Joining Walls
Created 20 years ago2004-05-10 18:42:46 UTC by
esmajor
Created 20 years ago2004-05-10 18:42:46 UTC by
esmajor
Posted 20 years ago2004-05-10 18:42:46 UTC
Post #26389
To join walls of a room, is it better to do this (method 1)...or this (method 2)...
Posted 20 years ago2004-05-10 19:18:31 UTC
Post #26393
shrugs To save on anything... I haven't even checked the r_speeds on something like that
I guess I'm trying to find the best possible method for adding dorrs, hallways, and whether to put the flat pieces ON TOP of the walls, or fit them WITHIN the walls
I guess I'm trying to find the best possible method for adding dorrs, hallways, and whether to put the flat pieces ON TOP of the walls, or fit them WITHIN the walls
Posted 20 years ago2004-05-10 20:56:31 UTC
Post #26404
Its better to join walls. Theres no way a leak can be formed if you inteersect walls.
Posted 20 years ago2004-05-10 20:59:24 UTC
Post #26406
In otherwords method 2?
Posted 20 years ago2004-05-10 23:30:37 UTC
Post #26408
What were you thinking? Ofcourse method 2 better, I presume thats making a cube and hollowing it. Leaks are less likely in method two, and doesnt it just feel more stable? Method 2 definatly!!! 
Posted 20 years ago2004-05-11 03:12:12 UTC
Post #26427
I think none of them is better than the other. Try out both and type 'gl_wireframe 1' and 'r_speeds 1' in the console, to show the difference between the two ways.
Anyway, I personally prefer the second way. It's easier to work with for me (maybe because I'm used to it... :)).
About hollowing a brush to create a room: it's quick, but on the long term very hard to work with. About adding doors, putting a door brush in front of a wall often looks bad. Instead, slice the wall brush in two, create some space between them and put in a thinner brush there (and a normal brush above it, doors don't reach the ceiling very often). Be sure to check the floor, sometimes I forget there's a hole there... leak...
Anyway, I personally prefer the second way. It's easier to work with for me (maybe because I'm used to it... :)).
About hollowing a brush to create a room: it's quick, but on the long term very hard to work with. About adding doors, putting a door brush in front of a wall often looks bad. Instead, slice the wall brush in two, create some space between them and put in a thinner brush there (and a normal brush above it, doors don't reach the ceiling very often). Be sure to check the floor, sometimes I forget there's a hole there... leak...
Posted 20 years ago2004-05-11 05:55:27 UTC
Post #26431
Method one allows textures to flow. Also if you build it PROPERLY then theres no chance of a leak occuring right?
Posted 20 years ago2004-05-11 05:59:53 UTC
Post #26432
If you room is on the inside, then there is Absolutely no diffirence
However, if the room is on the outside, like in the case of a hollow crate, it is best to use VM to ensure each brush has its outside verticies on the outside corners, and inside verticies on the inside corners. This would ensure even texture distribution on both inside and outside.
However, if the room is on the outside, like in the case of a hollow crate, it is best to use VM to ensure each brush has its outside verticies on the outside corners, and inside verticies on the inside corners. This would ensure even texture distribution on both inside and outside.
Posted 20 years ago2004-05-11 06:03:12 UTC
Post #26433
-No diffirence, assuming no world brushes overlap!
Which should never happen, ever. It's a huge pain for both the compiler and textures if you're lazey enough to let it happen.
Which should never happen, ever. It's a huge pain for both the compiler and textures if you're lazey enough to let it happen.
Posted 20 years ago2004-05-11 07:42:40 UTC
Post #26447
Post your screenshots in solid view, not textured, that way, you can see what exactly you mean
Posted 20 years ago2004-05-11 08:42:53 UTC
Post #26473
i prefr method one. and belive it ore not but 3d mike used that technic in cs_bikini and ts_bikini
Posted 20 years ago2004-05-11 14:27:44 UTC
Post #26547
JB, you just said that the edges of the brushes should be sloped to ensure you don't get extra faces? Sloped insidewards, well, anyway, I get what you mean.
It's not true. I've believed this too before but the compiler is pretty good able to combine these faces when it's made with method 2 shown up here. As long as they have exactly the same texture properties (scale, offset, angle). So, don't worry about manipulating your vertexes for such purposes anymore. It sometimes even has some disadvantages (splitting up faces outside of the block due to that sloped inside!)...
If you want, I can post a screenshot of my test map to explain it more in-depth.
It's not true. I've believed this too before but the compiler is pretty good able to combine these faces when it's made with method 2 shown up here. As long as they have exactly the same texture properties (scale, offset, angle). So, don't worry about manipulating your vertexes for such purposes anymore. It sometimes even has some disadvantages (splitting up faces outside of the block due to that sloped inside!)...
If you want, I can post a screenshot of my test map to explain it more in-depth.
