Parallel brushes not parallel?
by Jay Barnson · in Artist Corner · 07/12/2005 (8:46 am) · 7 replies
Newbie question time again!
Okay - I've turned off the option to "Don't Write Floating Point Coords." and fixed a lot of the resulting issues. But I'm still seeing weird anomalies. Like brushes that are supposed to be parallel (but in separate groups) actually intersecting - by an extreme margin (the closer brush ends up being "swallowed" by the slightly further one).
This doesn't appear in the OpenGL view inside QuArK, only in Torque.
I've forced the corners to grid points, so it SHOULDN'T be a floating point error.
I am not using the new alpha Map2Dif.
I am not at home right now, so I can't include pictures. Anyone ever experience this before? Is there a "Don't use MC Escher Brushes" option I need to check? :)
Okay - I've turned off the option to "Don't Write Floating Point Coords." and fixed a lot of the resulting issues. But I'm still seeing weird anomalies. Like brushes that are supposed to be parallel (but in separate groups) actually intersecting - by an extreme margin (the closer brush ends up being "swallowed" by the slightly further one).
This doesn't appear in the OpenGL view inside QuArK, only in Torque.
I've forced the corners to grid points, so it SHOULDN'T be a floating point error.
I am not using the new alpha Map2Dif.
I am not at home right now, so I can't include pictures. Anyone ever experience this before? Is there a "Don't use MC Escher Brushes" option I need to check? :)
About the author
Jay has been a mainstream and indie game developer for a... uh, long time. His professional start came in 1994 developing titles for the then-unknown and upcoming Sony Playstation. He runs Rampant Games and blogs at Tales of the Rampant Coyote.
#2
Here's the pics (now that I'm home):
OpenGL viewer in QuArK - everything looks right
Torque version - WTH?
Hopefully I'll figure it out tonight, but if you have any pointers, I'd love to hear 'em :) I'll also see about the new (alpha) version of Map2Dif - but this looks too weird to be a mere bug. More like some kind of setting problem. Like the floating point thing.
07/12/2005 (7:57 pm)
I had the copies that were up against the wall as detail brushes, but I haven't experimented with how detail brushes cast shadows or whatnot. I guess I'll give that a try, but it won't fix my problem.Here's the pics (now that I'm home):
OpenGL viewer in QuArK - everything looks right Torque version - WTH?Hopefully I'll figure it out tonight, but if you have any pointers, I'd love to hear 'em :) I'll also see about the new (alpha) version of Map2Dif - but this looks too weird to be a mere bug. More like some kind of setting problem. Like the floating point thing.
#3
The map2dif_alpha.EXE fixed this problem.
I am not sure which version of map2dif_DEBUG.EXE I was using, but it was causing some nasty issues. I highly recommend using the alpha!
www.rustycode.com/matt/map2dif_alpha.zip
07/12/2005 (10:44 pm)
UPDATE:The map2dif_alpha.EXE fixed this problem.
I am not sure which version of map2dif_DEBUG.EXE I was using, but it was causing some nasty issues. I highly recommend using the alpha!
www.rustycode.com/matt/map2dif_alpha.zip
#4
07/13/2005 (1:20 am)
Glad to hear that! There is going to be a new version of map2dif plus out soon (I cleared up a few more issues in it this weekend...still have a little bit more to go and a bunch of testing). It will be available of the Torque for Artists page like the previous versions.
#5
07/13/2005 (7:59 am)
Awesome! Thanks, Matt. I'm looking forward to the new version. Though the alpha version seems to be working great for me so far. 
#6
i just started building in Quark, and I have no idea what detail brushes are, but they sound nice to use.
Thanks again all.
09/06/2005 (3:45 am)
Anyone care to repost link about detail brushes?i just started building in Quark, and I have no idea what detail brushes are, but they sound nice to use.
Thanks again all.
#7
With normal brushes, you might be creating a wall or something along those lines that will break up visibility. So the tool will break up your geometry around it in a way that will help it render faster (the BSP-tree organization will easily cull out the polygons that are on the "other side" of the wall at render time). So you gain an improvement in render speed, but your geometry gets bigger and more complicated.
If you are creating geometry that's not really going to block visibility to speed rendering time (like my posts in the barn above), breaking up the geometry is just going going to slow down rendering and bloat your file, instead of improving performance. So if you make them detail brushes, the impact to the geometry is minimal.
09/06/2005 (6:56 am)
I don't know all the uh... details... about detail brushes. But here's the gist as I understand it. The main advantage is that if you use them, they don't break up your geometry like normal brushes do. With normal brushes, you might be creating a wall or something along those lines that will break up visibility. So the tool will break up your geometry around it in a way that will help it render faster (the BSP-tree organization will easily cull out the polygons that are on the "other side" of the wall at render time). So you gain an improvement in render speed, but your geometry gets bigger and more complicated.
If you are creating geometry that's not really going to block visibility to speed rendering time (like my posts in the barn above), breaking up the geometry is just going going to slow down rendering and bloat your file, instead of improving performance. So if you make them detail brushes, the impact to the geometry is minimal.
Associate Matt Fairfax
PopCap
This might be a good time to learn about Detail Brushes: holodeck.st.usm.edu/vrcomputing/vrc_t/tutorials/