Hollow is bad? - Developers

2 vertical clips, then two horizontal on the two inside brushes. [editline]09:44PM[/editline] Like the top left of this picture. [img]http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/9072/clipvscarve.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Firegod522;19438495]2 vertical clips, then two horizontal on the two inside brushes. [editline]09:44PM[/editline] Like the top left of this picture. [img]http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/9072/clipvscarve.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Missed your thing. So it's possible to clip a brush without deleting the other part?

[QUOTE=Sirrus;19438562]Missed your thing. So it's possible to clip a brush without deleting the other part?[/QUOTE] Yes. Hit shift+x to toggle between which side gets deleted, or where the clip line is without any deletion.

[img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/Clipping_hurr.png[/img] Follow it like that. Then de-select the brushes on the outside of the clips. I'm sure you can figure out the rest.

You won't be instantly mastering the clip tool, but you'll be that guy soon. [url=http://halfwit-2.com/?page=tutorials&id=60]This[/url] here is a tutorial that helped me out. Try it.

[QUOTE=Firegod522;19438681][img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/Clipping_hurr.png[/img] Follow it like that. Then de-select the brushes on the outside of the clips. I'm sure you can figure out the rest.[/QUOTE] Yeah, that clears up a lot. Thanks so much for your help, that's not near as hard as what I thought and almost easier than carving :D. Sorry to the OP for hijacking your thread.

I just use hollow to get a 3D reference of a space limit then I delete it. [editline]02:14AM[/editline] Also for skyboxes when I'm not done with the size of the map. It'd take a long time to build a proper skybox, then re-do it again when you increase the size of your map. You could just hollow a skybox out, compile and test it, delete the monster, and continue. When I'm sure I'm not doing major overhauls on an area anymore, I take time to do a proper skybox.

Meh, takes a few more seconds just to create the box yourself.

[QUOTE=Sirrus;19435554]Why is carving bad? I use it for windows- I make a brush the size of the window, put it into the wall, carve it, ungroup the wall and put the window in. Accomplishes the same thing if I had made space for it beforehand and saves me two minutes.[/QUOTE] It takes you [I]two[/I] minutes to make a hollow space for a window?

[QUOTE=metallics;19436295]Nah, rectangles are easier to resize, carving just picks a retarded way of making the hole, which means it's easy to resize the width of the hole, but not the height and means holes of differing position and size in the same wall will amke an absolute clusterfuck of brushes. [media]http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/9072/clipvscarve.jpg[/media] An illustration of what I mean, I hope this clears things up for you.[/QUOTE] I was just passing through this thread and noticed something odd about this image. If you combine the 2 brushes in the following image that are contained within the green circle, they have the exact same number of brushes. Agreeably it's harder to tell what's going on in the 2D views but it's still the relatively the same, performance wise. I don't suggest using carve, but I don't see why it would be absolutely forbidden in some cases. [img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/carvevsclip.png[/img]

VBSP will merge those brushes at compile anyway, But still... It's a bad habit.

[QUOTE=HeroicPillow;19441487]I was just passing through this thread and noticed something odd about this image. If you combine the 2 brushes in the following image that are contained within the green circle, they have the exact same number of brushes. Agreeably it's harder to tell what's going on in the 2D views but it's still the relatively the same, performance wise. I don't suggest using carve, but I don't see why it would be absolutely forbidden in some cases. [img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/carvevsclip.png[/img][/QUOTE] 1. VBSP has a much easier time compiling the neater, clipped one. 2. Carving, no matter what the shape, can cause microbrushes and tiny (less than 1 unit) gaps between the carved brushwork. 3. Clipping is neater and is good etiquette. 4. Clipping is quicker than creating a whole new brush and resizing it to cut the right portion of the brush. 5. Clipping is much easier to control. I will say that carving a rectangle into a wall isn't going to fuck everything up or anything (although it very easily could) it's just not a good idea to go about doing it all the time and will cause problems in the long run.

[QUOTE=selby3962;19442323] 2. Carving, no matter what the shape, can cause microbrushes and tiny (less than 1 unit) gaps between the carved brushwork. .[/QUOTE] I've seen this myth propogated all the way through this thread, and whilst I'd love to let youguys over exaggerate the uselessness of carve (looking at you Firegod) whilst the algorithm is shoddy, it isn't totally incompetent. carving one cuboid into another cuboid, in a manner such that produces a hole all the way through the original brush, [b]does not[/b] cause microbrushes or invalid brushes. It causes undesirable brush arrangement, and sure, it can make of grid vertices if one of the 2 starting brushes has offgrid vertices, but otherwise I'd like someone to prove me wrong, by showing me an instance where a cuboid carved into a cuboid has created a microbrush, invalid face or tiny gap, because I've just spent 20 minutes trying to recreate what you people seem to be on about with no success. Make no mistake [highlight]carve is bad[/highlight] and you should never use it, it's just not quite as some people are making out.

[QUOTE=rieda1589;19441595]VBSP will merge those brushes at compile anyway, But still... It's a bad habit.[/QUOTE] It will only merge the face. It still counts towards your brush count.

