Snarkpit Forum Index » Source engine editing » Static Prop Renders... Bright!
Static Prop Renders... Bright!
1
Post Reply
Quote
 Re: Static Prop Renders... Bright!
Posted by G.Ballblue on Thu Dec 22nd at 12:53am 2005



In text for those who might have trouble reading the font:

On the left is a prop_physics I made with a green lego skin -- it looks pretty good to me. I then had to turn around and convert the model into a prop_static type model -- yes, it was modified in the .qc file via the use of Cannonfodder's StudioCompiler. But when the new prop_static renders in-game, it looks bright beyond fullbright! All the noise in the skin is now gone, except for the grooves on the top of the skin!

Hammer is reporting no errors in the compile, and HL2 isn't giving me any errors in the console. Any ideas as to what's contributing to this odd in game rendering?



Breaking the laws of mapping since 2003 and doing a damn fine job at it



Quote
 Re: Static Prop Renders... Bright!
Posted by HazardGameR^ on Thu Dec 22nd at 12:27pm 2005

Might be because it's 2 different entities? *pssst*



Quote
 Re: Static Prop Renders... Bright!
Posted by fishy on Thu Dec 22nd at 2:02pm 2005

post the 2 qc files




i eat paint



Quote
 Re: Static Prop Renders... Bright!
Posted by G.Ballblue on Thu Dec 22nd at 5:39pm 2005

? quote:

post the 2 qc files



Well, CFSC doesn't exactly need me to have a pre-set up .qc file... It sort of generates one depending on how I set certain parameters in the GUI. Even if I did have a pre-set up .qc, I can't seem to get my own to work with StuioCompiler, so I just use the built-in parameters.

Anyways, managed to get screenshots of them.

The following images are the parameters for the static_prop.






The following is the ONLY DIFFERENCE from the static prop. Please see the red dots on the image!



Since you have all the other setting for the static prop, they are exactly the same for the physics prop, with the exception of the marked-in-red changes.

Please also note that I have no inputs/commands under LOD's, Gibs, and Additional Commands, for both the static and the physics.



Breaking the laws of mapping since 2003 and doing a damn fine job at it



Quote
 Re: Static Prop Renders... Bright!
Posted by Andrei on Fri Dec 23rd at 3:40pm 2005

Seeing as how "complex" the model is, why not make it a good ol' brush instead and just use the func_physbox entity? EH? Or are those just example models?

For HL1 we used to have a _maxlight command. You could use smart edit to add this command to your prop and see what happens.




Quote
 Re: Static Prop Renders... Bright!
Posted by wil5on on Fri Dec 23rd at 10:35pm 2005

Try putting some lights in the map and running with RAD, that may help.


"If you talk at all during this lesson, you have detention. Do you understand?"
- My yr11 Economics teacher



Quote
 Re: Static Prop Renders... Bright!
Posted by G.Ballblue on Fri Dec 23rd at 10:42pm 2005

Sorry I've missing from this thread for a day, but now I'm here to get to it:

@Wil5son: Can't do anything to the map atm, getting an abnoxious error when trying to fire Hammer up, since the new update (and it's not the stupid one I mentioned in the General Banter forum ) It seems that there are other people suffering from the same problem I'm getting, when trying to use CFSC.

@Andrei: Well, these models sort of are a test -- in the sense that they're the first models I'm implementing, but eventually they will be used in the map I'm working. And as for not making the static_prop into a brush? Well, I've gotta learn how to make a static_prop some time : Might as well start now func_physboxing wouldn't work, because the material is a model material, and incompatible with brushes -- plus, I get more control over a prop_physics than I do with a func_physbox.

@Hazzard: You need two different entities if you want both a prop static and prop physics. Also, you can't just use a prop_physics model as a prop_static entity. I don't quite understand what you're saying though -- be more detailed?





Breaking the laws of mapping since 2003 and doing a damn fine job at it




1
Post Reply