Corners

There are three ways to make corners.

Closed normally.

Easiest, simplest way to make corners, does have one more face than needed on the outside.

Open.

Can't be used on outside corners, only inside.

Mitered.

Nothing can be bad about this, since it has the fewest faces necessary on both sides, it's just time-consuming.

Is there any advantage to using one over the other?
(I didn't think this would go as well in the Editing forums, but if a moderator thinks otherwise, they can move it without me complaining.)

---

Also change the texture of the dock. Docks are rarely tile. -Facepunch
As I Lay Dying

Believe it or not, but this thread (literally) has been posed before (in the editing board).

I can't find it at the moment, if someone wants to link it here that'd be nice.

Basically, the first one is the one you shouldn't do ever. Because at the point of intersection the brush will be split and another set of faces made. This may or may not be represented in the BSP (to note, the BSP structure is far from perfect and can produce artifacts and many un-wanted things if used improperly).

The other two don't do that. The only time you really need to use a mitered corner is if you can see the outside part of the corner, it really is an aesthetic. But it's very simple and quick with vertex manipulation.

If you can't see the other side, but it is NOT against the void then you should still miter, since there would be two less faces (then again, if you're producing corners that are rendered on the other side that will never be seen you may have other issues with your level design philosophy).

The 2^nd one is nice for enclosed areas that act as a hull.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

The brushes aren't going to get split funny on Choice A. The
compiler will throw out the overlap part, and will take so little extra
marginal time to do it, that unless you're compiling on a Commodore 64,
it's no big deal.

I'd say one lame-o negative side about Choice A is that the top wall is
going to be a bigger pain to texture align. In B and C, the brush
ends where the wall ends, so you can easily see exactly how much you've
got. Depending on what type of textures you're using, this can
matter.

The bigger reason for me to choose the clean mapping technique (which
is the Choice C preferably, but sometimes Choice B in certain
locations) is that I find it much simpler to comprehend when I
map. The mitered corners stand out in a way that I can quickly
see exactly where my corners are. When I'm making walls with more
complex brushwork than a simple slab (which, for me, is always), it
just helps so much in making sense of the brushes. It's similar
to commenting your code - it helps yourself when what you've got is
really complex and you need to go back and redisgn/tweak some sections
after a playtest.

Just in my experience.

if the brush is split in the top method the resulting face will be in the exact same spot it would have been if you used the middle method so it wouldn't matter

the main disadvantage to the third method is if you ever wanted to resize your hallway you'd have to use the vertex tool and thats a pain in the ass (at least for me)

i personally use the top method cause i have the sloppiest brushwork imaginable and why bother fixing it now?

I thought the second one was the best one for making corners when you can't see the other side (including when the void is on the other side). I have no idea why, just read it somewhere sometimes...

---

What the Snarkpitters listen to!

Vertex manipulation is crazy easy with QuArK

I prefer open corners for most places. It's easiest to control for texturing and later changes.

I stopped bothering using mitered corners since I realized that vBSP is now smart enough to merge the two resulting faces to one, if the textures are identical and aligned (never forget to turn off texturelock when creating the walls!).

Feel free to use the first method for walls were both sides are visible. There seem to be no inefficiencies from the compiler and the saved time can be spent on more useful things.

---

Why snark works.

I use open corners on all occasions where I don't need the outside edge, but in those cases I go with the mitered corner. My reasons being that they are the most efficient ones to use for texture alignment. Using mitered corners exclusively wouldn't do any harm, and if you prefer it that way for the way it looks in hammer and for allowing you to identify corners easier, then by all means do so, but it does require an extra second or two to create.

All 3 have their place I guess, depending on whether you place more importance on ease of brush manipulation, ease of texture alignment, and ease of... identifying corners in hammer :wink:

---

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

Hmmmm interesting. I never have thought about the corners and there effect on the map. I do my corners the first was because that is the easiest, quickest and its what I was introduced to (hollowing a brush).

---

Aaron's Stuff

If the outside is VISible (worldspawn), #3. If the outside is not VISible (void or func_wall), it doesn't really mater. Func_walls won't cause any crazy face-splitting on the floor/ceiling, but it the extra face will give you two extra polygons, so you should probably go with #3 instead of #1 (#2 would only be used if the outside is viod, for aesthetic reasons).

---

Better to be in denial than to be human.

Bill Gates understands binary: his company is number one, and his customers are all zeros.

I do corner B, unless some sort of texture alignment scenario requires me to do choice C.

On one note though, (if this hasn't been mentioned already), corner C might split the floor and ceiling and generate more faces. I believe there are multiple topics out in existence that provide evidence that mittering edges usually generates more faces.

Of course, I do agree that at times, mittering edges and corners can make mapping very easy on the eyes. Especially when you're working on large scale maps.

Edit: Choice A, if I recall, is fine to do with outside facing edges. In fact, I think I heard that it's the best way to do them, due to face elimination/simplification/whatever. I could be wrong, however -- would someone care to expand on this?

No, C will not cause bad face splitting. Why do you people
persist in this myth? The unused planes are discarded in the
early stages of the compile process. By the time the compiler is
cutting your floor and ceiling into triangles, the planes responsible
for the miter itself will be no more.

To reiterate: FACE SPLITTING WILL BE IDENTICAL BETWEEN ALL THREE.

An uncompiled map in Worldcraft/QuArK consists of brushes. A
compiled map does not. This issue is entirely about good mapping
practices, for your own sake. Very few experienced mappers use A
because the 'sloppy' brushwork creates a (marginally) more difficult
environment to deal with.

the more obstacles you have to overcome the better your final map will be!

Hay CCS dude, yes you. I use the first method.

---

Aaron's Stuff

And if you want a retort, I would never confuse your work with that of an experienced mapper.

Method 1 does cause 2 extra polies on the outside when you're mapping for HL1, aron! And in HL1, it actually matters.

At least I think I remember this to happen with some compiler in some version (you're using Zoner's Compile Tools btw., right?).

---

Why snark works.

Zoner's? Get with 2004. Merl or Cagey's, PLEASE.

Well the version of zhlt I got was completed on the 25 of Feb 2006. I always thought that the two faces would be thrown out by the compiler but really it dosent matter that much to me. Just extra compile time.

---

Aaron's Stuff

Zoner's? Get with 2004. Merl or Cagey's, PLEASE.

omg, time is flying.

---

Why snark works.

1st method I usually use, unless each side has a different texture, then i'll do no.3