Brush Entities and Distance

I am working on a map for DPB (Digital Paintball) and I have a fenced in area. I notice however that when you get far away from the fence (which is a func_wall) the it begins to disappear. I have the max veiwing distance set far enough but it only does it with the brush entities. I have notice that in other paintball maps they have found a way to avoid this. Can anyone help me?

simple. for the fance to be seethrough you either set "solid" or "texture". cant remember them off my head but one of them will cause the brush to fade away as you get further away, and the other one "blocks up" the seethrough area. whichever you have, try changing it to the other.

ministeve said:
simple. for the fance to be seethrough you either set "solid" or "texture". cant remember them off my head but one of them will cause the brush to fade away as you get further away, and the other one "blocks up" the seethrough area. whichever you have, try changing it to the other.

these forums used to eat people for advise like that^^.

ahh, the good old days.

spartan, are you sure you have your max viewable distance set high enough? that's the only thing i've ever known to make this happen. try doubling whatever you have it at atm.

ministeve said:
simple. for the fance to be seethrough you either set "solid" or "texture". cant remember them off my head but one of them will cause the brush to fade away as you get further away, and the other one "blocks up" the seethrough area. whichever you have, try changing it to the other.

Sometimes I wonder if people even read what I write.

This is a dodgy solution but may work. Create another brush covered in the '{blue' texture, then move it near where the fence goes invisible, but so that it can't get in anybodies way. Then add this brush to the func_wall of the fence.

I'm guessing you are already using zoners or whatever the newest compiler is, but if not, give that a go.

If the fence is very big, try splitting it into a couple of smaller-but-joined-together ones.

Get somebody else to have a look at the map. It is possible there is some issue with your graphics drivers. What graphics card is it?

scary_jeff said:
This is a dodgy solution but may work. Create another brush covered in the '{blue' texture, then move it near where the fence goes invisible, but so that it can't get in anybodies way. Then add this brush to the func_wall of the fence.

I'm guessing you are already using zoners or whatever the newest compiler is, but if not, give that a go.

If the fence is very big, try splitting it into a couple of smaller-but-joined-together ones.

Get somebody else to have a look at the map. It is possible there is some issue with your graphics drivers. What graphics card is it?

I think the issue is whether or not you're in Software or OpenGL mode? In software, entity based objects have the tendency to "disapear" for no real reason. OpenGL is your fix. If you're not already using it that is.

The problem has already been solved. All thanks to Fishy.

G.Ballblue said:
I think the issue is whether or not you're in Software or OpenGL mode? In software, entity based objects have the tendency to "disapear" for no real reason. OpenGL is your fix. If you're not already using it that is.

takes an aspirin before replying

i have used openGL since it was available, never assisted me at all..

if this idea has merit, its very little merit.

breathes slowly to avoid saying more

But if you aren't using OpenGL then you are no doubt using D3D, which
is a satisfactory mode to run in unlike software rendering which should
only be used on PC's without graphics acceleration. BTW Orph, unless
I'm very much mistaken, I believe OpenGL works better for HL than D3D,
so it may help improve visual quality a little or run smoother. That
said, the performance discrepencies might have been accounted for by
now - long time since I checked.

ReNo said:
But if you aren't using OpenGL then you are no doubt using D3D, which is a satisfactory mode to run in unlike software rendering which should only be used on PC's without graphics acceleration. BTW Orph, unless I'm very much mistaken, I believe OpenGL works better for HL than D3D, so it may help improve visual quality a little or run smoother. That said, the performance discrepencies might have been accounted for by now - long time since I checked.

They still exist. In classic, I was walking over a func_wall based bridge in openGL -- no problem. For the the heck of it, I went into software and walked over the same bridge. The object randomly appeared and disapeared.

That because Software sucks and OpenGL is the best.

i do believe that ReNo was refering to possible discrepencies between openGL an D3D................everyone knows that software mode sux.

the most probable reason for your disappearing bridge using software mode, is that it only allows 800 world polys to be drawn at any one time. if you are in an area of a map which has higher amounts of polys visible(r_speeds over 800), then some random polys (faces) wont be drawn.

my comment differs, but only in reference to certain solids becoming invisible..

remember, we had issues with the signs becoming harder to see with distance in the pitcrew map?

this had nothing to do with the "viewable distance" setting though, so it doesn't pertain to this guys issue..

my point earlier was, openGL did not fix this problem, we had to... well i cannot remember just now, but we did not increase the viewable distance if i recall..

was that something to do with the signs being too thin and close to the wall, and blending into the wall [much like overlapping brushes in hammer] when you got so far away from them?

fishy said:
was that something to do with the signs being too thin and close to the wall, and blending into the wall [much like overlapping brushes in hammer] when you got so far away from them?

i think we turned them into func's

i was only attempting to convey to duncan, my thinking was that openGL didn't actually solve everything as BB indicated.

is openGL better?, oh yeah, but... well.

The ole video mode debate... heres my 2 cents:

Software - Hopelessly inefficient, only to be used when D3D and OGL are unavailable. Hard limit of 800 polys, any more and they dont get drawn. No nice effects like waves on water brushes or distance fog in water either.

D3D - Better, but not great. I've had some weirdness in the past with this mode (skyboxes screwing up, mouselag when too many decals are visible). Remember HL uses a very old version of DX, so you cant really compare with modern DX9 games.

OpenGL - The best for HL. Smooth and reliable.

wil5on said:
Software - Hopelessly inefficient, only to be used when D3D and OGL are unavailable. Hard limit of 800 polys, any more and they dont get drawn. No nice effects like waves on water brushes or distance fog in water either.

I agree in principle with the rest of what you've said, but this...

It's not inefficient. In fact software mode runs very efficiently on older machines. I'm quite sure someone managed to run HL on a Pentium 166Mhz or somesuch. I played HL on a P2 333Mhz with a 2d video card , and didn't have any trouble with any of the sections. Plus, the water effect in software mode OWNS. Not that horrible texture distortion like in OpenGL

I do use OpenGL now, but software mode is actually quite good.

sorry, mustve been asleep again then.

<generic noob smiley>