Talk:Proposals/Shared Map Tiles

< Talk:Proposals
Revision as of 19:12, 21 March 2013 by ShipIt (talk | contribs) (Lighting problems)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Blending Problems

I could be wrong, but I think that the blending process is very much visual-only. It might be very difficult to implement material system parameters (bump, etc) on a blend. If this is the case (and Sandro or Mattn will know better), then it may be better to implement a different texture-swap for this case in particular, one which would not blend a texture on the top but actually replace it earlier in the process, like the dummy texture system used in ufocrash. --H-hour 15:04, 20 March 2013 (SAST)

Yes, replacing would be a lot better - we have to somehow specify which texture should be used for replacing. But this does not solve the problem of rotated or scaled textures - so we would have to extend the replacement code (to also replace the texcoords). --Mattn 15:11, 20 March 2013 (SAST)
Extending the code to replace the texcoords would great. If this proves too complicated, I think we could live with out it. Each RMA will have to have this implemented itself. During that process, it should not be too difficult to ensure the ground texture on all tiles matches a standard scale (I would say 0.25). To be honest, this should be a standard we aim towards anyway. Many of the old maps have really bad texture scaling issues. --H-hour 15:17, 20 March 2013 (SAST)
If a replacement sytem is the best way, fine. Imo replacing the texcoords in the code is not needed. This can easily be done in the map files. --ShipIt 21:01, 20 March 2013 (SAST)


  • ShipIt, what do you mean by: "We need unified tile descriptors."? --H-hour 14:07, 20 March 2013 (CET)
The tile descriptor for the shared tile is located in the shared.ump so far. This needs to fit in all maps where the tile is used. I think this will be not much of a problem. Changing this should be part of another proposal.--ShipIt 21:01, 20 March 2013 (SAST)

Lighting problems

We still have the problem with the lightmaps. But this could be worked around with autogenerating the maps (as they are just copies of the shared map tile with changed lighting parameters in the worldspawn) --Mattn 15:24, 20 March 2013 (SAST)

To decide which lighting settings we should take, the default worldspawn flags should be moved to the ump file, too. (they should still be override-able in the map file) --Mattn 14:26, 20 March 2013 (CET)
This is done now - so the autogenerating of "equal" map tiles can be started now. --Mattn 22:33, 20 March 2013 (SAST)
Sorry, I tried hard to get behind this, but I really do not see what the problem is. Is this in case a map uses worldspawn settings different from the default? I am lost. --ShipIt 12:40, 21 March 2013 (SAST)
There are two benefits to having the worldspawn settings in a .ump file. 1) As you said, if a map uses a non-default lighting setting and the .ump imports the dropship tile, this will ensure the lighting is consistent. 2) We no longer have to set the worldspawn settings in every RMA tile! That means if you change the lighting, the maxlevel, etc, you don't need to change it in 30 different tiles. --H-hour 16:32, 21 March 2013 (SAST)
1) But the shadows are part of the lightmap in the .bsp file, no? Can those be changed on the fly? 2) Good thing. At least something I understand. --ShipIt 17:45, 21 March 2013 (SAST)
1) Mattn is talking about configuring the build scripts which compile the maps so that they will automatically compile another .bsp if different lighting settings are found. So the extra .bsps will be there, but they will be generated from a single .map file. (This is probably only a few cases where lighting should be different, like night lighting on +bridge for example.) --H-hour 20:11, 21 March 2013 (SAST)
Thanks for explaining. --ShipIt 21:12, 21 March 2013 (SAST)