UnrealEd 3 vs. UnrealEd 2

[davidn]

Despite this image from the Unreal Wiki (which highlights some all too common problems with the UnrealEd 2), since starting with UnrealEd 3 I've found that it's a major step up. That's probably to be expected as there was a gap of four years between the latest two versions of the editor, but I was still surprised to discover how easy it was to make things that look decent. This is partially due to the emphasis on static meshes - a library of premade objects that you can throw into your map and work like normal geometry. It's a much easier way of making levels, but I can't help but feel it's like cheating a little.

Nevertheless, my resolution is simple - to create a map that doesn't suck. As I have decided to reinstate my Flying Fortress series as my first project, some may argue that I'm heading in the wrong direction already, but thanks to the new system, I was able to stick together a competent-looking platform within a matter of minutes. (It's nothing spectacular, but those who have seen my earlier attempts will surely agree that it's a step in the right direction.)

I think that there's a fundamental difference in the use of the two versions of the editor - the newer one is more complex, but compensates by making things that were difficult before much easier. Some examples that I've discovered this afternoon:

	UnrealEd 2 Method	UnrealEd 3 Method
Making a Jump Pad	Set up the scenery. Insert a Kicker. Insert a Sound. Attach them to each other. Adjust the Kicker properties to get the height and distance of jump you want. Test it. Get it wrong and do it again about ten times.	Insert a handy jumppad static mesh. Set its Target to where you want it to go.
Lighting an outdoor map	Insert a huge array of lights. Make them as bright as possible to stretch over the map. Mess up your shadows. Slow down your map.	Put in a SkyBox. Whack in a Sunlight object. Sorted.
Decorating a map	Insert hundreds of little geometry brushes. Switch them from Solid to Semisolid and back. Spend hours trying to prevent BSP holes.	Throw in some static meshes.
Adding weapons	Open the Actor browser. Navigate to Pickups -> Weapons -> UTWeapons -> (94 directories deleted here) -> The weapon you want. Add it. Try to add some decoration so it doesn't look like it's been thrown in at random.	Open the Actor browser. Put in a WeaponBase. Select the weapon.

Comments

[gr33bo.livejournal.com]

Should try making maps for something like Day of Defeat:Source.
The emphasis there is more on...not realism because real environments suck for playing on but a kind of pseudo realism where it feels real but isn't quite there. Ain't Easy, especially since the editor seems to be closer to your UR 2 editor.

[siloh.livejournal.com]

Reminds me of my transition from QERadiant to Q3Radiant, which was ground-breaking. Of course, when I tried to switch over to Q4Radiant for some Quake4 map making, I got totally overwhelmed. The editor was easy enough to use, but they had completely redone the entire level construction process.

By the way, that looks pretty cool for "a few minutes". Most of my levels seem to start out as a collection of square rooms, and end up relatively uninteresting no matter how I attempt to improve them.

[davidn]

The release of Quake 4 completely bypassed me somehow - is it any good?

[siloh.livejournal.com]

It's so-so. The game itself isn't that flashy (standard DOOM3 graphics, but also including large outdoor areas and whatnot. In fact, the presence of "cooridoor battles" isn't very high, most of the rooms in the game are very, very big).

The story was great though, the ending was good, the vehicles were great, and the multiplayer is Quake3 style and, although it is lacking some things compared to a Quake III Arena + Team Arena combo, it overall has a better feel to it.

The soundtrack was definitely worth it alone.