Forum posts
What Penguinboy said. Rotating stuff without any degree of snapping is no good. Another thing I'd like to see is object vertex to object vertex snapping (might just be me that haven't found the feature, though) since 1 unit grid snapping or 0.1 unit nudging sometimes isn't precise enough.
Another thing I find kind of inconvinient is the locked 15° 2d view rotation snapping, I most often need multiples of other values than 15.
Rimrook: Regarding tetrahedrons facing the wrong way, in my testing the normals of the imported faces decides which way the tetrahedrons will face. Make sure that the normals of the object is aligned in the 3d software you're exporting from, if it then turns out wrong again just flip all the normals and export again.
I can't see the point in converting the faces to tetrahedrons to be honest, what's the reasoning behind it penguinboy?
I can't see the point in converting the faces to tetrahedrons to be honest, what's the reasoning behind it penguinboy?
I'm still having problems compiling hexagon tube walls, they usually compiles when inside an "airtight" box but they become very leaky in general. Here's what it's suposed to look like:
But this is what it ends up looking like:
(used square tube in these examples just to be able to compile the correct way. Red is the "void".)
This is with imported .obj meshes. I suspect that it's the conversion to tetrahedron mesh that causes the issues in this these instances. An option to keep the original mesh on import would be great, since sledge normally can compile this kind of mesh created via the torus and the arch presets without any problem.
This is with imported .obj meshes. I suspect that it's the conversion to tetrahedron mesh that causes the issues in this these instances. An option to keep the original mesh on import would be great, since sledge normally can compile this kind of mesh created via the torus and the arch presets without any problem.
Hmm, I'm either doing something wrong or I'm simply trying something that the compiler can't handle in any shape or form. Here's an .OBJ with the mesh i'm trying to compile: https://www.dropbox.com/s/zd2ta7r48f78kbp/SplineHull.obj
It's pretty big so it might need scaling before opening it in Sledge, all faces are quads. Will obviously require some other kind of "encapsulation" before compiling, but I didn't include that as I'm not sure how to do it the correct way with this mesh.
Any ideas? Or does any one have another method of doing what i'm trying to do? Basically create a long(!) curvy hallway with the use of splines and sweep nurbs in other 3d software.
Edit: Or in sledge for that matter, the "torus" and "arch" default brushes almost does what I want them too, the problem is that there's no option for start and end radius, which means you can't make flat horizontal spirals.
It's pretty big so it might need scaling before opening it in Sledge, all faces are quads. Will obviously require some other kind of "encapsulation" before compiling, but I didn't include that as I'm not sure how to do it the correct way with this mesh.
Any ideas? Or does any one have another method of doing what i'm trying to do? Basically create a long(!) curvy hallway with the use of splines and sweep nurbs in other 3d software.
Edit: Or in sledge for that matter, the "torus" and "arch" default brushes almost does what I want them too, the problem is that there's no option for start and end radius, which means you can't make flat horizontal spirals.
I'm beginning to grow quiet fond of Jackhammer but I'll take a look at Sledge, could be usefull for .obj to .rmf conversion at the very least. Another tool that works for cinema 4d is this: https://code.google.com/p/c4dqmapex/
Converts mesh to q3 .map formats which I'm able to open and compile in Jackhammer, although I've only made a couple tests on simple primitives.
Converts mesh to q3 .map formats which I'm able to open and compile in Jackhammer, although I've only made a couple tests on simple primitives.
Mainly just to give more control and allow for heavier setttings when it comes to lighting, but I find modelling alot easier in Blender and Cinema 4D as well.
I'm pretty impressed by Vluzacn's RAD program however so baking GI to the textures by external means might be unnecessary.
I'm pretty impressed by Vluzacn's RAD program however so baking GI to the textures by external means might be unnecessary.
Rimrook, that's a very nice looking map. Where is it from? And thanks for the .DXF tip, will be very handy.
A cheap way of creating an AO looking effect that I just thought of is creating black-transparent gradient decal and apply them in corners, haven't messed around with decals at all yet though so i'm not sure if it's possible.
