great geom get new textures:p

The hidden room is for the environment maps. :)
You'll notice a single envmap ent in the center with a very high radius.
I did this because I was tired of having reflections change half way across the floor due to having tons of envmap ents scattered about. It also helps when you don't have to wait for it to generate fifty of them when you load the map.

I haven't really balanced the weapons yet.

I'm not really fond of the models, as they aren't very useful to any other mapper except if he will use exactly the same shape of stairs
They are what they are. I could have done that stuff with geometry but it would be an eye sore due to light errors. The cleanest quickest way was to make some models.

The lighting seems to be overbrighted. On some places, it looks like a sun is shining that has 10 times more the size of the sun which currently appears in the skybox, while on the decorative holes which carry some kind of torch, are also incredibly bright. The atmosphere doesn't seems to be set in the correct place yet, I hope you get what I mean.

I made a custom skybox for this map which had the sun properly aligned, and proportionate to the light you see in the map. It was later suggested that I use a box that was already included in the game, as visually, they were not terrible dissimilar.
The lighting in this map is meant to be intense, it helps portray the feeling I try for. ( Just for fun, make sure your contrast isn't off the charts. heheh ;) )

I'll look into the texture and geometry errors you listed.
Also, I don't feel the concrete texture would work well with the trim, even if I colored it. I want a reflective texture.
For the playerstarts; I kind of forgot about playerstarts... heheheh. I had a ton, then deleted them all, then added some and forgot to finish. ;)

Thanks for the review.

"Also, I don't feel the concrete texture would work well with the trim, even if I colored it. I want a reflective texture."
Oh man, come on. Am I sharing the wisdom about textures for nothing? Be sure to check this content when you want reflective textures. The next release of it (which probably will be soon) will contain really all shader settings, as well as a map which is meant as a sample to show the advantages and disadvantages of all those settings.

I already was suspecting it had a different skybox first. Well, I would suggest you change the lighting to the skybox as bit, so the atmosphere does feel right.
That actually doesn't matter for those incredibly bright torches...

I know full well how to manipulate texture settings. >.>
I simply do not like the texture.

I haven't really balanced the weapons yet.

I'm not really fond of the models, as they aren't very useful to any other mapper except if he will use exactly the same shape of stairs
They are what they are. I could have done that stuff with geometry but it would be an eye sore due to light errors. The cleanest quickest way was to make some models.

The lighting seems to be overbrighted. On some places, it looks like a sun is shining that has 10 times more the size of the sun which currently appears in the skybox, while on the decorative holes which carry some kind of torch, are also incredibly bright. The atmosphere doesn't seems to be set in the correct place yet, I hope you get what I mean.

I made a custom skybox for this map which had the sun properly aligned, and proportionate to the light you see in the map. It was later suggested that I use a box that was already included in the game, as visually, they were not terrible dissimilar.
The lighting in this map is meant to be intense, it helps portray the feeling I try for. ( Just for fun, make sure your contrast isn't off the charts. heheh ;) )

I'll look into the texture and geometry errors you listed.
Also, I don't feel the concrete texture would work well with the trim, even if I colored it. I want a reflective texture.
For the playerstarts; I kind of forgot about playerstarts... heheheh. I had a ton, then deleted them all, then added some and forgot to finish. ;)

Thanks for the review.

Capture bases are on the way. :)

I'll see what I can do to better distinguish the teleports.

Nice bases...

Not overly sure if that's a complement or sarcasm. :)

I don't ever play modes utilizing the bases so placement of them isn't one of my strong points.
As always I am open to suggestions.

Is not sarcasm; sorry for the short comment.

Is an awesome map and I think capture, in this kind of map, is the most played mode, so bases are not a secondary element.
I was hoping for a six base map, and you put six bases.
Also the placement of them is almost identical to the one I was trying to do :D

The only obscure point I have are about:
base 2: which can become similar to the 4 in lostinspace for gameplay.
base 1: to near the teleport??? (but is a personal feel)

I have to better check the playerstart especially in regen, so I'm talking only about capture.

