 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I have absolutely no idea how in the game of God any of this is
> possible. But people have done it, so it *must* be possible...
It's not really possible. They're just pulling your leg.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> Getting Crysis = free editor.
I started playing with the UT3 editor last year when it came out. A few
months of being shouted down in the forums by fanbois who couldn't stand
my (imo) valid criticisms of the editor, plus seeing several threads
(both my own, and others') removed from the forums with no explanation
at all, convinced me that I didn't want to make levels for UT3 any more.
Pity, because if there's one thing that game needs (other than more than
10 people online at any given time), it's more good levels.
I would consider Crysis, but my PC isn't up to snuff, and I don't feel
like upgrading just for that. Hopefully, Starcraft 2 will have
scripting support on par with the original.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Yeah - I'm still puzzled by all that. The Amiga had a strong
>> "shareware" scene, but I'm puzzled by this sudden new craze of giving
>> away fully-supported commercial-grade software (sometimes that *was*
>> commercial!) for free. It suddenly seems to be the "trendy" thing to
>> do, and I'm not really sure how that happened.
>
> It makes sense when your primary source of revenue comes from service
> contracts. Give away the thing you're servicing / supporting, and
> suddenly you've a lot more potential customers.
...is has a flavour
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Yeah, but... throwing together a new map is one thing, but building an
>> entire new game... where do you get all the texture data from? Where do
>> you get all the sounds from? How to you design weapons? How do you
>> construct an AI engine? How do you do all of this with a few people in
>> their spare time?? It boggles the mind...
>
> Minus the AI engine, that sounds like building a POV-Ray scene. And people
> do it in their spare time.
(And the sound, and the animation element.)
Yeah, but POV-Ray supports procedural textures, so you can easily design
textures of any complexity. Game engines demand bitmapped textures,
which are far harder to make.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I have absolutely no idea how in the game of God any of this is
>> possible. But people have done it, so it *must* be possible...
>
> It's not really possible. They're just pulling your leg.
Wouldn't be the first time...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguy com> wrote in message
news:489aa7ed$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>> Getting Crysis = free editor.
>
> I started playing with the UT3 editor last year when it came out. A few
> months of being shouted down in the forums by fanbois who couldn't stand
> my (imo) valid criticisms of the editor, plus seeing several threads (both
> my own, and others') removed from the forums with no explanation at all,
> convinced me that I didn't want to make levels for UT3 any more.
Oh, well that's a shame. Yes, I know what fanboys can be like. And I'm
sure your advice would have been good.
>
> Pity, because if there's one thing that game needs (other than more than
> 10 people online at any given time), it's more good levels.
>
> I would consider Crysis, but my PC isn't up to snuff, and I don't feel
> like upgrading just for that. Hopefully, Starcraft 2 will have scripting
> support on par with the original.
Ah, well, if you want the Crysis experience, then get Crysis:Warhead
this September. Crytek have optimised this game to run on $600/$800 machines
apparently. But, you should be able to run Crysis on your rig if I can on my
(now pitiful) machine. Anyway, see some of the video's for Warhead, and see
what you think. I can't wait for it! :)
~Steve~
>
> ...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> It makes sense when your primary source of revenue comes from service
> contracts.
Actually, it makes a lot more sense when your primary source of revenue
isn't software at all. Sun gives away Java because they make their money
selling hardware.
> Give away the thing you're servicing / supporting, and
> suddenly you've a lot more potential customers.
That really only works well if the software sucks to start with. If it's
well documented and easy to use and just plain works, you won't get too
much business from service contracts. If it's all that and yet too
complex for the customer to easily set up (think SAP), it's probably too
complex to be cheap enough to maintain that you can afford to give it
away in the first place.
If you're giving away the source, other contractors will just eat your
lunch because they don't have your overhead.
It's a good thought that really doesn't work out as well as you might think.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> that is. Some of these young guys can produce professional maps in like - a
> couple of months or less!)
