ONS-ArtilleryHill-beta1

[Miauz55555]

Just extract this into your UT2004 folder

Thaks Cat, you are the best.
It works with the second file.

Ok I can' go inside the bunker, so thats good.
But i had the feeling of a litle performance loss between the first and the last version.

[Cat1981England]

np^

Here's the first demo Fors.

Rott's comment "no * weapon lockers" is probably because the spawn points at the cores don't point towards the weapon lockers and some of the players miss them. PimPomPum may have a point with "this map its hard turn back". Perhaps just two links to the core would be better?

[fors]

np^

Here's the first demo Fors.

Rott's comment "no * weapon lockers" is probably because the spawn points at the cores don't point towards the weapon lockers and some of the players miss them. PimPomPum may have a point with "this map its hard turn back". Perhaps just two links to the core would be better?

I am watched demo now several times.
it is a pity that I waited a long time to this, and was not ranked on the first test=\ and I am very thank yo for recorded for my demo.
Rott's comment... Cat, I know you're a busy person and do not have time to view the demo from a few players, but the answer to your comment on the forum location in the views of this demo.
Rotten, I can only advise, if you see a ladder - then you can use it. At least to try (however, you have already learned).
PimPomPum of course it is hard if your team not assist or resistance! At that time, many players were inactive and there was significant superiority in forces.

BUT! from this test I found useful information thanks to PimPomPum. Personally, I have not been able to get in a jeep to the mountain for camping 3 turret, but one smart player did it (this is because the mutator for machines jumps installed on the server). I understand that this playing style and things like that, but it gives a significant advantage here. Plus I can review the balance of vehicles. Besides most of the players walked past the dungeon=(
EXPECT VERSION 2


BUT! I still need more tests, results and comments what is yo are dislike.

[fors]

Cat, in order of appearance comments
It was part of a large complex of measures for optimization. I personally calculated the distance. if you look ahead of yourself, the meshes "will not occur out of thin air" but yeah, only at the side eyesight it could be noticeable. I'll try some

I wanted to make more prettier=\ sorry for that screwed up, I deleted that.

doors good idea, I doed

I just could make a separate package, I would not mind spending time for useful things)

Yes, this thing was always on

[fors]

Final version. I made a couple of important things and a few minor. This time I did everything what Is I could.
The main thing is an experiment with replacing the emitters on the static mesh. Of course I want to the players and the moderators will be decided between what choose, the emitter or static mesh, because productivity has increased slightly and it looks like this is not usual.

however
productivity grew about 1-2 fps
added a couple of fixes
a bit trim the vehicle`s balance
the emitters are replaced by static meshes.

========Day 03.10.2015 6:46============================================

Cat's recommendations have been added
please rename the map before you add to the server! (to avoid conflict with the names) to ONS-ArtilleryHill-CEONSS-V2
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ekefbaovaby0x ... V5.7z?dl=0

[GLoups!]

Very nice edit fors, nothing to add it's awesome, on the other hand theses green sheets must be replace by antiportals, they are not occlude anything, they are just brushs nonsolids, green sheets only work for close solids bsps brushs to make the zoning -> your zoning is perfect but if you use antiportals i think you can avoid intermitent lag online.
One more thing: for no issues they must be rectangular and if there is a semi solid brush inside it's perfect for online play.

artillery.jpg (172.09 KiB) Viewed 13732 times

[Amperlissie]

Thanks for appreciating my video. Happy to try!

[Wormbo]

The surfaces of those green brushes are flagged as "anti-portal", so they do have an effect. However, anti-portal surfaces are individual anti-portals. It may help the network optimization a bit to make the brushes "semi-solid". Also, the framerate may get a bit better if you remove the anti-portal property from the smaller sides of those brushes. Those can't cover significant parts of the map on their own, yet always have to be considered when looking for anti-portals. (Anti-portals always only work individually. They are never combined to exclude objects from rendering.)

The non-convex shape is not a problem for anti-portal BSP surfaces, because the surfaces themselves are still convex. Only the flagged surfaces become individual anti-portals, not the brush itself. Also, those surfaces are independend of subsequent modifications by additive or subtractive brushes, so de-/intersecting is highly recommended. For that reason you should prefer using AntiPortalActors instead, whenever it makes sense. They must be convex and count as a single non-planar anti-portal.

[fors]

Gloups, Cat, Wormbo, thank you very much for all this information and for taking the time! I think I've understood all what you said. I redid everything and a few minor changes (the map has less to weigh). It is a pity that I didn't know this information earlier.
the reworked version
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9ucalv2mrwjc6 ... V7.7z?dl=0
it's time to test it on a match event.

[Cat1981England]

Thanks again Fors, the performance is much better A couple of issues,

There are 3 link setups. Which one are you thinking of using?

The sound of the guns on the bonus map seem to be out of sync with the gunfire.

Players can fall through the terrain here. As you face the red core it is just to the left of StaticMeshActor776

ah2.png (145.45 KiB) Viewed 13620 times

ah1.png (142.38 KiB) Viewed 13620 times

---------------

Does anyone else have any thoughts before this is finished?