Doesn't for me, instead it makes a stretched arch. Meh, it's probably because the arch tool is buggy.
No shit.
You could always make a cylinder and clip a half off. I'm not sure if that is bad or not though. You won't have that interior part though.
[QUOTE=Cruma;23765905]No.[/QUOTE]
Did you even read the post? It works just fine.
Notice I said for making [B]convex[/B] shapes. Concave shapes will always fuck up horribly.
[QUOTE=Lord Ivan;23767896]Did you even read the post? It works just fine.
Notice I said for making [B]convex[/B] shapes. Concave shapes will always fuck up horribly.[/QUOTE]
I think I'll repeat what Cruma said. Because you didn't seem to get it the first time.
[b]No.[/b]
BmB, I don't you're comprehending how to make a 180 degree arch. Make the dimensions 1024x1024, make the values what you want except for 180 for the arch. Then shrink it to 512x1024.
If you scale it, it could go off grid.
You aren't making the arch right.
1024x1024 with 360 degrees makes the complete circle 1024x1024.
1024x1024 with 180 degrees makes an arch, so that would end as 1024x512
If you want to make it higher make the height of the brush twice the size of the initial height you want it to fit into.
How about we just conclude that BmB doesn't know how to use hammer and go on with our day, and the thread.
[QUOTE=Reinhardt;23768459]I think I'll repeat what Cruma said. Because you didn't seem to get it the first time.
[b]No.[/b][/QUOTE]
Oh wow you're right, that doesn't work at all what was I thinking jesus christ. I thought for sure it worked last time I tried it, but this time it fucked things up horribly.
So, really the only use I can see for it then is if you want one angle to match up with another, but then you might as well just use clip anyway.
[QUOTE=Firegod522;23771187]You aren't making the arch right.
1024x1024 with 360 degrees makes the complete circle 1024x1024.
1024x1024 with 180 degrees makes an arch, so that would end as 1024x512
If you want to make it higher make the height of the brush twice the size of the initial height you want it to fit into.[/QUOTE]
Congratulations on your outstanding reading comprehension.
Try again.
God I hate BmB, so annoying and contradictory.
[QUOTE=sphinxa279;23777796]God I hate BmB, so annoying and contradictory.[/QUOTE]
way to contribute to the thread a+ post
[QUOTE=BmB;23771083]If you scale it, it could go off grid.[/QUOTE]
it COULD, but that's why you stick to whole values like 512, 1024, 2048, etc. it also depends on the number of sides the arch has, as well as its wall width
it's just a matter of trial and error
[QUOTE=djshox;23778630]way to contribute to the thread a+ post
it COULD, but that's why you stick to whole values like 512, 1024, 2048, etc. it also depends on the number of sides the arch has, as well as its wall width
it's just a matter of trial and error[/QUOTE]
Or maths (usually quicker).
A brush as big as 1024x1024, shrinking to 512x1024 has no chance of going off-grid. You're supposed to shrink it if you're making 180 degree archs, it's a required step. BmB, you've convinced me that you know absolutely nothing about Hammer or how it works, not only from this thread, but from every other thread pertaining to Hammer that you've shitted up with your opinions that have absolutely nothing backing them, other than your stupidity.
[QUOTE=Cruma;23780436]A brush as big as 1024x1024, shrinking to 512x1024 has no chance of going off-grid. You're supposed to shrink it if you're making 180 degree archs, it's a required step. BmB, you've convinced me that you know absolutely nothing about Hammer or how it works, not only from this thread, but from every other thread pertaining to Hammer that you've shitted up with your opinions that have absolutely nothing backing them, other than your stupidity.[/QUOTE]
I pretty much agree with this. First it started with that UDK thread (for me) and then you kept it up.
Arch tool always works perfectly for me? :raise:
[QUOTE=Larry_G;23780911]Arch tool always works perfectly for me? :raise:[/QUOTE]
This.
Then explain my screenshots.