There's one thing I wondered about game creation. (Hey, Warp! :-)
How does the planning and design go? I mean, take a game like Thief or
Halo or Half Life or something, where there's all kinds of complex 3D
stuff going on. It's not like you can whiteboard such a thing very easily.
I'm thinking maybe a group of people get together, think about the
story, describe stuff that should be in the level,maybe draw a map or
two, and then hand it to one person to put the whole level together,
laying it out and all? Then they go to the talent to produce the sounds
and voices and all that?
Basically, how do you get from "next in the story, we have the secret
lab level" to "here's the 3D mesh for the level"?
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> It makes sense when your primary source of revenue comes from service
>> contracts.
>
> Actually, it makes a lot more sense when your primary source of revenue
> isn't software at all. Sun gives away Java because they make their money
> selling hardware.
And yet Apple doesn't do the same. ;-)
(Mind you, Apple's software is what *makes* people buy their hardware...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> There's one thing I wondered about game creation. (Hey, Warp! :-)
>
> How does the planning and design go? I mean, take a game like Thief or
> Halo or Half Life or something, where there's all kinds of complex 3D
> stuff going on. It's not like you can whiteboard such a thing very easily.
Actually, I think I recal seeing some black and white pen drawings for
the storyboarding for Halflife somewhere... Don't remember where though.
What *I* wonder about game design is how the hell you model 3D objects.
Every 3D modeller I've ever used has been excruciatingly difficult to
operate...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> my (imo) valid criticisms of the editor, plus seeing several threads
That's one of the things that killed me about the thief editor. I didn't
work with it much, but it certainly seemed like they should have been
able to (for example) tell you when a hole was big enough to move
through without getting stuck, or a gap small enough to jump over.
Otherwise, it was all trial and error.
I mean, at a minimum, have the stuff you stick to the walls and floors
be able to "snap" to the surface/grid/whatever. The levels are full of
lights that float an inch from the wall, book shelves facing the wall,
fire in the fireplace not touching the floor, etc. As well as them
having issued a patch or two that just made it possible to take routes
where they'd made the window too small to climb through by 3 pixels or so.
There's even a garish default texture so you can walk around and find
the surfaces you forgot to texture. Rather than, you know, a function in
the editor that points the camera at any untextured surfaces.
How could it *not* save time to automate such stuff?
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>>> It makes sense when your primary source of revenue comes from service
>>> contracts.
>>
>> Actually, it makes a lot more sense when your primary source of
>> revenue isn't software at all. Sun gives away Java because they make
>> their money selling hardware.
>
> And yet Apple doesn't do the same. ;-)
Sure they do, in some ways. They certainly used to.
Try buying a third-party DVD drive, plugging it into an apple, and using
iDVD to burn a video to it.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> What *I* wonder about game design is how the hell you model 3D objects.
> Every 3D modeller I've ever used has been excruciatingly difficult to
> operate...
Ibid. I think it takes a certain talent, probably not unlike writing
sequential code. I suspect the $300K modelers are easier to use for
professionals in the same way that Photoshop blows away GIMP if that's
what you do for a living.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:489b10f2$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>> that is. Some of these young guys can produce professional maps in like -
>> a
>> couple of months or less!)
>
> There's one thing I wondered about game creation. (Hey, Warp! :-)
>
> How does the planning and design go? I mean, take a game like Thief or
> Halo or Half Life or something, where there's all kinds of complex 3D
> stuff going on. It's not like you can whiteboard such a thing very
> easily.
True, but it can be done. I mean, I'm pretty sure that Crytek do this,
and of course some of the mod teams do this too. I didn't with my map, but I
now know that's a path I could take if I wanted to make a new map. I just
built my map as I went along, and there is no storyline as such, but you do
get ten objectives to accomplish, which all work, and some of the map is
linear, but it really doesn't have to be as you can go over most land to
complete an objective in a different way.
>
> I'm thinking maybe a group of people get together, think about the
> story, describe stuff that should be in the level,maybe draw a map or
> two, and then hand it to one person to put the whole level together,
> laying it out and all? Then they go to the talent to produce the sounds
> and voices and all that?
