Depot
Sep 16 2004, 08:47 PM
After carving my hole and installing the glass, I noticed (in-game only) these cracks in the texture. How do I get rid of them?
Naigel
Sep 16 2004, 08:50 PM
Make sure the vertex points are on the grid.
Pharcae
Sep 16 2004, 08:51 PM
Avoid the carve-tool at all costs.
Olmy
Sep 16 2004, 08:51 PM
Ugh... don't use carve EVER.
samejima
Sep 17 2004, 02:58 AM
hehehe carve = bad same with hallow
Hibame
Sep 17 2004, 03:57 AM
hand make the hole ^_-
Darkns
Sep 17 2004, 06:28 AM
Go to the smallest grid size and vertex manipulate it so all the vertexes are snapped to the grid...
You get those things because your hammer(.rmf) file uses floating point coordinates, while bsp uses fixed(integer) coords...
This makes for improper rounding of coords...and creates these 1 unit differences...
Naigel
Sep 17 2004, 06:35 AM
| QUOTE (Darkns @ Sep 17 2004, 08:28 AM) |
Go to the smallest grid size and vertex manipulate it so all the vertexes are snapped to the grid... You get those things because your hammer(.rmf) file uses floating point coordinates, while bsp uses fixed(integer) coords... This makes for improper rounding of coords...and creates these 1 unit differences... |
That's what I meant
Wolv
Sep 17 2004, 07:10 AM
| QUOTE |
You get those things because your hammer(.rmf) file uses floating point coordinates, while bsp uses fixed(integer) coords... This makes for improper rounding of coords...and creates these 1 unit differences... |
Actually it's the other way around, but the solution is still the same. Hammer can't properly export .map files with floating point coordinates and therefore has to round vertices to the nearest on-grid value.
QuArK on the other hand does fully support floating point coordinates internally and if abovementioned carve operation would've been done in QuArK, it would've produced a perfect fit.
The compile tools will happily accept floating point coordinates and write a good .bsp file with them (ZHLT, not the default Q* tools).
Kester
Sep 17 2004, 11:45 AM
| QUOTE (Olmy @ Sep 16 2004, 09:51 PM) |
| Ugh... don't use carve EVER. |
y does everyone say this, the carve tool is a fine tool to use, aslong as u clean it up afterwards, to get ur circular cut, carve it by all means, but then take a few mins to clean it up.
Wolv
Sep 17 2004, 04:02 PM
Thing is, it's easier to just create it right the first time then to fix the mess up that carve creates. It'll also give you a better idea of the mess you're creating.
Also, your example is far from optimal. Remember polygons work in triangles, so a polygon with 4 sides, as you used, requires 2 triangles each.
Attached are two better versions.
The first is what QuArK automatically generates after a carve operation, and although already nearly optimal is not suitable for Hammer users, since it requires floating point coordinates. Also, seen from the sides there are a few unnecesery polygons.
The right example uses the fewest polygons and doesn't have off-grid vertices, making it a legal structute for Hammer users. It has got 16 instead of 28 visible triangles from the front. Also from the sides it gives better performance.
Lt_Gravity
Sep 17 2004, 06:39 PM
one smart advice:
NEVER EVER CARVE!
create your brushes with the vertex manipultaion tool, that might seem a waste of time at first, but you will soon see the advantage of having 100% control of where brushes fit together.
Lt. Gravity
Kester
Sep 18 2004, 12:35 AM
| QUOTE (Wolv @ Sep 17 2004, 05:02 PM) |
Thing is, it's easier to just create it right the first time then to fix the mess up that carve creates. It'll also give you a better idea of the mess you're creating. Also, your example is far from optimal. Remember polygons work in triangles, so a polygon with 4 sides, as you used, requires 2 triangles each.
Attached are two better versions. The first is what QuArK automatically generates after a carve operation, and although already nearly optimal is not suitable for Hammer users, since it requires floating point coordinates. Also, seen from the sides there are a few unnecesery polygons. The right example uses the fewest polygons and doesn't have off-grid vertices, making it a legal structute for Hammer users. It has got 16 instead of 28 visible triangles from the front. Also from the sides it gives better performance. |
it will affect ur planes more than the one i showed tho
anyhoo this arguement cud go on all day use whatever fits the situation better
BulletHead
Sep 18 2004, 02:07 AM
Use Pentagons or Hexagons and Decagons intstead of circles
>_>
<_<
What? It works!
Depot
Sep 19 2004, 01:29 PM
I am trying to master vertex manipulation but when you're old it's tough to teach an old dog new tricks.
If any qualified mappers are interested in teaching a class on this view
this topic.
Drek
Sep 23 2004, 11:21 PM
I hear ya kwik, I'm on the lower end of middle age myself and I'm building my first map. Quite the learning curve it is.
Off topic a bit, but is Quark better than Hammer because of the floating point? Or is it a matter of Quark doing some things better, while Hammer does other things better?
Kester
Sep 24 2004, 01:01 AM
i think its just a matter of preference, unless ur a QuArK user, then you'll say its because QuArK is better =]
Invader_Scoot
Sep 24 2004, 01:05 AM
QuArK is old and outdated, barely anyone uses it. Stay with Hammer, it'll also be used in HL2 so that way you don't have to learn anything entirely new.
The_Real_Nem
Sep 24 2004, 01:08 AM
The real answer is you use
HLFix when compiling your map to convert your .rmf file to a .map file. HLFix will create a .map file that uses floating point numbers unlike Hammer's export feature.
Nem
Caboose
Sep 24 2004, 02:38 AM
| QUOTE (Invader Scoot @ Sep 23 2004, 07:05 PM) |
| QuArK is old and outdated, barely anyone uses it. Stay with Hammer, it'll also be used in HL2 so that way you don't have to learn anything entirely new. |
Quark is not old and outdated, WC is simplistic, Quark and my prefered editor (GtkRadiant) have more advanced features and both are better than hammer.
Radiant uses floating points too.
Kester
Sep 24 2004, 12:08 PM
| QUOTE (Caboose @ Sep 24 2004, 03:38 AM) |
| QUOTE (Invader Scoot @ Sep 23 2004, 07:05 PM) | | QuArK is old and outdated, barely anyone uses it. Stay with Hammer, it'll also be used in HL2 so that way you don't have to learn anything entirely new. |
Quark is not old and outdated, WC is simplistic, Quark and my prefered editor (GtkRadiant) have more advanced features and both are better than hammer.
Radiant uses floating points too.
|
i rest my case =]
BlackPlague
Sep 24 2004, 12:19 PM
carving tool = waste of your time. dont use it. PERIOD.
GiGaBiTe
Sep 24 2004, 07:15 PM
if you want to make hollow circles and such, use the arch tool, works 99% of the time without those lame gaps.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.