Converting from Source to UnrealEd, UED as easy as Hammer/WC?

[8IronBob]

I know that Source and UE3 are two different styles of gaming engines, and maps are built in different ways. Source is a Quake-based editor, and UnrealEd for GoW and UT3 is probably an apples and oranges comparison. However, how easy would it to be to try recreating a map like this in the screenshot into UT3 as a DeathMatch?

[Quakis]

How easy? What? Isn't that technically up to you to decide? Do you even have any knowledge of the editor yet? To be blunt, judging from that screenshot, it doesn't appear you have a lot of mapping knowledge for Source. Lots of beginner mistakes there. Yet you feel ready to move to Unreal Engine 3 (from another topic) thinking it will make your maps better?

Personally, I think you should be worrying about learning the editor and engine you're working with before thinking about starting work on a project, experience and learn both the right/effective ways to do things.

For example, from the looks of things, you have a huge hollowed out brush around the rest of your Source level, which I'm assuming has the sky texture. This is bad practise since the map is compiling and lighting up useless sections of the level the player will probably never go to or see. It doesn't look like you can use your brushes well either and your texturing is very primitive and basic.

Then again, if you're the type who's not prepared to learn and improve, ignoring my advice, then I just won't bother you about this again and leave you be.

Good luck.

[8IronBob]

What're you talking about? I've been mapping in Quake for over 10 years (mainly in Virtus DeathMatch from 1998-2001, then qED II from 2001-2007, then took a little break after upgrading to Vista, until maybe a couple of months ago), I'm just new to WorldCraft/Hammer, not Quake in general. I was using a different editor before this, which allowed me to create better maps, but the editor I have been using doesn't work in Vista, let alone 64-bit, whereas WC/Hammer does. However, the mapping style I've learned was so old fashioned, that I think if I'm gonna learn Unreal mapping, I'm probably gonna use some methods similar to that in Source, and actually "carve" a map in CS:S, rather than build with brushes.

[peoplessi]

The thing is, in the end if you are a able mapper, the tool doesn't really change things that much. I'd say both have their plusses and weaknessess, but that's easy to figure out when you jump and do something with the editor.

[Mr.Fibbles]

With UnrealEd you don't have to worry about holes in the map that cause compile errors. In fact, UnrealEd has no real compiling. it is a WYSIWYG style mapper and I like it.
As far as changing editors. . .make sure you know that UnrealEd you carve out a map using negative brushes as opposed to Source/Quake where you build a map in a void.

edit: I just read the other thread. . .did not know that they changed the build style. . .that sucks a little.

[8IronBob]

Right, as I said, even tho you do build in a void, at least Source/Quake will let you carve a map as well, I'm doing that now, since as stated, most maps I've done in the past were done the traditional "six cubes makes a room" routine, and that's probably why they looked dull and boring. At least carving a map will let me focus most of my energy on the detail of a room, rather than building the room. That's probably what I was doing wrong...

EDIT: Well, here's a sample room in a map that I actually carved rather than built for Quake (WorldCraft 3.3). Hopefully this makes the detail better:


How different is carving in UnrealEd vs. WorldCraft/Hammer? I know you do have the subtract option there, too, and it's mandatory for building a room in UED, as opposed to optional like it is here for Quake, I know that.

[peoplessi]

What do you mean? You have the options of having additive or subtractive geometry in Unreal Editor 3. The example you posted would be rather easy to do.

They aren't that different, both Hammer and UE3 are very able modern level editing tools, and beyond. Kismet and Matinee are two features in UE3 that I like very much, visual scripting is just great.

[8IronBob]

Thanks for that pointer there... Upon looking at the first couple of videos and trying a little UnrealEd for UT2004, I'd have to say that it's actually *gasp*EASIER*gasp* than Source, which took me by surprise. Of course, then again, since I had some previous experience with Quake/Source, UnrealEd just felt like second nature to me. At least the fundamentals of creating a room in UT2004 may probably be easier, since it's carved, and no worries about leaks like you would with Hammer.

[8IronBob]

I'm starting to really get comfy with the editor. Right now, I'm doing a pretty good arena-style map, where you have a "main event" platform, which I'm standing on, and there's going to be four player starts, all of which are color coded, and each player will have their own weapon, health, and armor spawn points in their starting positions, which is better than having them scattered all over the map, since you will have a place to return to if you run low on something. All in all, rather good first map, and all starting rooms are color coded by different light colors, you can see the red player start I'm facing. The others will follow the same color scheme as the Windows logo, pretty much, you'll have a red, blue, yellow, and green starting location. Almost like playing Simon in the middle of UT2004... Might translate well to UT3, time will tell.

[jimbob]

is that ut3 or ut2k4?

either way, things like pillars, stairs and stuff should not be made out of BSP, but with static meshes, takes a whole lot of the load of the map.

but so far it looks good.

[8IronBob]

Right, it's sort of a remake of a "Fatal 4-Way DM" that I made back in the '90s for Doom II and Duke 3D. It was also a 1-on-1 for Duke 3D in Single Player with the Overlord, and a Triple Threat in Doom II with the two boss creatures (CyberDemon and Spider Mastermind), so it's a popular choice to bring back as a first map for UT2004, imo... I was going to make it for Quake way back when, but it was gonna be a challenge back then.

[jimbob]

ah, right. wel i supose it can be done with just BSP as there wont be much going on anyway, but general rule of thumb is use as little BSP as possible.

[8IronBob]

Originally Posted by jimbob

ah, right. wel i supose it can be done with just BSP as there wont be much going on anyway, but general rule of thumb is use as little BSP as possible.

