DISorder Posted December 2, 2002 Posted December 2, 2002 Hey guys, I was hoping someone could help me out on something. When I try to match up brushes' textures to textures on a curve, they look...well weird, and quite obvious that they're different objects and thus very...un-pretty. Here is an example: http://www27.brinkster.com/morphius2661/index.htm The last picture with the arches, it is VERY obvious that those are different brushes/curves. Can ANYONE tell me how to fix this, as I said earlier, it's very ugly and I'd like to be able to fix it and make it all look like one object. Thanks, DISorder
Leslie Judge Posted December 2, 2002 Posted December 2, 2002 Try these and see what you get: Select only the CAPs without the curves and press S and click on CAP. On the curves: select only the curves, press S and click on Natural.
DISorder Posted December 2, 2002 Author Posted December 2, 2002 I dont think you quite understand, I can get the textures on the curves to look right, its just the textures on the surounding brushese dont look right, like their lighting is off, even in gtkradiant, here is a screenshot from inside radiant. http://www27.brinkster.com/morphius2661/index.html (Brinkster wont let me link you directly to the image) Thanks
DISorder Posted December 2, 2002 Author Posted December 2, 2002 here's another question before i have to goto school... why since i updated to gtk ver. 11 (forgot the first few numbers) and i try to group things, IT WONT SELECT THE GROUPED ITEMS but yes it will say its a func_group, BAH, lol, anyways sorry for my outburst, im in a hurry, anyone know how to fix this?! Thanks
Leslie Judge Posted December 2, 2002 Posted December 2, 2002 Aha, OK. In this case I have one idea only. In the editor it is OK they are different. But after compile... I saw this when I compiled my map with no -patchshadows in the light phase. The patches were more brighter than the other brushes. If I use -patchshadows then it's OK, they are looking the same.
DISorder Posted December 3, 2002 Author Posted December 3, 2002 Hmm I dunno how to do what you're talking about, I just do the auto compile process inside radiant... Thanks, DISorder
Wes Marrakesh Posted December 3, 2002 Posted December 3, 2002 Well the textures will always be different on patch than on brush, because the patch has all the vertex work that distorts the texture. The lighting? That's just the game, I think. I've seen brushes next to each other, same size + texture, different lighting.
The Truthful Liar Posted December 3, 2002 Posted December 3, 2002 Have you tried hitting Shift+N or Shift+Ctrl+N? That toggles through different texture allignments on a selected patch mesh.
Leslie Judge Posted December 3, 2002 Posted December 3, 2002 Oh, and one more thing. Yesterday I compiled a map for MP. In MP the lighting was worse than SP, so I encountered the same problem with patches. In SP it is better.
The Truthful Liar Posted December 3, 2002 Posted December 3, 2002 Originally posted by Leslie Judge Oh, and one more thing. Yesterday I compiled a map for MP. In MP the lighting was worse than SP, so I encountered the same problem with patches. In SP it is better. That's because the engine handles SP and MP lighting differently.
The Truthful Liar Posted December 3, 2002 Posted December 3, 2002 Originally posted by AB_Legion Have you tried hitting Shift+N or Shift+Ctrl+N? That toggles through different texture allignments on a selected patch mesh.
DISorder Posted December 3, 2002 Author Posted December 3, 2002 yes I have tried that, its not the textures that dont line up right, the lighting doesnt look right, like the lighting is different on all of the different brushes. See the second picture... http://www27.brinkster.com/morphius2661/problem.htm Could it be because im not doing the BSPFullVis (extra)? Thanks for all your responses
Wes Marrakesh Posted December 4, 2002 Posted December 4, 2002 I told you. Caps + patch meshes that have been vertex edited will NEVER have the same lighting as standard brushes. It's something about the engine doing lighting different on adjacent triangles/faces.
DISorder Posted December 4, 2002 Author Posted December 4, 2002 ah, sorry, overlooked/forgot (I probably read it in the morning and wasnt quite awake )
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.