I'm waiting to play some true games to report about strong gameplay, for this reason I haven't answer first.

The lighting does kind of hide the text when you are looking straight at it. I never really noticed until now. ;)
It is more visible from the sides, or from above and below.

I would move the sunlight to match the skybox, which would help, but this is the lighting I've used from the beginning. I Really like the way the sun casts long beams and I feel it would break the mood of the map if I moved it.

I can try throwing a light in there with a negative brightness to see if I can tone it down a touch.

Thank you for your comment. :)

Thanks for showing me what I've missed. Your tone seems quite negative however.

Clipping: As you can see, there is a ton of clipping. It's hard to get it all, and it becomes hard to see errors after working on it for a long enough time. I will fix what you have shown.

Sound: I'd have sworn I threw in the new config, but it's obvious I was wrong. My bad.

Name: The name in the map has a low poly count and does not consume much regarding light-maps or file size. It is also out of sight for the average player and does not affect game-play or the visual style... so I don't see why I cannot include it in my own map. If it was 3k polys then it would be understandable to remove it.

Tele and Teledest in walls: There was a reason for those. That reason is gone however and I forgot that the teleports were there and thus didn't remove them. They will be deleted.

Weapons: As I said in the node, I have yet to adjust weapon placement. I know full well that it is erroneous as it sits.. It's never been my strong suit however.

The window: It serves no purpose other than to break up the appearance of the wall. I will scale it to serve as more of a strategic area.

Packaging: The unused textures are 1KB a piece and add up to a total of 11KB. I really don't see the problem in including them. The game lacks a selection of solid colors, which I find quite useful.

Thanks for your comment. I will take your game-play recommendations into account and fix the errors that you've brought to my attention. I hope you will be more pleased with the next update.

I'm pretty disappointed to the fact there hasn't been changed that much in such amount of time, while simple improvements which often aren't requiring a lot of time can be done (like the clipping and gameplay). Maybe that's why the review was sounding like that. This wasn't really the intention though.

I forgot to mention you did a fair job adding 3 more playerstarts, but it's definitely not enough yet compared to it's size.

Don't misunderstood me, in my opinion it's a nice looking font which you've used for your name in the map, but is it really necessary? It's not giving any more value to the map at all.
I also tell you this just to prevent new beings will take the idea of shaping their name in maps as well, with some very odd looking results (and I definitely won't go tell every new being not to do such thing, as there are already enough of such events). If you still wonder why, read the first part of the reply about shaping your name again.

I wouldn't mind helping you with the ammo placement, but that's up to you to decide. Just contact me on IRC (on the #sauerbraten channel for example) or ingame for what and when.

I'm pretty sure you heard of the command . So you also know they both can replace all of those textures. No one is actually waiting for another folder with junk in his or her Sauerbraten directory.

I'm sorry if you were expecting more.

I haven't touched sauer in months, and I haven't touched this map since the last update before this, which was a fair length of time ago. In my eyes, the changes where of fair size, but then again, I haven't been able to bring myself to change anything for all that time.

I have already fixed the errors you listed and did some more detail work. I also made that window of size to jump through and lowered the bottom edge.

I will post an updated version tomorrow.

Thank you for your input. :)

Well, having a window where you can jump or walk through isn't a bad thing, but putting a window which makes you able to look from a window to the YA, would actually be one of the tactical things the map could provide (as you would be able to avoid your opponent takes the armour by doing damage or just checking if it already spawned).
Here are some results after attempting that on my own. I can say it's pretty good, as you can also jump from the platform which the riflerounds spawn on into the window (and vice versa). The first screenshot is just to show the difference.

After running around even more, I noticed from this view the lower bridge looks pretty odd (especially it's wings). Also, that "cave" which the health spawns in, isn't looking great at all.

I wouldn't advice you to keep using the "step-side" texture of nieb as a trim on walls, as it's more like a trim to separate the walls from floors (like a plinth).

If you would be on Sauerbraten just right now, I maybe could help you...

I do not edit online anymore.

