[QUOTE=Mozartkugeln;39186381]I'm honestly sick and tired of people telling beginners "NEVER UES CARVE I KIL U". Hollow and carve are both quite useful, it's just that they can be abused. That's not a valid reason, however, to tell people right off the bat that they're bad. As a matter of fact, I don't see how hollow is bad at all.
Carve in particular allows for brush manipulation that is otherwise impossible. For example:
[T]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/17850283/tube1.png[/T]
I made the concrete "adapter" sections on either end of the tube using carve — it got the job done very well (perfectly aligned vertices and faces), which wouldn't have otherwise been possible.[/QUOTE]
Don't ever use carve, ever. Sure, in some cases the results are [b] fine [/b], but in every single case, a better , more efficient and more optimised brush can be made manually. Just don't use carve, and don't start making excuses to use it.
imo The main argument for using carve is that it saves time and, if used correctly it's actually really useful. I completely understand the hatred for the carve tool though New mappers should DEFINITELY avoid it, as it's really easy to screw up.
edit:
[B]NEVERMIND.[/B] The carve tool is complete shit don't use it ever.
Many people seem to forget Carve has a habit of making micro brushes and stuff halfway across your map for no reason.
[QUOTE=Instant Mix;39203920]Don't ever use carve, ever.[/QUOTE]
You're wholly ignorant if you tell people not ever to use carve without talking about its good use cases. Don't you think I would've made those four brushes manually [B]had it been possible[/B]? What next, are you going to tell me that manually alt-dragging vertices off-grid approximately into place is better than carve? Because that was my only other option.
[QUOTE=Instant Mix;39203920]in every single case, a better , more efficient and more optimised brush can be made manually.[/QUOTE]
Not true, and my post above is a prime example. It's those special cases that make carve worthwhile; other times, however, it [I]is[/I] shit.
[QUOTE=Ereunity;39203998]Many people seem to forget Carve has a habit of making micro brushes and stuff halfway across your map for no reason.[/QUOTE]
Not if you know what you're doing and stick to simple two-solid carves.
[QUOTE=Mozartkugeln;39205982]What next, are you going to tell me that manually alt-dragging vertices off-grid approximately into place is better than carve? Because that was my only other option.[/QUOTE]
Or you could have made it aligned to grid correctly in the first place.
[QUOTE=Mozartkugeln;39200566]The torus [I]is[/I] aligned to the grid, but not all the vertices on its [U]inside[/U] wall are.
If you're doing complicated brushwork on a small scale like I was, not everything can be on grid [I]and[/I] be perfectly aligned.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Mozartkugeln;39205982][B]You're wholly ignorant if you tell people not ever to use carve [/B]without talking about its good use cases. Don't you think I would've made those four brushes manually [B]had it been possible[/B]? What next, are you going to tell me that manually alt-dragging vertices off-grid approximately into place is better than carve? Because that was my only other option.
Not true, and my post above is a prime example. It's those special cases that make carve worthwhile; other times, however, it [I]is[/I] shit.
.[/QUOTE]
It's like this : let's say you have a paraplegic midget in your cellar. He can count to 10, and do all sorts of things with numbers under 10. Give him numbers above ten and he starts foaming at the mouth. Now, let's say you've got a complex number problem and you need it solved and you just so happen to have a maths-happy midget in your cellar. Tell me what's easier : doing the complex problem yourself and being 100% sure that what you get at the end is the right answer, or going downstairs and disrupting the midget of doom, to have him foam all of your work and start putting numbers all over your maths.
I'd rather stay away from the psycho midget completely.
Stop trying to justify using carve. Let the midget free.
That was an awful analogy.
You could have simply said.
"It's better to do it manually than to use a buggy tool that could result in detrimental effects to your map."
Instant Mix, why are you intentionally being blind to what I'm saying? Did you even read the rest of the post?
Carve was the only way, and it worked fine. Carve, therefore, is not completely useless and has certain use cases when it's better to carve than to do it manually and completely fuck up what you're doing because the thing is off-grid. End of story.
[QUOTE=Ereunity;39206839]"It's better to do it manually than to use a buggy tool that could result in detrimental effects to your map."[/QUOTE]
Indeed. Unless there is [U]no way[/U] to do it manually. What then? [I]Then[/I] you use carve.
[QUOTE=Mozartkugeln;39206939]Instant Mix, why are you intentionally being blind to what I'm saying? Did you even read the rest of the post?
Carve was the only way, and it worked fine. Carve, therefore, is not completely useless and has certain use cases when it's better to carve than to do it manually and completely fuck up what you're doing because the thing is off-grid. End of story.
Indeed. Unless there is [U]no way[/U] to do it manually. What then? [I]Then[/I] you use carve.[/QUOTE]
Or you don't use carve and do it a different way, or you can use a model, or you could go back and put your torus inner vertices on-grid and then you wouldn't [i]need[/i][sic] to use carve.
What part of [I]no way[/I] do you not understand? Putting the torus's inside vertices on grid causes it to not be a torus anymore, and a bunch of gaps between the brushes pop up.
[B]Carve was the only proper way to do what I needed.[/B]
A model is certainly a valid option, but not everyone can model (and no, Propper doesn't count because you'd have to carve the brushes anyway to use Propper in the first place).
You should have just modeled it. I mean yeah you say you can't, and I get that, but for real, you engineered a pretty dumb problem for yourself here. Also I'm not sure why carve is the sword you want to die on, it is a pretty crappy tool.
I didn't engineer a problem for myself; as a matter of fact, carve worked perfectly fine for me. The problem came to be when I tried showing other people that carve isn't all that bad and that it certainly has its uses, however limited they may be.
People ought to be more open minded regarding this stuff.
I did derail this thread way off track, however, and I think it's time we stopped this discussion.
I'm not sure if I am bumping the thread, but please shut the hell up. This thread is derailed so badly, its begging to die.
EDIT:Nevermind, just realized everyone did that. Please forgive me.
IMO carve should only really be used for very simple cuts.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
