Thanks.
Merging brushs increase r_speeds?
Created 17 years ago2007-11-13 23:23:06 UTC by
St!cK3r
Created 17 years ago2007-11-13 23:23:06 UTC by
St!cK3r
Posted 17 years ago2007-11-13 23:23:06 UTC
Post #238415
Hi, just a quick question, will merging 2 completely non-identical, "sets" of brushs increase r_speeds. I have 2 sides of a cliff, and I made them flow nicely into each other however I just want to make sure before I carve the crap out of them that its worth it.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Posted 17 years ago2007-11-13 23:32:07 UTC
Post #238418
What do you mean by 'merging'? If you mean 'grouping' then no, it won't change the r_speeds at all. Grouping is a Hammer specific thing: it has absolutely nothing to do with the compiled BSP.
Posted 17 years ago2007-11-13 23:36:26 UTC
Post #238420
No I mean like putting one of them "inside" the other, they're both going to be grouped though.
Posted 17 years ago2007-11-13 23:38:02 UTC
Post #238421
Never carve. Ever. That is all.
If you have to leave some brushes intersecting, that might be okay. You don't carve it out though, that'll mess everything up.
If you have to leave some brushes intersecting, that might be okay. You don't carve it out though, that'll mess everything up.
Posted 17 years ago2007-11-13 23:39:54 UTC
Post #238422
Ok thanks.
Posted 17 years ago2007-11-13 23:40:44 UTC
Post #238423
Oh no no no! That will make r_speeds worse.
The HL engine won't cull brushes even if they're mashed up inside each other. At the point where the brushes intersect, the engine will start cutting up the faces horribly to try and render it correctly.
Never, ever EVER intersect brushes in anyway!
The HL engine won't cull brushes even if they're mashed up inside each other. At the point where the brushes intersect, the engine will start cutting up the faces horribly to try and render it correctly.
Never, ever EVER intersect brushes in anyway!
Posted 17 years ago2007-11-13 23:40:54 UTC
Post #238424
And yes, it will probably increase r_speeds slightly. Just so you know.
But Ant, that's not true really. I do it all the time with few side effects, you just have to be careful. The only alternative in some situations would be to carve, and that'd be worse.
But Ant, that's not true really. I do it all the time with few side effects, you just have to be careful. The only alternative in some situations would be to carve, and that'd be worse.
Posted 17 years ago2007-11-13 23:46:05 UTC
Post #238427
It's really not good practice to do it at all. You can achieve the same result without intersecting brushes: its more efficient.
Posted 17 years ago2007-11-13 23:53:29 UTC
Post #238428
Both sides of the cliffs are very "un-cemetrical" (spelling?) and have various brushs/sizes. Carving it doesn't seem to come out that bad. I'll run with it carved first and if its kinda bad, ill just see whats its like merging them 
Posted 17 years ago2007-11-13 23:55:37 UTC
Post #238429
sigh. don't EVER carve. EVER. EVER EVER EVER. get it?
Posted 17 years ago2007-11-14 00:03:26 UTC
Post #238430
I think what you might need is to look for some good cliff making tutorials. You should be able to make cliffs out your ass without having to have huge intersecting brushes. And don't carve, btw.
Posted 17 years ago2007-11-14 00:05:27 UTC
Post #238431
I know the tutorial but it's a little complicated for me, plus the one I have is coming out ok (i think), and i can clip some of the excess stuff so barely anything is merging.
Posted 17 years ago2007-11-14 00:08:48 UTC
Post #238432
If you want, make a smaller section of cliff and turn it into a func_wall and have both cliffs merge into it. Remember, func_walls don't cut up brushes. One way of making realistic, jagged cliffs is to make them actually very smooth and bland, but then makea func_wall rocks of various heights and sizes and stick them in there. I believe that's how the old Militia cliffs were done.
Posted 17 years ago2007-11-14 00:14:38 UTC
Post #238433
sweet! thanks!
Posted 17 years ago2007-11-14 00:23:36 UTC
Post #238434
Yes, that's a very good way of doing them. The brushes behind them should be constructed as simply as possible: giant cubes work best.
If you're just gonna clip excess junk, you're going to have seam problems, and all your brushwork is going to be off the grid.
If you're just gonna clip excess junk, you're going to have seam problems, and all your brushwork is going to be off the grid.
Posted 17 years ago2007-11-14 00:24:01 UTC
Post #238435
If you tie the 2 cliff sections to make a func_wall so than you end up with 2 func walls, than make them intersect, that is fine. Another good idea is to place a clip brush behind the cliffs, this wont reduce the r_speeds but if the cliffs are complex, it will reduce clip nodes.