A cheap way of creating an AO looking effect that I just thought of is creating black-transparent gradient decal and apply them in corners, haven't messed around with decals at all yet though so i'm not sure if it's possible.
sv_maxspeed 10000? I assume that you mean sv_maxvelocity 10000? Otherwise just plain running is faster than bunnyhopping. Anyway, you should make your maps for the default SP physics settings:
sv_airaccelerate 10
sv_accelerate 10
sv_maxspeed 320
sv_maxvelocity 2000
And fps_max ranging from all the possible 1000/n values (where n is an integer). If you aren't allready, you should start using New Gauge Half-Life Client (NGHL) with bunnymod pro, since the current steam version have a bunnyhop cap set at something like 550 ups, making the exercise rather pointless.
sv_airaccelerate 10
sv_accelerate 10
sv_maxspeed 320
sv_maxvelocity 2000
And fps_max ranging from all the possible 1000/n values (where n is an integer). If you aren't allready, you should start using New Gauge Half-Life Client (NGHL) with bunnymod pro, since the current steam version have a bunnyhop cap set at something like 550 ups, making the exercise rather pointless.
rufee: It's not quiet that simple if I'm not missing some texture apply feature in Hammer. For example, say that I created this rather simple object and lit it with GI in my 3d software: http://i.imgur.com/rh7l37v.png
I then bake the whole object and end up with a baked texture that looks like this: http://i.imgur.com/4f9zEsw.png
Just applying the texture to the same geometry in Hammer would not work since there's no UV-map options in Hammer that I know about. The manual way around it would be to create a baked texture for each face of the object and then apply them to the faces separately in Hammer, but that would take ages.
JefMOD: Thank you, I'll have a look at that radiosity program. Also thanks for the clarifications regarding UV maps, one way I can think of around this is to make a small portion of a corridor, bake GI to the faces and then edit the texture in photoshop to make it seamless, allowing for multiple iterations of that same portion of corridor.
I then bake the whole object and end up with a baked texture that looks like this: http://i.imgur.com/4f9zEsw.png
Just applying the texture to the same geometry in Hammer would not work since there's no UV-map options in Hammer that I know about. The manual way around it would be to create a baked texture for each face of the object and then apply them to the faces separately in Hammer, but that would take ages.
JefMOD: Thank you, I'll have a look at that radiosity program. Also thanks for the clarifications regarding UV maps, one way I can think of around this is to make a small portion of a corridor, bake GI to the faces and then edit the texture in photoshop to make it seamless, allowing for multiple iterations of that same portion of corridor.
That won't be a problem in my case since i'm only interested in making maps for one player and no other types of models like AI. The gunmodels would probably get weirdly lit, but that's not much of a problem in my case.
My purpose isn't really to make the engine not calculate any light, rather using the 3d software to calculate all the lighting and leave the radiosity program out of it. Worked in previous tests by simply not putting any lights in the level and not run the radiosity program, which I guess is a full lit map.
The reason why I want to use the 3d software rather than any of the radiosity programs available for Hammer is simply to create more accurate lighting.
The reason why I want to use the 3d software rather than any of the radiosity programs available for Hammer is simply to create more accurate lighting.
Hello,
I want to be able to create my maps in a 3d software like Blender or Cinema 4D and bake GI light on to the textures, to then create a .WAD with these textures and then apply them to a identical mesh in Hammer. The problem I'm having is to:
A. Get the mesh from from cinema 4D/Blender over to Hammer
B. Get the UV-map for the combined mesh in the 3d software over to Hammer in order to make it easier to apply my Baked textures. I usually bake the whole map onto one big texture for the whole map and in order for the texture to be applied correctly to the whole map in hammer I would need that same UV-map that I created in the 3d software.
This could open up for some serious lighting work without the engine having to calculate a single light (except maybe some dynamic lighting), how would I go about doing it?
I want to be able to create my maps in a 3d software like Blender or Cinema 4D and bake GI light on to the textures, to then create a .WAD with these textures and then apply them to a identical mesh in Hammer. The problem I'm having is to:
A. Get the mesh from from cinema 4D/Blender over to Hammer
B. Get the UV-map for the combined mesh in the 3d software over to Hammer in order to make it easier to apply my Baked textures. I usually bake the whole map onto one big texture for the whole map and in order for the texture to be applied correctly to the whole map in hammer I would need that same UV-map that I created in the 3d software.
This could open up for some serious lighting work without the engine having to calculate a single light (except maybe some dynamic lighting), how would I go about doing it?