Should I use carve for this?

I have a cieling coming down diagonally, and I duped it and carved it with the bricks in the picture, is that situation okay to carve with? Then also the poles going upward intersect through the selected part, would I carve those too? This all makes points off the grid, but does that really matter? I know you are not suppose to carve, but then is there any other way to do it? Thanks

I can't quite visualize what you're trying to do...but in most situations you can (and should) use the clip tool...maybe posting some pictures of some of the 2d views would help?

Yea, its kinda confusing to ask. Pretty much would it be ok to carve with the long slanted skinny block, into the gray poles.



If I do carve, then it comes out like this. And of course this is carving with a diagonal piece of geomety.



And related, is it ok to carve off the end of one object, if ONLY makes it end up with points off the grid?

You can always use the clip tool. The main problem here is off-grid vertecies that will be created. Often times when you compile off-grid brushwork the floating point coordinates of those vertex locations will be rounded to a value the compiler can handle. In this case your architecture will be slightly displaced from where you wanted it. The results of the displacement vary from unnoticeable, to highly unsightly, and in addition can cause leaks if the problem occurs in hull architecture. ALWAYS map on the grid.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting CPS</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>
And related, is it ok to carve off the end of one object, if ONLY makes it end up with points off the grid?

</DIV></DIV>
Wtf? Your points should always line up on the grid! If they don't line up on a grid of atleast 1 unit, you get a floating point. These can cause major problems in your maps hull!!!

The Clip Tool is Your Friend.

It's better to manually clip the object where you want the piece to begin and end. When carving you really have little control over that, not to mention you have to create a new object to cut out of the object you want to cut. Just clip, must easer, neater, and faster.

Oh, and I pray for your mapping soul. I fear you may be smited for admitting you use the carve tool.

Crono, I have not used the carving tool :smile: I was seeing if it could be used for a situation like this, just experimenting. I will see what I can do with clip right now.

Hah, pretty soon we're going to have a "Carve" faction and a "Clip" faction...takes up pitchfork and rallies against the Carvers for no apparent reason

EDIT: As a reminder, using the Clip tool doesn't always mean you'll get points that end up on the grid. If you have the clip plane extend beyond the surface you're trying to cut you can get a fractional x,y coord (commenting on what G.Ballblue said).

Well I just used the clip tool to do it, and I must say, how does it make a difference at all? There seems like there is going to be points off the grid either way.

After using clip tool. So I guess that there is no "right" way to do what I want to do. Guess I will just have to end up using non diagonal brushes up there.

Not necessarily...what I would do is use the Vertex Manipulation Tool and tweak the end of the roof so that the end roof vertices line up on the coordinate system. Then try using the clip tool.

Actually you'd want to change the vertices on both ends of the roof so that the width is completely consistent all the way through. Clear as mud? heh

I did not rotate the brushes using transform, I used vertex manipulation for the rotation in the first place :smile: And if I am correct, if you had the same consitency all the way through, it would only leave a few possible angles to use. I guess I will just accept it as not doable.

Lol, that's not what I meant. This IS doable. What I meant was adjust the vertices of the roof part near the building so they line up with the grid, and then go back to the other end of the roof and put it so those vertices are the same distance apart (height-wise) as the vertices at the end near the building.

If I see what you are saying, that does not work because all the points in between are not on the grid. I have tried it before for another thing, but there is no way to get it to work with it all on the grid, unless you use only certain angles and distances.

Only the vertices have to be on the grid... :rocketwhore:

The point of using the clip instead of the carve tool is that when you clip you choose where the brush gets split, and therefore are presumably aware of the off grid vertecies. NEVER leave the vertecies off-grid. It won't kill you, no one is going to hunt you down for doing it, but it does cause many otherwise avoidable errors and incredible headaches down the road.

Just use the vertex tool and adjust things back to the grid after clipping.

I guess you guys do not see what I am saying, if you use the vertex manipulation to put the points back on the grid, then the two brushes do not slant the same. And yes I know that only the vertices have to be on the grid, I will try to make some pictures to explain it.

Some images in this post have been automatically down-sized, click on them to view the full sized versions:



So the first picture is after using clip to cut the block with stars, so it does not enter the other block. As you can see it lines up perfect after that, but the vertices are off of the grid.



In this second picture I used vertex manipulation to put the points that were not on the grid back on, but now the two slanted surfaces do not line up. There is no way to keep it on the grid unless you are using slopes like 1/1 (or 4/1, but in that case you could only line it up right every 4 units).

Hopefully that explained what I was trying to say.

the answer your seeking is......no. although carving can be a very useful tool for rectangular or 90 degree cornered objects ( muhahahaha.... :biggrin: ...if you understand its processes... ), it would be more useful to clip the object in your case because of exactly what tb and others have said.....you have control, and the prog forces you to adhere to the grid.....if you carve with diagonal solids, you end up with points off the grid, resulting in either invalid brushes (found usually during compile), or leaks.......so they must be vertex manipulated to the grid anyway.....

Dr Brasso... :dodgy:

break them into smaller brushes....line things up.... :wink:

Yeah...between your post and your post before it had occurred to me that this was possible/likely...hopefully Tracer or someone has the answer :wink:

The solution is to clip both brushes. That way you can line them up very easily. This will obviously create a small perturbation in your roof line (or whatever you are making) but because the brushes line up you probably won't notice in game. Leaving the vertecies off grid is not a solution. It looks nicely lined up in the editor, but when you compile, those vertecies will be perturbed as I said. The result will be brushes that are NOT aligned and it will be an obvious aesthetic or even functional flaw.