Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   
Back to List

Comet Catcher Redux v3

By
Rating:

Size: 12 x 16

PLAY ON THIS MAP


Downloads: 3
Manual downloads:
http://spring1.admin-box.com/maps/comet_catcher_redux_v3.sd7
http://api.springfiles.com/files/maps/comet_catcher_redux_v3.sd7
http://zero-k.info/autoregistrator/maps/comet_catcher_redux_v3.sd7


Preview
Filter:    Player:  
sort


7 years ago

+1 / -0
7 years ago
What exactly did you change? I'm just curious since I know that Red has a bunch of problems with its texture.
+0 / -0
At a glance, it's DNTS+specularity for the hills. I think it woudl have been a bit cool if base texture color variation responded to the craters on a larger scale but still, looks way better.

Dunno if people will accept though. It's slightly darker, and people's reactions to ccr reduxes have historically been very conservative.
+0 / -0

7 years ago
IMO it's overrated. The craters do look somewhat better but the rest of the texture is just dark and boring. The lighter texture of CCRv1 makes it easier to see, and actually has a bit of variation between lighter and darker patches which are not nearly as clear in this version.

I still want to see a real astroturf style variant of this map.
+1 / -0
More variation is great, especially if it interacts with terrain features like on IoG, or describes roads or other immersive elements.

More brightness is not great, and is instead extra awful since ZK has dynlights.

And that's with people having already made things like /luaui darkening to explicitly
workaround high brightness maps before dynlights.

I think ccr2 is near the top threshold of brightness to be not awful. This version is closer to middle.

Astroturf style behe maps are very uneven, lots of cliffs and slopes. Their visuals come from that. This, CCR cannot be.

As per overrated, i don't see the map have any ratings yet at all :P
+0 / -0
quote:
Astroturf style behe maps are very uneven, lots of cliffs and slopes. Their visuals come from that. This, CCR cannot be.


Astroturf still has large veh pathable areas and tons of microcraters, not just cliffs and slopes (which are actually just large craters anyway). I think you underestimate just how small terrain variations can be while still providing visual differentiation. For that matter most of the detail provided by DNTS on this map could probably be achieved using terrain instead, which I've come to prefer.

quote:
More brightness is not great, and is instead extra awful since ZK has dynlights.


Bright or dark is mostly irrelevant, since the ultimate goal is "looks like an asteroid made of rock". I think this falls far short of that.

Also dynalights are clearer on bright surfaces, and nearly invisible on dark surfaces, particularly grassy/mossy ones.

IMO this vers is still better than CCRv2, or at least not as bad.
+0 / -0
Skasi
quote:
Dunno if people will accept though. It's slightly darker, and people's reactions to ccr reduxes have historically been very conservative.

The reason I - and I assume others - disliked CCR2 is because textures lie. They show craters around metal spots when there aren't any. It's also very brown and has a bit of a distracting texture in general.

This map doesn't seem to have these problems. I've yet to try CCR3 ingame, but from the screenshots it looks like a good mix and middle ground between CCR and CCR2.
+1 / -0
quote:
For that matter most of the detail provided by DNTS on this map could probably be achieved using terrain instead, which I've come to prefer.

If i'm seeing correctly, DNTS here accounts for the tiny high-frequency detail normals. Heightmap resolution is way too low to achieve that.



Or are you referring to the cliffsides?
+0 / -0

7 years ago
I suspect that what you're showing there is texture. DNTS is basically the cliffsides. Also I think you're underestimating the heightmap resolution. Don't forget that everything on sands of time is pure heightmap.
+0 / -0
7 years ago
Yeah and the same heightmap fucks up placing structures. I would rather use DNTS thank you very much.
+0 / -0
quote:
I suspect that what you're showing there is texture

Technically correct - the best kind of correct!

But now observe that it has subpixel resolution compared to diffuse map; that this patterning goes over different colors; that there are only a few of types of this patterning; that it affects surface normals (judging from how it glints) and how it blends into only 2 other types of similar patterning (i guess fourth is also present, on cliffs).
+0 / -0

7 years ago
Not sure if this is what EErankAdminAnarchid meant with "base texture color variation [...] on a larger scale", but right now the craters (especially the large ones) are way too square.
+0 / -0

7 years ago
quote:
Yeah and the same heightmap fucks up placing structures. I would rather use DNTS thank you very much.


This is some serious ignorant shit. Only the macro height variations on SoT prevent building placement, and to a lesser extent the mex indentations which were not perfectly consistent since SME didn't have a stamp heightmode at the time. The microdunes have no effect on building placement or pathing whatsoever.
+0 / -1
7 years ago
Its not ignorance. You said heightmap and so did I.
+0 / -0

7 years ago
As CCR is apparently a must-have for any map pool, it's nice to see it being reworked.

Just for comparison, the previous redux and the OTA version.




I like how this new version has much more appealing textures, thanks to specularity and splatters. But I don't understand why the colors had to be darkened compared to the previous version? Keep in mind that most of the map will be outside LOS, so it will be even darker.

The OTA version still seems to feel a lot more coherent than these two remakes. The craters are a part of the terrain, not something that is put on top of it. They should smoothly transform into the flat areas and are made of the same rock. There could be some more tiny, visual only craters around the map to help sell the big craters.
+2 / -0


7 years ago
Because that's how beherith did up the atmosphere and ground lighting for his version, and I've left it unchanged from that.

Ground brightness is a trivial fix anyways, and can even be done gameside as demonstrated by Googlefrog with Zed.

I don't agree that craters should appear as the same rock as the ground, considering one is pathable by vehicles and the other isn't.

Tiny visual only craters were a cause of the majority of complaints for Beherith's CCR v2, it would be a bad idea to add them back in.

Not trying to single out DeinFruend. This thread is filled with bad ideas and blatantly wrong information.
+1 / -0

7 years ago
I see that besides brightness every slightest change has its opposition, which is why I'd rather see a fully new map. Anyway good job at making it look better within these limitations.
+0 / -0
A new map is not out of the question: https://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=81&t=35961

But not an immediate project.

The oppositional nature of the map is due to how it was put together, diffuse texture is CCRv1's tex layered brightness only on top of CCRv2. The detail and lighting is the same as ccr2.

No DNTS either, just the standard SSMF detail splatting.
+0 / -0
Back to List