Curve walls or Brushes

[highlanderstl]

I'm currently using curves in my map. Should I keep them or replace them with solid brushes?

One con for curves is that the Curves lets light go through them.

What are the pros and cons?

[roughrider]

Keep your curve walls, just don't over do it. And if you aren't doing it yet, make sure you have caulk behind the curved walls for vis and such. Mix it up with curve and brush, adds flavor and look to the map.

[obsidian]

-patchshadows, FTW!

[Hipshot]

There are no cons with curves - if you use them wisely, probably should not make "normal" walls with them...

[highlanderstl]

Well, my main issue is that I'm using some curves that ppl can see from both sides. Therefore, I have 2 curves (outer and inner ) for each "curve".

I have lights on one side of the curve and the lights are bleeding through the curve to the other side.

So I'm thinking on these interior curves, I will replace with solid brushes. That way light doesn't bleed through and help with vis.

And for Exterior curves, I will keep.

[Hr.O]

Usualy I shuvv a few thin brushes between the two curves.

[highlanderstl]

Usualy I shuvv a few thin brushes between the two curves.

True, I did that as well, but then why not just drop the curves and make the brushes larger?

What I like doing now is:
1) make the curves to give the result I like
2) then go back and insert brushes to fill in that exact area
3) then remove the curves.

That way I don't have to worry about light getting through, less items in the map, and just looks cleaner. Specially when you use a curve and I need to cap off the edges (top, bottom, 2-sides) with brushes anyway.

I found that when I do precise placement of the brushes along the curve, the gtk always seems to shift the brushes to fit on a .5 or 1 grid; therefore, causing gap between the curve&brush and/or the brush sticks out and block the players.

[roughrider]

Well as Hr.O mentioned, putting a smaller brush in between them works wonders and would save all the extra work of making a curve brush then making a "normal" brush and putting it in the same place. Curves (patches) look better than reg brushes and if you make the wall in between a little thicker, it should eliminate that problem.
Looking at your screeny again, I see what you have there. If you have your patch ( curve) and solid brush in the same exact spot, that will cause you issues with tris, iirc. Let alone all the cuts you have made on brushes to make it look like a curve, adding to the tris count.

[highlanderstl]

Well as Hr.O mentioned, putting a smaller brush in between them works wonders and would save all the extra work of making a curve brush then making a "normal" brush and putting it in the same place. Curves (patches) look better than reg brushes and if you make the wall in between a little thicker, it should eliminate that problem.
Looking at your screeny again, I see what you have there. If you have your patch ( curve) and solid brush in the same exact spot, that will cause you issues with tris, iirc. Let alone all the cuts you have made on brushes to make it look like a curve, adding to the tris count.

Ok, I'm fine with putting thin brushes between the curves, but what about the the brushes that is needed for the "toppers". If you look in the pic. I have row of brushes at the top if the curves to top them off. The problem with these brushes&curves is that gtk seems to move my "toppers" vertexes around to the nears 1 grid; therefore, not following the exact curvature of the curves and then it makes these small gaps and overhanges over the curves.

How do I fix that?

[ix-ir]

There are no cons with curves - if you use them wisely, probably should not make "normal" walls with them...

If wisely is purely as decoration or perhaps as concave surfaces then yes. Curves are not suitable for interactive architecture, especially not things players will be firing around. The collision map doesn't match the visuals for all curves with any single r_subdiv setting.

[roughrider]

How are you doing the caps on your patches? Also, in that screeny you have there, you are talking about the patch ( curve ) in the foreground and not the one further back, correct?

Have you ever used Thicken Patch?
I have a couple suggestions for you that may help you out in some of your situations. In that screeny, the foreground patch, I would put the bevel in the spot you wanted it than thicken it ( ctrl + t ). I would say that is an 8, so when the "Thicken Patch" box comes up, I would leave the Amount at 8 and leave the Seams checked and leave the Result to func_group checked. If you dont like the size after creation, you can easily remove that and do it again and raise or lower the Amount number until you get to the desired width/thickness. When you finish with the thicken, the ends that wont be visible to the eye, remove the caps that were placed there during the thicken move.
Toy with thicken patch some and see what you can do with patches. It is by no means a cure-all but works pretty good generally speaking.

[obsidian]

Patch curve benefits:
* Adaptive level of detail
* Smooth lighting
* Work on larger grid scale (you do NOT want to work with Radiant on tiny scales)

For what you want to do, just use patches. Sounds like you just haven't mastered them yet, but keep at it and you'll find that patches are 1337.