Posted 20 years ago2004-05-11 14:32:17 UTC
Post #26548
also when building dont take snap to grid off. just use [ and ] to change if you really need. texturing is alot easier with snap to grid and theres no chance of leaks if it stays at 64 while you make the rooms (unless you leave big 64 unit holes everywhere, or carve 
)
)
Posted 20 years ago2004-05-11 15:16:46 UTC
Post #26561
I presume thats making a cube and hollowing itHollowing isnt supposed to be good, now is it? I make all the walls seperately.
I heard from Tlax that the thicker the walls touching the Void is, the better, IE, method 2.
Posted 20 years ago2004-05-11 15:58:53 UTC
Post #26567
Why are thicker walls better then? Aren't the planes of the faces more important for the compile process?
I don't know but I'd like to get to know that.
I don't know but I'd like to get to know that.
Posted 20 years ago2004-05-11 16:05:38 UTC
Post #26570
Well, according to some convincing experimentation I saw not a long time ago, thicker internal walls are better as they block VIS more thoroughly.
Posted 20 years ago2004-05-11 16:23:32 UTC
Post #26571
You have a link to that experimentation?
Posted 20 years ago2004-05-11 16:40:48 UTC
Post #26572
Sadly not. Have a look on Google, can't suggest anything else.
Posted 20 years ago2004-05-11 17:17:01 UTC
Post #26575
Just to get things straight: what exactly do you mean? Thicker internal walls... you mean brushes that touch the void have to be thicker, or brushes not touching the void, or... ?
Maybe you can draw out what you mean and post it.
Maybe you can draw out what you mean and post it.
Posted 20 years ago2004-05-12 01:29:21 UTC
Post #26602
Thicker walls not touching the void, just dividing rooms. It seems the thicker walls are, the 'better' they stop vis. Try it
Posted 20 years ago2004-05-12 03:09:24 UTC
Post #26603
As far as I can see after some tests, thickness of walls has nothing to do with VIS blocking.
You might want to read this:
http://countermap.counter-strike.net/Tutorials/tutorial.php?id=2
Nothing about thick walls. I think the thick walls in that test you heard of affected the shape and placement of these VIS blocks, what caused a better result. I think. But then again, I should have seen that tests.
You might want to read this:
http://countermap.counter-strike.net/Tutorials/tutorial.php?id=2
Nothing about thick walls. I think the thick walls in that test you heard of affected the shape and placement of these VIS blocks, what caused a better result. I think. But then again, I should have seen that tests.
Posted 20 years ago2004-05-12 13:12:40 UTC
Post #26640
Seems odd to me. I was a noob mapper when I read them, though, and I didn't bookmark the site either.
Posted 20 years ago2004-05-12 13:55:12 UTC
Post #26645
omg... seventh.. a noob?
impossibl
impossibl
Posted 20 years ago2004-05-12 14:09:40 UTC
Post #26646
ITS TREU. I REMEMBER. THOSE GOOD OL DAYS
Posted 20 years ago2004-05-12 15:35:20 UTC
Post #26654
I've tried out several things with the hint textures and that tutorial seems pretty right to me. When I tried out thicker walls I didn't see any difference. So I don't know exactly how you think they can be better for VIS-blocking... maybe you should try it out once, Seventh-Monkey?
Posted 20 years ago2004-05-12 15:59:48 UTC
Post #26666
I don't believe it, lol. Just hightlighting the millions of bizarre and false theories going around about compiling.
Posted 20 years ago2004-05-12 16:48:48 UTC
Post #26706
Then try it out yourself. I did.
Yes, there are a lot of false theories about compiling, then why do you think I try it out myself?
Yes, there are a lot of false theories about compiling, then why do you think I try it out myself?
Posted 20 years ago2004-05-12 16:57:08 UTC
Post #26709
I have now done so. Totally ineffective.
Posted 20 years ago2004-05-12 17:43:00 UTC
Post #26717
If you guys remember, I am OpenGL incapable.
Posted 20 years ago2004-05-13 03:20:18 UTC
Post #26733
'r_drawflat 1' and 'r_draworder 1' where the console commands for software mode, if I remember correctly.
OpenGL incapable? Then you use Direct3D I hope?
OpenGL incapable? Then you use Direct3D I hope?
Posted 20 years ago2004-05-13 04:21:17 UTC
Post #26735
Nope - software mode
Posted 20 years ago2004-05-13 05:31:31 UTC
Post #26736
Auch... You really can't use other render modes than software mode?
What system specs do you have then?
What system specs do you have then?
Posted 20 years ago2004-05-13 05:41:16 UTC
Post #26738
It's not about specs, Software mode is the only mode that supports "r_draworder" and "r_drawflat".
Posted 20 years ago2004-05-13 06:38:13 UTC
Post #26747
Why can't you use the other ones? (i.e. Direct3D or OpenGl)
Posted 20 years ago2004-05-13 07:32:37 UTC
Post #26757
JB, OpenGL has better ways to see your faces, e.g. 'gl_wireframe 1' and 'gl_wireframe 2'. So to run software mode for that two console commands is pretty odd. IMO.
You must be logged in to post a response.