Level Design

[Zarcath]

Thanks for the continued input Splok.

Why is your class using Hammer now? You made that dinosaur mod in U3 right? Guys just learning different editors?

I started out with the GoW version of the U3 editor but found it was difficult to create interesting deathmatch maps with the lack of jumping. I've switched to the regular U3 editor and liking it much more.

Working on a new team deathmatch/ctf map, now that I know the tools a little bit better. I did a rough drawing of the layout first, based on an old Jedi Knight II map, not sure if it was a custom map. It's not very complex/unique, standard "dumbell" style layout. Opposing sides have large blocks of playfield and are connected with long walkways.

[TwiNCannoN]

The only thing keeping source alive, really, is the userbase. In truth it's a pretty horrible engine. Hell, it's still based on quake1 code, and hammer is still - aside from some small tweaks - basically worldcraft, a decade-old editor. So it's missing a ton of really basic and standardized shit like simply being able to scale models in-engine (let alone skew and other useful modifiers). But yeah in recent times I've been basically praying that either one of these FPS developers stops failing (for the love of god id Software - learn how to market and SELL RAGE, I want idtech5!), or Valve finally gets a new engine for their games with HL3/whatever. Although really modding is kind of becoming a dead art, almost all recent mods to come out - even for Source, by far and away the biggest userbase to present mods to - have died without getting a decent playerbase (and "a decent playerbase" has gone from 500+ online to maybe 100).

I'm surprised to see others think UE is more user-friendly though. I've taught at least a dozen people how to use hammer and generally the BSP method of building levels (while not as effecient, to be sure) seems to be much easier to understand all around.

[splok]

Originally Posted by Zarcath

Why is your class using Hammer now? You made that dinosaur mod in U3 right? Guys just learning different editors?

I honestly don't know why we're working in Source for our team project. Engine choice has been a point of contention with my class, and they don't really discuss the "why's" with us very much. I don't think that there's anyone in my class who wouldn't rather be working in Unreal 3. However, there is a case for having knowledge in a breadth of engines of course. We used Unreal 2k4 (they hadn't swapped over to Unreal 3 yet ) for solo projects and our first team project (the dino game). We've done solo projects in Radiant(Doom 3 or Quake 4), and we've also done solo and duo projects in Oblivion. We're working on solo and team projects in Source now, and hopefully we'll be doing some solo projects in Unreal 3 next term.

Originally Posted by TwiNCannoN

I'm surprised to see others think UE is more user-friendly though. I've taught at least a dozen people how to use hammer and generally the BSP method of building levels (while not as effecient, to be sure) seems to be much easier to understand all around.

I dunno about easy to understand, so that might be right if you're just learning to use an editor. I wasn't really looking at it from that perspective. In my mind, its really more about how many little things the editor does that piss you off, and what it can and can't do... or at least how quickly and easily you can get what you want to do done. Of course, every editor has its quirks, and how much I hate I have for them changes as I use them hehe. I just know that learned to deal with most of Unreal 2k4's quirks fairly early on, and it mostly stopped wanting to kill it. Radiant has a bit of a learning curve, but I pretty much liked it more the more I used it. So far, the more I use Source, the less I like it. I haven't gotten very deep with Unreal 3 yet, but some friends have been using it in their spare time and I've yet to hear anything but praise about it from them.

[Froofy-D]

Originally Posted by TwiNCannoN

I'm surprised to see others think UE is more user-friendly though. I've taught at least a dozen people how to use hammer and generally the BSP method of building levels (while not as effecient, to be sure) seems to be much easier to understand all around.

IMHO Unreal Editor is easier. But everyone has their own preference obviously.

BTW, small aside but something level designers should know. BSP refers to the data structures that partition the game world into volume spaces:

Binary space partitioning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

but the general "addition" and "subtraction" technique that both Hammer and UnrealEd use to build levels is known as CSG or Constructive Solid Geometry:

Binary space partitioning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, CSG is a generalized technique for building 3D geometry, and BSP is a specific data structure produced by building. I believe that even Unreal still has a form of BSP, since the main problem in fast game rendering is (a) finding where in the game world the player is and then (b) discarding everything the player cannot see. The partitioned spaces provide that very easily. Collision detection is also optimized through BSP, since you cannot collide with anyone who is not in your partitioned space.

