MaceMadunusus

Fake Bump mapping/Normal mapping in Jedi Academy Things you need: GTK Radiant 1.4 or 1.5Adobe PhotoshopNvidia Normal map Filter Plugin for PSAny program you can use to edit/make textures (such as Photoshop or Gimp)And of course the game itself.First, you need to make a texture. Heres the one I made, it does '''not''' have to be exactly like this to work. Once you have the texture, and the Nvidia Normal map plugin installed, load up Photoshop (If it isn't already) And load your texture. When your texture is loaded, go to Filter>Nvidia Tools> Normal map filter. This window should pop up. There you have to play with some of the settings till you get a result you like. Note: With JKA you do not want a highly detailed normal map. Use the scale window to change how much depth it will have. 10-20 should be alright for now. When you are done you should have something similar to this. Now before we go and try to compile this, we need a shader. Its very simple and easy to use, here ya go: [i] textures/amace_leviathan/wall3 { q3map_normalimage textures/amace_leviathan/wall3_normalmap qer_editorimage textures/amace_leviathan/wall3 q3map_lightmapsamplesize 1x1 { map $lightmap rgbGen identity } { map textures/amace_leviathan/wall3 blendFunc GL_DST_COLOR GL_ZERO } }[/i]The q3map_normalimage is of course your actual Normal map image file location. the Q3map_lightmapsamplesize is what quality it will be made during the compile, lower number = higher quality but more space on the BSP. (Of course edit it for your own texture paths and other needs) Now once you have the shader, the images, and the shader applied somewhere in your map close to a good lighting source you should get a good result, although it is very picky at times. (Once you compile) How to apply Func_Groups in-editor to make your map less GFX intensive. Here is how you should put this method into your maps. Select whichever brushes or patches you wish to have the normal map on. Right click on the grid and go to func> Func_Group in the menu. Once that is done and you still have the brushes or patches selected hit N on your keyboard. Add these keys and values into the properties of the func_group. Key: _lightmapscale Value: .0125 The value number you may choose for yourself. The lower the number, the higher the quality. The High the number the lower the quality. (Default is 1) This allows it to single the high lightmapscale to the one area rather than the whole map, making your map more optimized and better performing as well as taking less time to compile. Now compile your level and go check it out! Here is my result after getting it in-game. For those that are wondering in the comments, there are many ways to changing how the normal maps work. One of them is just using -patchshadows compile line in the Light stage of the compile. (That one you see above, with everything else the same) Note: This only works when using your normal maps on Patches. Among that being one method to changing how your normal maps look, you can also use this line which you see in the shader above: q3map_lightmapsamplesize 1x1 Increasing the numbers lessens the quality and amount of Light Data needed in the normal map. -MaceMadunusus ===Mac notes=== Note that there is no mac-compatible Nvidia Normalmap Filter Plugin for PS. Normal Map Generator achieves pretty much the same thing.

They don't compare when you're talking about console. A significant chunk of people with consoles do not have the harddrive space to keep large games on their drive, or the download speeds to reliably download them over and over. As a result they go the disk route. EA's CFO: “We do think the industry will end calendar year 2017 probably above 40%" when speaking of digital sales compared to physical. So, EA themselves is saying that 60% of their game sales (Remember, digital figures often include things like DLC bought after launch) is predicted to be from physical this year. So that is actually a pretty huge chunk.

Yeah, I even downloaded the build he commented on to check it out. There is nothing in it that could cause that. My only guess could be that something is wrong with his drivers (specifically opengl) that is causing that.

Can confirm that it is also using content from Movie Battles II. MBII assets do not have a readme attached either, and again no proof of permission (I haven't recently given permission for any FX files found in MBIIs RC level, but here they are here.) Just looking through the files, it is a massive attempt at using content from everywhere else but your own.