I can't.
[img]http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/8786/20395554.jpg[/img]
because it works for me.
[QUOTE=BmB;23780993]Then explain my screenshots.[/QUOTE]
As long as I keep to arches with 90 degrees interval it works for me. Anything else seems to give odd sizes.
So lesson learned, don't use odd degree numbers.
[QUOTE=BmB;23731546]Source doesn't care how neat you are.
[editline]06:44PM[/editline]
Same to above, nothing wrong with either solution. And one requires you to fiddle for several minutes.
[editline]06:44PM[/editline]
No offgrid vertices will ever occur there. Assuming your cylinder is well formed to begin with.[/QUOTE]
He's right. Stop with the :bandwagon: about him not knowing anything about Source, I'd guarantee most of you folks don't know much about the internals, and you're all talking about Hammer in the first place, not the engine.
They're two entirely different things.
[editline]10:09AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zally13;23731585]Every time you post, I get a feeling you know less and less about Source.[/QUOTE]
:irony:
Most of your posts are about mapping, meaning you have experience with Hammer, and not with Source internal directly.
This is my point, stop the bandwagon. Some of us programmers watch over other subforums much the same as you may watch over our work.
[QUOTE=BmB;23731546]
No offgrid vertices will ever occur there. Assuming your cylinder is well formed to begin with.[/QUOTE]
I did a test with a 16 sided cylinder. Every single vertix was on the grid.
After carve, every single vertix at the side of the box was off-grid.
[QUOTE=amcwatters;23781457]
:irony:
[B]Most of your posts are about mapping, meaning you have experience with Hammer, and not with Source internal directly.[/B]
This is my point, stop the bandwagon. Some of us programmers watch over other subforums much the same as you may watch over our work.[/QUOTE]
I map for Source. I know Source's limits because of that. Seeing as I've been doing it for over three years I should know Source as well. I chose Source to map for, because I knew the engine.
[QUOTE=amcwatters;23781457]He's right. Stop with the :bandwagon: about him not knowing anything about Source, I'd guarantee most of you folks don't know much about the internals, and you're all talking about Hammer in the first place, not the engine.
They're two entirely different things.
[editline]10:09AM[/editline]
:irony:
Most of your posts are about mapping, meaning you have experience with Hammer, and not with Source internal directly.
This is my point, stop the bandwagon. Some of us programmers watch over other subforums much the same as you may watch over our work.[/QUOTE]
Ahhh where is Gigabite when you need him, he'd put all you fools to rights with this engine nonsense.
If you can't use the arch tool.. then don't? You can do the same with a calculator and vertex manipulation/clipping... it just takes time.
[QUOTE=amcwatters;23781457]He's right. Stop with the :bandwagon: about him not knowing anything about Source, I'd guarantee most of you folks don't know much about the internals, and you're all talking about Hammer in the first place, not the engine.
They're two entirely different things.
[editline]10:09AM[/editline]
:irony:
Most of your posts are about mapping, meaning you have experience with Hammer, and not with Source internal directly.
This is my point, stop the bandwagon. Some of us programmers watch over other subforums much the same as you may watch over our work.[/QUOTE]
what are you even saying
He's saying this is computer illiterates who think they know things v6.
[QUOTE=BmB;23784250]He's saying this is computer illiterates who think they know things v6.[/QUOTE]
Just stop. You obviously hate Source/Hammer, so stop posting here.
[QUOTE=BmB;23784250]He's saying this is computer illiterates who think they know things v6.[/QUOTE]
not really, he didn't say anything informative
carve hasn't been accepted by the community nor by valve, since hammer 3.3 and probably even before that.
all carve does is showing other people what a terrible mapper someone is.
clip & vertex manip. are both better since you can more directly control your brushwork aswell as being sure it's aligned without having to check every vertex
I remember using carve once, and hated it. I wish Valve redid the carve feature to be less terrible when using more complex shaping.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
