man no matter what i try i cant get the damn sparklies out of my bevels in mah new map im workin on.... no matter how perfect they line up with my other brushes my bevels and caps still show em...... i read on reichdeisel to caulk behind the bevels but that will make the whole brushes caulked--- i used to brushes meeting perpendicular then a brush caticornering both for teh bevel.,.. then capped it after i lined the up perfectly... its startin to piss me off- HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL! Yeah well editing in Radiant is NOT perfect but I have found a way to help with sparklies if they bother you that much. Entity: light value: -1. Creates some ugly shadows sometimes but helps with the sparklies. Experiment. Lastly use a multi sided brush to make a cylinder (without going overbaord).....meaning having too many sides. I wouldn't go over a 20 sided brush.
you caulked everything beind your bevels?
u cant caulk or like he said u caulk the whole brush
Ugh..please..there is no need to caulk behind your bevels unless you want all the extra work. Just leave it as a wall the way it is without cutting it up all over the place just to caulk. If I did that I would have twice the brushcount in all of my maps.
:confused: wtf, you always always always caulk behind patches taht meet brushes at acute angels.
Caulking behind the bevels has nothing do to with the sparkles. In the ancient times (were RD tutorials were made) the T-junction code in sof2map compiler was not very sophisticated – max points on winding error etc. You had to cut the walls to help the compiler to split the geometry. T-junction code has been much improved in q3map2 (–meta option) and you don’t need to do it anymore. If you see the sparkles then most probably you did something wrong with the bevel. Make sure that both bevels have the pink and green dots exactly in same position. Note that patches are dynamic objects optimized in the real-time and this sometimes can lead to problems. To avoid them convert problematic patches to non-dynamic ASE models.
so i dont need to caulk behind bevels/endcaps anymore?
No, you don't need to...you don't need to caulk at all anymore; but should you? Yes. Simple fact is, if you use tidy mapping techniques then any bugs that occur could never be due to sloppy mapping and makes finding errors a lot easier.
In short, caulk behind bevels, no matter how advanced compilers get, always go with what has always worked.
You didn't underestand my my point and the point was:
http://www.mslaf.com/tutorials/bevel1.jpeg)
Caulking also cut's your vis times down dramatically, so keep on caulking!
I didn't miss your point but I think it's still far better to have those 2 extra non-drawn surfaces behind that bevel, we know it works and gives an outcome you expect and allows the lightmap to flow smoothly without any chance of problems.
Originally posted by Codja X
Caulking also cut's your vis times down dramatically, so keep on caulking!
...and creating additional brushes/surfaces will dramatically increase your bsp time. I don't think the vis has something to do with the "caulked" or "not caulked" surfaces, anyway. It checks surface visibility and I don’t think there's a difference between caulked and not caulked surface in this process.
I didn't write: you don't need to caulk at all. We were discussing this issue few months ago and I wasn't right writing that you don't need to do it. I also don’t see any benefits of using additional caulked surfaces behind the bevels but I’m definitely not a super expert and could simply miss some problems:).
I don't know whether it's a problem with my video card drivers, my game settings or my version of q3map2 (2.5.11) but if I caulk behind bevels I do tend to get some sparklies.
I attribute this though to the auto LOD thing that the q3 engine has. If, for example, a capped bevel is off in the distance in a bright area, and the surface the bevel is on is caulked, you can see sparkly pixels between the cap and the bevel.
The caulk will obviously allow you through the brush and if there are gaps showing between a bevel and a cap, you'll see sparklies.
If the surface behind the patch isn't caulked, you don't have this problem.
The moral of this tale? Use patches at your peril! (or at least be more conservative with them)
I'm not ydnar and so I don't really know the ins and outs of the vis process in depth, but I find that without caulking the surfaces I get dramatically higher compile times. Strange but true!?
i fixed it somewhat it was more of a light issue than anything... i chaneged the bespin sky_duel shader to a desert2_up and made all lights in the arena darkish blue now i dont get any sparklies....somethin bout that bespin shader its so bright it even sparked in my other map so i guess that was the problem.. thx
I was wondering, which is the most deterimental to performance:
- Not caulking behind patches
- Cutting up other brushes, so that you can caulk behind the brushes, thus creating more tris (etc)
?
Been wondering this for a while, but only just got round to asking lol
Originally posted by Jedi_Vogel
I was wondering, which is the most deterimental to performance:
- Not caulking behind patches
- Cutting up other brushes, so that you can caulk behind the brushes, thus creating more tris (etc)
Caulk surfaces are not technically removed from the BSP - you can convert bsp to map as you know - but they are ignored by the renderer. It's not because they are "caulk" but because they are "nodraw". In result, you won't have any extra triangles.
Concerning performance issues, additional caulked brushes may only slow down your Radiant editor but need about 10k brushes to really feel that slow down.