Map Optimization Question Created 1 week ago2024-07-08 11:01:19 UTC by HyNo HyNo

Created 1 week ago2024-07-08 11:01:19 UTC by HyNo HyNo

Posted 1 week ago2024-07-08 11:01:19 UTC Post #348962
Filled in with 1 brushFilled in with 1 brush
Hollowed out and separated with 2 brushesHollowed out and separated with 2 brushes
My question is if there is an upside or downside to using one method instead of another and which one is better.
Posted 1 week ago2024-07-08 11:34:16 UTC Post #348963
In terms of the RAD compile, the NULL faces would not be rendered in either case. These would appear identical in game. The downside to the hollowed out brush is an increase in clip nodes. It is no longer a single solid face, but rather a hollow box with five internal solid faces. A friend pointed out to me that it would also be far more time consuming to be hollowing out unseen faces like this.

I'm not sure why you'd ever want or need to do that.
monster_urby monster_urbyGoldsourcerer
Posted 1 week ago2024-07-08 11:46:52 UTC Post #348964
Be more specific.
Posted 1 week ago2024-07-08 12:28:02 UTC Post #348965
There's no reason for hollowing out solid brushes for "performance" reasons.
If the hollow volume is big enough, it'll even produce more clipnodes as Urby says, just wasting away the clipnode budget for no good reason.

If those brushes are world brushes, it's even less reason to do so as any outside and unseen faces will be stripped out by the compilers automatically anyway.

Manually NULLing faces is an optimisation step you only should do if you need to. Otherwise you're just wasting time that could have gone to actually building the map.
You must be logged in to post a response.