Well, the way that it's been working in the mod teams at Crymod.com is
that a group of people will get together that each have their own
'speciality' if you like. One guy will be really good with flowgraphs, (I'm
crap lol), and then another guy will be good at modelling, and another guy
will be good with texturing, and another will be good at storyline/game
balance, etc. And if they're *really* lucky, they might just have a guy
that's good at programming either C, or Lua, or both.
>
> Basically, how do you get from "next in the story, we have the secret
> lab level" to "here's the 3D mesh for the level"?
If you're not making a mod, (where you introduce new elements, models,
whatever), then it's basically all there for you in the editor, so it's then
just a normal bog standard map and not a mod. So really, it's as I explained
above. But, I don't think there's anything stopping me adding a new model to
my map, and still call it a map other than a mod.
See the attached top_down image. The big blue bounding boxes are called
AINavigationModifiers, and as far as I know, they don't interfere with
anything other than the white paths that you can see in the middle of them.
You use these paths to give your helicopters and boats a path to follow.
(There's a wedge shaped box to the right for my only boat). You can put both
a heli and a boat in one AINavMod if you want and as many as you want. The
red lines are 'ForbiddenAreas' - an AI won't go in that, you use it to stop
them climbing over objects, and the yellow lines are 'ForbiddenBoundaries' -
the AI won't walk out of it. The light blue lines are land vehicle paths. I
don't know how you programming guys do this, but to me, I've got more than
enough respect for those that do.
There are *many* other things that this image just doesn't show, but
the attached screen2_pub shows just how beautiful Crysis can be, (and this
is crap compared to what some of the youngsters can do! Lol!) :)
The only problem with my map at the moment is that I've got a nuke
going off right at the start of the game, and I don't know how to fix that
yet. It's really the ending of the map! (But it still works at the end too).
I'd love somebody from here to test my map, but I don't think anyone here
plays Crysis. :o/
~Steve~
>
> --
> Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
> Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
> kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
> who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
> and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'top_down.jpg' (228 KB)
Download 'screen2_pub.jpg' (276 KB)
Preview of image 'top_down.jpg'
Preview of image 'screen2_pub.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:489b11b4$1@news.povray.org...
> Darren New wrote:
>
>> There's one thing I wondered about game creation. (Hey, Warp! :-)
>>
>> How does the planning and design go? I mean, take a game like Thief or
>> Halo or Half Life or something, where there's all kinds of complex 3D
>> stuff going on. It's not like you can whiteboard such a thing very
>> easily.
>
> Actually, I think I recal seeing some black and white pen drawings for the
> storyboarding for Halflife somewhere... Don't remember where though.
>
> What *I* wonder about game design is how the hell you model 3D objects.
> Every 3D modeller I've ever used has been excruciatingly difficult to
> operate...
What? Even Wings3D? As far as I know, it's 'the' most easily used
modeller out there. And very powerful.
~Steve~
>
> --
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
> http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:03:25 +0100, St. wrote:
> What? Even Wings3D? As far as I know, it's 'the' most easily used
> modeller out there. And very powerful.
Well, even Wings3D has a slight learning curve. Blender is easy to
operate as well, once you have learned the interface - but for some, that
takes years to master.
Today's society is full of people who don't want to take the time to
*learn*, they just expect to be able to understand everything instantly,
and get frustrated when they don't "get it" within the first 30 seconds
of using a new tool.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:489b2c47$1@news.povray.org...
> On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:03:25 +0100, St. wrote:
>
>> What? Even Wings3D? As far as I know, it's 'the' most easily used
>> modeller out there. And very powerful.
>
> Well, even Wings3D has a slight learning curve. Blender is easy to
> operate as well, once you have learned the interface - but for some, that
> takes years to master.
>
> Today's society is full of people who don't want to take the time to
> *learn*, they just expect to be able to understand everything instantly,
> and get frustrated when they don't "get it" within the first 30 seconds
> of using a new tool.
