making corners brushes

Ive been mapping for awhile now, but something's always bothered me. When making corners... is there any point in having them overlap outside of the viewable area? doesnt this just simply make excessive polygons and r_speeds? example:

Is there any reason to ever use the top two instead of the bottom?

<span style="color: white;">Whatever you prefer, though the top right is just a waste of time and even a possible poly-count increaser. The lowest is probably the best, though I use the top-left the most. Depends on what you prefer, really. The outside faces are removed anyway and surfaces of different brushes that share the exact same texture information are combined where possible, so...</span>

---

Create-ivity - a game development blog

Depends on how you look at it, honestly, I think in any case ... ever, that top left one is the worst case. Simply because it causes a problem that neither of the other two do: splits the brush.

Mitoring corners is very useful for objects you can see the inside and outside of. The "bad" side is, creating that 45 degree cut creates a new plane, which most likely will not be used again. The other one, doesn't create an unused plane (everything is at 90 degree cuts), it doesn't "chop" up the other brush's face either, so I'd say that's the better option ... purely for performance. Not that this is really THAT big of a problem now, but if you want to make something HUGE, you should pay attention to things like this, because it will effect performance (eventually). Along with leafs and such. (which is why it's a good idea to get an overview of your map, and start drawing lines on a printed paper or something as such, to find out if some things are being rendered that don't need to be)

Anyway, something I've been meaning to do, which I would suggest you, and why not everyone, is to make a guideline list for mapping. Just certain rules, like when to use what method.

I think this would go well with something like "always vertex manipulate cylinders to 1x1 grid".

But that's just me.

You wont really be able to tell, but, build something in HL1 using each of these (in seperate maps) which are otherwise identical. Try building a large structure and you will see the performance differences, then again, it's negligable.

But, I'd say most often use the bottom one ... unless you're going for asthetics on the oposite side, then use mitored. Never use the top left.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

As CaptainP says, it's only the faces that the engine knows will be visible that get written into the bsp, the rest are discarded. So really, you should get the exact same results with all of the methods shown, though the one ot the bottom has a chance of letting speckles of sky show through, if you have any sky brushes behind it.

I don't know about the top right causing more polys. It's the method that I use when I'm not being lazy, but only when the inside and outside will both be visible. It's actually the method that produces the least amount of polys when inside and outside are used.

---

i eat paint

Nope, fishy, faces with the same texture properties are combined where possible, so the top left would give the same result as the mitered one. Disadvantage of the mitered one is that the 45 degree faces use an extra plane and that, especially with large maps, it's harder to modify some walls or shapes. There's an old article about this on the VERC: Mitered Corners: The Undying Myth, written by our own good ol' KFS... :smile:

---

Create-ivity - a game development blog

The bottom one means that the internal face is lined up perfectly on
the left and right edges (unlike the overlapped one), and resizes
easily (unlike the mitered one), which gives it slight practicality
benefits over the other two. For walls where you can see the outside of
the corner, I use a mitered corner as it means there are less faces to
worry about texturing and aligning.

---

[img]http://card.mygamercard.net/sig/Default/reno84.png[/img]
Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net

Captain, I read that article a while ago, and as there were no pics, I made a small test map. Even though the textures combine where possible, my mitered corners still produced fewer polys. Not enough that it could save or sink a map, but one or two none the less.

---

i eat paint

so theres really absolutely no reason to use the top two, if the inside is all thats being shown.
When i first started mapping i did the top 2 because of fear of leaks... then i realized that the bottom one doesnt cause leaks at all... so it seems like the others just make more polygons? (even though they'd be Nulled on the right, and... 'something'd' on the left?

Have not the inclination to read thread but I will point out that the bottom example has on several occasions created/caused leaks to form.

Whether anyone believes that or not is of no great importance to me as I know it to be factual.

Of the choices given, I have always build my corners like the top left.

/2 cents.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Back in the day, when I used to pretedn to create levels, I used the bottom method for boundary walls. Two advantages

1)I was easier to resize/skew the wall, no need to worry about microscopic leaks.

2)Textures were much easier to handle, especially non-generic textures.
Textures which were designed specifically for walls, windows and the
like: Just "fit" it to the brush and watch the map go sexy.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting fraggard</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Back in the day, when I used to pretedn to create levels, </DIV></DIV>

You are nearly as hard on yourself as I.

I for one thought you were well within the definition known as "Level Designer"

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

I haven't touched Hammer in more than 6 months, still don't have Steam,
and have no intentions of either any time soon. Even if I was one at
any point, I'm not anymore :sad:

fraggard said:
I haven't touched Hammer in more than 6 months, still don't have Steam, and have no intentions of either any time soon. Even if I was one at any point, I'm not anymore :sad:

Can one become "not anymore" after one has succeeded?

I think not. If that were so then 99% of us would be not anymore too.

I feel that once success has been achieved you are forever more a level designer. If they can do it for simple things like the Presidency and Judges, then surely they can do it for harder stuff as well.

You will always be on my list Fragman.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

it's true. some things you only need to do once, and you are forever held to it.

dammit, it was only one sheep........ :sad:

---

i eat paint

fishy said:
dammit, it was only one sheep........ :sad:

/giggles

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Top left for sure. Just be sure to align the textures.

---

http://maze5.net

Why did you feel the need to pull up an old topic? It's basically been answered.

---

Dark_Kilauea
DVS Administration
http://www.dvstudio-production.com/

Yes, and No.

Technically, its not an editing question, more an opinion question because I have seen all 3 corners and no matter what anyone says, people mostly build the corners however they please.

So, the question, cannot really be closed, hence Mazemaster can add his 2 cents.

Why Nick suddenly felt compelled to post is his concern I suppose cause for all we know, this was his first time seeing the thread. Besides, its perfectly permissible to resurrect a post "IF" the reason is on topic.

Nick's reply was.

/2 cents.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

I'd discourage posts like it in the future to be honest. Sure, Mazemaster is entitled to his opinion on the topic, but his post didn't add any new information to the mix, certainly nothing worth resurrecting a long-dead thread for. No harm done of course, but I'd rather people didn't post in editing threads that are clearly "done" unless they are adding significant and worthwhile information to it.

I'm guessing he just didn't notice the date on the last post though.

---

[img]http://card.mygamercard.net/sig/Default/reno84.png[/img]
Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net

My bad, I forgot to read the date on this thread. I thought it was recent.

---

http://maze5.net

<html><head><link rel="stylesheet" href="themes/standard.css" type="text/css"></head><body topmargin=2 leftmargin=2>Either way, it let me see my old thread. Ive become about 10 times better of a mapper in the last long while, and i can fully say that i absolutely believe the bottom method is the best (for boundary brushes, not necessarily for brushes to be used for their backsides etc). Reason being, is not only does it make a perfect 'fit', but it also leaves no addeitional polys. What happens when you have a texture broken by a brush? double the polys. Its simply unnecessary. No worries about textures or parts of textures that are not visible or not null'd. It takes up less room, imo looks better, and you never have to think about which side is the 'overlapping' one. Ive actually had to go back through my massive map and fix up a lot of it, because i believe this is simply better mapping.