I tried it with several members of the MB team, we all stopped playing it pretty quickly out of disappointment. The game could have been so much but it just failed on so many levels that it just isn't fun for me. The biggest casual things I wanted were stripped out of it entirely (Solo bot play) and is something I really wanted and would really have helped with the longevity. I seriously cannot justify anything in the product at all and I haven't been more disgusted since EA rushed Mass Effect 3's ending. I wanted a modern battlefront, I got a stripped down SW CoD. I got about 20 hours, just couldn't do it anymore. Refunnnddddddd

I don't see me doubling back and rephrasing my arguments. I've said the same thing this entire time, simply because you cannot read doesn't mean anything because clearly other people like shadow can understand me just fine. The fact that I have been a part of making a modification that is referenced all of the time when even talking about AAA EA SW titles on its own while also having content in many actual video games gives me a little more weight than you think I actually know what I'm talking about from experience if you really want to bring ego into this. You're just sitting here attempting to insult people. I gave facts, reasoning, statistics. You're just a dick. If you dislike me so much, just ignore me using your account settings.

Thanks Shadow, reading comprehension on this forum is abysmal. There is a reason I didn't quote you in my previous posts JAWS, because you weren't blindly defending the game even though you enjoyed it. You were being a reasonable person in that regard, yet you come back at me with insults about potentially liking trump and needing to go outside more? Please grow up. (For the record: Trump is a fuckwit, so is Hilary)

Of course, but ignoring complaints, saying the game is fine because they have fun, is the problem. Example quote from Circa: "Go play it if you haven't yet. It's pretty dang fun." Yeah, exactly the problem. People have, and the majority including myself have said it sucks. Completely ignoring all the complaints helps no one. If DICE just looked only the people who said they are having fun they would think their game is good because of confirmation bias. Yet the majority says otherwise. Not looking at both sides and just saying the game is good because you're having fun is the same thing. Lets also not forget about sunk cost fallacy.

I answered the question, if you want to know why read my post. Specifically the part that says you don't need to play the game to know how shit it is at this point simply because of word-of-mouth. Multiple news articles are citing Battlefront's sales problems to word-of-mouth. Glad to know both of you are suffering from Buyer's Stockholm Syndrome. Completely unwilling to change your opinion based on tons of new facts that you are clearly ignoring simply because you think it is fun. Some of the biggest logical fallacies I've seen in a while. Do you even understand how much flak the MB team would get if we thought something was balanced but in reality and statistics wise isn't? Don't be blinded by your own confirmation biases. Oh look, TB now does the Multiplayer only problem just like Jim Sterling.

Over the course of the last few weeks, average PC player counts have dropped 30,000 players, PS4 had dropped 70,000 players (41% of initial week avg). Battlefield 4 had more players all day today than Battlefront on PC and Battlefield 3 was only 2-3,000 behind over the course of the day. Earlier today, more people were playing the original counter strike (not source or go) than were playing battlefront on pc. After reviews came out, EA's stock dropped 6%. A few weeks later, Gamestop, Xbox, Amazon, GMG all had $20 off sales on Battlefront (an attempt to boost sales not at all aiming towards their 13 million projection) and as a result dropped EA's stock another 5% (Nasdaq is attributing it to the early price drops). After reviews stating the game lacked content and multiple concerns from players, they announced more free DLC outside of Jakku. EA executives also admit that battlefront 'may' lack content. User reviews put Battlefront at a 4.4/10 frequently likening its longevity to that of Titanfall or Evolve. According to this video EA sold only 1.5 million copies between the first week/two weeks. Fallout 4, GTA 5, etc sold over 10 million in the first week. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/116485-Star-Wars-Battlefront-Review Battlefronts initial week sales lagged behind Fallout 4, Blackops 3, FIFA 16 to take spot #4 worldwide (several local markets were different). It also was ranked 13th for all Black Friday sales figures across all retailers: http://www.gamerevolution.com/manifesto/star-wars-battlefronts-mixed-reception-appears-to-have-significantly-affected-sales-35621 The game is full of completely questionable game design problems ranging from being able to equip multiple grenades on a 10 second cooldown (Totally no grenade spam) to the lack of sheltered spawns that have been present in any objective based game since before Team Fortress 2. Or other things like the Falcon having a shield that can ram the Slave I to instantaneously get rid of the enemy heroes aircraft in Fighter Squadron. While were at it, lets mention the horribly obvious incompetence in the QA team where walkers dying in the first phase of Sullust get stuck, or TIEs crash into star destroyer debris on spawns on the brand new Jakku map. Lets just entirely forget about the logic behind Imperials being able to pick up anti-vehicle pickups when Rebels don't even posses ground vehicles. Oh, and why can't we voice chat with our partner exactly? The entire game is full of cheese. They wanted to make a game that appeals to a large number of people, particularily more casual players yet they forget one of the most casual things in the original battlefront. Being able to play the base gamemodes against bots locally and with split screen. That is one of the things that makes any game instantaneously more accessible to people. Especially those without internet or with crappy internet. Not to mention the fragmenting DLC practices that have been continued and will be offering less for the same price as Battlefield 4 Premium. The battlefront subreddit is full of people speaking with support about refunding their game, especially from PC and Austrailian/New Zealand markets as well as tons of people with issues with matchmaking to the point where they cannot even play the game and create joke images instead http://i.imgur.com/pR9Kyzd.png, as well as a massive amount of bugs, balance problems. Jim Sterling goes over the new AAA Multiplayer-only trend found recently in Battlefront and Rainbow 6: Siege. Where he states that these games have cut out singleplayer in the hopes of creating more multiplayer content. However, in neither of the games that theory has not actually been found in practice. Battlefront has less vehicles, less customization, less ui options, less weapons, less maps per gamemode than DICEs previous Battlefield 4. At this point everyone knows that it is not worth its purchase price. No one needs to play it at this point to know that. Anyone that states otherwise is subject to Post-Purchase rationalization also known as Buyer's Stockholm Syndrome because they want to justify their purchase so badly they are willing to overlook everything wrong with the game. You wanna know something? TotalBiscuit referenced Movie Battles specifically when talking about Battlefronts lightsaber combat and how inadequate it was on his Co-Optional Podcast. He referenced a fucking 13 year old modification when talking about a brand new AAA title from DICE and talked about it (and JK in general) having superior lightsaber combat.