The only thing you can't do easily is cut a hole in the middle of a curved surface. You would have to resort to using models, multiple patches, or brushes if you're in a pinch.

[Fjoggs]

Remember to weapon clip them for proper projectile collison, like ixir said.

[highlanderstl]

ok, well I'm new to using curves that's obvious. I guess I need to read up some more on "patches"

[highlanderstl]

How are you doing the caps on your patches? Also, in that screeny you have there, you are talking about the patch ( curve ) in the foreground and not the one further back, correct?

Have you ever used Thicken Patch?
I have a couple suggestions for you that may help you out in some of your situations. In that screeny, the foreground patch, I would put the bevel in the spot you wanted it than thicken it ( ctrl + t ). I would say that is an 8, so when the "Thicken Patch" box comes up, I would leave the Amount at 8 and leave the Seams checked and leave the Result to func_group checked. If you dont like the size after creation, you can easily remove that and do it again and raise or lower the Amount number until you get to the desired width/thickness. When you finish with the thicken, the ends that wont be visible to the eye, remove the caps that were placed there during the thicken move.
Toy with thicken patch some and see what you can do with patches. It is by no means a cure-all but works pretty good generally speaking.

I press ctrl + t and nothing happens. I'm using gtk 1.5 if that matters. I'm not seeing "thinken patch" anywhere.

OK, HERE IS THE ANSWER http://www.map-center.com/forums/viewto ... e779a19ecf

geez why take away a feature like that in 1.5. Sigh, I wonder if I'm going to have issues moving my 1.5 map in 1.4

[Fjoggs]

Thicken patch doesnt exist in 1.5, becuase it's evile!

[Hr.O]

Thicken could cause nasty errors similair to capping a cone. Anyways mangling patches isn't that hard, just keep your vertexes on grid (ctrl-g) and make sure that when two patches meet their vertex points line-up.

[highlanderstl]

Yeah, I just saw I could lock the curves into a grid size, so I should be able to mix the brushes with the patches without a problem. That was my problem was that I could not move and points on the curve to fall on the grid, so my brushes would like up exactly right.

So, my main problem over this entire deal is not knowing (ctrl + g), lol.

[seremtan]

plan your map with vis in mind but don't get too obsessed with shaving off a few tris here and there. it's a 7 year old game for GF2 and all the cool kids these days have 8800s so i think the world can handle it

(i assume you're mapping for Q3...)

[ix-ir]

all the cool kids these days have 8800s

Which ironically can't maintain a stable 125 FPS in Quake 3 for many people, go Nvidia drivers! I'm not disagreeing with your meaning, just pointing and laughing at Nvidia.

[seremtan]

eh?

my old AGP 7600GS could do that. or just set the max fps at 90. that works too

[Hipshot]

The 8x series currently doesn't work that good with Q3 unless you turn of the threading in the driver or uses a launcher application for Q3. It's nVs drivers in combo with the 8x series. The 7-series doesn't have this problem at all, not even with the same drivers.

[roughrider]

Thicken could cause nasty errors similair to capping a cone. Anyways mangling patches isn't that hard, just keep your vertexes on grid (ctrl-g) and make sure that when two patches meet their vertex points line-up.

Very good point about the grid Hr.O, he seems to be getting some knowledge from the old timers. Of course, not all old timers remember very well. Where am I now? Oh yeah

Anyway.
I haven't had any issues with thicken, but I know that doesnt speak for everyone that has used it.
In particular situations where you have a patch, for example, being a surrounding ledge on a platform, I have used thicken which worked better than trying to use 4 end caps and then caping the selection. It was uglier than sin using 4 end caps let alone trying to cap the selection. The thicken worked wonders. Anyway, in the situations I have had to use it, I have never had any problems.


And lets stay on topic please, we don't need to derail his patch learning thread with hardware discussions.

[highlanderstl]

Well, since I'm on 1.5, the only thing I can do is make two patches and cap off the top and the 2 sides with several brushes. Just have to make sure that I use clrt + g on the patches, so everything will line up perfectly.

[Hr.O]

This is how you should do it:


Mapfile: neatcurve

If you need more then one texture on the wall, just clone and resize the vertical elements, move the top patch up and cram them in. btw, you probably wont need the bottom patch.
Note: all that i used is two bevels, four simple patch meshes and three brushes.