Mapping Question Megathread v3 - Developers

[QUOTE=Mozartkugeln;39495273]A torus won't work for what you need (it could, but it'd take you approx. two hours to adjust the vertices). [T]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/17850283/dome.png[/T] [url]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/17850283/dome.vmf[/url] Can't be bothered to explain. I'll make a tutorial on it soon anyway. Have fun texturing. [editline]6th February 2013[/editline] Oh yeah, I recommend using [URL=http://www.gyroshot.com/vertalert.htm]VertAlert[/URL] with it: Hammer's decimal loss and a few of my own mistakes might have set some of the vertices askew.[/QUOTE] thank you, but the vertices dont meet at all and vertalert isnt helping.

Does it [I]look[/I] good in-game? If it's func_detailed, the offset vertices shouldn't cause trouble.

Why not just model it? edit: Or carve a sphere into a sphere! :v [editline]6th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Mozartkugeln;39496424]Does it [I]look[/I] good in-game? If it's func_detailed, the offset vertices shouldn't cause trouble.[/QUOTE] The offset verticies will make loads of microfaces or miss out faces entirely. Not recommended much better modelling it.

So im getting a leak in my map that is going through a solid brush. The brush isn't a func_detail just a world brush. Here are some pics: [IMG]http://gyazo.com/81ed9fd557408c6c4cd6443f6d9e26b5.png?1360191964[/IMG] [IMG]http://gyazo.com/ac0d0f4ee625273281c89949f7dc4c75.png?1360191975[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Mozartkugeln;39496424]Does it [I]look[/I] good in-game? If it's func_detailed, the offset vertices shouldn't cause trouble.[/QUOTE] it even looks okay from far away in hammer but when i get closer i cant help but notice this shit and i tend to have ocd when it comes to aligned shit in hammer. i tried to make just a regular sphere (i could probably make it work without a fancy hollowed out one) and cut a quarter off of that but even then the clip tool made some retarded shit happen.

[QUOTE=DarthTealc;39492200]I'm trying something on my map which involves an underground area that has a skybox, in addition to the overground area having a skybox. I'm getting some strange results compared to what I expected. This screenshot is taken from within the underground area. A square shaped opening allows the player to go through the 'roof' of the underground area. I've got an area portal there which is apparently supposed to stop this problem but it happens anyway. [t]http://i.imgur.com/wcQbKHC.jpg[/t] All I want the player to see through the hole is what can be seen in hammer, where the skybox would block the visibility of the stuff above it. However in-game it shows things that should be blocked by the skybox. This is the overground area. It has a platform with an opening in the side. Walking under the platform you then see a square opening in the ground (cut off by an area portal in this screen) which is the top of what is seen underground. [t]http://i.imgur.com/Li3BWJC.jpg[/t] This image is a side view of the map. [t]http://i.imgur.com/8VbOqxn.png[/t] I expected the skybox underground to simply cut off visibility of anything that is past it but that doesn't seem to be the case. Am I doing something wrong with the area portal?[/QUOTE] Try setting the areaportal to start closed, or use a func_areaportal_window with a closing distance of 1 or so. The portal won't show the area underneath it when you're standing in that room though.

[QUOTE=Diealready;39499677]Try setting the areaportal to start closed, or use a func_areaportal_window with a closing distance of 1 or so. The portal won't show the area underneath it when you're standing in that room though.[/QUOTE] issue is, skybox texture acts like a nodraw brush that renders the sky. I'm afraid your best bet is to use a custom cubemap with a skyboxtexture on it.

[QUOTE=lope;39499102]So im getting a leak in my map that is going through a solid brush. The brush isn't a func_detail just a world brush.[/QUOTE] This is going to sound like a dumb question, but are you sure the .lin file is from an up-to-date compile? As far as I know, when you fix a leak or such the .lin file is not removed (if you have no more leaks) or updated until the next compile.

[QUOTE=billi999;39500027]This is going to sound like a dumb question, but are you sure the .lin file is from an up-to-date compile? As far as I know, when you fix a leak or such the .lin file is not removed (if you have no more leaks) or updated until the next compile.[/QUOTE] Yes and I solved it, for some reason the nodraw texture on the other side was leaking it.

