This method was the first idea I had... and it seems that I need to come back to it !! Anyway, I've just started the map, and there is still long way before designing the lift... I still have a lot of time before taking a decision about what kind of lift (or several ones.. ) I will use..
Thank you for this advice ... 

Explain?? 

http://www.snarkpit.com/editing.php?page=tutorials&id=16

http://www.snarkpit.com/editing.php?page=tutorials&id=18

http://www.snarkpit.com/editing.php?page=tutorials&id=17 

Using triangle method for terrain is great to avoid huge plane terrain, or cliff in a map.. As described in VoreLord related links, you build a surface using triangles.. It is very easy to build if your map editor includes a "brush splitting" tool like described... But in some editor it doesn't exist (like QuArK).. you'll so have to build your triangle-based terrain manually using pyramid or tetrahedron polygons... and it can take you a long time (you can see an example with my "ugly" bunker map.. the dune terrain was built like this..)
You will have a cool look, but there is a bad news.. it increases painfully the VIS process time..
You will so have to find a trade off between compilation timing and polygons number...
Hoping my poor experience gives you some further infos :)

Regards.. 

quark does have a brush splitting tool? at least it did when i still used it 

Thx im gonna Make some kickass terrain now!

Kinda off topic but who wants to recomend a good QWbot? (a bot u kill not a bot that kills for you) 

FrogBot 

I don't know about a "QWBot", but for normal quake, you can't really go past the Omicron

http://www.fileplanet.com/dl.aspx?skorpion/files/obots102.zip

especially with an .ent file(route) installed for the map. 

The easiest method by which to create a terrain mesh is, of course, GenSurf. It's fun. Lots.
Combining it with Terragen I can create my heightmaps from pseudo-fractals and a bit of elbow grease in PSP. This gives lots of control over the look and feel of the terrain overall and also allows specific modifications to be made in respect of conventional brushwork, Vis, LOS etc. Even to the level of adjusting one/several terrain vertices by as little as 8 units z-axis by simply changing the color of a pixel.

Optimising the terrain is another matter.
Grouping the whole lot into a func_wall requires that vis blockers be constructed inside the terrain, as per the Q3 terrain method, and with the hope of casting appropriate shadows where the func_wall sadly will not.
Using a single func_wall for a large terrain is also going to shatter the thing into a multitude of efrags, which could look bad as whole rock formations blink in and out of existence due to the vagaries of your PVS. Strategically grouping pieces of the terrain into individual funcs is better and some terrain brushes could even be left solid where useful.

I'm hitting all this stuff because I have been working on a large Q1SP terrain map for the last few weeks and have hit various problems, not least of which being the estimated vis time for a solid terrain version being something in the order of a month.
The strategic func_wall method is probably what I'm going to have to resort to, unless I miraculously gain access to a state of the art processor.
If you use GenSurf, I recommend a mesh resolution of 128 units/triquad. 64 is only really possible for small, isolated bits of rocky stuff in an otherwise 'architectural' map. 256 drops the brushcount+compile time+render issues considerably, but looks extremely naff and is a pain in the arse to traverse.
A large terrain map is a beautiful thing to make, but think very carefuly about exactly what you want to do with it and if you really want to be so ambitious. I wish I'd given more thought to my landscape.
In the absence of Q1 detail brushes, even the generous limits now pushed back by current compilers and engines struggle to swallow massive terrain. Despite its name, even Quake can have a hard time moving mountains :P 

Tyrann's prog "Skippy", as I understand it is a bit like Quake3's caulk, where any surface with the skip texture on, will be removed from the .bsp, therefore causing the engine to have to draw less (something like that, if I have it right)which you would think is a good thing, so....

does anyone use it?
are there problems with it's use?
are there any benefits to be gained by it's use?

I noticed that the only version I could find is the initial version from 2000, so I thought that maybe work on it was ceased due to problems or whatever. I don't want to get to far using only to find out it was a bad thing.

Any help appreciated 

I have no idea why Tyrann dropped development of it. Perhaps because there are no known issues. Anyway, it works fine for me, but I don't use it for the things you asked about; I usually use it for obscure things, such as the "statues" in rpgsmse4.bsp. (Download Quake Condensed from my site if you want to know what I'm talking about http://rpg.spawnpoint.org/ .)

Maybe I'm just deluded, but it seems like it would be a pretty rare circumstance where Skippy would actually be useful for removing rendered but non-visible polygons.

The only issue I ever had with the program was when I tried to encase a func_door elevator with a set of "skip" brush stairs to create the illusion of a moving ladder. The brushes that were inside the "skip" brush were removed along with "skip" faces, resulting in a mostly invisible ladder. 

Perhaps I have Skippy by the tail ........ 

What QuArK version do you use ?? I use version 6.4.0 and never I found bsrush splitting tool.. Perhaps I didn't find the stuff yet, and so: where is it ??
Thanks 

is in the toolbar, there is a symbol of a cube with a line through it (hover with the mouse over the button and you'll get a brief description, you can also press F1 while the mouse is over the button).

Just select a brush, select the button in the toolbar and draw a line through the brush with LMB and you're done.

You can also cut out corners (i.e. add vertices) by pointing at a corner of a brush and select "Cut out corner" from the RMB menu. 

I've never seen and used this feature... I'll take a look this evening..
Thanks for this great informations ;-)
Bye 

I have played around with Gensurf before, and it is definately the best way of generating large terrain surfaces.

My current map is largely an architectural map though, with the terrain bits very much playing second-fiddle to the main castle-like structures.

I will put some screenies up when I get around to lighting it. 

Is something wrong with your site or email address? Site seems unreachable and email bounces. 

i've reached disk space limit there, mailed to isp and waiting for their actions.
so mail and index.html file aren't working atm. 

I've just deleted a lot of my stuff off kell.vondur. Might help a bit. 

thanks

looks like the site returned back to normal.
one thing that annoys it still says it has not much free space, as if nothing was deleted... i'll fuck with isp more then. 

Maybe you should change the site url in the People section, the existing one now reports "no website configured". Or maybe it's a temporary problem, too? 

http://vondur.net works here fine atm 

My local DNS-cache wasn't updated properly. After flushing it, http://vondur.net now properly routs to http://www.vondur.net . 

After formatting C and re�nstalling all, my Arghlite seems to freeze.
Compiling and vising goes fine, but the program arglight is somehow delayed by the system. 

In my new Q1SP map, I would like to create a large beam-ray coming from a light, directed in a precise direction, and with a specific shape (cylinder. conic, or other...)... What are the issue to create a light cone or a large light beam like this (if it's possible) ?? Is there someone to explain me the stuff ??
Thanks