Posted 17 years ago2007-11-14 00:43:30 UTC
Post #238436
Actually, only one of them would need to be a func_wall for the brushes to not split, aaron. But it's not necessarily desirable for it to be a func_wall.
But carving is pointless. There is absolutely no need for it here. you'd get better results just leaving the brushes intersecting than carving anything. Yeah, yeah, precision mapping and all that. I've come to have little respect for it when it comes to terrain. If the end product is desirable, I really don't care how sloppy the RMF is. One intersected brush is not going to kill you.
But carving is pointless. There is absolutely no need for it here. you'd get better results just leaving the brushes intersecting than carving anything. Yeah, yeah, precision mapping and all that. I've come to have little respect for it when it comes to terrain. If the end product is desirable, I really don't care how sloppy the RMF is. One intersected brush is not going to kill you.
Posted 17 years ago2007-11-14 05:59:35 UTC
Post #238445
IMO, cliffs and other complex geometry should always be tied to some entity. It saves on compile time, wont cause glitchy lighting and shadows and in most cases, will save r_speeds.
Posted 17 years ago2007-11-14 07:01:09 UTC
Post #238447
One little question about this. Is good to put a complex solid (like cilynders) touching the floor?, not in intersection, just touching. Or should It be 1 unit difference between the solids?
Posted 17 years ago2007-11-14 07:02:53 UTC
Post #238448
1 unit difference if you can. it's not going to be too big a deal as far as performance goes, but it will make ugly little black lines. Try it and see what I mean. With that situation it would be more of a graphical thing.
Posted 17 years ago2007-11-14 09:10:46 UTC
Post #238449
Making it touch the floor will cause the engine to split the face that the cylinder is on, causing the render time to increase. Make the cylinder a func_wall and it won't have an effect on it at all.
Posted 17 years ago2007-11-14 09:15:40 UTC
Post #238450
I want this solid to have a shadow so I can't make a func_wall.
Posted 17 years ago2007-11-14 09:32:04 UTC
Post #238451
then raise it 1 unit
Posted 17 years ago2007-11-14 11:58:22 UTC
Post #238455
i carve all the time...
DON'T THROW EMPTY SOUP CANS AT ME!
I always square or rectangular blocks into whatever, or use the clip tool to cut a square away. Like adding a door or hall port into a cliff. It is necessary, if it wasn't it would not be a feature of the editor.
DON'T THROW EMPTY SOUP CANS AT ME!
I always square or rectangular blocks into whatever, or use the clip tool to cut a square away. Like adding a door or hall port into a cliff. It is necessary, if it wasn't it would not be a feature of the editor.
Posted 17 years ago2007-11-14 13:30:46 UTC
Post #238459
I never carve, I use cliping tool all the time to make the same things as carve does, that's my fav tool 
Posted 17 years ago2007-11-14 13:47:01 UTC
Post #238461
Intersecting brushes will only have an impact in the compile process. The extra bits are discarded during the BSP procedure and will not affect r_speeds at all. I've made several test maps in the past to be sure of that.
Leaving 1 unit between a brush and the floor is one of the worst things you can do. By doing so, you're creating an extra little vis-leaf which the compiler tools and the engine will have to keep track of. That small leaf will make a rather simple VIS turn into absolute madness if we're talking, for example, about a bunch of pillars that don't touch floor or ceiling.
Leaving 1 unit between a brush and the floor is one of the worst things you can do. By doing so, you're creating an extra little vis-leaf which the compiler tools and the engine will have to keep track of. That small leaf will make a rather simple VIS turn into absolute madness if we're talking, for example, about a bunch of pillars that don't touch floor or ceiling.
Posted 17 years ago2007-11-14 14:10:19 UTC
Post #238462
IMO, cliffs and other complex geometry should always be tied to some entity. It saves on compile time, wont cause glitchy lighting and shadows and in most cases, will save r_speeds.That's extremely bad advice.
Posted 17 years ago2007-11-14 15:58:33 UTC
Post #238473
Kasperg, I've seen lots of tutorials saying that the 1 unit method is the best thing to reduce r_speeds. Actually it is done on lots of maps including official ones like de_aztec stairs to the river.
So what I should do?
So what I should do?
Posted 17 years ago2007-11-14 16:28:36 UTC
Post #238475
Use it in areas that are not complicated in terms of VIS. I've made a little test map and it does reduce r_speeds. Just be careful with those little portals.
Posted 17 years ago2007-11-14 19:09:19 UTC
Post #238487
If you raise it one unit of the floor, than make sure you use the null texture on the underside of the cylinder 
Posted 17 years ago2007-11-14 20:25:46 UTC
Post #238495
My favorite tool is the VM tool. It can do everything clip can, and faster.
You must be logged in to post a response.