conservation in mapping???

[JeeMonkey]

how important is it

....to clip brushes that extend into the void?

....to make sure u dont texture anything that cant be seen while playing the game?

....to caulk as much as u can?

....to use as few brushes as possible? (or break them up into many tiny brushes to decrease mass)

 

ETC.

 

HOW IMPORTANT IS ALL THIS? IS THERE MORE I SHOULD DO? LESS I SHOULD DO? GIVE ME ALL YOUR THOUGHTS AND LEAVE NOTHING OUT!!!!!

[WadeV1589]

....to clip brushes that extend into the void? - wha?

 

....to make sure u dont texture anything that cant be seen while playing the game? - not essential but when it comes to how light is cast and those vital couple of FPS more, it's important. It's one of those 'you don't have to but really really should' things.

 

....to caulk as much as u can? - same as above...

 

....to use as few brushes as possible? (or break them up into many tiny brushes to decrease mass) - less detail = more fps but looks crappy...erm as for less mass, that is insane, mass is irrelevant, only the number of triangles and they shader they have.

[lassev]

Originally posted by JeeMonkey

how important is it

....to clip brushes that extend into the void?

Why would you even have unnecessary brushes sticking out to the void? If they happen to be detail brushes, it will lead to troubles.

 

Originally posted by JeeMonkey

....to make sure u dont texture anything that cant be seen while playing the game?

....to caulk as much as u can?

When you build new brushes, use caulk. Then texture the visible sides only with the texture/shader you desire. That way you don't have any invisible, textured sides. Also, that ensures maximal caulking. And it also increases the chances of avoiding any unfitted textures.

[mslaf]

how important is it:

 

Important for the compiler and you CPU during compilation time or for the in game renderer?

 

....to caulk as much as u can?

 

it's a pain in the ass during editing and will not bring you ANY benefits in the game. All invisible surfaces are being “removed” during the compilation phase and doesn't matter if they were marked with the “caulk” shader or not. Generally it should be used by the q3map2 compiler during the -light stage but I'm not sure if this is not obsolete today. This could bring you a compilation time speed up and save your CPU:).

 

....to use as few brushes.

 

use the models in the first place. MD3 for movable and ASE for static geometry. Create a "model" in GTK then put in into a caulk hull, apply the “caulk” shader on all surfaces that should be removed and compile with:

q3map2 -meta mapname.map.

Then convert it to the ase format with:

q3map2 -convert -format ase mapname.bsp.

 

That is really important if you want to increase the renderer efficiency - especially for tiny brushes.

 

BTW: Have you seen any maps from Unreal2/UT2K3/UT2K4. 20% are typical quake brushes and the rest are models (static meshes in UT terminology).

[lassev]

Interesting... The model part.

 

But I still support caulk, because I don't know any better alternatives.

[JeeMonkey]

ok thanks that really helps.

on a side not to compiling, i ompiled my map and when i load my map it says

"MAX BRUSH PLAIN"

wtf does that mean and how do i fix it so i can play my map?

[mslaf]

But I still support caulk, because I don't know any better alternatives.

 

Me too, but it's more like a habit that an action that could bring something

[GothiX]

Originally posted by mslaf

All invisible surfaces are being “removed” during the compilation phase and doesn't matter if they were marked with the “caulk” shader or not. Generally it should be used by the q3map2 compiler during the -light stage but I'm not sure if this is not obsolete today. This could bring you a compilation time speed up and save your CPU:).

Bull****. Q3map2 autocaulking is bugged, and doesn't work.

[Druid Bremen]

Originally posted by GothiX

Bull****. Q3map2 autocaulking is bugged, and doesn't work.

 

Yesh.. I tried caulking and not caulking a test map, and I tell you, there WAS a difference.

[WadeV1589]

I wouldn't say it is bugged....just not as efficient as caulking yourself. Sometimes it just misses a surface entirely and that surface could be a mere 2 extra triangles with some extra lightmap data....on a large map that's plenty of extra render data and a larger BSP due to lightmap data.

[mslaf]

Bull****. Q3map2 autocaulking is bugged, and doesn't work.

 

No problem, you're most welcome. I'm just the human and I could be wrong, thanks for pointing it out.

 

If this "buggy" q3map2 cannot handle it correctly then maybe you should report it to Ydnar so he could fix it. I think he will not hurt you.

 

I didn't write that q3map2 is the way to happiness. The compiler should remove "useless" surfaces if it's mathematically possible to find them. It will not remove the surfaces that the mapper doesn't need. I don't think that this tool will be smarter that the mapper. In my opinion it is just more effective to fix the "bug" in one compiler that hundreds surfaces on hundreds brushes on hundreds maps.

[GothiX]

Ydnar knows about it.

[WadeV1589]

In my opinion it is just more effective to fix the "bug" in one compiler that hundreds surfaces on hundreds brushes on hundreds maps.

 

You should never have hundreds of pointlessly textured surfaces because you should map in caulk and texture visible sides only. Q3Map2 shouldn't be able to find one face to caulk manually because you should have done it already.

