how important is it
....to clip brushes that extend into the void?
....to make sure u dont texture anything that cant be seen while playing the game?
....to caulk as much as u can?
....to use as few brushes as possible? (or break them up into many tiny brushes to decrease mass)
ETC.
HOW IMPORTANT IS ALL THIS? IS THERE MORE I SHOULD DO? LESS I SHOULD DO? GIVE ME ALL YOUR THOUGHTS AND LEAVE NOTHING OUT!!!!!
....to clip brushes that extend into the void? - wha?
....to make sure u dont texture anything that cant be seen while playing the game? - not essential but when it comes to how light is cast and those vital couple of FPS more, it's important. It's one of those 'you don't have to but really really should' things.
....to caulk as much as u can? - same as above...
....to use as few brushes as possible? (or break them up into many tiny brushes to decrease mass) - less detail = more fps but looks crappy...erm as for less mass, that is insane, mass is irrelevant, only the number of triangles and they shader they have.
Originally posted by JeeMonkey
how important is it
....to clip brushes that extend into the void?
Why would you even have unnecessary brushes sticking out to the void? If they happen to be detail brushes, it will lead to troubles.
Originally posted by JeeMonkey
....to make sure u dont texture anything that cant be seen while playing the game?
....to caulk as much as u can?
When you build new brushes, use caulk. Then texture the visible sides only with the texture/shader you desire. That way you don't have any invisible, textured sides. Also, that ensures maximal caulking. And it also increases the chances of avoiding any unfitted textures.
how important is it:
Important for the compiler and you CPU during compilation time or for the in game renderer?
....to caulk as much as u can?
it's a pain in the ass during editing and will not bring you ANY benefits in the game. All invisible surfaces are being “removed” during the compilation phase and doesn't matter if they were marked with the “caulk” shader or not. Generally it should be used by the q3map2 compiler during the -light stage but I'm not sure if this is not obsolete today. This could bring you a compilation time speed up and save your CPU:).
....to use as few brushes.
use the models in the first place. MD3 for movable and ASE for static geometry. Create a "model" in GTK then put in into a caulk hull, apply the “caulk” shader on all surfaces that should be removed and compile with:
q3map2 -meta mapname.map.
Then convert it to the ase format with:
q3map2 -convert -format ase mapname.bsp.
That is really important if you want to increase the renderer efficiency - especially for tiny brushes.
BTW: Have you seen any maps from Unreal2/UT2K3/UT2K4. 20% are typical quake brushes and the rest are models (static meshes in UT terminology).
Interesting... The model part.
But I still support caulk, because I don't know any better alternatives.
ok thanks that really helps.
on a side not to compiling, i ompiled my map and when i load my map it says
"MAX BRUSH PLAIN"
wtf does that mean and how do i fix it so i can play my map?
But I still support caulk, because I don't know any better alternatives.
Me too, but it's more like a habit that an action that could bring something :)
Originally posted by mslaf
All invisible surfaces are being “removed” during the compilation phase and doesn't matter if they were marked with the “caulk” shader or not. Generally it should be used by the q3map2 compiler during the -light stage but I'm not sure if this is not obsolete today. This could bring you a compilation time speed up and save your CPU:).
Bull****. Q3map2 autocaulking is bugged, and doesn't work.
Originally posted by GothiX
Bull****. Q3map2 autocaulking is bugged, and doesn't work.
Yesh.. I tried caulking and not caulking a test map, and I tell you, there WAS a difference.
I wouldn't say it is bugged....just not as efficient as caulking yourself. Sometimes it just misses a surface entirely and that surface could be a mere 2 extra triangles with some extra lightmap data....on a large map that's plenty of extra render data and a larger BSP due to lightmap data.
Bull****. Q3map2 autocaulking is bugged, and doesn't work.
No problem, you're most welcome. I'm just the human and I could be wrong, thanks for pointing it out.
If this "buggy" q3map2 cannot handle it correctly then maybe you should report it to Ydnar so he could fix it. I think he will not hurt you.