[QUOTE=Mozartkugeln;39492814]I doubt that'll help. It's probably a cache problem with CSS (which is what I think that prop is from) — we had the same problem on the Sassilization servers a few months ago. [T]http://i.imgur.com/xHfwpSj.jpg[/T] Miscellaneous tip: drag the manifest box below the VisGroups view to get more space, or close it altogether.[/QUOTE] It resets to that position all the time, don't know why.

Anyone know any PERFECT lighting tutorials? Something that could teach me to make eye-candy lighting.

[QUOTE=soldierrob;39495751][image] i just opened hammer and for some reason all my props are gone it almost looks like they are rescaled 150x bigger someone knows an fix ???[/QUOTE] I'm getting the same problem. [QUOTE=Mozartkugeln;39495890]Did they disappear from the 3D view as well? You can restore them in the 2D views by clicking [URL=http://i.imgur.com/xHfwpSj.jpg]this button[/URL].[/QUOTE] Doesn't do anything, it's a bigger issue than that.

[QUOTE=raviool;39496203]thank you, but the vertices dont meet at all and vertalert isnt helping.[/QUOTE] Alright, I've remade it from scratch; it's not as sloppy now. [T]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/17850283/dome_fix.png[/T] [url]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/17850283/dome_fix.vmf[/url] That's as aligned as you can possibly get in Source. [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;39497801]The offset verticies will make loads of microfaces or miss out faces entirely. Not recommended much better modelling it.[/QUOTE] No. It looks perfect in-game. [T]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/17850283/dome_fix0001.jpg[/T][T]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/17850283/dome_fix0002.jpg[/T][T]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/17850283/dome_fix0003.jpg[/T] Here's the BSP, so feel free to look for yourself: [url]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/17850283/dome_fix.bsp[/url]. It'd look even better with manual smoothing groups.

So this is immensely frustrating. I have a two-tone wall texture on both ends of a staircase, and I am trying to angle the texture of the wall along the staircase to blend with it. This [b]should[/b] be a simple matter of calculating the angle based off the staircase's dimensions, but I cannot get it to work properly to save my life. I'll explain my process with pictures. [t]http://filesmelt.com/dl/TextureProblem01.jpg[/t] So this is my staircase, and the two wall textures I want to intermediate. The two wall segments are precisely the same dimensions, seeing as I just shift-drag duplicated them. [t]http://filesmelt.com/dl/TextureProblem02.jpg[/t] So I make a brush with the same texture, stretching from the bottom of the bottom-most wall to the top of the top-most wall. [t]http://filesmelt.com/dl/TextureProblem03.jpg[/t] I select the staircase, which I have grouped together, to see that it is 167 units tall, over 336 units long. [t]http://filesmelt.com/dl/TextureProblem04.jpg[/t] I use Wolfram Alpha to calculate the degree angle of this, using tangent. I use negative width because it is running right to left, which is negative on a regular Cartesian grid. [t]http://filesmelt.com/dl/TextureProblem05.jpg[/t] I set the intermediary wall's texture to that angle. I then set it's y-scale to be 0.31, which is the same as both walls (shown in screenshot 7), and then move it around on the y-axis to line it up with the bottom-most wall. [t]http://filesmelt.com/dl/TextureProblem06.jpg[/t] It's lined up and looking really pretty! [t]http://filesmelt.com/dl/TextureProblem07.jpg[/t] But it's completely off when it comes to the top wall. Even the top of the bottom-wall, that liner where the ceiling will sit on top, is far off. What am I doing wrong? I think I may be approaching this entirely the wrong way, but this made the most sense to me. Note that using the dimensions of the wall itself, which are 326 / 336 (y / x) gives a very steep angle that does not look even close to correct.

[b]arc[/b]tan(-167/336) tan turns angle into scalar; arctan turns scalar into angle. Also, use Google Search's calculator instead as it offers more decimal precision.

[QUOTE=Mozartkugeln;39502140][b]arc[/b]tan(-167/336) tan turns angle into scalar; arctan turns scalar into angle. Also, use Google Search's calculator instead as it offers more decimal precision.[/QUOTE] Well, it's a lot closer. It's been too long since I've done trig / geometry shit. :v: Arctan(-167.0 / 336.0), as done by Google's calculator, gives me an angle of -26.4284703 degrees. Setting the wall to that and moving the y around so it lines up results in the follow. [t]http://filesmelt.com/dl/TextureProblem081.jpg[/t] As you can see, the two-tone lines up, but the tops and bottoms of the texture are still far off. Thanks, though. This is better than what it was, by miles. :v:

When you skew a brush like that, it becomes thinner, so you need to scale the texture down accordingly. Rotate the brush itself by that angle and you'll see what I mean. [editline]7th February 2013[/editline] [T]http://i.imgur.com/mCfP6w7.png[/T][T]http://i.imgur.com/8nG6ykd.png[/T] To get the texture scale you need, just click on the front face and "Fit" the texture. Get the Y value from there (it's 0.223873 if I got the dimensions the same as yours) and then just reset the X value to 0.25. Afterwards, rotate the brush back into place (+26.4284703°).