Also, I've uploaded the latest version.

Off topic, but out of curiosity, i loaded your powerplant map on the svn and did a remip. Dropped to 2/3 of the initial wtr. I thought it was interesting. :P

I'm making that into a working CTF map, roughly four times the size. :P

Just because I can.

I'll give it a try soon. Can I also try to spice up the flow?

Edit:
I won't try so when you keep improving the map only in half-parts, while you oversee a lot of mistakes which clearly are just a lack of time spend on the map. I don't mind to see a few mistakes, but seeing some more, really makes me wonder why you haven't checked for mistakes properly.

See some examples in the next lines.

Theme

Texturing
Skytexturing the face wouldn't be a bad option, as it clearly takes a lot of unnecessary triangles. Also skytexturing other geometry inside the map wouldn't be a bad idea to make the map as efficient as possible.
The face also seems to have a different value of envscale on the "glitched" cubes (similar to what has been used for the windows), but I'm not that sure of that though.

Geometry
There are still some geometry errors, like which can be seen in the screenshot after this.

Lighting
As Razgriz may have hinted in a topic on sauerbraten.org, the lighting is sometimes pretty illogical and not feeling that great at all. It sometimes seems to come out of nowhere, while other times it seems like you've tried to make it look less "cut off" (as in the 2nd screenshot), but that didn't worked quiet well because of the brightness (which actually is most of the cause on the map).

Clipping/Noclipping
The map is still containing clipping failures which can be disastrous for the gameplay/flow.
Besides that, it also contains the common clipping mistakes in the map.

Overall
Come on man, you shouldn't only improve the changes which has been notified by other people, especially when still being in this stage...

You speak as though I do not try at all.
I will fix these issues.

Skytexturing- It does not reduce the 'triangles' as you say. It simple keeps the surface from being rendered, and no light-maps are calculated for that section.
I have not skytextured the back of those polys for a very good reason, and that reason is that the skytexturing can bring about large errors in surrounding areas. These errors consist of surfaces appearing black or on occasion not appearing at all.

I felt that the amount of gain vs the amount of trouble and potential errors it could create was minuscule, and thus didn't do it.

I also don't see the issue with the first image posted under the 'Clipping' section.
The players cannot get caught up there or stand on anything. They can only fall down. The clipping keeps players out of certain areas and there is no way a player can occupy that space without falling to their death.

Well, I wouldn't say that as you can see some improvements (which I truly love to see).

Remember I once said the trimming texture is being "melted" into the floor texture? Maybe it's time to compare...
P.S. I know it's a different colour but that isn't mattering in this case. It's about the texture, not the colour.

Currently

Modified

What do you think of it?

It is nice and I can understand what you are saying, but it doesn't quite suit my tastes. The dark kind of takes away from the cheerful bubbly feeling of the bright trim.

Please read my previous comment again, as it was NOT about the colour. That dark presence can be taken away by changing "texcolor", "envscale" or "specscale" (your choice). If you want to have it even brighter, use .
I used texscale .65 0 .65 to create that, so probably texscale .9 0 .9 would do...

Back to some of your previous comment...
As the docs are refering:

skytexture B

specifies whether or not to enable rendering of sky-textured surfaces. If set to 0, sky-textured surfaces are not rendered, allowing sky texture to be used as a "don't render this" surface. Disabling this also allows the skybox to be rendered last after the scene, which yields speedups on some video cards, so disable this if possible in your map, even though it defaults to on. (Default: 1)

So it definitely can save up triangles as the triangles aren't being rendered. Of course in this case, it can only save up lightmaps (when using so would mess up the inside of the teleports, but even that can be solved easily by specifying a texture with setshader bumpenvworld setshaderparam envscale 1 1 1 texture 0 .... texture e skybox), but you shouldn't think that's not worth it as The map file size is 90% determined by the lightmaps.

Skytexturing used to give errors (as you stated it caused black spots) in lightmaps, but this has been fixed a while ago in SVN (probably like half a year ago). So there actually isn't any proper reason why not to do it. I can even show it in the next screenshots.

