final compile

This is not very much of a question, but I want to know the best way to do a final compile of a map.
What I mean is, should I use "Expert mode" or "Normal mode", and is there anything else I can do when I want to do the final compile? I use zhlt_1.7p13.

"Expert mode" gives you the most options, "normal" is very simplified. I would recommend not doing a final compile in Hammer, use a compile front end or write your own .bat file.

I would use HLCC, since its what I use. lol. I`ve learned that using VHE to compile is evil, lol. To say the least.

Put it in Expert mode, make sure you have the toolchain in the right order, and add a few arguments to the VIS and RAD lines:
(visprogram) -full
(radprogram) -extra

-full usually takes a lot longer but reduces r_speeds. -extra makes your lighting look better but takes a lot longer, and I think it tends to smooth out high contrast lighting.
Other options you might consider: adding -wadinclude (wadname) to your CSG line, this will make it so you don't have to give out your custom texture wad with the map. (radprogram) -bounce (number) will take just a little extra compile time but will make the light bounce off more walls to give it a softer look. I think.

If you've got a fairly high end system you can stick with Hammer's setup and not bother with any of this compiler frontend crap - about the only things that won't work are -estimate for each of the tools. Some people complain about it locking up the compile window / Hammer itself. If this is the case just let it sit for a couple hours and your map will be finished. Using Hammer as opposed to HLCC or batch files won't alter the way your map turns out, unless you do something stupid like ctrl+alt+del and close the RAD program.

So far everyone has just touched the tip of the ice berg, there is sooooo much you can do: for one you can do what hornpipe said:

Hornpipe2 said:
Put it in Expert mode, make sure you have the toolchain in the right order, and add a few arguments to the VIS and RAD lines:
(visprogram) -full
(radprogram) -extra

but there is much more on rad, like -bounce # this makes the lighting more real, but adds to compile time, just don't add too many, like a max of 50. And the extra option adds more calculations to correct lighting errors, and possibly create new ones, but always add that to a final compile. There is also smooth 70 (lep will say this). There is also text chop, below 64 since thats the default, this makes more patches for light to go on, but adds to compile time, and you may get the error of max patches exceeded (only use this if its a fairly small map), and that is just a few options, go on the internet (google :biggrin: ) and find the actual list of extentions you can put on.

Lol compiling in VHE maybe bad for you people and you puny so called PC's.... my Athlon 3000XP compiles any map in about 20-50 mins :razz:

/me hugs 30 second full VIS compile times on ns_eclipse

You know you've made a triangularly pleasing map when it compiles that quickly :razz: Or when you own the Pentagons super computer...

Myrk- said:
Lol compiling in VHE maybe bad for you people and you puny so called PC's.... my Athlon 3000XP compiles any map in about 20-50 mins :razz:

i have a 2700+ and 1 gig of ram and with batch files I compiled even my bigger maps in only 15-20 minutes. :razz:

Is that with -sparse -chop 32 -texchop16 -extra? :razz:

omegaslayer4777 said:
So far everyone has just touched the tip of the ice berg, there is sooooo much you can do: for one you can do what hornpipe said:

Hornpipe2 said:
Put it in Expert mode, make sure you have the toolchain in the right order, and add a few arguments to the VIS and RAD lines:
(visprogram) -full
(radprogram) -extra

but there is much more on rad, like -bounce # this makes the lighting more real, but adds to compile time, just don't add too many, like a max of 50. And the extra option adds more calculations to correct lighting errors, and possibly create new ones, but always add that to a final compile. There is also smooth 70 (lep will say this). There is also text chop, below 64 since thats the default, this makes more patches for light to go on, but adds to compile time, and you may get the error of max patches exceeded (only use this if its a fairly small map), and that is just a few options, go on the internet (google :biggrin: ) and find the actual list of extentions you can put on.

Something like 5 bounces is more than enough. 3-8 is usually a good number.

Dunno if this will help you, but this is the compiler config i use:

hlcsg -nowadtextures (custom texs included in bsp)

hlvis -full

hlrad -extra (looks cooler)

And when your finished, run opt_plus (by dragging the bsp over the exe).

Andrei said:
And when your finished, run opt_plus (by dragging the bsp over the exe).

what does this actually do to your map?

blu_chze said:

Andrei said:
And when your finished, run opt_plus (by dragging the bsp over the exe).

what does this actually do to your map?

opt_plns optimizes planes in your level. it's part of XP-Cageys tools. when used, they allow your map to compile with twice the amout of planes that the normal tools will allow. however, a map compiled this way, with the extra planes, will be borked when you play it (the higher over the planes limit you go, the more faces will be missing from your map). unless you drop it through the opt_plns.exe that is, then everything will be good again. you also get a small drop in the filesize, which is as good a reason as any to use it on maps that haven't been made with too many planes.

i beleive that the downside to this is, that you cant do an -onlyents compile on the bsp after you've used opt_plns. which doesn't really effect me, 'cause i never worked out how to do the -onlyents thing. i've got a noobish way of doing much the same thing with ripent if it's only ent data that needs tweaking.

opt_plus...damn im blind. :smile:

Jinx said:

Myrk- said:
Lol compiling in VHE maybe bad for you people and you puny so called PC's.... my Athlon 3000XP compiles any map in about 20-50 mins :razz:

i have a 2700+ and 1 gig of ram and with batch files I compiled even my bigger maps in only 15-20 minutes. :razz:

Really? Only thats quite slow depending on the size of the map. My machine (1.5Ghz 256MBRAM) compiles a medium sizes map in about 10minutes.

Fast enough if you ask me :smile: Anyway, compile times are hugely variable, I've had proper maps compile in 20 minutes, while others take hours and hours. Complexity is a bigger indicator of compile time than size to be honest.

thx everyone