I didn't write that q3map2 is the way to happiness. The compiler should remove "useless" surfaces if it's mathematically possible to find them. It will not remove the surfaces that the mapper doesn't need. I don't think that this tool will be smarter that the mapper. In my opinion it is just more effective to fix the "bug" in one compiler that hundreds surfaces on hundreds brushes on hundreds maps.
In my opinion it is just more effective to fix the "bug" in one compiler that hundreds surfaces on hundreds brushes on hundreds maps.
You should never have hundreds of pointlessly textured surfaces because you should map in caulk and texture visible sides only. Q3Map2 shouldn't be able to find one face to caulk manually because you should have done it already.
Good GAWD...just caulk the outside of the map and be done with it. Raven does it this way....you should too. If you WANT...to caulk all of those minute surfaces, especially in a large detailed map....by all means. See you next year....LOL
Personally, I build my maps out of caulk, then use Ctrl+ALt+Shift+Click to select and texture individual visible sides. Works like a charm.
Unfortunately for my point of view Gothix was right. The surfaces that should be "removed" are still present and visible for the renderer utilizing its GPU (see r_showtris). I haven't noticed any difference in FPS but the r_speeds really shows that number of generated triangles has increased. But; I still think that these should be done and fixed by the compiler and I'm surprised Ydnar didn't fix it.
Raven does it this
This is not the best sample I'd like to follow. You always must care about optimization. That's why you use hints, areaportals, caulks and nodraws. There's no excuse for all these games that works slow like hell because its author didn't care about it. Just finished "DeuxEx 2" that is quite good example here.
Originally posted by lauser
Good GAWD...just caulk the outside of the map and be done with it. Raven does it this way....you should too.
It seems obvious to me that optimization is not the highest priority in the designs of big software houses. It serves two purposes: It forces the customers to buy new, more powerful systems, which in turn make them want even more new power hungry games. And on the other hand, it may save some time. And every saved hour means less wages paid for the employee to do this particular job.
Originally posted by lauser
If you WANT...to caulk all of those minute surfaces, especially in a large detailed map....by all means. See you next year....LOL
Like GothiX said, this statement has no meaning at all, if you are building everything out of caulk in the first place. I couldn't even think of any other way anymore. Just wouldn't work and seem right.
It seems obvious to me that optimization is not the highest priority in the designs of big software houses. It serves two purposes: It forces the customers to buy new, more powerful systems, which in turn make them want even more new power hungry games. And on the other hand, it may save some time. And every saved hour means less wages paid for the employee to do this particular job.
It could be true on the console market but not on the PC. You can't effectively evaluate what impact on hardware sales had each particular game title. The software developers are directly dependent on their consumers. Lot of consumers == profits. If the consumers see that the game will not work on their systems they rather won't buy it than replace the whole hardware. On the other side, on the console market there's only one hardware available and if the game is not optimized it won't work.
If you WANT...to caulk all of those minute surfaces, especially in a large detailed map....by all means. See you next year....LOL
Yeah that showed he read my post...!
(The one where I said "You should never have hundreds of pointlessly textured surfaces because you should map in caulk and texture visible sides only")
Originally posted by mslaf
It could be true on the console market but not on the PC. You can't effectively evaluate what impact on hardware sales had each particular game title. The software developers are directly dependent on their consumers. Lot of consumers == profits. If the consumers see that the game will not work on their systems they rather won't buy it than replace the whole hardware. On the other side, on the console market there's only one hardware available and if the game is not optimized it won't work.
It is indeed an interesting question. But I must strongly disagree with the sentence I have turned into italic in your comment. I would say that is if not the biggest then almost the biggest reason people buy new computers in the first place! Games drive the consumer markets these day. (Man, I should update my own system soon to be able to play KOTOR and X2...)
Maybe I'm partly wrong with my first reasoning. It may be purely unwitting that the software developers drive people to update constantly by compromised optimization. However, if I concede that, it will all fall down to the saving of time and money (aka greediness).