Ha, yeah, I didn't think of it like that, but I do know what you mean.
I think it was Gilles that first posted here about Wings a couple of years
ago, (three?) and up until that point, I was using sPatch and Hamapatch,
(which are good, nothing wrong with them imo), but then things became easier
when following the tuts he posted. I love Blender, I've played around with
it a lot, (and I know it's so much more powerful than Wings), but yes, it's
the interface that does it for me. I want to get on with the job, and
Blender restricts that just for trying to find something. Ah, I dunno, maybe
I'll give it a *serious* try someday... :)
~Steve~
>
> Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:34:57 +0100, St. wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:489b2c47$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:03:25 +0100, St. wrote:
>>
>>> What? Even Wings3D? As far as I know, it's 'the' most easily used
>>> modeller out there. And very powerful.
>>
>> Well, even Wings3D has a slight learning curve. Blender is easy to
>> operate as well, once you have learned the interface - but for some,
>> that takes years to master.
>>
>> Today's society is full of people who don't want to take the time to
>> *learn*, they just expect to be able to understand everything
>> instantly, and get frustrated when they don't "get it" within the first
>> 30 seconds of using a new tool.
>
> Ha, yeah, I didn't think of it like that, but I do know what you
> mean.
:-) My stepson is like that - or used to be, at least. He's gotten
older now and has matured in this regard (and others). Always expected
to be able to do anything instantly; he tried to learn to play the flute
and got frustrated within a week because he was "no good at it". Even
knowing someone who has practiced for *years* (friend of my wife's who
went to New York to play professionally).
> I think it was Gilles that first posted here about Wings a couple of
> years ago, (three?) and up until that point, I was using sPatch and
> Hamapatch, (which are good, nothing wrong with them imo), but then
> things became easier when following the tuts he posted. I love Blender,
> I've played around with it a lot, (and I know it's so much more powerful
> than Wings), but yes, it's the interface that does it for me. I want to
> get on with the job, and Blender restricts that just for trying to find
> something. Ah, I dunno, maybe I'll give it a *serious* try someday...
> :)
Yeah, I like Wings3D myself, usually the first tool I pick up if I want
to model something just for fun.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> What? Even Wings3D? As far as I know, it's 'the' most easily used
> modeller out there. And very powerful.
Actually, I found Hash Animation Master to be pretty easy to use. I'm
kind of annoyed that I paid for a professional program and got an
amateur quality result overall, but it *is* pretty easy. The videos
give a pretty good idea.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> True, but it can be done. I mean, I'm pretty sure that Crytek do this,
> and of course some of the mod teams do this too.
I'm sure everyone serious does it. I'm just not sure I can visualize the
process. I've sat in design meetings of software, web sites, documents,
etc. I haven't sat in design meetings for interactive games. It seems to
me it might be noticably different. I'm wondering how autonomous the
decisions made by the people sitting in front of the level editor are,
for example. How much of the level is pre-planned, how much is easier to
lay out and then fix later if it plays poorly.
> If you're not making a mod, (where you introduce new elements, models,
> whatever), then it's basically all there for you in the editor,
I'm kind of talking about how much goes on before you even sit down in
front of the editor.
> I'd love somebody from here to test my map, but I don't think anyone here
> plays Crysis. :o/
I might if I had the video card for it.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> What *I* wonder about game design is how the hell you model 3D objects.
>> Every 3D modeller I've ever used has been excruciatingly difficult to
>> operate...
>
> What? Even Wings3D? As far as I know, it's 'the' most easily used
> modeller out there. And very powerful.
I did once try either Wings or Blender. Unfortunately I can't remember
which of those it was! I do remember being utterly unable to make it do
anything at all though...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Today's society is full of people who don't want to take the time to
> *learn*, they just expect to be able to understand everything instantly,
> and get frustrated when they don't "get it" within the first 30 seconds
> of using a new tool.