You should also keep in mind the map is currently over 3,6Mb. That's way too much for a deathmatch map. If the map would be included, Eihrul probably will put the lightprecision to 64 so the file-size will be reduced pretty good, but there would be a fair chance of having even more odd looking surfaces throughout the map. Saving up wtr and triangles could make it considerable to have a lightprecision like 48 or maybe even 32.

About the first screenshot of my first post today;
Your absolutely right that it's not gaining any profit to the flow, neither to gameplay. But just like your "signature", it creates an impression when being in edit-mode. In this case, it's shows off an unprofessional unfinished impression while I'm pretty sure it shouldn't be like that...

P.S.
People are still able to get on top of the ceiling which consists out of clip by a rocket- or grenadejump with having the quaddamage.
I'm still receiving at every start up "could not load envmap" twice...

I am fully aware the benefits of using the skytexture. I have been using the engine for years.
The last time I used the skytexure in this map to clean up faces, it absolutely destroyed the lighting in half the map.
I'm sure that reason helps justify my unwillingness to try again.

If the issue has been fixed however, then I will try it.

Then show it that you are fully aware of the benefits, instead of stating such things and making mistakes as newcomers would do =P.

You haven't specified objenvmap correctly in the config-file of the models, that's probably the reason why such messages are popping up (be glad I'm not referring you to my mapmodel-prefab, but just telling the answer right away =P).

I won't do the skytexture on the back of surfaces.

I have tried it, and with the current settings it results in a halo effect behind the face from light being cast through the sky tex.

HOWEVER. I will apply a unique texture to these surfaces so they may be easily changed in the future.
I believe I will go with a solid Red or Orange, simply because I won't accidentally use that for something else.

Is there a way to force a specified texture to be fullbright in the config that I may be unaware of?

Yet again, I have answers...

The second part ,1/1/1 is multiplying the first part mad:1/1/1, while both parts are in R/G/B from 0 to 1. In this case, the texture obviously would appear in white, grey and black only.

Another way is:
setshader glowworld
setshaderparam glowscale 1 1 1
texture 0 textures/default.png
texture g textures/default.png

This way overrides the default colours less as first option, but to me it seems to be harder to get the desired colour (as having a red texture would retrieve a very dark blue colour only when the glowmap is being the same red texture).

Both ways are quite different from each other, while both still being compatible with other shadersettings.

By fullbright, I mean I don't want the engine to calculate lightmaps for those surfaces at all.
An alternative to the skytexture, essentially.

Your method appears to make the texture *look* fullbright, but the engine is still calculating lightmaps for those surfaces.
Know what I mean?

Ah well I know what you mean and it's tricky.
I doubt that's possible, yet it would be nice. It would be like tricking the engine to have 2 different texture slots which 1 of those contains a skytexture, while the other is carrying a default texture (or it would be like doing /calclight on selection).
After thinking about this, what's the benefit of that situation?

P.S.
Have you actually checked out the screenshots with the face which is partly skytextured? Any differences appearing from outside compared to the original?

I focused more on what I had when I did it. I got a thick line of light outlining the entire face.
The face itself looked just fine, but that outline wasn't acceptable.

Last time that happened was on Justice, while we were making alloy. Never saw it again after that. Not on the SVN anyway. So quit yappering and see if it happens on the SVN. If it does, talk to eihrul. Otherwise you're good. >.>

Now read the rest of the conversation. :D

I did. I just wanted to point out how pointless your excuse is :P

I don't how that is pointless in the slightest. It creates a very noticeable lighting issue around the dark side of the face.
I sky-textured all the internal surfaces which took one hell of a long time, and I was greeted to a thick white brim of light where the face meets the wall.

See, you didn't get any black parts now, did you? :P
I reckon your beam of buglight originates from the straight up position of the sun in accordance to the map. The game doesn't really like half-so light positions from what i've seen.

And yea, skytexturing takes a good deal of time away to do, it's tedious and its all the more tiresome when every structure is original. I've made it a personal rule to skytexture whatever i make before i copy it all over later.

