Porting geometry back from UDK to UEd1

[Nottis]

Hello again, fellow Taffers!

This question is sort of a follow-up to the new Thievery stopping in its tracks, let's say, "for the time being". Last summer I was busy creating a map for the upcoming Thievery (that never was), using available assets and modelling new ones, but since the project is not going anywhere, while the good old Thievery just got retouched, I might at least try to export the geometry from UDK to the old UnrealEd, finish it there and voila - a new map for the good old game! Now the question remains, HOW do I do that?

P.S. I will upload some screenshots of what I managed to create either in this thread or the Thievery 2 thread that's there somewhere... Just hope someone still frequents these forums.

[Trapmaster]

Maybe T3D export?

(Convert static meshes to BSP before export). Not sure if that's possible in UDK though.

[Przemek557]

I never tried that, not even mapping in UDK, but before you start see whether it is actually possible, some of the possible troublemakers:

• udk may use some advanced kind of brushes, that are not supported by UE1
• udk can surely handle more complex geometry, it may turn out that UE1 will not be able to run it, or you can get some unexpected errors during further development (bsp holes, for instance). It would be a pitty if you spent your time on converting the map and continuing it, just to find out that it will not be possible to finish it after all.
• you may (and most likely will) have to re-texture the whole level
• as Trap pointed, static meshes can turn out to be problematic

I don't want to be skeptical, if you think you can give it a try, go ahead. Ah there is also another problem, that despite new version, hardly anyone plays this game.

If the export will be as easy as Trap said, which is T3D export - then do it and see what happened, how it turned out - see if everything is OK, if it builds and runs. Check for BSP holes, also it would be wise to see your FPS and compare it to other levels (you can strip them of all actors before doing it to level the playing field). If the FPS is too low, it may be the case of too complex geometry, or mapping mistakes like not sticking to grid, using unusual brush dimensions etc., and after adding actors it will surely go even lower.

If you happened to convert it successfully and be unsure of whether it is a good choice to continue with developing it for UE1, you post that map somewhere and perhaps we would be able to give you some advice .

[[E.D.G]Chief]

I know this thread is getting on a bit now but since I only occasionally visit I just wanted to say that yes it's entirely possible providing you create a converter to take the newer t3d format and convert it to the old one (unless you fancy a horrendous time going through your t3d file manually in a text editor).

Comparing a UDK exported cube against a UE1 exported cube (in t3d format) will show you the few differences involved in converting - biggest change being the all encompassing additive brush.

If you do convert the static meshes to bsp (which does work) it is likely unreal won't have the rendering capability to cope with all those polygons and will crash on import so I'd recommend just basic room layouts etc. being carried across.

Dunno what version of Thievery2 you ended up with but if you're that interested again maybe have Edy/Getty send you the last version he has with the hundred or more models, characters etc. etc. etc. and help him out on Thievery 2 should you want to - though UE4 is the way to go now even if you do have a one time payment per developer involved (per version release).

Chief.

[mcfarrel]

From my point of view.

AS Chief said previously the newer version of engine is the way (love it or hate it, but its the reality). Main stream players do want to see spectacular graphics above all.

In this case what we (as developers) need is more graphic designers (or said in harsh and crude way - we need more monkeys to do the polygonwork).
In such a way every one of us whom did some graphical design for the Thievery and is willing to continue need a minion (at least one, but better two or three). Minion who will be doing the work of an apprentice of great artist. This is no offense, it simply means we need more hands to do the basic polygonal work for graphic designers to do the finishing (or more graphic designers).

In contrarry (or in addition) using the indie path, we might stick to such ways as conceptual grandness (based on concept and not the goddamn ultra fuckup graphics orgies), dramaturgy and such.

From my point of view the main problem of Thieflike multiplayer game is the bahaviour of player. Problem of mainstream player is he is focused on FPS in action style (more or less) of which the Thief like game is not preciselly his cup o'tea. Thievery was and is game that has its action moments, and its moments of frenzy and bloodlust. But on the main line it is game of pattience and cunning.

So in case of targetting the mainstream the idea must be changed, in case of targetting the indie scene (or should I say its main player base) the concept is the point.

Question is are there still people willing to play Thievery in the way and mood it was meant to? If the answer is Yes then core is not necesarilly manadtory (in such a case same results might be achieved using UT SDK core with Thievery - which is example givven not the way itslef, just something to think about). On the other hand if the question is No, then the whole idea must be changed (or abandonned).