Today's OSS is full of products which come with no manual at all. :-P
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> I'd love somebody from here to test my map, but I don't think anyone here
> plays Crysis. :o/
Isn't "Crysis" named after the effect it has on your GPU?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:50:42 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> Today's society is full of people who don't want to take the time to
>> *learn*, they just expect to be able to understand everything
>> instantly, and get frustrated when they don't "get it" within the first
>> 30 seconds of using a new tool.
>
> Today's OSS is full of products which come with no manual at all. :-P
Well, when it comes to 3D modelling, let's have a look, shall we?
http://www.wings3d.com/ - "User Manual 1.6.1 (PDF)", along with several
tutorials.
http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Manual/Manual - Blender manual.
Probably not as current as it could be, but there are also books on how
to use it.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:49:43 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> What *I* wonder about game design is how the hell you model 3D
>>> objects. Every 3D modeller I've ever used has been excruciatingly
>>> difficult to operate...
>>
>> What? Even Wings3D? As far as I know, it's 'the' most easily used
>> modeller out there. And very powerful.
>
> I did once try either Wings or Blender. Unfortunately I can't remember
> which of those it was! I do remember being utterly unable to make it do
> anything at all though...
Probably blender, it does take some patience to learn how to use it.
Once you learn it, it makes sense, but there's a steep learning curve.
Wings3D, OTOH, right click, add object. Select object, right click,
select operation....pretty straightforward.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:489b3f31$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>> True, but it can be done. I mean, I'm pretty sure that Crytek do
>> this, and of course some of the mod teams do this too.
>
> I'm sure everyone serious does it. I'm just not sure I can visualize the
> process. I've sat in design meetings of software, web sites, documents,
> etc. I haven't sat in design meetings for interactive games. It seems to
> me it might be noticably different. I'm wondering how autonomous the
> decisions made by the people sitting in front of the level editor are, for
> example. How much of the level is pre-planned, how much is easier to lay
> out and then fix later if it plays poorly.
If you had Crysis installed and played the games in the recent ICMC comp:
http://icmc.crymod.com/ then you would get an idea of what can be done by
amateurs. There were 20+ maps submitted, and some of them were better than
Crytek's maps, (according to a lot of the users).
Autonomous? You can do basically what you want with this editor.
Obviously, you need to learn it, but Darren, if I can, you most certainly
can. I don't know. I don't know what you're actually looking for even though
you said it in text. You can design a whole map, and if it doesn't "play
properly" then MAKE it play properly. You can. Want a faster LTV? (No idea
what that stands for, it's a large jeep/hummer type vehicle), you can do it.
>
>> If you're not making a mod, (where you introduce new elements,
>> models, whatever), then it's basically all there for you in the editor,
>
> I'm kind of talking about how much goes on before you even sit down in
> front of the editor.
Well, the storyline for a start, (which I've already explained), just to
give you some idea of what you want for the game. Is it going to be a mod?
If so, then you have to start thinking of different folder paths that you
will probably have to make within the main folders. Yes, there's a lot of
messing about with this game, (as with other programs), but as always, once
you play with it and get used to it, it becomes easier.
>
>> I'd love somebody from here to test my map, but I don't think anyone
>> here plays Crysis. :o/
>
> I might if I had the video card for it.
nV6600GT here. And it, (the original vanilla game), plays well on mostly
medium settings for me, with a couple of high prams in-between.
I'd love it if you could play my map, to me, it's great game-play if you
want to sneak and snipe around, (or even hammer it with a machine gun)and
even though there is no story as such, (which I will probably still add),
you would find it hard to get through to the end as I've found out many
times. It's not impossible, and I've completed it many times, but it is hard
on 'normal' settings as apposed to 'veteren' settings, (which I haven't even
tried yet!)
Anyway, just get the next Crysis:Warhead game, and you'll also get the
next version of the editor, which is either going to be v2.5 or v3.0. As I
said to Ben, it's supposed to be optimised for lower end PC's.
Want to licence the game? $2mill.(ish) Heh.
