Extract from aguirRe's tool tips: http://user.tninet.se/~xir870k/tooltips.txt

"Too many light styles on a face, lightmap point near (x y z), tex, light->origin (x y z)"
Too many styled (torches, flickering etc) lights in the specified area. Reduce # styled lights or their range in that area. You can also try option "-gate #" to limit the range of
attenuated lights.

Actually the limit depends of your light tool, but as explained above it can be easily solved by reducing the number of lightstyle on a face... maybe you should contact aguirRe and ask his advices... and if you are lucky, he could do you a favor by sorting out a new light tool with increased limit regarding lightstyle... who knows ;) 

i don't think it's just a tool limitation or aguirre would have pumped it up higher.

what will happen is that the light on those faces from the extra lightstyles just won't be shwon. this can lead to hard edges between lights.

aguirre's light is better than most and will try to discard the least visible one or prefering to use the minlight/sunlight before anything else.

still, it's something that you should try to avoid.

as for old engines, the problem will look the same as in new engines (unless it's an engine with real time lights of course). 

cheers jpl but it is kinda obvious what it means & how to prevent it ;p just wanted to know what the negative impact on the map was.

what will happen is that the light on those faces from the extra lightstyles just won't be shwon. this can lead to hard edges between lights.

i see.. i usually get it when attenuated lights spill over into the next room and i don't think the effect has ever been noticeable. excessive compile warnings are never nice but until now that's been the only reason i've tried to avoid it.. 

Dumb question but where are those orange textures that I see people shelling L4D and HL2 maps with? Which WAD? 

rj: yeah, like you'll never notice it if the overlapping areas have only a small amount of light shining on it, but try placing several bright switchable lights like 128 units apart and you'll definitely see it. sometimes it can be ignored, and sometimes not. :S 

Negative effect in map is also straightforward: bad lightning on a face can simply gives somes weird shadow effects, making the lightning completely unrealistic... 

the effect wasn't visible so it seemed like it could have been a false warning that possibly only applied to old engines and/or may have caused problems loading the map in some setups...

i know now that isn't the case, however that was not as obvious as suggesting that a 'too many lightstyles on a face' problem can be solved by reducing the number of lightstyles on that face... capiche? ;) 

Well, I should have written ...bad lightning on a face may simply gives somes weird shadow effects.

Actually, if the tool generates the warning, it means there is a problem. It does not mean it is visible, as it certainly depends of each individual light strength on the face that generates the issue...
I remember having such warnings in my very first map, and that I never noticed any weird light/shadow effects ingame....

So you have to inspect the area ingame, and then:
- either you are lucky and you don't give a shit to the warning as nothing is clearly visible
- or you are in deep shit as you have to rework your lightning effects....

Experiment !! 

this is not an old engine vs. new engine bug. The bsp format only allows 4 light styles per face, so light.exe will pick four and if there was a 5th style, its light will not be present on that face.

What JPL says is true: if the extra style was contributing a very low amount of light to that face; its absence will not be noticeable.

If yo do need to fix it, you should reduce the number of switchable lights or styled lights in the vicinity of that face -- either fewer styles, or fewer targetnames (for switchable lights) or give those lights a smaller radius or something. (assuming the lighting tool gives coordinates of the face.) 

i gather that now. nonetheless i thank you for your detailed reiteration of JPLs reiteration of necros' answer to my original question ;) 

But what I remember more is one compiler giving the error, and not another, in exactly the same map. Any ideas? 

I sent some wads out to Quaketastic, not the stuff you mentioned though. Was too early to think staight also... 

different compilers compile differently? ^_^; 

When a scragg is killed and falls to the floor, how is the floor being detected i.e. time to stop falling, - is it within qc or is it an engine thing? 

scrag uses hull1 when doing collision. all collision is done by the engine. 

Is there a way (shortcut) to snap brushes to the grid in gtkr1.5? 

ctrl-g isn't it? Or is that only in previous versions? 

Yes, that's it. Thanks 

I'm always positive I did something like this in the past, but for whatever reason now, it isn't working.

I have a func_train which sits at destination 1. You have to trigger it to get it to move to destination 2. It arrives at destination 2 and stops until triggered again, to go back at destination 1, and the process repeats.

The problem is, the train stops at destination 2 and stays there, regardless if I try to trigger it again. I've tried setting its path_corner to "wait" "9999999" but it doesnt seem to make a difference.

What can I do to get this train working the way I want it to? I'm sure its something very simple that I've overlooked. 

I think it's "wait" "-1" isn't it? 

I tried "wait" "-1" as well, same result unfortunately. 

i'm not so sure that's possible with standard progs. 

it's not. the stock func_train is very rudimentary. :(

if you're just going from one point to another without any other paths in between, you could just use a toggleable door, otherwise, you're out of luck. :S 

 

yeah, hipnotic progs also has this (which is where it's from).