A few months back I blocked out a subtractive map in UT3's editor. There are a number of file formats I can export the geometry as. Is there a way to import my UT3 brush work into Killing Floors UT2.5 engine? I know I could import it as a model with .obj but I was hoping to preserve it as brush work not polygonal geometry.
Level Design Down Converting from different editor version.
- Thread starter Pectabyte.com
- Start date
I honestly don't remember if UT3 can export as T3D, but assuming it does then you can use that.
Although chances are that UT3's brush format may be somewhat different from UE2/KFs. I know there have been converters written for porting maps from UT / UT2k4 -> UT3... So I would suggest looking for some utilities if you cannot get the T3D method working.
Upvote
0
dunno about the porting from ut3, but
you could import the mesh, then use convert to brush in 2.5 and itll be a brush again
you could import the mesh, then use convert to brush in 2.5 and itll be a brush again
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Getting it out of UT3 as T3D is no problem but when I try to import it into KF it gets too 100% and then crashes. I tried the obj way but apparently KF can only import .ase and .lwo as static meshes... Any other ideas?
Upvote
0
I heard somewhere that UT3 has an empty world where you add stuff to it, whereas UT2 is a solid mass world that you carve stuff out of it. Sounds like they are fundamentally different. And with no doubt differences in brush properties, surface properties - I don't like your chances of forwards compatibility.
Upvote
0
UT3 is additive, but you can easily make "subtractive" maps by adding a large solid cube and cutting away the interior of that.
It doesn't sound like you're having a lot of luck, but fortunately you can always recreate your level using the grid dimensions as your guide.
It doesn't sound like you're having a lot of luck, but fortunately you can always recreate your level using the grid dimensions as your guide.
Upvote
0
Actually in UT3 when you make a new map you can choose between subtractive and additive worlds, but i would suggest avoiding subtractive worlds at all costs due to loads of issues (with lighting, etc...).
Upvote
0
UT3's subtractive mode merely adds a large cube brush to the world space, from which you can subtract.
Upvote
0
I do remember reading on the UDN site that the subtractive worlds were more error prone lighting wise due to the fact that the lighting compile time shot up into the sky due to the big box.
Could be wrong though, but simply for the compile times alone it should be avoided. And certainly now that UDK has got lightmass, which in itself already takes a huge time to build.
Could be wrong though, but simply for the compile times alone it should be avoided. And certainly now that UDK has got lightmass, which in itself already takes a huge time to build.
Upvote
0