Thou shall now stop acting like being lazy and just skytexture the damn map.
You are right about the fact that when you would skytexture the entire inside of the face, you would get odd looking lightmaps appearing on the wall behind it.
This probably occurs because if a surface is standing parallel (or almost being so) to the light-entity, it won't get recognized as a surfaces which the lighting should stop (still pretty obvious huh?).
I think the update in SVN is like when calculating lightmaps, the engine recognizes the skytextured surfaces, but just won't render a lightmap over that surface, if it's not standing parallel to any light-entity (or sunlight). This would mean any geometry behind that skytextured surface won't receive any lightmap either, because the skytexture would be considered to have one in first place (but that isn't being displayed as it's skytexture).
If the skytexture surface is standing parallel to the light-entity, the engine won't recognize it as leaving the lightmap at that surface, instead of any geometry behind that skytexture surface.

In other words, if you would keep some surfaces which aren't standing parallel to the light-entity containing the "floor2" texture, then it should be more or less fine.

You also shouldn't forget a simple and obvious rule:
How more contrast between lighted and shadowed surfaces, how more errors you can expect when having a tight lightprecision.

So it probably is also a matter of the light you've used and in what position you've putted it.

Despite all this, you can still skytexture the rest of the surfaces inside the map...

Here are some screens of the result I was getting after skytexturing the face (which took me less than 40 minutes to do so).

inside the face

the brighted part with lightprecision on 30

the brighted part with lightprecision on 64

the "dark" part with lightprecision on 30

the "dark" part with lightprecision on 64

You can clearly see the light errors at the dark side are more or less fixed after putting the lightprecision on 64...

If by errors you're referring to the stretched cubes not being lit properly, you would have more luck getting them fixed by harassing eihrul to further improve cube face detection in lighting than by actually trying out different settings that degrade the light quality level of the whole map.

No I'm referring to geometry which is lighted, while it's not supposed to be lighted (as you can see slightly but yet not really good on the wall which the face is mounted on in the 3th screenshot). It has nothing to do with any glitched or stretched cubes.

I still don't see the problem. Where the hell is it?

Just for you, I've marked them...

the "dark" part with lightprecision on 30

Aaaand the shadows look like shit with that light precision.

I don't care what you say; the skytexture still causes light issues at my desired light precision, and I WILL NOT run with a light-precision of 64.
The reason it is where it is is so I can have at least Somewhat sharp shadows. I do not want all my light-maps to be blurry and soft.

I have skytextured the entire map and then placed a placeholder in the skytexture's place. So please, by all means, continue calling me lazy.

-----

By using the /Sunlight command, the skytexture will in fact emit light as though it where the sky ( go figure ) so the light is being cast out from the skytextured surfaces WITHIN the face.

Start a new map and make a cube. Skytexture a small piece of it and set /sunlight to be behind the cube. You will see it cast light from the skytextured area. If you use a regular light entity, then this is not an issue.

-----

Now I would like you to both to stop bickering about it and let me deal with it as I choose.
Forgive me if I sound slightly irritated. I am. Everybody seems to preach it as though I haven't the slightest clue of what I am doing.

Don't take it personally, but to me you actually don't in some cases.
Take the lighting of this screenshot for example. Where is the light which is being emitted very close to the floor, coming from?

I know your not lazy, that's why I was saying "acting like being lazy" ;).

Have you never heard of radiosity; reflection?

There is always a certain amount of light that is reflected or scattered when it strikes a surface.
Since the engine is incapable of calculating it, I am forced to add it in to an extent where I feel it's necessary to convey the mood I wish to set.

Also, "acting like being lazy" and "being lazy" is the same damn thing.
Being lazy is to simply not do something because I don't feel like it.
I stated the precise reasons in what I would not because of previous experience when I did it before, and then because of the new outcome when I tried yet again.

... It doesn't look like reflectivity at all, as then the question of "what is it reflecting?" would appear. It can't be the sunlight, as you can see in the next screenshot.