I meant that, they will upgrade their hardware to be able to play multiple games not just one game. Considering hardware costs for most people it will be cheaper to buy a Xbox console to play Doom III than spend three times more to upgrade their PCs.
I have to agree (in part) with one of the main reasons many people (not all) upgrade their PC is to support a game or software. I know people, including myself who have upgraded their PC or sometimes given it a total overhaul just to play one game. A perfect example of this is Deus Ex 2, if you go to the Deus Ex official forums you'll see many many people bought new PC components just to try and get that game to play nicely.
If there is a game you really want to play you will nearly always upgrade for it.
as happy as i am that i was able to start a thread as long as this, i agree with wade,
WHY THE **** DO U HAVE TO COMPLICATE THINGS?
JUST MAKE BRUSHES IN CAULK THEN APPLY TEXTURES LATER AND ONLY ON THE VISIBLE SIDES!!!!!!!!! HOLY **** IS IT SO HARD TO DO THAT WE NEED LIKE 30 MESSEGES TO UNDERSTAND HOW????
Originally posted by JeeMonkey
as happy as i am that i was able to start a thread as long as this, i agree with wade,
WHY THE **** DO U HAVE TO COMPLICATE THINGS?
JUST MAKE BRUSHES IN CAULK THEN APPLY TEXTURES LATER AND ONLY ON THE VISIBLE SIDES!!!!!!!!! HOLY **** IS IT SO HARD TO DO THAT WE NEED LIKE 30 MESSEGES TO UNDERSTAND HOW????
Obviously you didn't even read those 30 messages. And as honoured we all are that such an enlightened person as you comes to tell us what is right and what is wrong, you might still want to check what's wrong with your Caps Lock.
10 points and a new G-string for lasse.
Originally posted by WadeV1589
Yeah that showed he read my post...!
(The one where I said "You should never have hundreds of pointlessly textured surfaces because you should map in caulk and texture visible sides only")
This is Wades attempt to argue for no reason. I made that statement for a reason. If you choose to take it the wrong way or take offense thats your problem. I usually post and reread to check what I posted. Map the way you want. That's your business. Me, I choose not to do that. Performance wise...no difference for me. Raven designers have to take into consideration how well the maps play also. So if Lassev says that Raven is on a budget that's true. Of course they are. That's just common sense. But to say they have to pump out maps and take LESS care than they do is a guess at best. You will never know for sure. My opinion on that....when you have designers working on maps and being paid for it....well...'I' would certainly take more care.
Yeah it's getting off topic a little so maybe I've said enough.
I'm sure Wade has more to say though.:p
Ha I wrote a pretty long post here because at first I was angry with the smart remarks and come backs you just used...it really did have the effect you wanted of getting me to reply...but now I've removed it all. This is all that is left. I'm not lowering myself to that level again.
Will someone get a moderator to lock this thread though...I think a pre-emptive move is in order here.
With regards to caulking, I'd just like to offer a suggestion; building your map entirely of caulk THEN texture it-this really helps fps.
We've said that 2-3 times already.
Whoops, my bad, lemme see if I can think of a unused suggestion...Ah, I know-
If you want to see first hand how to use Caulk well, check out the Raven maps that are included in the game. Sorry for repeating you guys.
Woah hold up there...if you want to see how to map hurridly check out the map files for the Raven maps! They're far from perfect...true they've come a long way from the EF days when they barely caulked a thing but it's still not the best source!
I didn't see this stated earlier so I'll state it now.. Please corect me if I'm wrong.
Last i saw ydnar had disabled auto caulking in q3map2. This was proven to me on a test map I did while using (I think) /r_showtris or whatever the comand to see all the visable triangles..
im so happy to know that lassev thinks he knows me and that i am not aware of when i use my caps lock. i was mearly trying to end this thread by stating what everyone else had concluded which is to caulk first texture later. if this wise information coming from just about everyone bothers you when it comes from me then you should take it up with me and not waste space on this thread
Just ignore it, I get it from lauser...we all have someone who likes to argue against you or try and provoke you...never in private messages though, always publicly.