[lauser]

Good GAWD...just caulk the outside of the map and be done with it. Raven does it this way....you should too. If you WANT...to caulk all of those minute surfaces, especially in a large detailed map....by all means. See you next year....LOL

[Mercenary]

Well said, lauser.

[GothiX]

Personally, I build my maps out of caulk, then use Ctrl+ALt+Shift+Click to select and texture individual visible sides. Works like a charm.

[mslaf]

Unfortunately for my point of view Gothix was right. The surfaces that should be "removed" are still present and visible for the renderer utilizing its GPU (see r_showtris). I haven't noticed any difference in FPS but the r_speeds really shows that number of generated triangles has increased. But; I still think that these should be done and fixed by the compiler and I'm surprised Ydnar didn't fix it.

 

Raven does it this

 

This is not the best sample I'd like to follow. You always must care about optimization. That's why you use hints, areaportals, caulks and nodraws. There's no excuse for all these games that works slow like hell because its author didn't care about it. Just finished "DeuxEx 2" that is quite good example here.

[lassev]

Originally posted by lauser

Good GAWD...just caulk the outside of the map and be done with it. Raven does it this way....you should too.

It seems obvious to me that optimization is not the highest priority in the designs of big software houses. It serves two purposes: It forces the customers to buy new, more powerful systems, which in turn make them want even more new power hungry games. And on the other hand, it may save some time. And every saved hour means less wages paid for the employee to do this particular job.

 

Originally posted by lauser

If you WANT...to caulk all of those minute surfaces, especially in a large detailed map....by all means. See you next year....LOL

Like GothiX said, this statement has no meaning at all, if you are building everything out of caulk in the first place. I couldn't even think of any other way anymore. Just wouldn't work and seem right.

[mslaf]

It seems obvious to me that optimization is not the highest priority in the designs of big software houses. It serves two purposes: It forces the customers to buy new, more powerful systems, which in turn make them want even more new power hungry games. And on the other hand, it may save some time. And every saved hour means less wages paid for the employee to do this particular job.

 

It could be true on the console market but not on the PC. You can't effectively evaluate what impact on hardware sales had each particular game title. The software developers are directly dependent on their consumers. Lot of consumers == profits. If the consumers see that the game will not work on their systems they rather won't buy it than replace the whole hardware. On the other side, on the console market there's only one hardware available and if the game is not optimized it won't work.

[WadeV1589]

If you WANT...to caulk all of those minute surfaces, especially in a large detailed map....by all means. See you next year....LOL

 

Yeah that showed he read my post...!

 

(The one where I said "You should never have hundreds of pointlessly textured surfaces because you should map in caulk and texture visible sides only")

[lassev]

Originally posted by mslaf

It could be true on the console market but not on the PC. You can't effectively evaluate what impact on hardware sales had each particular game title. The software developers are directly dependent on their consumers. Lot of consumers == profits. If the consumers see that the game will not work on their systems they rather won't buy it than replace the whole hardware. On the other side, on the console market there's only one hardware available and if the game is not optimized it won't work.

 

It is indeed an interesting question. But I must strongly disagree with the sentence I have turned into italic in your comment. I would say that is if not the biggest then almost the biggest reason people buy new computers in the first place! Games drive the consumer markets these day. (Man, I should update my own system soon to be able to play KOTOR and X2...)

 

Maybe I'm partly wrong with my first reasoning. It may be purely unwitting that the software developers drive people to update constantly by compromised optimization. However, if I concede that, it will all fall down to the saving of time and money (aka greediness).

[mslaf]

I meant that, they will upgrade their hardware to be able to play multiple games not just one game. Considering hardware costs for most people it will be cheaper to buy a Xbox console to play Doom III than spend three times more to upgrade their PCs.

[WadeV1589]

I have to agree (in part) with one of the main reasons many people (not all) upgrade their PC is to support a game or software. I know people, including myself who have upgraded their PC or sometimes given it a total overhaul just to play one game. A perfect example of this is Deus Ex 2, if you go to the Deus Ex official forums you'll see many many people bought new PC components just to try and get that game to play nicely.

 

If there is a game you really want to play you will nearly always upgrade for it.

[JeeMonkey]

as happy as i am that i was able to start a thread as long as this, i agree with wade,

WHY THE **** DO U HAVE TO COMPLICATE THINGS?

JUST MAKE BRUSHES IN CAULK THEN APPLY TEXTURES LATER AND ONLY ON THE VISIBLE SIDES!!!!!!!!! HOLY **** IS IT SO HARD TO DO THAT WE NEED LIKE 30 MESSEGES TO UNDERSTAND HOW????

[lassev]

Originally posted by JeeMonkey

as happy as i am that i was able to start a thread as long as this, i agree with wade,

WHY THE **** DO U HAVE TO COMPLICATE THINGS?

JUST MAKE BRUSHES IN CAULK THEN APPLY TEXTURES LATER AND ONLY ON THE VISIBLE SIDES!!!!!!!!! HOLY **** IS IT SO HARD TO DO THAT WE NEED LIKE 30 MESSEGES TO UNDERSTAND HOW????

 

Obviously you didn't even read those 30 messages. And as honoured we all are that such an enlightened person as you comes to tell us what is right and what is wrong, you might still want to check what's wrong with your Caps Lock.