MODEL ABUSE

No, not those dumb things that walking around looking pretty at fashion shows. Half-Life 2 models. Do you abuse them? I do. Want to know why? Because I can and it doesn't give any adverse consequences. This is things like having pipe models stuck into walls when they don't fit exactly, or sinking a light fixture into the ceiling if it hangs too low. Do you abuse your models, and if so, why?

---

Just Kidding

Just Kidding

I think in the Source engine, it pays off to focus on your brush geometry, it doesn't really look good if your relaying on props for the detail in your map and it really does show.

As for abusing models, I sure do :P! I always have various pipe models sticking outside my level, as long as the models origin is inside the level, you won't get a leak. And ofcourse, at times I just mindlessly shift drag drum and crate models around my level.. I consider that a form of abuse.

---

Aaron's Stuff

Maps look a mess from the outside with all of those models poking out. On a different note, one thing I find a problem with H.L. 2 mapping is the way they have props for everything. In H.L.1 if there was something which I wanted I would simply build it out of brushes. In H.L.2 they expect you to have props for the detail which is really holding back my true mapping skills.

---

Just Kidding

Just Kidding

I abuse them regularly. Most of them wont even look at my cam now.

I don't think it's the fact that people expect you to have a model for everything, instead, people just expect detail. If you feel inclined to go and make it out of brushes, then be my guest. I like brush built things, It means the mapper spent a really long time on this map and this shows. I value it as much as a custom prop I might find in a map.

-Yea, I abuse my models a bit, but more so than just not using a pipe's real length, I mean, I like using models for a different application other than their intended purpose. For example, I used the Combine short shields (the ones placed on roads that you can duck behind that see-through with a cool refraction shader) for some kind of radiation capsulizer; I placed them in a large circle upside-down, and they looked pretty cool. It totally changed their purpose, and you don't notice it right-off when you look at ‘em.

I think if you want to save yourself some time, you're gonna have to get creative with the models available to you. valve had a whole team of people creating 1000s of models for over four years, and they only select a few to use in the actual games they spit out. So, because we don't have those resources, I imagine just about everyone here has abused their models in some way.

---

Blog: www.playingarchitecture.net
LinkedIn: Eric Lancon
Twitter:@Riven202

I agree with you guys when you say it's lame to rely on models for detail, brushwork I find much more impressive.

That said here's a pic of a version of my model abuse, the engine for the ship map. It consists of 48 models crammed inside eachother and a few brushes. There's even some skybox models in there. Probably could've been brushwork but I got caught up in trying to emulate the way it functions; fuel lines, starter, exhaust, lifters etc. Lots of them are faded quite near and collision disabled but still probably more performance-damaging than brushwork.

[URL=http://img241.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dmshipshapea50000pa5.jpg][IMG]http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/6677/dmshipshapea50000pa5.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

Another map I was appreciating recently is dm_tobor, there's some serious abuse goin' on there. Looks great though because the author approached it so creatively.

Hell yeah.. I abuse models.. I even make new ones just so I can abuse them. ComboDust as an example there are 5-6 new models I or the wife made just for that map, and then on top of that we have used many pre-made ones. So yeah I think Models are great.

I tend to prefer brush work to model detailing, it's more flexible with what you can do with it.

---

Just Kidding

Just Kidding

Flynn said:
[brushes are] more flexible with what you can do with [them].

-I don't mean to get into specifics, but that can't be true. What do you mean by flexible? Last time I checked, you can't duplicate just edges or points with brushes like you can with models? -I'm a bit confused with what you mean by "flexible". I think you mean "simpler" eh? Because in that regard, yes brushes are simpler to handle, but you can't do as much with them, but you can get really creative in how you "mold" them. Could you explain a little?

---

Blog: www.playingarchitecture.net
LinkedIn: Eric Lancon
Twitter:@Riven202

What I mean is, with a model you need a specific model, but with brushes you can make damn near whatever you please.

---

Just Kidding

Just Kidding

Ah ok, I follow ya now. You were speaking in terms of solely mapping only and the "flexibility" that making brush figures on the fly versus over choosing the closest model for you design needs gives you. -Yea, in that regard I agree. But if one were to acquire modeling skills, then I would probably restate my opinion.

---

Blog: www.playingarchitecture.net
LinkedIn: Eric Lancon
Twitter:@Riven202

cs_militia This map is almost made up entirely of Models. Very little brush work.

Yeah notice the bogus shadowing on the right hand tree trunk. I knmow you can compile a map with the $staticproppoly string but it's never as good lightmapping as brushwork.

Conversely lighting support for dynamic brushes is very poor in Source.