True, no matter why there's no light bleeding through the grates. Thought that colored lights underneath the floor, or over the ceiling would add a cool effect (well, it's actually a blend of BSP solid ceiling with, I'm assuming, static mesh grates on the trim, like I've seen in other UT2004 maps).

EDIT: I'm back, and here's what I'm talking about with the grated floor bit, I'm wondering if these should be static meshes in order to have lighting from underneath the floor (which should be a cool effect), and also above the ceiling, I have grates up there as well. Behind the grates, I did make sure to carve actually a stacked room on the top and bottom of the main area, so having these grates should actually show lighting from those areas. I'm guessing that BSP textured grates won't work here, I take it...

[jimbob]

if you want lighting underneath those grates you`d need to carve a hole in the floor and stick a mesh on top of that with a light in the hole, that should work but only if you can actually see through the grate else it would be useless. if you want it to have nic e shadow on the cieling, wel in UT2k4 its a bit of hard work with projectors really in UT3 it works better.

[8IronBob]

Ahh, yes... That does work. Seems like meshes seem to be the norm for inside a room in the Unreal Engines, as opposed to Source/Quake, where you do have to use brushes and the occasional entity for a model/prefab. Even tho Source does have models for entities, for the most part, it's still the same old thing that they've been doing for the past 10 years (which is about how long I've been trying to get involved with Quake mapping). However, it wasn't until now that I'm doing UED mapping that I noticed that Quake/Source also had the power to have a carved room, but it required that you built a huge-ass block in the middle of the void in order to do that, which is better than the original build six brushes to make a room that I was originally taught. No matter why my CS maps looked all crummy, I was still using that age-old method of one big room (skybox), and a bunch of little rooms inside of it.

[8IronBob]

All right, I hope that I got this effect right. Looks like a nice, eerie green glow out from underneath that staircase (starting position, and first room to what will become a good arena someday). I got the UnrealED version here, and a version of that same room built in Hammer/Source.

UED (UT2004) Version:



Hammer/CS:S Version:



I'm guessing that CS:S does things a little differently, as stated. I mean, yeah, you do use prop_static entities as models, as opposed to static meshes, but I'm wondering if the ideas were almost the same between the two technologies, tho... One thing I notice out of the box, is that Source obviously doesn't automatically pre-light the map right in the editor like UED does. I just don't think that there's too much difference in map design here for this sample room.

[peoplessi]

What is your point? Also, I thought you were going to use UE3. Nonetheless, I can't see what you are trying to accomplish with that comparison.

btw. if you use ALT+Print Screen you don't get the statusbar in the screenshot

[8IronBob]

I was just showing a comparison of a sample room where you would have an eerie lighting effect using grate platforms and seeing how well that would work in a starting room. Trying to experiment with a scary first room for a map that I'm looking to do.

[peoplessi]

Hammer version is flatlighted, so I can't see that as a fair comparison. Similar geometry yes, but the lighting part is something I can't compare from those two shots.

[8IronBob]

That's probably because you have to COMPILE the map and play it IN GAME in Source to see the lighting, iirc... It won't light your map right out of the box like Unreal tech does, most likely...

[Gigabite]

Originally Posted by 8IronBob

Right, as I said, even tho you do build in a void, at least Source/Quake will let you carve a map as well, I'm doing that now, since as stated, most maps I've done in the past were done the traditional "six cubes makes a room" routine, and that's probably why they looked dull and boring. At least carving a map will let me focus most of my energy on the detail of a room, rather than building the room. That's probably what I was doing wrong...

EDIT: Well, here's a sample room in a map that I actually carved rather than built for Quake (WorldCraft 3.3). Hopefully this makes the detail better:


How different is carving in UnrealEd vs. WorldCraft/Hammer? I know you do have the subtract option there, too, and it's mandatory for building a room in UED, as opposed to optional like it is here for Quake, I know that.

This is a bit late but, WHAT WERE YOU THINKING? Source is NOT UED and should never be treated as such. Source is an additive engine, not a subtractive and you should NEVER carve anything out of anything.

10 years of Quake mapping has obviously not taught you anything about proper mapping techniques. If you use carve so easily, I'd really hate to see your Quake maps.

The best thing to think about carve is to pretend it doesn't exist. It is the source of all evils of mapping in any Quake based engine.

[8IronBob]

Let me clarify that, I did build with six brushes to make a room cube up until a couple of years ago, when I found out that it's more efficient to build one, big solid cube, and hollow out a cube to make a room. It just seemed like it would cut down on leaks and void gaps in the long haul. After mapping for UT2004, as well as a hand at UT3 for a while, that changed the way I did things for the Source engine, perhaps for the better. Also, it's UT2004's UED that's a subtractive engine, UT3's UED is very similar to that of Source/Hammer, from my understanding.

[Parkar]

It's not about additive or subtractive. Unrealed is based on CSG which mean you build your level by intersecting subtractive and additive brushes. It doesn't matter if you start with a void or a solid space. The quake engines does not have a negative brush and thus you can't just transfer the method of building levels from unrealed to a quake engine. All you are achieving is a huge bunch of unoptimized additive brushes.

[8IronBob]

Now that I see it...UnrealEd is closer to BUILD's style of mapping. After all, you can use sprites like static mesh in Duke 3D, and BSP is more like sector mapping, basically... No matter why George wanted to switch to Unreal Tech, it's probably as close to more modern engines that resembles what Build was capable of. I mean, just so long as you have HRP and Polymer enabled, Duke 3D DukeMatching could almost have the same quality as that of a UT2004 DeathMatch.

After all, if I look back to the DukeMatch maps done within the past decade, I'd have to say that UnrealEd could almost duplicate it without too much effort, just so long as the geometry's not too crazy.