Such reflectivity would only appear when the primary lighting would be emitted perpendicular to the floor.

I actually wanted to edit "acting being lazy" in something else, but Razgriz blocked it by replying on my comment =S. Ah well, too bad...

Jesus christ....

Look up radiosity!

Light strikes the source and the angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence. If you have a PERFECT surface, then it will only reflect in one direction. However do the vast imperfections of, say, nearly everything... there is always light that is scattered latterally and back toward the source because the surface is never perfectly flat. There are high spots and low spots: scratches, scuffes, grooves, dimples, etc. It results in diffused reflection.

Just because you are not aware of it does not mean it is wrong.

Regardless, I will not change it just for you. It seems that everybody else who's tried the map has been fairly content with the way it is.

I think you aren't really getting my point as doesn't matter if it that part of the lighting is being right or wrong. It just doesn't look logical. It's like calculating the brightness of which the playermodel emits within the lighting - it shouldn't be done.
Why not? Since we also got shaders to do so (like changing "specscale").

If you really wanted some reflection, then be sure to add a ray on the wall so there is a clue of where the reflectivity comes from.

You know what? Don't worry about it.

It's my map. I will keep it as I like it.

I have no intent on changing it because you don't disagree with one little thing.

Now please cease and desist, as you are really beginning to irritate me.

bro this isnt even my map/node/problem and IM getting irritated.

Whine whine whine. Don't you have something better to do?

Skytextures emitting light was an idea added in Justice as far as i'm aware. Use skytexturelight 0 to stop them from doing this. It will probably solve your problems.

... Why? Haven't said anything about that.

Those were Zama's spam accounts. He is now banned and all his accounts deleted, but the votes remain.

Ah, okay, thanks. I was just wondering why the total rating was relatively low for a map like this, and then I saw what wrecked it.

179 points / 22 votes = 8,1
Not that low if you would ask me.

I wrote "relatively low for a map like this". Maybe you think differently, but IMO it's a great map.

If you remove the erroneous Zama votes you get 175 over 18 votes.

That equates to 9.7. :)

Did anyone else notice that quadropolis only lists 10 votes at a time for some reason? I wonder if i can change that..

@Razgriz,
Yep I did (and it's very annoying).

@Typhoon,
It's a great map yes, but to me there are still several points which could be done better. It's not a perfect map, that's why I didn't rate 10/10 and that's why I think having 8,1/10 on this content isn't that bad at all.

The map is complete. There are no more changes planned.

I cannot please everybody, and I have no intent on trying. :)

Nope.

It "is" in the SVN though.

Maybe you should try the map first before screaming HOOOOUULY SHEEEEYECANDY!. It often happens the map looks way better in the screenshot, than actually ingame.

Oh you. I scream at what I like. And this map looks just so epic even on screenshots. I like the style of this map and when I can I'll download the SVN just to try out this map. I'm sure this map looks even better ingame.

I haven't said the map looks like shit (not at all, I respect the map and it's creator somehow). But it's just not a bad thing to watch the actual state of the map first before posting things, doesn't actually matter what kind of things (doesn't matter what kind of content also).
Don't judge a book on it's cover?

Most of the time, a good cover is all it takes for someone to judge a book. Can't have a kid's bedtime stories book with a cover depicting murder and as such you can't have a map that's truly good yet the screenshot makes it look like crap. It's all about presentation. :P

Not true, as I'll explain in the next statements:
- You can present a certain thing way better as before, that doesn't makes it better just because of that.
- It actually is misleading, as people won't see what they should have expected from the screenshot.
- Don't forget that in the end, it's all about how it actually appears ingame anyway. Take for example some maps which have been included into Sauerbraten. They may have been presented awesome, but do they get played often or even being respected? Nah.

I get why this is being done, but brushing up things like a screenshot so the content looks better to people which haven't checked out it's real shape is just a way to hide what the content actually lacks.

tl;dr.

That being said, presentation if everything.

You turn everything into an argument. Could you please not drag everything on through seventy comments?

Well... That's just a little bit harsh...