So, if you ever wonder why most games don't allow you to make your levels one big mesh in Maya or 3DS (i've heard this asked many times), that is why. A single huge polygon soup mesh is not divided up into small zones or sections which are optimal for level rendering or collision detection.

[Zarcath]

hmm so when does partitioning really factor in? for large levels or even small deathmatch maps should be sectioned?

I think in some areas I used 1 single giant floor placed walls for my rooms. Should I be creating individual floors for each room instead?

[splok]

Different editors handle optimization in their own ways, but in general, on a reasonably sized level, you aren't likely to run into many geometry based performance issues. The things that eat your performance most quickly will probably be particle effects and dynamic lighting. Although using tons of models without proper occlusion can cause problems as well. For example, the dino level was really big and had literally hundreds of tree models. Performance on the initial pass of that level was horrible because WAY more polys were being drawn than UT2k4 was happy about, so we had to add a lot of elevation variation (hills, plateaus, and such) similar to UT's Onslaught with occluders inside to keep the visible polys within reasonable limits.

As far as specifically breaking large bsp up, there should be a command in whatever editor you're using to show the cuts that the editor is making in your level. It makes them for optimization purposes automatically, but your geometry construction can inadvertently make them much more complicated than need be. That's handled differently per editor too. Source makes a cut not matter what every 1240 on the x and y axis i believe, but makes no automatic cuts at all on the z axis, requiring you to use a hint brush to force a vertical cut if you want one. Another concern might be lighting. In UT2k4, light is averaged across bsp verts, so if you have a really large piece of bsp, it may not light properly. Sometimes you need to make cuts to get the lighting granular enough to get the effect you are looking for.

Basically, I would say don't worry about it too much until it starts creating noticeable problems (just keep the fps meter up and pay attention for any wonkiness). Of course, if you want to get in the habit of using the cleanest technique possible, that great too. You'll just need to read up on optimization for whatever editor you're working in. I'll try and toss out some suggestions for any questions you might have (of course, I'm no expert, so take that for whatever it's worth), but much of it is going to be editor specific.

[Froofy-D]

Oh yeah, I found planning a level out on graph paper extremely helpful. You can get a good idea of the size of each space and general layout. I used each square on the graph paper as either a 128*128 or 256*256 square in Unreal Ed. Haven't used Unreal 3 editor yet though, so the scale may be different.

[Kharza-kzad]

Splitting plane choice probably varies between the various engines. For my bsp builder, I actually try every single plane until I get the most balanced results. This is tremendously slow, but I plan on having small levels in my game. I only use the bsp for collision and ray casts and such, so I want them to cost the same in all areas of the map.

In the old days the visible surface area was always a big hit on performance, but not sure it matters anymore. Not even really sure if modern engines use static lighting like lightmaps. Mine does.

In my compile tools also, things can go haywire if a surface is large enough that the resulting lightmap goes over 4k. Not really sure what happens as I haven't hit that yet.

[Hatorade]

When I was new to hammer I started my levels in a corner and built outward. That caused a lot of fucking headaches. Some tips from a self teacher:

Start with a HUGE HUGE skybox. More then you think you will need a lot more. Get it perfect use 45 degree angle cuts and all that save it and never save over it. This will help later when you make more then one map. Start in the upper middle/center of the skybox and work outwards. A building or some type prefab will help you scale the rest of the map. Make a flat boring ground brush and texture it. That will help in placement of everything. You can put it above or below the current ground and move that ground later to fit your structures and all that. Build walls and boundries at the very end. Also don't build a square map go for octgon at the oddest. U shapped maps automatically give you 1 choke point 2 if you want some way to connect the U across the top or whatever.

Learn all the little hotkeys and shortcuts. Like how to auto aline 2 textures or how to make textures fit the size of the brush. I forget the command off hand but they speed things up greatly.

Lighting is also really important if you have a lot of indoor areas.

Wing it, some of my best maps were me just building areas and putting them together to make one map. Sure you can draw and graph it out but you can't really do that until you have made a few maps using hammer. If something is frustrating or you can't get it how you want. Leave it and move on to another area. By the time you come back to it you will figure it out or have a better idea.

The tools can do anything you can think of you just don't know it. Google it or whatever and you will find your answer.