Oooo, those Yerli brothers... :)
~Steve~
>
> --
> Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
> Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
> kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
> who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
> and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Today's society is full of people who don't want to take the time to
>>> *learn*, they just expect to be able to understand everything
>>> instantly, and get frustrated when they don't "get it" within the first
>>> 30 seconds of using a new tool.
>> Today's OSS is full of products which come with no manual at all. :-P
>
> Well, when it comes to 3D modelling, let's have a look, shall we?
I didn't mean these guys specifically. I just meant a lot of OSS
projects sadly aren't as well-documented as they could be. (POV-Ray is a
pleasent departure form this...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> Autonomous? You can do basically what you want with this editor.
> Obviously, you need to learn it, but Darren, if I can, you most certainly
> can.
I think you're missing the question I'm asking.
I'm asking the equivalent of "how does a company design and manage the
creation of a major software project", and you're telling me where to
download the compiler from. I'm not asking "how do you get the ideas
into the data structure that the map editor lets you manipulate." I'm
asking "how does a company creating a large professional game that's
going to take years to code go about working out responsibilities
between team members."
> Want to licence the game? $2mill.(ish) Heh.
That's kind of what I'm saying, there. How does one organize things
such that $2Mill is a reasonable amount of money to pay?
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 13:50:07 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>I think you're missing the question I'm asking.
I think that unless you've been involved in a similar process it would be hard
to imagine it.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:40:58 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>> Today's society is full of people who don't want to take the time to
>>>> *learn*, they just expect to be able to understand everything
>>>> instantly, and get frustrated when they don't "get it" within the
>>>> first 30 seconds of using a new tool.
>>> Today's OSS is full of products which come with no manual at all. :-P
>>
>> Well, when it comes to 3D modelling, let's have a look, shall we?
>
> I didn't mean these guys specifically. I just meant a lot of OSS
> projects sadly aren't as well-documented as they could be. (POV-Ray is a
> pleasent departure form this...)
Oh, sure, lots of OSS projects don't have good documentation. Lots of
OSS projects do. Lots of commercial software has crap documentation,
too, but there is some that does as well.
For example, if Word had reasonable documentation, you'd be able to
figure out how to use templates, wouldn't you? ;-) <scnr>
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:489b5fff$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>> Autonomous? You can do basically what you want with this editor.
>> Obviously, you need to learn it, but Darren, if I can, you most certainly
>> can.
>
> I think you're missing the question I'm asking.
>
> I'm asking the equivalent of "how does a company design and manage the
> creation of a major software project", and you're telling me where to
> download the compiler from. I'm not asking "how do you get the ideas into
> the data structure that the map editor lets you manipulate." I'm asking
> "how does a company creating a large professional game that's going to
> take years to code go about working out responsibilities between team
> members."
Heh, well you didn't say that afaik. ;)
What do you mean by "years to code"? Once the program has been sorted
out to be used in the best possible way, the world is your oyster, yes? The
original program, CE1, (SandBox1) was to do with FarCry, then the next
program, CE2, (SandBox2) was the editor for Crysis (and they LOOK
identical). I don't know what happened between these two programs and their
respective developers, but I think someone probably bought someone out, and
changed a few things. (Probably the Yerli brothers, and then they allowed
the new Farcry people to use the 'old' version which will soon be on the
market as a new version in itself when the FarCry2 editor comes out under a
different name). Ha! Even though I'm no programmer, imagine receiving that
program that you can then work on a professional game without any legal
responsibilities.
>
>> Want to licence the game? $2mill.(ish) Heh.
>
> That's kind of what I'm saying, there. How does one organize things such
> that $2Mill is a reasonable amount of money to pay?
I'm not a professional game maker, (and never will be, although I would
like that challenge for sure), but if it was me, I would do as I've already
described - hire people that are good at what they do best and just get on
with it, and *hope* for the best. It's a tough world in the games industry,
and to be honest, Crysis didn't do as well as it should have. Mistakes were
made about high-end computers and performance. People bought and made their
own high end comps just to play Crysis only to find that they couldn't as
expected, (which is weird, because I can on my low end machine). Go figure.