[mcfarrel]

BTW Nottis. If You get permission from current teamleader I might give You NBcrew.u - somehow unfinished backport of NightBlade models for TUT. This is something I got tackeld for few days back then as a testinggroud for anim debug...

[Soulblade]

I think this game could be relevant for today's gamers. There's plenty of stealth based games that have done well: Mark of the Ninja, Dishonored, Assassin's creed, Splinter Cell, Styx: Master of shadows. The thing is, they are all predominantly singleplayer games. That's why I think Thievery could do well: there's not really any multiplayer games based solely on stealth, so it will stand out for sure.

The problem for me with thievery is that it's a little overcomplicated for non-hardcore players. What I mean is that it's not easy to pickup the game mechanics from the start unless you've played a thief game before. Also you have all these different arrows types and potions on different keybindings. Then you've got walking, sneaking, running, crouching, peeking left, right AND forward, it just needs to be simplified down for the general public IMO. I'm not saying removing all these elements, just condensing them somehow. I imagine you could make a HUD display that shows all the items you have at the bottom of the screen and which buttons you need to press to activate them.

Anyway, I don't think it would be hard to open up this game to the more mainstream gamers and it's unique!

[mcfarrel]

Soulblade if I might suggest something, it would be a simple question is the lack of stealth based multiplayer game due to none had ever made one or it is due to nobody wants to plays stealth multiplayer game?

[Soulblade]

How do we know nobody wants to play a multiplayer stealth game if nobody has tried to make one?

[mcfarrel]

How do we know nobody wants to play a multiplayer stealth game if nobody has tried to make one?

I am not saying nobody wants to play stealth game, I am just asking questin if anyone wants to! This is something a little different.

OK I will try to describe this in other words, somehow.
As I pointed out earlier, the mainstream wants what is mainstream. Mainstream player wants what is cool (etc). But love it or hate it this means god damn next gen graphics above all. This is mainstream!

Who the heck cares whether or not You can look at (and take an impression of) high detail models with normal mapping, reflective maps and so on when playing high speed first person shooter.
Who the heck cares of real physical behaviour of ragdolls and projectiles in above mentioned game? And lastly who the heck cares to play that silly game any more becuase it is not a new title after all. Mainstream in brief...

I am not saying stick into the stoneage, I am not saying put the idea on hold for ever. But I am just trying to say is it worth to do hard work (because creating content for next gen graphics is hard work), for just few plays?

What could bre reused of old Thievery (regardless of TUT or NB/TUT2) is:
- Skeletal animations (or its sources), these might be repolished or used as reference or so.
- Player/NPC Models have to be remodelled (some exceptions may exist but). But anyway this may not be the main pain in the ass.
- Decorations (need at least polishing, but those of TUT need to be remodelled, brushes made to meshes using Meshmaker are gitchy and need to be vertex welded - at minimum)
- level geometry has to be rebuild completely, terrains should be replaced by hi res version, and brushes replaced by static meshes extensively (which means remodelling, remodelling, remodelling)...
- Textures have to be replaced etc.

Main problem, from my point of view, is the masive remodelling of contetnt. This will take vast amount of time (thus I mentioned the minion politics previously).
Although there are possibilities to strip the content and push it through some 3d modelling sw (for example the Undying T3D import/export for 3xdsma might come in handy for handling some brush geometryu parts and rebuilding it into high res version.

This will take vast amount of time, during which almost nothing will be observable. So it is not a problem of incompetence, rather a problem of timemanagement (for the team leader) and frustration (for the whole stuff). But this hard work have to be worth it! Hence the question I asked. Because if we do the hard work just for few plays... Then it definitelly was NOT!

So what is the idea New Thievery is capable to offer to its potentional player? And part of this answer is hidden in feedbac thet we got and shared for original TUT. What was our expectations and did TUT fullfill these (at least somehow), and what do we (not only here on forums, but even other players) expect from this game and whaw do we desepratelly need to be included?

And accordng to that we should decide what to do and how to do...

[mcfarrel]

In other words, what is the idea, the multiplayer thief-like game would offer? If I look back at the videos taken form TUT online gamplay there are more or less medieval like deathmatch games rather than a stealth thieving games... But to be honest there are other games offering deathmatch... Regardless of graphics!

