Hammer 3 Path Tool Created 16 years ago2008-10-11 07:43:49 UTC by Penguinboy

Okay, since I'm not going to bother with extensive tests, I'll just ask you guys. I'm doing some research on the RMF format and Hammer 3 in general, and I've come across what seems to be a problem with the path tool.

I've come to the following conclusions:

• One-way path works as it should,
• Circular path acts like a one-way path, and
• Ping-pong path only pings once, and never pongs (i.e. it goes there and back once, and then stops).

I'd like to ask you Goldsource chaps a few questions about these conclusions. Primarily:

1. Is the path tool in Hammer 3 broken?
2. Is it broken in the manner described? If not, what is the broken behaviour?
3. (If yes to #1) Would anyone be interested in a tool that would allow the Path Tool to work as it should?

Remember that I have not tested this in-game, so I cannot guarantee these conclusions. But, I asked in IRC and I was informed that "The Path Tool has always been broken", but I never got the details of how it is broken, which is why I'm asking here.

The Path Tool seems like a very easy way to quickly set up connected series of path_tracks and path_corners. It's not present in Hammer 4, because I think that it does a similar thing automatically.

If you want to test it out, select the tool (right under the vertex manip tool button, or you can press shift+P). Hold shift and click-drag in a 2D view. When you let go of click, you can name it and choose what mode of track you want. Then you can ctrl-drag a point to add new points to the path.

Any knowledge of people's experience with this tool, or tests on its behaviour in the compiled game would be very helpful. Thanks.

ive never used or even tried to use the path tool. sad

I'm using this tool in my 2nd campaign map for sven coop . I only used one-way option .

There was a strange behavior at ping-pong or circular , I don't know . When the train arrived at the end of the path , it rotated and continued to go until it hit the first path-point and then stopped .

That's all I know about it ...

lol rotated? wtf

Does anyone have some clear information on the Path Tool, or am I trying to draw blood from a stone?

I was always told (tutorials and elsewhere) that the path tool has never worked.

So, because of lack of interest in the path tool, should I just keep my program that makes it work to myself? It doesn't look like anyone would use it anyway, because nobody uses the path tool. :/

I say put it out there. Should it function correctly it could change my attitude towards that neglected little button.

Well, okay, but I need to know if it's broken in the manner described, or some different way.

Come on penguinboy, tell us!

All your secrets are belong to us!

Well, I'm just wondering if it's worth it...
Because of the way Hammer works, there are a few ways to do this, but none are as easy as I'd like. RMF doesn't store WAD files used, because it relies on Hammer game profiles to do that. So there are a few options:

1. Convert RMF into MAP (with proper paths), and then load in Hammer and complie it. When you're done, you switch back to the RMF. Repeat every time you want to compile. (or you could just keep using the MAP, but you'd lose all your groups, etc)
Disadvantages: Annoying.
Advantages: Hammer automatically sets up the textures.

2. Convert RMF into MAP, using a GUI to add the WADs used in the map before converting. Then compile it with a batch compiler.
Disadvantages: You have to tell the converter what WADs you are using every time you want to compile.
Advantages: Removes all dependency on Hammer.

3. Convert RMF to MAP, open map in notepad, paste in WADs you are using. Then save and compile in a batch compiler.
Disadvantages: Adds an extra step (notepad)
Advantages: If you have the WAD lines saved somewhere, it's usually pretty quick.

4. Set up an internal WAD profile system (similar to Hammer) for my RMF-to-MAP converter. When you want to convert a map, you select which profile to use, and this adds the WADs required. Then you use a batch compiler.
Disadvantages: Will take a bit longer to code, messy setup, if you change Hammer profile, you need to change converter profile too.
Advantages: Once set up, it would be quicker and easier to convert.

5. Make my program read the profiles from Hammer settings, and you select which one to use, like you would if you were opening a map in Hammer. Then use batch compiler.
Disadvantages: Will take longer to code, as I'd need to write a parser for the Hammer settings file.
Advantages: The best option out of the five.

I could:
Release a tool that lets you do method 1 or 3 pretty soon. Then, later, I could update it to use method 5.

OR

Not release anything, for now, and release the feature along with a larger toolset which will make all 5 methods useless anyway.

Sorry for the long post. My question is this:
Would people bother with doing one of the above methods so that you could use the path tool?

EDIT: Just so you know, I have the converter working perfectly. I did some tests in Hammer, and the path tool is indeed broken in the way that I said in the first post. I have managed to fix that.

Not release anything, for now, and release the feature along with a larger toolset which will make all 5 methods useless anyway.

That. Definately do that.

why dont you make a new hammer?

That doesn't really sound like a very realistic option

Yeah , make a hammer with real-time lighting . And I use the path-tool . It works for me ...

That doesn't really sound like a very realistic option

Just like 3D previewing for Twister, I bet if we annoy you with questions about when your brand new Hammer is coming out, you'll just make one eventually.

pfft, in this case, nothing will convince me to change my mind