Texture Definition

i made my own .wad file, and the sizes and types of all the textures are right, but it says definition of textures are incorrect.

Is it because i dont have any symbols infront of my textures?

like i have

junitskatesign
junitpic
junitbathroomB
junitsign

does it make a different if i dont have the symbols infront of them?

plz help

this error causes me not able to run my map

I think the textures won't work if you don't have the right symbol in the texture name. I don't know the exact symbols for every texture type, but if you used Wally there should be instructions for when to use which symbol.

i doubt that the names or lack of symbols has anything to do with it.

i.e., a texture without the water symbol wont cause an error on load, but it wont move like water in-game either.

explain a little more on how you made the .wad

or better still, post it somewhere and someone will have a look.

The symbols don't matter unless you're trying to make something like a liquid texture, see through texture, or a scrolling texture. Normal wall textures don't need them.

[color=gold]{ [/color]: Transparent
[color=gold]! [/color]: Water (a special texture that acts like water, but doesn't need an entity brush to work)
[color=gold]~ [/color]: Light (Textures begining with this will emit light)
[color=gold]+ [/color]: Animated (Means it actually functions through a set when triggered)
[color=gold]+A [/color]: Animated Toggle (cycles through Max 10 frames)
- : Random Tiling (there will be 3 or 4 in a set)

Also note that your textures have to be in nice round multiples of 8 - eg 32/64/256 etc.. and all their middle values in between.

Originally posted by fishy
explain a little more on how you made the .wad

• or better still, post it somewhere and someone will have a look

One of your textures are scaled incorrectly. Incorrectly named textures will not cause maps not to load. You might have either embedded the wad incorrectly, linked it bogusly or created incorrect texture sizes.

Textures need to be multiples of 16. Textures that have relating dimensions also look better, i.e. 256x128 will look better on a 256x192 sized area than a 256x192 texture will- something to do with how it's rendered.

Also make sure your textures arn't above 256x256, HL can't really handle textures above 256 pixels and defintely can't handle above 256 colours per texture!

If your sure you haven't made these mistakes then post the wad up for everyone to have a look.

When it does come to you naming your textures you should find that if you rename a texture in Wally (available in the files section) it comes up with a legend underneath the box to fill in the texture name.

I made a texture 560x112 pixels and it works perfectly...

Thats because with certain sizes it does work, but for the sake of keeping it simple and not testing the HL engine, 256 is a good number to keep a limit to.

No, that's because it will work with any resolution that is evenly divisible by 16. However, for best results they should be power of 2 textures, (16,32,64,128,256,512). Non-power of two textures are re-sampled down to the next-lowest power of 2. The 256x192 example you mentioned would be sampled down to 256x128, then scaled back up. They would look identical. To get full possible resolution (without scaling) on that example, you'd need a 256x256 texture.

Good texture design can take advantage of this. If you need a 256x192 wall texture, you can make a 256x256 texture with 256x192 filled with your wall and the remaining 256x64 filled with a trim, panel, or even multiple panels or trims.

Textures over 256x256 will be automatically re-sampled as well due to a parameter set in the game - +gl_max_size 256. You can re-set this to 512 in your startup shortcut and then it will allow textures up to 512x512 to render without being re-sampled. This also applies to skins on models and detail textures.

It's impossible to have a HL texture with more than 256 colors because .wad creation either does this automatically (Wally) or won't accept anything else. I'm also pretty sure it's impossible to include incorrectly sized textures in .wad creation, and the initial post does mention that the sizes are correct. :razz:

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD WOULD IT KILL SOMEONE TO MAKE THE LINE BREAKS WORK????? :sad:

here is my wad, i got it to work once, but that was with one texture, here it is.

http://www.chesapeake.net/~mxmom/images/wacotextures.rar

wacokid said:
i made my own .wad file, and the sizes and types of all the textures are right, but it says definition of textures are incorrect.

What says the definition of textures are incorrect? The game, when you try and play the map?

Please post the exact error message...