;)
~Steve~
>
> --
> Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
> Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
> kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
> who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
> and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> Heh, well you didn't say that afaik. ;)
I'm not sure how to more clearly express the question than "How does the
planning and design go?" ;-)
> What do you mean by "years to code"? Once the program has been sorted
> out to be used in the best possible way, the world is your oyster, yes?
I don't have any idea what that sentence is supposed to mean.
> hire people that are good at what they do best and just get on
> with it, and *hope* for the best.
It would seem there's a bit of process between "hire" and "release" that
we're missing in between there. ;-) But since, as you say, you don't
actually know the answer to the question, I'll let that slide.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> Even more impressively, they've been able to colour films that were
>> originally shot in B&W.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_colorization
>
> Yeah, but only with human intervention. You don't just press a button
> and out pops an image with colours that correctly match the original.
>
IIRC, many B&W films aren't actually B&W the way digital media is, but
rather *appear* to be B&W. It's as if the hue values get compressed
into an extremely narrow range. With a good scanner and some good
software, automatic colorization should be perfectly feasible these days.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> I meant you can't just give a machine a BW picture of a tree and have it
>>> automatically know to turn it green. That's impossible.
>>
>> I don't know that to be the case. Again, a case of one's ability to
>> fathom how something like that is done doesn't translate to "there's
>> no way it could possibly be done".
>
> It's a basic premise of signal processing that you cannot recover data
> that isn't there any more. Shannon's theorum and all that.
You have to understand, data on analog film isn't really lost, it's
merely distorted. If you can correct for the distortion, you can get
the original back.
Analog media isn't like digital; it's not changed instantly and
irrevocably. Rather, entire regions are distorted in predictable ways.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> After all, two thousand years ago, the earth was flat because nobody
> could comprehend the idea that it wasn't. Well, I say nobody - there
> were some who did, and they were branded as heretics and in many cases
> they were killed for it. Turns out they were right.
Two thousand years ago, the Greeks knew the earth was round, and they
even knew the radius.
Even 500 years ago, people knew the Earth was round. They didn't laugh
at Columbus because he thought he could sail west to get to India; they
laughed at him because he thought the world was smaller than it was.
Turns out, they were right. If he hadn't landed in the Americas, he and
his crew would have died in the middle of the ocean.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> The real point is more that on a PC, just switching from one window to
>> another always seemed to take forever, whereas on an Amiga it was
>> instantaneous unless the machine was under heavy load.
>
> Yeh, I remember my friend had a 33 MHz PC, and just closing a window it
> took several seconds for his desktop wallpaper to repaint itself,
I was surprised by how fast my computer was when I upgraded to a 33 MHz
processor. Windows ran like a dream on it :)
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Even 500 years ago, people knew the Earth was round.
"""
In fact, people have known since at least the 4th century BC that the
earth is round, and the pseudo-scientific conviction that we actually
live on a disc didn't emerge until Victorian times.
"""
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7540427.stm
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
> > Even 500 years ago, people knew the Earth was round.
> """
> In fact, people have known since at least the 4th century BC that the
> earth is round, and the pseudo-scientific conviction that we actually
> live on a disc didn't emerge until Victorian times.
> """
A disc is "round". A torus is "round". A ring is "round". A cylinder is
"round".
Why do they always use "round" to mean "spherical" in this context,
given that the meaning of the word is not very exact?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 13:26:16 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Why do they always use "round" to mean "spherical" in this context,
> given that the meaning of the word is not very exact?
Because it reinforces the idea that we've always thought of the Earth as
spherical.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> I don't know about you, but every time *I* look at either the GIMP or
> PhotoShop, I can never figure out what magical trick I'm missing that
> lets you do the impressive stuff everybody else does. To me, it just
> seems to be a small set of pretty simple tools that don't appear to give
> you much power to do anything.
There are many, many tutorials available on the Web for the GIMP, and
probably for PS as well.
Whenever I need to do a new trick, I usually play around for about two
hours, then go look up a tutorial on what I'm doing, then finish it in
15 minutes.
