+- Fearless Forums (https://fearlessrp.net)
+-- Forum: General Discussion (https://fearlessrp.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Forum: Discussions (https://fearlessrp.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+---- Forum: Archive (https://fearlessrp.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=481)
+---- Thread: WHY WAS THIS MAP NOT AN OPTION (/showthread.php?tid=92786)
RE: WHY WAS THIS MAP NOT AN OPTION - Bobby - 05-08-2019
+Support
RE: WHY WAS THIS MAP NOT AN OPTION - RIC0H - 05-08-2019
That's quite a nice map you have there.
RE: WHY WAS THIS MAP NOT AN OPTION - Joe Joe - 05-08-2019
I would have voted that map if it was there. Any issues I noticed could be removed too. Those dumpsters are world props and can be removed and that was the only issue I noticed
RE: WHY WAS THIS MAP NOT AN OPTION - [LT] Sparx - 05-08-2019
Hi, I posted on the other thread the reasoning that this wasn't added but just in case anyone didn't see:
The reason this map wasn't added to the vote is because the sky completely glitches out to blinding white if you don't have Atmos enabled. Currently, we use Stormfox, and while we may not use SF on the new map, we didn't want the risk of being forced to switch to Atmos or be left with a glitchy sky on a new map.
Especially when we don't know that Atmos will be any less laggy than SF is at the moment. If, in the worst case scenario it is incredibly laggy, even moreso than SF then we'd HAVE to use Atmos because of the map we chose, or have a completely new map vote.
RE: WHY WAS THIS MAP NOT AN OPTION - Lewwings - 05-08-2019
It looks like shit
RE: WHY WAS THIS MAP NOT AN OPTION - Jeffrey - 05-08-2019
(05-08-2019, 03:35 PM)Lewwings Wrote: It looks like shit
Ouch that’s gonna sting in the morning.
RE: WHY WAS THIS MAP NOT AN OPTION - Awestruck - 05-08-2019
(05-08-2019, 03:11 PM)Sparx Wrote: Hi, I posted on the other thread the reasoning that this wasn't added but just in case anyone didn't see:
The reason this map wasn't added to the vote is because the sky completely glitches out to blinding white if you don't have Atmos enabled. Currently, we use Stormfox, and while we may not use SF on the new map, we didn't want the risk of being forced to switch to Atmos or be left with a glitchy sky on a new map.
Especially when we don't know that Atmos will be any less laggy than SF is at the moment. If, in the worst case scenario it is incredibly laggy, even moreso than SF then we'd HAVE to use Atmos because of the map we chose, or have a completely new map vote.
RE: WHY WAS THIS MAP NOT AN OPTION - Dimitris - 05-08-2019
(05-08-2019, 04:11 PM)Awestruck Wrote:(05-08-2019, 03:11 PM)Sparx Wrote: Hi, I posted on the other thread the reasoning that this wasn't added but just in case anyone didn't see:
The reason this map wasn't added to the vote is because the sky completely glitches out to blinding white if you don't have Atmos enabled. Currently, we use Stormfox, and while we may not use SF on the new map, we didn't want the risk of being forced to switch to Atmos or be left with a glitchy sky on a new map.
Especially when we don't know that Atmos will be any less laggy than SF is at the moment. If, in the worst case scenario it is incredibly laggy, even moreso than SF then we'd HAVE to use Atmos because of the map we chose, or have a completely new map vote.
Yes and as Polux said you can change the skybox texture.
RE: WHY WAS THIS MAP NOT AN OPTION - [LT] Sparx - 05-08-2019
Not without map retexturiser, which we almost definitely won't be using on the new map due to the impact it has on performance.
RE: WHY WAS THIS MAP NOT AN OPTION - Pollux - 05-08-2019
(05-08-2019, 05:47 PM)Sparx Wrote: Not without map retexturiser, which we almost definitely won't be using on the new map due to the impact it has on performance.
Can be changed without it, but either way this map still looks horrible.