Crystal Space
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 20, 2014, 10:12:48 am

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
8990 Posts in 2037 Topics by 7598 Members
Latest Member: Tarafigueroa
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Crystal Space
|-+  Crystal Space Development
| |-+  Game Content Creation
| | |-+  gtkradiant vs blender for large outdoor maps
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: gtkradiant vs blender for large outdoor maps  (Read 4386 times)
Anton
Guest


Email
« on: September 25, 2005, 08:16:37 pm »

I am thinking of writing a game using CS, and it will be mostly large outdoor areas with a large view distance (think very low altititude flight sim).

First of all, I have only seen one or two screenshots of CS being used for this.. does it work well? Can you do bump-mapping or similar to give the impression of rough terrain?

Secondly, I am familiar with gtkradiant, though have not used it for a long time. How good is it for generating maps for CS, what big things do/don't work? Is it worth learning blender to create such maps?
Should the general terrain be a mesh/grid and what sort of detail should i be looking at in terms of polygon size to make smooth looking hills without needing a brand new pc.
Logged
deckerego
Full Member
***
Posts: 149


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 28, 2005, 05:19:23 am »

You can still use Radiant, but I'd recommend Blender. I'm not sure how much the Radiant->CrystalSpace converter is even maintained any more.
Logged
anton
Guest


Email
« Reply #2 on: September 30, 2005, 06:47:41 pm »

cheers
Logged
Manuel
Guest


Email
« Reply #3 on: November 30, 2005, 07:51:14 am »

Which brushes are recommended for reducing game engine strain in large maps. I have some strange vis problems in mine. Characters tend to blink in and out.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 3.497 seconds with 16 queries.