Density

rOger · Post by **rOger** » Sat Jun 28, 2003 8:33 pm

Hi! Have you tried changing the density in Surface Properties? If not give it a try. 1 is the smallest and most exact, but will make for a BIG lightmap. 32 is default.

the following screen shots will demonstrate what I'm trying to say.

This one is the default (32)

This one is with a density of 16

This one is with a density of 8

This one is with a density of 1

This one is with a density of 128, just to show that one can get good results if shadows is of no concern.

Maybe that you all knew this all ready, in which case you should be ashamed of yourself for not telling me.

m0g · Post by **m0g** » Sat Jun 28, 2003 10:07 pm

I didnt even know about these things, thanks for pointing
it out rOger!

Alcoholic · Post by **Alcoholic** » Sun Jun 29, 2003 1:48 am

thats nice im gonna put density1 fromnow on.

Post by **jv_map** » Sun Jun 29, 2003 6:36 am

Nice stuff that is

. I didn't know you could set different lightmap densities per surface.

Alcoholic wrote:thats nice im gonna put density1 fromnow on.

Well be careful with that. Mohaalight is not going to like it I'm afraid.

Alcoholic · Post by **Alcoholic** » Sun Jun 29, 2003 7:07 am

bah if it makes my map look better, ill do it.

rOger · Post by **rOger** » Sun Jun 29, 2003 9:14 am

I think one should be careful with this density thing. Using 16 on a surface will make the lightmap four times as big as the default. Density 8 will make it 16 times bigger, and density 1 will make it a spectacular 1024 times bigger. Not recommended for all surfaces as I'm sure you can understand.

I would recommend to use the default, and maybe density 8 if you really want to have nice shadows on a few specific surfaces.

crunch · Post by **crunch** » Sun Jun 29, 2003 7:51 pm

I agree with jv_map and rOger.

Changing the light density will make for huge FPS problems down the road.

The more "complex" (defined) the lighting, the lower the FPS.

So, Alcoholic, it may look better, but what good does that do when the Framerate is so poor that you can't play it? I would find a good balance between looks and performance.

Kill Ya Later!

Alcoholic · Post by **Alcoholic** » Sun Jun 29, 2003 7:59 pm

oh didnt know about fps just thought the compile time was longer.

crunch · Post by **crunch** » Sun Jun 29, 2003 8:04 pm

It would be a combination of both.
The more complex the map (including brush count, lightmap density, radiosity lights, terrain poly count, mesh polycount, etc....) the longer the compile.
But also, this adversely affects FPS.
This is the same reason that FPS decreases when you raise your game settings while playing.

Put simply, the engine has more to draw in every frame of the game.
That means more time to draw each frame, which in turn means less FPS.

Kill Ya Later!