Sauer and Octree - what to do?

Kretren | 2010-06-10 22:10

[

points ]

(6 votes)

I've been playing Halo again. Having seen the awesome architecture (imo) in a lot of parts, I'm inspired to make another map. However, I know I'm going to have to negotiate with the Cube 2 engine.

The engine is based on the octree, whereby cubes are split into 8 smaller cubes, which are each split into 8 others, and so on. I've been able to make pretty detailed work with it. But when it comes to making perfect, seamless work, this system is not adequate. For example, when two perpendicular, angled sides come together, they cannot seam together diagonally like on a picture frame; the best we can do in Sauer is "fold" the corner over. That's just one example, and it makes detailed architecture difficult, and decent landscaping near impossible. It also makes detailed cylinders damn near impossible.

I'm not experienced in graphics or anything. I've picked up almost everything I know from this engine, in fact. So I don't know exactly what it would take to create more 'seamless' objects in-game. Maybe it would take two different levels of rendering with different surfaces merging together, similar I imagine to how mapmodels work (again I won't claim to have expertise on the matter). But it wouldn't be a far stretch. My question is, is this feature omitted from the game for simplicity's sake (the game is characterized by being based almost entirely on the octree) or could it be included? I'm at the point where I can build really cool things, but the engine is starting to hold me back. I was considering mapmaking in Halo but I like this community enough to stay. That said, maybe we can import user-generated Halo mapfiles in?

Anyways, some thoughts. I know a new release is coming out soon and it would be really cool to showcase it with some sophisticated maps; not to throw stones at anyone's work, it's all great, but we know we're compensating for the limitations of the cubes.

Rating

points

(6 votes)

Comments

KI113R | 2010-06-11 00:34

I think I know what your talking about, and this is probably no help at all but, have you tried cube "pushing"?

Spiralz | 2010-06-11 06:35

It would be really cool to see a Halo 3 map remake on sauer :D (halo 3 is all i know :3)

SheeEttin | 2010-06-11 08:01

Cubes can only be convex, never concave. This behavior comes from way, way back. Without defining it one way or the other, some hardware would render a cube as convex, while other hardware would render it as concave. In order to avert this, the decision was made that all cubes shall be convex.
So, making geometry as you describe is currently impossible. If eihrul wants to implement a system where you can either flip the way a cube is split into triangles (i.e. [/] to [\]) or invert which part of the cube is solid and which is air (a material would work well for this)--which I suspect he may have become more receptive to recently--then a little more geometry becomes possible.

As for cylinders, simply pushing in the same edge on two faces works pretty well. Go down one gridpower for a cylinder with three or four faces per quarter.

As I'm currently working on remaking a map in Cube 2 from a triangle-based engine (a UT2004 total conversion), I know all about this kind of limitation. In fact, I was considering just making the terrain one big model. :P
I can give you a word of advice, though: at some point, you have to say "screw accuracy, I just have to make it work".

And one more thing: If you haven't heard about 3DRipperDX, I find it extremely useful. It intercepts 3D scene (mesh, textures, and shaders) and writes it out into 3DS Max or OBJ formats. Only drawbacks are occlusion and warping.

Kretren | 2010-06-12 00:15

I see.

For cylinders, I meant advanced work with cylinders, for example making curved pipes or combining the cylinder with a slanted surface.

As for your advice.. lol, I know exactly what you mean. My past maps, core_transfer and core_refuge, combine angles with cylinders (ignoring the technicality that cylinders in games are actually just complex polygons), and I severely limited myself with the buildings because I couldn't combine the cylinders with the other architecture in complex ways. In core_refuge, there was another case where a ramp I designed had two intersecting lines, but at their joining point I had to insert a very small cube so they would seem to seam. Also I had to, with really small gridsizes, work out the rough terrain around the area so it looked natural but still didn't interfere with the building. In short, I have worked around the engine enough to know it is TOUGH. At a certain point, however, it stops being a challenge (and there is satisfaction in making good maps regardless of the limitations) and starts being an absolute roadblock. For what I want to do, there is no way of making it work. I can make a more basic version of it, but I don't really feel like compromising.

And, again not claiming to know about technology, I would bet that compromising and using small gridsizes to cover up imperfections in architecture is probably more graphics-intensive than having, say, multiple "maps" merging, or the above suggestion of splitting triangles.

Blarget2 | 2010-06-12 01:09

Kretren, SirAlex me and Eihrul had this conversation a couple of months ago. Sadly, eihrul wont add this in the game. i wish he would tho. it would make life much easier.

AlexChastain | 2010-08-15 21:17

in sauer, half the fun of editing is learning how to fit what you want to create. in the engine. your looking at it as a burden, theris always a way to get something to fit in the octree. you just have to "think outside the cube....or 2" :)

User login

Navigation

Users on Quadropolis