Seriously, watching someone else do something well can give you a huge
boost in productivity.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Chambers wrote:
>>> Even 500 years ago, people knew the Earth was round.
>
>> """
>> In fact, people have known since at least the 4th century BC that the
>> earth is round, and the pseudo-scientific conviction that we actually
>> live on a disc didn't emerge until Victorian times.
>> """
>
> A disc is "round". A torus is "round". A ring is "round". A cylinder is
> "round".
>
> Why do they always use "round" to mean "spherical" in this context,
> given that the meaning of the word is not very exact?
>
But the earth isn't spherical, it's ellipsoidal or do I mean oblate
spheroid. ;-)
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> A disc is "round". A torus is "round". A ring is "round". A cylinder is
> "round".
>
> Why do they always use "round" to mean "spherical" in this context,
> given that the meaning of the word is not very exact?
Because nobody really believes the earth is a torus or a ring or a
cylinder? They're trying to distinguish "round" from "flat", not "round"
from "every other possible shape". :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Because nobody really believes the earth is a torus or a ring or a
> cylinder? They're trying to distinguish "round" from "flat", not "round"
> from "every other possible shape". :-)
Is Captain America's shield round? I think anyone would answer "yes".
Yet it's not spherical.
The "earth is flat" belief stated, actually that the Earth is like a
disk not too dissimilar to a round shield. *Round* shield.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Is Captain America's shield round? I think anyone would answer "yes".
> Yet it's not spherical.
Yes. And therein lies the problem: who would assume that if you said
"Captain America's Shield is Round" that you mean it's spherical? I
understand that you're saying both spheres and disks are "round", but
given that one position on the topic is "flat", then "round" is
obviously the other position on the topic.
People talk to people. Maybe you're talking to computers too much lately
or something. Seriously, I mean, did you actually not know what they
were saying? :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> People talk to people. Maybe you're talking to computers too much lately
> or something. Seriously, I mean, did you actually not know what they
> were saying? :-)
It's not a question about understanding or not understanding what they
mean with their words, but about desiring a bit more of unambiguousity.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9 Aug 2008 04:37:38 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> People talk to people. Maybe you're talking to computers too much lately
>> or something. Seriously, I mean, did you actually not know what they
>> were saying? :-)
>
> It's not a question about understanding or not understanding what they
>mean with their words, but about desiring a bit more of unambiguousity.
But the word "round" *is* ambiguous, its meaning is dependant on context.
That's the English language for you.
For instance no one really expected the roundheads to have spherical,
cylindrical or disc like heads. Nor do the "flat Earthers" say that the Earth is
perfectly flat. Take these things with a pinch of salt, old bean. (Not that I
think that you are actually an ancient seed) ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> For example, if Word had reasonable documentation, you'd be able to
> figure out how to use templates, wouldn't you? ;-) <scnr>
That's like saying "If IE's braindead layout algorithm was well
documented, people would be able to understand it." It doesn't follow. :-P
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 09:19:42 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> For example, if Word had reasonable documentation, you'd be able to
>> figure out how to use templates, wouldn't you? ;-) <scnr>
>
> That's like saying "If IE's braindead layout algorithm was well
> documented, people would be able to understand it." It doesn't follow.
> :-P
LOL, but you know I'm right. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> That's like saying "If IE's braindead layout algorithm was well
>> documented, people would be able to understand it." It doesn't follow.
>> :-P
>
> LOL, but you know I'm right. ;-)
Nah. You can design a feature so badly that nobody can comprehend it, no
matter how good the manual is. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:01:56 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> That's like saying "If IE's braindead layout algorithm was well
>>> documented, people would be able to understand it." It doesn't follow.
>>> :-P
>>
>> LOL, but you know I'm right. ;-)
>
> Nah. You can design a feature so badly that nobody can comprehend it, no
> matter how good the manual is. ;-)
True, but as we've already discussed, there are people using templates in
Word without issue, so it's not poor documentation, but rather a lack of
understanding of the documentation that's the issue. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