KungFuSquirrel said:
:razz: FOR CRYING OUT LOUD WOULD IT KILL SOMEONE TO MAKE THE LINE BREAKS WORK????? :sad:

Shift-Enter, KFS :smile:

It's called Firefox, foo. I don't use your silly wysiwyg post reply dealie. Not that I would in IE either. Eww. :razz:

See - you IE users should take note: proffesional level designers like KFS use Firefox as thier browser of choice.

Gwil said:

wacokid said:
i made my own .wad file, and the sizes and types of all the textures are right, but it says definition of textures are incorrect.

What says the definition of textures are incorrect? The game, when you try and play the map?

Please post the exact error message...

i cant really duplicate the error cause after i just made the map one solid texture, lol, it worked, but i think ill just make a new DM map.

scary_jeff said:
See - you IE users should take note: proffesional level designers like KFS use Firefox as thier browser of choice.

if i have to use second hand browsers to be qualified as a pro, i will be content with n00b then

for all the perks you guys claim, you do nothing but endlessly complain about compatibility issues.

i think i will stick with IE.

Strangely enough, IE is the one I have more problems with these days, but those would, I admit, most likely disappear if I got around to reinstalling it or something.

? posted by Orph
for all the perks you guys claim, you do nothing but endlessly complain about compatibility issues.

i think i will stick with IE.

Any compatibility issues are microsofts fault. Oper is suing them for about 12 million because they made their msn site load funny in opera. :biggrin:

scary_jeff said:
See - you IE users should take note: proffesional level designers like KFS use Firefox as thier browser of choice.

I'm using Firefox too :razz:

scary_jeff said:
See - you IE users should take note: proffesional level designers like KFS use browsers with compatability problems as thier browser of choice.

:rolleyes:

Alien_Sniper said:

? posted by Orph for all the perks you guys claim, you do nothing but endlessly complain about compatibility issues. i think i will stick with IE.

Any compatibility issues are microsofts fault. Oper is suing them for about 12 million because they made their msn site load funny in opera. :biggrin:

sad, i notice that your quotes are almost always fried out as well, i assume another opera glitch?

in any case, how can a browser, that sets the standard for browsers, be the cause of other browsers screw-ups?

in any case, i am always on the lookout for better, but complaining better is not one of them.. opera and their ilk, create exotic complainers

scary_jeff said:
See - you IE users should take note: proffesional level designers like KFS use Firefox as thier browser of choice.

Jeff, don't try to use your <A id=authority name=authority>Argumentum ad verecundiam</A> on us IE users :razz:

yeah, you tell 'im Lep

i think

I per sonally think that, all this talk about slandering and constant babling on about 'my browser is better than your browser' and 'my OS is better than your OS' is the most boring subject, i have ever come across, it's all fine saying that 'blah blah' OS/browser is gd, but i don't come to this site to hear all this cr*p about people slagging of software when they chose it/why they didn't choose it, if there is a problem with this site uploading, then report it and stop spamming these forums!

maybe not, but in this nearly self policed community, you'll have to put up with it :razz:

as for IE being bad - I use IE because 90% of the code on the web is produced badly by WYSIWYG editors/bad knowledge of HTML/misuse of CSS... etc

dont blame IE or mozilla, blame the fact that W3C standards cannot be enforced, and morons love to create websites :razz:

I per sonally think that, all this talk about slandering and constant babling on about 'my browser is better than your browser' and 'my OS is better than your OS' is the most boring subject, i have ever come across, it's all fine saying that 'blah blah' OS/browser is gd, but i don't come to this site to hear all this cr*p about people slagging of software when they chose it/why they didn't choose it, if there is a problem with this site uploading, then report it and stop spamming these forums!:mad:

ace ventura voice

Ok fine, lets do everything you want to do!

:biggrin:

adopts marge simpson voice
"now dave, you know,that sloth is smarter than you are, because the kelly males are born without a brain"

I have a feeling you have been fiddling with the dpi options in photoshop/paintshop pro, they need resetting to default, just an idea, i think default is 600 dpi.

I thought the default was 72dpi?

i dont know lol

It shouldnt matter, provided youre working in pixels. If you try to set image sizes in photoshop using measurements other than pixels, it just gets confusing.