More detailed maps: Use models or finer brushwork?

[Gambit]

I'm experimenting with using a modern Quake sourceport to make non-Quake experiences. I'd like to have improved geometry and increase the realism a bit beyond the blockiness of the standard Quake aesthetic. It seems there's two options:

1) Use low-to-medium poly 3D models inserted with misc_model and add clip brushes for collisions, and hidden brushes for shadows.
2) Build with brushwork on a finer grid (< 1), to allow rougher and more organic shapes.

I'd be grateful of any expert views on the pros/cons of each? Thank you in advance.

 

[alexUnder Ros]

There's no full lighting for any mdl. They just take light from below the mdl and put this level of brightness on whole model. Looks quite ugly when used not very carefully. Try it once yourself and you will see what I mean. Therefore if one needs good lighting, shadows, all the stuff - you simply HAVE to go brushwork. For some stuff you may do models in some Blender and then import as brushes not mdl. For example complex natural environments were done this way - for example all rocks in Tears of the False God. You may try to test how it looks when you model in Blender some statue (for example) and import as brushwork

 

[alexUnder Ros]

To be fair brushwork can be quite realistic and detailed. For example. All done in TrenchBroom

Check out start map from Brutalist Jam 2. The quality is insane. Made by sir Ben "Makkon" Hale. Exemplar work absolutely objectively!

 

[Gambit]

Yeah, Makkon's stuff is amazing, I follow his work in awe. But for this idea I've got, I'm looking for something a bit different, with softer edges, not as blocky looking. Pushing the boundaries of Quake literally, to try and bring in a bit more of a realistic style and not all those sharp edges.

I've experimented and it can be done in brushwork directly in Trenchbroom but it takes *ages* to manipulate all those vertices when you start working at grid size 1 and smaller. And I figured that would start introducing problems for the bsp/vis tools (although using func_detail obviously helps a lot).

Thanks for the reminder about MDLs not receiving light correctly. I forgot about that. That mostly makes the decision for me.

Or I guess I could use one of the source ports that supports PBR materials and global lighting, but that's getting a bit too far away from the simplicity of working with Quake's usual setup.

I'll do some more experiments and see if I have any success... thanks for the input.

 

[h4724]

OBJ2Map is probably what you want in this case. It'll let you build 3D models in a program like blender and turn the results into brushes that will light properly.

 

[Gambit]

Thanks, yeah I've already been using that tool. It's good to a point, but no good for very fine geometry. I'll need to find out where the balance is: when to use geo and when to use models.

 

[pinbot84]

How do you keep the UV mapping from Blender to TrenchBroom, when using OBJ2Map ?