Personally, I find maps with lots of models visible lag all to hell. That particular map might have a bunch of nodraw and areaportals in it, why not just make it brushes to begin with? The house and shed I mean

Riven said:
Ah ok, I follow ya now. You were speaking in terms of solely mapping only and the "flexibility" that making brush figures on the fly versus over choosing the closest model for you design needs gives you. -Yea, in that regard I agree. But if one were to acquire modeling skills, then I would probably restate my opinion.

That's my point though, we are mappers, not modellers. I feel it's a shame that Half-Life 2 is so dependent on models to make it look nice, whereas on Half-Life 1 you would simply make something out of a bunch of brushes.

haymaker said:
Yeah notice the bogus shadowing on the right hand tree trunk. I knmow you can compile a map with the $staticproppoly string but it's never as good lightmapping as brushwork.

Conversely lighting support for dynamic brushes is very poor in Source.

Personally, I find maps with lots of models visible lag all to hell. That particular map might have a bunch of nodraw and areaportals in it, why not just make it brushes to begin with? The house and shed I mean

Models simply look better than brushes. I would make all my details from brushes, but that simply isn't accepted in H.L.2 maps. Back in H.L.1 pipes were made out of brushes as well as barrels, crates, tables, computer screens, you name it. I miss those days.

---

Just Kidding

Just Kidding

Ahh yes the days of ejoop Prefabs.

The way I see it, BSP brushes aren't really flexible enough for the amount of detail source can handle. BSP is locked to the grid, and brushes are necessarily simple shapes with planar sides. features like prefabs and the vertex tool can help you get around some of BSP's shortcomings, but for a lot of things models just make a lot more sense.

The original description of "abuse," clipping models into walls etc. is perfectly normal, valve maps are full of instances like that. The only problem as far as i know with it, is that if you can see part of a model the engine is rendering the whole thing (minus backface culling)

BSP is awesome for building walls and floors and the like, but I'd rather make a prop in something like XSI or Max than spend hours building detailed chairs, desks, etc. out of minute brushes. You can get a good result from both though.

Yes, that's something that I miss about Half-Life 1, since it was accepted for a mapper to make his own brush based details. I am damned if I get into modelling though, since I am a mapper, not a modeller.

---

Just Kidding

Just Kidding

BSP geometry is really inefficient, its far more efficient to use those stock pipe models than building them out of brushes.

I guess people like brushes because level designers can make props without learning any new skills and because these brush constructions will always be unique and interesting to look at.

---

Aaron's Stuff

But you said it is better to focus on brush work. So you know brush work is inefficient but it looks better or what?

---

Just Kidding

Just Kidding

Brush work is simply easier to create.

If you're doing physics objects or something very detailed that's just for looks, it should probably be a model, or at the least, one of the entities that doesn't split up other brushes and such (I can't really remember the names right now, it's been awhile)

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Func_detail, my friend. In my H.L.-1 days I always made detail props from brushes. Back in the days of prefabs... I downloaded some amazing prefabs which people had made. A passenger jet comes to mind, which an interior and everything. Astonishing work. It was the right scale as well.

---

Just Kidding

Just Kidding

Flynn said:
I am damned if I get into modelling though, since I am a mapper, not a modeller.

Like it or not, models are a part of 3D level design now, and will probably become more so in the future.
Stand still if you like, but don't be surprised when you find that your skillset is out of date.

If you take a look at the Unreal 3 engine and games such as Gears Of War, they use models for alot more things that in Source you would probably use brush geometry for, to be honest, I think the Source engine is a little bit behind mainly because it depends on brush geometry alot for so many things, that and the loading screens :roll:.

Anyway, modeling isn't a very difficult skill to pick up, I spent two days in 3DS Max and came out with a metal shelf model and all the basic skills to get a model into the source engine. Two days well spent imo.

---

Aaron's Stuff

Flynn said:
But you said it is better to focus on brush work. So you know brush work is inefficient but it looks better or what?

Right. Unless the walls and ceiling/floor and even some of the interior things like pillars and platforms and whatnot of your level are all models than your level is contained inside brush geometry and if the brush geometry doesn't look good, you've pretty much got rooms filled with props and not an attractive level

---

Aaron's Stuff

You are a funny dude aaron. I think that would bring out some of the technical limitations of the .bsp game engine

---

Just Kidding

Just Kidding

Flynn said:
smiley You are a funny dude aaron.

:dodgy:

Flynn said:
I think that would bring out some of the technical limitations of the .bsp game engine smiley

Well, I don't know if having too many models onscreen at once is such a good idea. With my dm_backwash map the performance is pretty disgusting and I attribute that too a few things I didn't know when I first started with the Source engine but mainly because there is an excessive amount on props both physics and static on screen at pretty much any view point.

Anyway, I know the Unreal 3 engine rely relies on models for most things and it may sound like there are 1000s of models but there really aren't, they really defined the level design so they could use a narrow set of models on the level many times on the level, kind of like the "prison" or "controlroom" or "combine" set of models in Half-Life 2.

---

Aaron's Stuff