As for Lil Killa...I think it may be true *goes to read information*...hmm I don't see anything but it's likely he did.
Just out of curriosity, has anyone checked out the .maps for EF2 and SOF2 to see what raven did with them?
EF2 was done by Activision and many times I've noticed my FPS go way below acceptable levels...I can't believe they didn't get Ravensoft to do EF2...what a pity.
Thats true, activision also pooped up the MP by taking out assimilation and other cool gametypes.
Let me know if you don't like my post. But I see that some mappers have stated they build in CAULK first. For me I can do this with the outside of my map. But it sure is hard VISUALIZING what a map should look like with all the textures if it's all PINK. I mean I could see building in small sections but not the whole map and then texturing. I would be so lost I wouldn't know where to begin. It's very confusing not knowing where textures should go if it's all one color. Is that really what some of you do? Or is that reserved for small undetailed duel maps?
Originally posted by lauser
Let me know if you don't like my post. But I see that some mappers have stated they build in CAULK first. For me I can do this with the outside of my map. But it sure is hard VISUALIZING what a map should look like with all the textures if it's all PINK. I mean I could see building in small sections but not the whole map and then texturing. I would be so lost I wouldn't know where to begin. It's very confusing not knowing where textures should go if it's all one color. Is that really what some of you do? Or is that reserved for small undetailed duel maps?
I always map just like that. Although I usually map one room at a time, add basic detailing, like columns and wall, ceiling and floor structures. Then I texture the basic detailing, then add some more detailing or texture the walls (and ceiling and floor). The truth is that I haven't necessarily selected the wall texturing, when I build the room. I quess I tend to stare more at structure and form than textures at that point. On the other hand the good thing is that you won't get stuck with any one texture, so to speak, if you don't have any textures really selected when building the room. It allows more freedom when selecting a suitable texture to serve the form of the walls and details.
But I agree with you that it might be hard to completely build a detailed large room in caulk without taking some time to texture parts of it along the way. Careful texture selection is especially important with details, since texturing plays in them a bigger role than in e.g. walls relatively speaking, in my opinion.
The way I do it is I make the basic room....I then make any basic structures, such as pillars or wall supports or decals along the walls ALL IN CAULK. I then texture that basic structure. Then if I want to make something in that room, I'll model it all in caulk first, then texture it and I'll go along like that, modelling purely in caulk and texturing afterwards. It works.
One technique I use is to build it, texture it and make sure I'm happy with it, then I caulk it all and come back to it later. Like was said above, it gets a little hairy modeling in complete caulk.
The only thing I can see you need to do when texturing is when you clone a large group of columns or maybe boxes etc. Because then it would just take too much time to texture each one seperately. Maybe I'll try more caulk more often.
Yea, and you dont have to worry about taht when doing terrain, you can select it all by hitting "Alt Shift Left Click"
I've just waded all the way down this thread. Quite funny actually.
Anyway why not choose a middle way?
Why not caulk as you build then texture the parts you KNOW you'll be able to see. This surely maintains good caulking efficiency while allowing you to visualize your map.
That's what I do anyway, but I'm no authority.
Originally posted by Scotty
I've just waded all the way down this thread. Quite funny actually.
Anyway why not choose a middle way?
Why not caulk as you build then texture the parts you KNOW you'll be able to see. This surely maintains good caulking efficiency while allowing you to visualize your map.
That's what I do anyway, but I'm no authority.
If you'd have actually read the thread, you wouldn't have made such statements.
lol, he's new so we can cut him some slack.:p
MY BAD.
See that little '2' at the bottom left indicating a second page... well I didn't.
Sorry.
I just noticed that switchable lights could reduce the performance as well. The FPS dropped from 60 do 30 on my test machine only because I had two “targetnamed” light entities.