I don't understand. The brush isn't skewed at all. It's literally just a rectangular brush. I tried rotating the brush by that angle, though, and then clipping it accordingly. The result looks the same, but now with an awkwardly cut brush. [t]http://filesmelt.com/dl/TextureProblem091.jpg[/t] If you look at this screenshot, which is the method I previously described, you'll see the brush was not skewed in any way. Just a rectangular brush. [t]http://filesmelt.com/dl/TextureProblem10.jpg[/t] Let's take this to PM, until I resolve this. If you have any other ideas, please PM me. I really would like to resolve this, but not clutter this thread with intermediary steps.

What I meant by [I]skewed[/I] is that its sides aren't perpendicular to each other. Either way, since you're using 0.31 as the Y scale on the normal walls, the Y scale on the skewed piece should be 0.277547 according to 128 [sub][sub](height of normal wall)[/sub][/sub] / 0.31 [sub][sub](scale on normal wall)[/sub][/sub] = 114.6 [sub][sub](height of skewed wall)[/sub][/sub] / x [sub][sub](scale on skewed wall)[/sub][/sub]. [url]http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=128+%2F+0.31+%3D+114.6+%2F+x[/url] Feel free to correct the values if I got some of them wrong. Just to be clear, you get the height of the skewed wall by rotating it so it lies flat on the XY plane (rotate it by -26.4284703°). I have to go now. Send me a PM if this doesn't help either, and I'll look at it when I get back.

[QUOTE=SammySung;39491589]My hammer grid is all stuffed up and models won't load in the 3D view. Also can't zoom out very far in any 2D view. [url]http://puu.sh/1YeC5[/url] Any help?[/QUOTE] Desperately looking for a solution.

[QUOTE=Mozartkugeln;39502359]What I meant by [I]skewed[/I] is that its sides aren't perpendicular to each other. Either way, since you're using 0.31 as the Y scale on the normal walls, the Y scale on the skewed piece should be 0.277547 according to 128 [sub][sub](height of normal wall)[/sub][/sub] / 0.31 [sub][sub](scale on normal wall)[/sub][/sub] = 114.6 [sub][sub](height of skewed wall)[/sub][/sub] / x [sub][sub](scale on skewed wall)[/sub][/sub]. [url]http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=128+%2F+0.31+%3D+114.6+%2F+x[/url] Feel free to correct the values if I got some of them wrong. Just to be clear, you get the height of the skewed wall by rotating it so it lies flat on the XY plane (rotate it by -26.4284703°). I have to go now. Send me a PM if this doesn't help either, and I'll look at it when I get back.[/QUOTE] [b]THANK YOU![/b] This worked beautifully! I simply set the intermediary wall's angle to the -26.428, and then set its y-scale to 0.277, and then moved the y- around until it fit, and it matches [b]PERFECTLY[/b]! I am going to sit here and stare at your math until it all makes sense to me, and then make a note of it so I can do this on my own in the future. So far, the only thing I don't understand is where you are getting the 114.6 for the "height of skewed wall". I understand that you got it practically by literally skewing a 128-height wall (how did you do a precision skew like that, by the way? I know how to do move, rotate, and scale, but not skew), but how would I do that purely mathematically? The rest of the math makes sense. [editline]Fish[/editline] Figured out your math. It's the cosine of the angle. For future reference, should anyone else find themselves with this question / problem, this is what you do. Note that all angles are in [b]degrees[/b]! If you use Wolfram Alpha, you must explicitly tell it to use degrees!: 1.) Create an intermediary brush the same length as your slant (ramp, staircase, whatever), stretching from the bottom-most end to the top-most end of what you are intermediating between. 2.) Compute [b]Theta[/b] = Arctan(Height / Length) ; If the slant is such that the right-hand side is lower than the left-hand, then put a negative in front of this value. 3.) Select the face of the intermediary brush that you are skewing, and set its rotation to [b]Theta[/b]. 4.) Solve for [b]Skew Scale[/b] in this equation: [b]Skew Scale[/b] = Cos([b]Theta[/b]) * [b]Wall Scale[/b]) [sp]128 / [b]Wall Scale[/b] = ((Cos([b]Theta[/b]) * 128) / [b]Skew Scale[/b][/sp], where [b]Wall Scale[/b] is the y-scale of the walls that you are intermediating. 5.) Set the y-scale of your intermediary brush to [b]Skew Scale[/b], and then adjust its y-coords so that they match up.

