[Stiffy360]

As in vvis wise. It would be fine as a func_detail

[Drumdevil]

Model

[Stiffy360]

Drumdevil posted:

Model

what? its a brush/ brushes. Im just wondering if I should func_detail it because of areaportals.

[Grenade Man]

There are way better and cleaner ways to make this out of brushes.

[Ereunity]

Grenade Man posted:

There are way better and cleaner ways to make this out of brushes.

Such as this:



(Drew correct shapes in blue)

[Drumdevil]

Stiffy360 posted:

what? its a brush/ brushes. Im just wondering if I should func_detail it because of areaportals.

Sorry, I mean that it would be better if it's a model.

[Ereunity]

Drumdevil posted:

Sorry, I mean that it would be better if it's a model.

Models are lit per vertex. Models should be used sparingly when replacing brushwork and only in suitible locations.

Since he has provided no information regarding the location of this curve, and is obviously somewhat new to mapping, such advice would be better withheld until a later date.

[Stiffy360]

ViralHatred posted:

Such as this:



(Drew correct shapes in blue)

I was mostly asking about vvis issues such as area portals. This way is better for what im doing cause I can make curves on nearly any ratio of brush size. and besides, its still rendering the same faces.

[ShadowDeath]

Stiffy360 posted:

I was mostly asking about vvis issues such as area portals. This way is better for what im doing cause I can make curves on nearly any ratio of brush size. and besides, its still rendering the same faces.

Well personally I don't see it as much more than personal preference. I find the method ViralHatred posted to be editable more easily and would prefer to do it that way. I am not sure if vvis will care too much, though.

[Stiffy360]

ShadowDeath posted:

Well personally I don't see it as much more than personal preference. I find the method ViralHatred posted to be editable more easily and would prefer to do it that way. I am not sure if vvis will care too much, though.

okay cool. (I still don't see why there would be any hatred for this curve though.

[eichhornch]

Stiffy360 posted:

okay cool. (I still don't see why there would be any hatred for this curve though.

There is only one face touching the ground instead of 8 which means less t-junctions. And you should turn it into a func_detail.

[Stiffy360]

eichhornch posted:

There is only one face touching the ground instead of 8 which means less t-junctions. And you should turn it into a func_detail.

Makes sense.

[Ereunity]

ShadowDeath posted:

Well personally I don't see it as much more than personal preference. I find the method ViralHatred posted to be editable more easily and would prefer to do it that way. I am not sure if vvis will care too much, though.

eichhornch posted:

There is only one face touching the ground instead of 8 which means less t-junctions. And you should turn it into a func_detail.

^ Correct.

Vvis will render triangular shapes far more efficiently than tetragonal or more vertex shapes. If you make it have more than 3 vertexes vvis will break it down into two separate triangular shapes, creating more work for the compiler.

It's quicker and more efficient.

I'm going to guess and assume you made that curve using a carve?

Really if you're func_detailing it, it doesn't matter since it will be ignored by vvis during compile. However if it isn't sealed behind it or is meant to block a players LOS (Line of Sight) it'll create leaks and/or performance issues.

Also considering I don't make maps often I sure do know a hell of a lot about performance issues

Beta tester for life.

[Stiffy360]

ViralHatred posted:

^ Correct.

Vvis will render triangular shapes far more efficiently than tetragonal or more vertex shapes. If you make it have more than 3 vertexes vvis will break it down into two separate triangular shapes, creating more work for the compiler.

It's quicker and more efficient.

I'm going to guess and assume you made that curve using a carve?

Really if you're func_detailing it, it doesn't matter since it will be ignored by vvis during compile. However if it isn't sealed behind it or is meant to block a players LOS (Line of Sight) it'll create leaks and/or performance issues.

Also considering I don't make maps often I sure do know a hell of a lot about performance issues

Beta tester for life.

No carving actually. I made it using good ol' clipping tool. Also one last thing. Will I still have that T-Junction issue if I func_detail?

[Ereunity]

No because func_detail is ignored by vvis.

It'll still increase compile times for vbsp and vrad though.

[oskutin]

That curve doesn't need to be func detailed.

[ShadowDeath]

ViralHatred posted:

^ Correct.

Vvis will render triangular shapes far more efficiently than tetragonal or more vertex shapes. If you make it have more than 3 vertexes vvis will break it down into two separate triangular shapes, creating more work for the compiler.

It's quicker and more efficient.

I'm going to guess and assume you made that curve using a carve?

Really if you're func_detailing it, it doesn't matter since it will be ignored by vvis during compile. However if it isn't sealed behind it or is meant to block a players LOS (Line of Sight) it'll create leaks and/or performance issues.

Also considering I don't make maps often I sure do know a hell of a lot about performance issues

Beta tester for life.

Ah that's very neat and good to know. I will probably never need it though, since I func_detail almost anything round and not box shaped. That's why I only see it as a matter of personal preference.

[Stiffy360]

ShadowDeath posted:

Ah that's very neat and good to know. I will probably never need it though, since I func_detail almost anything round and not box shaped. That's why I only see it as a matter of personal preference.

Concave surfaces are fine when making area portals. Convex objects screw them up.

[[yournamehere]]

Is the original design on grid?