Hello! I am proficient in mapping for UE3 but I've never mapped for the UE2.5 engine, can someone explain the key differences between the two or link me somewhere which does, the controls and things because it looks so much different and the controls feel different.
Moving from Unreal Editor 3?
- Thread starter Exlixe
- Start date
Basics are the same. Just some key differences. Unlike UE3, you must start with a subtracted cube and then add actors/additive brushes into that world space, You can't just add into the "Void". Also, unlike UE3, there are skyboxes.
Unlike UE3 where you just add a huge dome over your map, skyboxes are a separate cube/zone away from your map. It is usually also miniaturized(Usually no bigger than 2000uu). From there you add in sky textures, sky domes, what ever you want as a back ground. You then add a skyzone info into the skybox. After that you may set textures in surface properties to unlit/fake backdrop and the skyzone info acts like a camera that projects what it sees in the skybox to all the textures you set to fake backdrop.
Staticmeshes/Textures/Terrain/Sounds are essentially the same but they are not packed into .upk files. They are all divided into their own folders in the game dictionary.
Animations: .ukx
Maps: .rom(.ut2 for UT2004)
Music: .ogg
Sounds: .uax
StaticMeshes: .usx
System: .u
Textures: .utx
Unlike UE3 where you just add a huge dome over your map, skyboxes are a separate cube/zone away from your map. It is usually also miniaturized(Usually no bigger than 2000uu). From there you add in sky textures, sky domes, what ever you want as a back ground. You then add a skyzone info into the skybox. After that you may set textures in surface properties to unlit/fake backdrop and the skyzone info acts like a camera that projects what it sees in the skybox to all the textures you set to fake backdrop.
Staticmeshes/Textures/Terrain/Sounds are essentially the same but they are not packed into .upk files. They are all divided into their own folders in the game dictionary.
Animations: .ukx
Maps: .rom(.ut2 for UT2004)
Music: .ogg
Sounds: .uax
StaticMeshes: .usx
System: .u
Textures: .utx
i always thought that was a little weird in UE3 - the whole thing about putting a giant skydome over your entire map, if someone were to do that in UE2.5 they would probably be called a noob for not knowing how to make a skybox lol. but i guess in UE3 thats how its done :S
In 2.5, when you sub a cube and insert a little skydome, isnt that the Exact same thing? Just way more steps? I love UE3 and Additive style mapping, much much better imo. UE3 offers both but subtractive mode isnt like 2.5. For many reasons, you should always use additive mode in UE3.
1. Lighting in UE2.5 sucks and it does not dynamically update if you move it, you have to rebuild lighting for it to change shadows.
2. Editor controls are very very similar.
3. UE2.5 SDK gets a lot of errors from nothing.
4. Very limited.
5. I find it way more user-friendly in the game and SDK.
Oh btw TWI rly shud hav upgraded the engine more for KF and spent at least another month on it's devolpment, in my opion THAT IS
2. Editor controls are very very similar.
3. UE2.5 SDK gets a lot of errors from nothing.
4. Very limited.
5. I find it way more user-friendly in the game and SDK.
Oh btw TWI rly shud hav upgraded the engine more for KF and spent at least another month on it's devolpment, in my opion THAT IS
yes it is more steps but i like the skybox to be its own seperate world. the idea of just putting a big dome static mesh over a map just seems a little odd.