, and more kudos to the designer for pulling it off, for making it so artfully.
Gestalt on 23/8/2006 at 00:12
I'm inclined to trust str8g8's analysis, since he has the most practical experience with the subject.
ascottk on 23/8/2006 at 01:08
I don't know, I'm just inclined . . .
sparhawk on 23/8/2006 at 08:10
Quote Posted by str8g8
Quote Posted by sparhawk
Technically - definitely. You can get as large as you want, as long as you properly optimize your map.
So this statement is equally true of TDS, or any engine come to think of it.
No it's not. Doom 3 doesn't seem to be limited. So you can build any level that your machine can support. TDS, on the other hand, IS limited by the sourcecode. There are hardcoded limits, that prevent the creation of arbitrary big levels. So even if you would run TDS on a Cray supercomputer you would still have tiny levels, while, with Doom 3, you could maybe simulate a whole city on such a machine.
Quote:
In short, a level like Life of the Party would certainly be a challenge in Flesh, but I belive it could be done (and without the need for loading zones).
I doubt it.
Ziemanskye on 23/8/2006 at 10:52
Breaking that utterly pointless chain of arguments for a moment:
Does this mean that DarkMod is/has establish(ing/ed) a series of performance targets?
I mean if it comes down to "the computer I made this on can run it" you could end up with a huge ammount of mostly unplayable fms because the audience's machines aren't up to the task. We already have that problem with TDS, where some people can't play the missions with higher VertexPool sizes and you're right, we do have a maximum cut-off. And this is *after* the expected upgrades people made to be able to play at all - you can't count on people's machines getting more powerful as a work around (except perhaps for raising the expected baseline: I think you've mentioned you need a faster minimum processor than Doom3 calls for because of the extra lighting/light-gem and anticipated AI).
New Horizon on 23/8/2006 at 11:43
Quote Posted by Ziemanskye
Does this mean that DarkMod is/has establish(ing/ed) a series of performance targets?
It's a bit too early to nail down anything totally concrete, but with a properly optimized level, an average system should be able to play classic Thief sized levels...if not somewhat larger than that. For example, my system has been able to handle fairly large TDM test maps on medium settings and I only run a Geforce FX5200 with 1gig of ram. I intend to upgrade soon, but for now...I would say I'm doing alright...considering those maps aren't fully optimized yet. Just comes down to properly planning, caulking, lighting and portalizing the level so that the entire map isn't rendered all at once.
Ziemanskye on 23/8/2006 at 15:12
I wouldn't consider a gig of ram standard, not yet, and considering this community possibly not for when the DarkMod is expected to be released either.
But while I agree it's too early to nail them - are you considering setting such limits?
I just think it might be worth seeing if you can scrape together some baseline systems (closer to launch perhaps) and basically tell the beta-mappes that for release the sample maps *must* run properly on minimum.
str8g8 on 23/8/2006 at 16:11
Well, my dad can beat your dad up, etc :p
What are all these hard-coded limits everyone is talking about :confused:
Having made a decent sized mission in the T3 Editor I didn't feel I was pushing it to the limit - far from it in fact. The only reason I didn't make it bigger was time. Are you on about static vertex pools? If so, then that's not hard-coded because they can be changed.
Someone said you can't do T2 sized levels with the T3 Editor. It's my opinion that you can, and I would hate for some potential mapper to read that and be put off trying, because then it would become self-fulfilling.
