: I think the biggest thing to think about is which option would allow your
: casual map mapker to come along and fiddle around with the new features
: you are going to implement, without adding a serious learning curve?
: 'Cause I remember trying out Photoshop...hmm..all my attempted textures
: ended up looking like gradients.....
Good point.
: #1 sounds great, and who cares if it's not "proper", so long as it
: works. But I'm not quite sure what you mean by "the proper
: way"---"more standard way" of doing things.
Hmm... Go see why people disliked AO B&B. Same reasons pretty much would apply to #1.
: #3 seems fun, I think I've seen this in UT before (feel free to correct me on
: that if I'm wrong). I think the effect was something like The Never
: Ending Stairs . Jump down one floor, walk around the corner, boom, you're
: back at the top of the stairs you just jumped from. But you say it'll take
: a lot of work, so unless many vote for it, I say bah to this.
It depends... that map in UT probably had a portaly-teleporter thing (Like the ones that are everywhere in Q3), not a proper CIP...
: Concerning #4, would manually creating floors/walls/ceiling be done a 3D
: modeling program or something? If so, and you chose to go with this
: option, then maybe your "best of both worlds" idea would indeed
: be the best.
Again, it depends, you could probably do maps in a modelling app, or something similar (Think WorldCraft or QuArK), or maybe having #1, but with the *option* of adding solids...
: There's my opinions. I hope I didn't paint a bull's eye on myself by saying
: something stupid up there. Off I go, back to my dark corner.
Heh, you didn't. Thanks for the response.