Actually a good thing that it did. Usually more modes fragments the community base extremely far when you get into excessive amounts (more than 4 or so imo) (Titanfall suffered from this) and they all eventually gravitate to one or two gamemodes. In Battlefront Walker Assault definitely will be one, supremacy probably another. That isn't saying having a ton of modes isn't fun but there will always be ones people prefer over others, and as a result of diminishing playerbase over time the less liked gamemodes just wont be playable at all after a certain point in time. With Jakku they're supposedly adding yet another gamemode to the mix, which makes the problem worse. I would much rather a company focus on making one gamemode great than making 10 gamemodes okay. Edit: Peak PC player counts for today: Battlefield 4: 27,536 Battlefront: 34,174 Team Fortress 2: 62,620 ARK Survival Evolved: 39,841 Grand Theft Auto 5: 35,573 Garrys Mod: 34,252 Football Manager 2016: 59,511 So many games that have been around for quite a while already are beating the PC player counts for battlefront. Consoles still have pretty high player counts, but if you include those for several of those games the same can be said, but the numbers are already dropping from launch.

Being annoying about something I believe in is fine with me. I'm glad you like the game, I enjoyed it too. Just not $60 AAA title enjoyed. Most of my gaming community and MB developers feel the same. In fact most have already stopped playing. EA is now promising more free content outside of Jakku DLC to respond to the points the reviews brought up over the lack of content and their stock prices dropping 6% after those reviews were released. That is a positive, but we shall see where that goes. They're still doing maps for season pass crap.

Liking the game and preordering are two completely different things, you can like the game but not have preordered and you can preorder the game and not like it. There is no hypocrisy in my statement. Pre-ordering is WANT not LIKE. Also reviews for this game came out real good mates, basically everyone of them saying it doesn't have enough content to be worth $60. Great on y'all.

This comment made it clear you didn't read a single thing. I even linked videos that tells you why not to pre order and then you ask what the hell the difference is. Watch the video, and get some reading comprehension if you want me to take you seriously. I hate being rude like that but come on dude... I'm not going to repeat myself because of your own inability to read or take the time to watch things I have posted. The game isn't necessarily bad but its inherently broken and overpriced. It was fun to play, but is it $60 fun to play and will it keep my interest past a few weeks? Nope. Remember, I had the alpha, did they fix the community complaints about the flight controls on PC in beta months later? Nope, they tweaked it so it wasn't as bad, but its still bad. Yet the community was as unanimous about the flight controls sucking in the alpha like they were spawns sucking in the beta. They've made many basic game design sins that just don't even make sense from a company with as much experience with DICE.

That is incredibly unwise practice. No wonder.