You're very welcome! It's simpler than that, though. -snip- This page is already chock-full of my pictures, so I moved the tutorial for it here: [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1243839&p=39503671&viewfull=1#post39503671[/url]

You could've just used a power two displacement and manually adjusted vertices with the paint geometry tool, saving you ages of messing about and also perfectly aligning the textures.

Woulda been easier to use the texture align thing. Align top face of horizonal tall with the forward facing bit, align the top face of the diagonal brush with the top face of horizntal, align forward facing face of diagonal with top of diagonal. No maths, no fiddling, no displacements.

[QUOTE=Legend286;39504036]You could've just used a power two displacement and manually adjusted vertices with the paint geometry tool, saving you ages of messing about and also perfectly aligning the textures.[/QUOTE] Are you referring to the dome-shaped thingy I made? It literally took three and a half minutes to do it and another 8 minutes to texture it fully, so I wouldn't say it's a big waste of time by any means. I haven't tried doing it with a displacement, but I don't think you'd be able to get as round a shape if you manually aligned the vertices.

[QUOTE=Mozartkugeln;39504250]Are you referring to the dome-shaped thingy I made? It literally took three and a half minutes to do it and another 8 minutes to texture it fully, so I wouldn't say it's a big waste of time by any means. I haven't tried doing it with a displacement, but I don't think you'd be able to get as round a shape if you manually aligned the vertices.[/QUOTE] Nah, the wall a few posts above mine.

Ah, okay then. :) [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;39504232]Woulda been easier to use the texture align thing. Align top face of horizonal tall with the forward facing bit, align the top face of the diagonal brush with the top face of horizntal, align forward facing face of diagonal with top of diagonal. No maths, no fiddling, no displacements.[/QUOTE] That doesn't work on its own as you still have to find the texture's scale to align it properly. You can do it that way if you just want to use "Fit" on the texture — sure — but for a custom scale like he was using (0.31) you still have to do a bit of math. You could still apply what you said there to the method I used, though: instead of rotating the texture like I did in the last picture, you can use ALT+MOUSE2 and align it like you suggested before rescaling it.

[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;39502606] Figured out your math. It's the cosine of the angle. For future reference, should anyone else find themselves with this question / problem, this is what you do. Note that all angles are in [B]degrees[/B]! If you use Wolfram Alpha, you must explicitly tell it to use degrees!: 1.) Create an intermediary brush the same length as your slant (ramp, staircase, whatever), stretching from the bottom-most end to the top-most end of what you are intermediating between. 2.) Compute [B]Theta[/B] = Arctan(Height / Length) ; If the slant is such that the right-hand side is lower than the left-hand, then put a negative in front of this value. 3.) Select the face of the intermediary brush that you are skewing, and set its rotation to [B]Theta[/B]. 4.) Solve for [B]Skew Scale[/B] in this equation: [B]Skew Scale[/B] = Cos([B]Theta[/B]) * [B]Wall Scale[/B]) [sp]128 / [b]Wall Scale[/b] = ((Cos([b]Theta[/b]) * 128) / [b]Skew Scale[/b][/sp], where [B]Wall Scale[/B] is the y-scale of the walls that you are intermediating. 5.) Set the y-scale of your intermediary brush to [B]Skew Scale[/B], and then adjust its y-coords so that they match up.[/QUOTE] Rotating a texture is some science shit I tell you what

it didnt work :suicide: i want to finish my map ;o[QUOTE=Mozartkugeln;39495890]Did they disappear from the 3D view as well? You can restore them in the 2D views by clicking [URL=http://i.imgur.com/xHfwpSj.jpg]this button[/URL].[/QUOTE]

I think it has something to do with Hammer/SDK itself as you're not the only one who's getting that problem. Have you tried the usual (refreshing game configs, verifying tool cache, reinstalling…)?