Because
#12380 posted by ijed on 2013/01/22 18:50:57
In 3.3 you lose cross-editor compatibility and have to convert the textures to wad3?
...I still use it though :)
Texture Luck
#12381 posted by negke on 2013/01/22 19:27:34
Sock uses an old version of Radiant, I don't know how it works there, but the texture lock in new(er) versions produces decimals in the offset values which are not supported by standard QBSP. This can lead to textures getting misaligned by 1 unit in-game while looking perfectly right in the editor. Got to keep this in mind.
WackyCraft
#12382 posted by sock on 2013/01/22 20:06:42
When I say 'cut and paste brushwork' I do not mean texture lock/rotation. If you look at the architecture of my maps they are consistent, each arch, door or pillar is the same size because I cut and paste the brush shapes and then apply the texture afterwards.
I created the textures based on the brush shape so I only need to nudge the texture surface until it fits. This approach really makes a room/area feel like it is designed to fit together. When the texture and architecture are in harmony, the scene looks and feels better.
Netradiant
#12383 posted by Kinn on 2013/01/23 11:41:18
Coming back to this after 9-10 months.
Anyone know how long the netradiant site has been down? http://dev.alientrap.org/wiki/7
My version is dated march 1 2012, but there is a bug with the 3-point clipper that crept into that version. Just wanted to know if there had been a newer build since then.
GTKRadiant 1.6.3
#12384 posted by sock on 2013/01/23 12:17:19
Move to the latest version, it has better support and there is a coder actively working on it. They are always looking for people to offer feedback and get stuff fixed.
http://www.quake3world.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=48330&sid=590f6d83bfd40da9dfdae6ea9aedaa98
#12385 posted by Spirit on 2013/01/23 13:41:30
#12386 posted by negke on 2013/01/23 19:48:04
Ah, looks like they finally added a workaround for the foreground/background issue. Though I'm pretty sure there's still no fix for the NextView button/shortcut not working on the floating window layout. It's been there for years. Will have to stick with Gtkradiant 1.5 for another while...
Kinn, the old download directory is still accessible here, but there's no newer version. There appear's to be some slightly newer build by Ingar dated July 2012, not sure how many fixes it actually contains (if any).
Cheers
#12387 posted by Kinn on 2013/01/24 02:17:49
Ok, thanks chaps - negke, good to know the old download page can still be accessed. I couldn't find it through google or anything. The Ingar build contained 7 trojans according to Kaspersky - probably false positives but...eh.
I'll stick with my current version I think. The clipper problem is minor-ish. (Basically, the "1, 2, 3" number labels on the clip points don't display anymore, which makes 3 point-clipping a game of chance more than anything).
#12388 posted by - on 2013/01/24 05:21:43
Kinn, I always Shift-Enter the clipper unless I know for sure which side will be removed.
Scampie
#12389 posted by Kinn on 2013/01/24 10:55:26
yes, that's ok once you have the correct clip plane - problem with netradiant's bug (and it's only an issue with 3-point clipping), is that if you lay down the 3 points in XY, then change to XZ (say) to shift the points in Z, because the points are not labelled 1-2-3, then often you lose track of which point needs to move where in order to get the desired clip plane in the first place. It just slows the process down and makes it more annoying.
Ah
#12390 posted by - on 2013/01/24 12:09:38
I get what you mean now. that sounds like a real pain.
Dead Monster Floating
#12391 posted by Mike Woodham on 2013/02/02 01:29:55
I have just noticed that a dead Imp 'floats' a couple of units above the ground. Comparing models in QME, I can see that e.g. the Hknight and the Imp final death frames are both on the grid, and also the eye position is -24 for both.
What determines the final resting place of a monster?
#12392 posted by necros on 2013/02/02 02:59:16
don't really know what the eye position is, or if it does anything.
the 'bottom' of the monster is determined by the bounding box set in the QC.
This is -24z for all monsters (unless you are playing around with non-standard bounding boxes)
As long as the bounding box is set normally like it is for small and large monsters, then any vertex on the model that is 24 units below the origin of the model will be on the ground.
Necros
#12393 posted by Mike Woodham on 2013/02/02 10:41:50
Yes, that was it - looks like a typo in QC as the z was -34. Thanks.
Texture Query...
#12394 posted by distrans on 2013/02/12 01:31:18
Has anyone come across a texture set that even remotely evokes the Australian bush or outback?
HL1?
#12395 posted by ijed on 2013/02/12 13:14:46
I think I saw it converted somewhere.
Guide For Radiant
#12396 posted by CarlJ on 2013/02/23 18:57:09
Is there any guides on how to setup GTKradiant for quakeworld? which version should I use? 1.4, 1.5 or 1.6?
This Tutorial Is Pretty Good:
#12397 posted by rj on 2013/02/23 19:10:20
#12398 posted by necros on 2013/02/26 04:22:53
Why are brushes stored as planes and not verts + tris? Was it only to on save filesize?
Probably Because It's A Better Way To Define A Convex Polyhedron
#12399 posted by Kinn on 2013/02/26 11:24:53
with a list of planes
I Think That's The Main Reason
#12400 posted by SleepwalkR on 2013/02/26 14:16:36
On top of that, enumerating vertices and adjacency information is considerably more complex than simply giving a list of planes. And of course there's much more that can go wrong.
#12401 posted by necros on 2013/02/27 04:26:38
Oh,so this is a case of it being the best way to represent the data then? I guess it's only easier for puny human minds to think of it I'm terms of verts and faces. :)
Well
#12402 posted by SleepwalkR on 2013/02/27 07:18:06
From today's point of view, it certainly isn't the best way. We all know the problems associated with this data representation. But in 1996, it was a different case because in QuakeEd, brushes were mostly manipulated by manipulating their faces. I'm not even sure it had vertex manipulation at all.
Isn't It Still The Best Way?
#12403 posted by Kinn on 2013/02/27 11:16:31
Given a list of triangles, you've got no idea whether it's even a valid brush (convex polyhedron) without doing loads of maths.
With a list of planes - by definition, the brush is simply the intersection of all the inside half-spaces. Easy peasy.
#12404 posted by necros on 2013/02/27 12:50:01
But with modern computers, those maths should be trivial?
|