I used carve a lot for windows but I've seen the effects it causes. The microbrushes are a pain in the ass. I've stopped using it entirely its eventually easier once you know how to control clipping to use it instead of the carve tool, but I use the hollow tool and never have any problems. I use it for door frames and delete the extra brushs entirely. It saves a lot of time.

[QUOTE=Sirrus;19435883]Wow, seriously? I've been using it for rectangles and haven't yet had a problem with it. Why shouldn't it be used?[/QUOTE] Because it makes Jesus cry. It's just bad, OK? It fucks up geometry and 9 times out of 10 makes unnecessary brushes.

[QUOTE=HiddenMyst;19443317]It will only merge the face. It still counts towards your brush count.[/QUOTE] VBSP will only merge the face under specific conditions. If the texture alignment, lightmaps, edges, etc are all aligned then yes. I have an email from Dario with his specific wording if you want.

[QUOTE=HeroicPillow;19441487]I was just passing through this thread and noticed something odd about this image. If you combine the 2 brushes in the following image that are contained within the green circle, they have the exact same number of brushes. Agreeably it's harder to tell what's going on in the 2D views but it's still the relatively the same, performance wise. I don't suggest using carve, but I don't see why it would be absolutely forbidden in some cases. [img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/carvevsclip.png[/img][/QUOTE] It is a good point, but if you've got say 100 walls like that, that one extra brush means 100 wasted brushes. and sometimes, having a spare 20 brushes can make or brake a large scale map.

It's fun to have carve there just so mappers have something to argue about seriously.

Well I see my thread has helped more then me. And don't worry about "hijacking" the thread. I got my answer (which is to avoid hollowing) and I'm glad to see that the thread has helped someone else. But, since were on the topic of carve-vs-clip, I always have problems making good-looking holes in walls with clip, so I usually don't put any because I know if I do I would just use carve and mess up and create a fuckload of brushes. I'd like a quick tutorial or something--if possible--to be made or linked to me to show the most optimized way of creating some jagged-looking hole in a wall that looks like an explosion or something.

Don't carve. It's fucking lazy, stupid and nobody likes people who do it. Just..don't.

[QUOTE=Aperture fan;19451112]...show the most optimized way of creating some jagged-looking hole in a wall that looks like an explosion or something.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.interlopers.net/tutorials/16893[/url] That what you're looking for?

[QUOTE=Sirrus;19437946]Unless it has the capability of corrupting my entire map and making it unplayable, I think it would be a more productive use of my time and effort to not do it again and if I see a texture wigging out or some weird geometry going on then I can take steps to fix it then. I haven't noticed any problems in the multiple compiles and testing I've done on my map, so I really don't want to spend time fixing a problem that doesn't appear to be there. If I'm wrong on that, tell me now. I'm new to mapping. So basically, I don't want to spend time fixing the orthodoxy of the map.[/QUOTE] A lot of people are telling you to fix it immediately, but I think there's a qualifier first: is this a serious, large map you're going to release to the community? If the answer was yes, then you might think about remaking some just for brush count if nothing else- assuming you really only did carve rectangles into other rectangles. But you say you're new to mapping, which means you probably aren't going to be releasing something big anytime soon. So if you're just practicing, I don't see a reason to spend a bunch of time recreating things that aren't going to [I]break[/I] your map, just make things a little messy. I'm with metallics in that I haven't seen any microbrush/etc issues with this type of carving. You should still avoid it in the future, but it shouldn't cause any compile errors. If you were going to further edit walls that you've carved I might suggest rebuilding them for ease of clipping, but that's about it.

[QUOTE=Rabbi Vole;19466583]A lot of people are telling you to fix it immediately, but I think there's a qualifier first: is this a serious, large map you're going to release to the community? If the answer was yes, then you might think about remaking some just for brush count if nothing else- assuming you really only did carve rectangles into other rectangles. But you say you're new to mapping, which means you probably aren't going to be releasing something big anytime soon. So if you're just practicing, I don't see a reason to spend a bunch of time recreating things that aren't going to [I]break[/I] your map, just make things a little messy. I'm with metallics in that I haven't seen any microbrush/etc issues with this type of carving. You should still avoid it in the future, but it shouldn't cause any compile errors. If you were going to further edit walls that you've carved I might suggest rebuilding them for ease of clipping, but that's about it.[/QUOTE] Rp_Construct. Large scale, and I plan on releasing it.

[QUOTE=Stupideye;19455181][URL]http://www.interlopers.net/tutorials/16893[/URL] That what you're looking for?[/QUOTE] Yea thats good. Thanks!

Does anyone know why valve added a carve and wont remove it?

Its left over from when hammer was world edit I believe.

Worldcraft, you mean?

[QUOTE=TheHydra;19471576]Worldcraft, you mean?[/QUOTE] Yes that. I'm thinking of something else, my bad.

What function did carve serve back then, anyway? Wouldn't it cause similar problems, or did the clip tool not exist, or what?