So the question is how to persuade player not to run through the game deathmatch style but ranther lurk in shadows, steal treasures and for the most of the time leave the guards and dont give them any notice we are there.

So the problem is hidden in the way people plays, not in the game itself. And this might be the real reason why Lookingglass ever omitted a multiplayer form the thief games. They may not be able to solve the gametype problem.

I am not in opossition against the newer Thievery, I am just trying to point out what to do and what NOT. Looking through the games that were and are played, there are still games of old that are played by good number of players even these games are outdated and its graphics is not up to nowadays standards. So the main reason is not the graphics itself.
The main problem (viewed from my point of view) is concept, and player etiquette.

So what to do? Becuase trying to "sell" another multiplayer deathmatch mayhem is bullshit and it is not worth the work (nor try).

[mcfarrel]

In other words, what is the idea, the multiplayer thief-like game would offer? If I look back at the videos taken form TUT online gamplay there are more or less medieval like deathmatch games rather than a stealth thieving games... But to be honest there are other games offering deathmatch... Regardless of graphics!

So the question is how to persuade player not to run through the game deathmatch style but ranther lurk in shadows, steal treasures and for the most of the time leave the guards and dont give them any notice we are there.

So the problem is hidden in the way people plays, not in the game itself. And this might be the real reason why Lookingglass ever omitted a multiplayer form the thief games. They may not be able to solve the gametype problem.

I am not in opossition against the newer Thievery, I am just trying to point out what to do and what NOT. Looking through the games that were and are played, there are still games of old that are played by good number of players even these games are outdated and its graphics is not up to nowadays standards. So the main reason is not the graphics itself.
The main problem (viewed from my point of view) is concept, and player etiquette.

So what to do? Becuase trying to "sell" another multiplayer deathmatch mayhem is bullshit and it is not worth the work (nor try).

[mcfarrel]

TUT is not deatmatch multiplayer. It's fast stealth multiplayer. And this is its winning unique selling point.

Is it realy so or do we think it is so?

Anyway we should clearly and exactly state what is the gameplay type. The mapping should be according to this and not against.

For exapmle how much interactivity of the game environment (map environment) is realy needed?, anyway we are spoilling and hijacking the original thread and should move to new topic.

[[E.D.G]Chief]

Ah, you mean TTLG.

[mcfarrel]

Of course we could think. Anyone else could do this except us ?

Oh crap! Max, in brief (with some slight loss of data) mainstream game is made according to what mainstream WANTS You to do. Indie game is made according to what fans THINK the game should contain.

Trying to persuade the mainstream to accept Your idea as a new part of it is still possible but it does not deppends on the brilliance of Your idea rather on PR!

We have this knowledge:

http://www.thief-haven.com/the-game/fast-stealth

http://www.thief-haven.com/the-game/map-design

Map dessign is OK. But there is one main problem with the gameplay concept. In reality Night of a theft is only one in many other spend on duty. So normally guard is borred by annoying useless job. Doing same shift for the thousand time.
This could be easily obtained by clever pathnoding and script. But How the heck You would persuade human player sto act as a borred guard after several hundreds of useless nightshifts. Nothig happened for weeks so why should anything happen tonight?

But this is Unrealistic. The game itself will ever be unrealistic. Human guards will never be in bored mood but on full allert! They are expecting somethink happens (as a matter of fact they joined the game for that). On the contrary in real situation as a thief You would ommit entering building full of guards on full allert, no matter how preccious and expensive loot You may obtain there. You do not want to run a suicide mission rather earn easy money. You are trying to minimise the risk!

This situation might lead to pure killing spree (in my opinion)

However, there is still possibility to play it in more or less functional way. Using cooperation of several thieves, massively distract and harras guards, fool them around, when one or more thieves get their attention, while one or more other get the loot.
Sittuation is little bit different but still playable.

BUT using different logic! So it would not be a Thief in multiplayer rather a game of cooperation and tactics.
As a result, group of player cappable to cooperate may succeed. But on the contrary this is extremely harmfull environment for players without a group/clan. As they tend to be on the tail of this game.

And I'm afraid this forum and web site could be closed in any time. We should think not about using separate thread for our conversation but rather more popular place to keep talking .

Well we may move to the new location then. But this does not solve the problem. If You would like to make a game for mainstream You should stick to what mainstream wants You to do for them!