Tying Brushes Together to create Brush Based physics - Developers

Is there a way, to lets say, i make a lamp, but it's brush based, so i have a round cylindric brush, on top of a cone brush, can i tie the two together in order to make it prop-like? (i forget the function to make a brush a prop, but you know what i mean) Is that possible with source?

func_detail?

func_physbox, and use the constraint entities. Func_detail, won't work, it'll just pass right through each other.

Thanks, i was just wondering if thats possible.

[QUOTE=hl2phobic;16787817]Thanks, i was just wondering if thats possible.[/QUOTE] Source engine for the win.

Why'd you rate me dumb? i wasnt sure what he meant. i thought he meant a static prop... if you mean a physics prop, then tie all the brushes you want to move to ONE func_physbox

[QUOTE=laptopman;16787872]Why'd you rate me dumb? i wasnt sure what he meant. i thought he meant a static prop... if you mean a physics prop, then tie all the brushes you want to move to ONE func_physbox[/QUOTE] If "physics" and "brush" wasn't enough for you, then don't bother whining to me about rating you dumb.

Sorry, didnt read enough of the thread title, i usually just click on random threads and post based on the content... and i meant like a static prop, i/e one thing ingame and in hammer. And im not whining. God, 09ers these days [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Join Date Elitism" - Terrenteller))[/highlight]

The constraint entity will make it seem like 1, prop, if you will, correct? What I'm saying is, it won't glitch and come apart or seem like 2 seperate brushes right? would moving to one func_physbox work better? how would i do that?

[QUOTE=laptopman;16788017]Sorry, didnt read enough of the thread title, i usually just click on random threads and post based on the content... and i meant like a static prop, i/e one thing ingame and in hammer. And im not whining. God, 09ers these days[/QUOTE] Bullshit.

One func physbox is the best. select all the brushes- ctrl t- then func_physbox and play around with the settings... constraints are buggy, and can glitch out, but if its one, then it acts as one collision model And spy, stop acting like a 5 year old... and dont post unless you're posting something useful

[QUOTE=hl2phobic;16788022]The constraint entity will make it seem like 1, prop, if you will, correct? What I'm saying is, it won't glitch and come apart or seem like 2 seperate brushes right? would moving to one func_physbox work better? how would i do that?[/QUOTE] Name a single brush "physpoint" (or whatever you want), and name all the rest of the entities "physobject" (or whatever you want). Then with the constraint entity put 'entity 1' to "physpont" and 'entity 2' to "physobject". Now everything will be welded to "physpoint". [editline]09:00PM[/editline] [QUOTE=laptopman;16788056]And spy, stop acting like a 5 year old... and dont post unless you're posting something useful[/QUOTE] Once again you're lack of reading has caused another bullshit post. And "play around with the settings" is not very useful at all.

[QUOTE=laptopman;16788017] God, 09ers these days[/QUOTE] God, join-date elitists these days. ¬_¬ Also, one func_physbox is better than using constraints, quicker too. 1. Select the brushes you want to have physics. 2. Press "ctrl + t" 3. Change the entity in the drop-down box into a "func_physbox" 4. Click "apply" 5. Done.

I have no idea what he wanted from that post either...still not sure. Do you want two brushes to break apart when hit, or one brush to act like a physics prop, or the brushes to act like a prop to the compile?

[QUOTE=IronPhoenix;16802423]I have no idea what he wanted from that post either...still not sure. Do you want two brushes to break apart when hit, or one brush to act like a physics prop, or the brushes to act like a prop to the compile?[/QUOTE] I already answered it :downs: He just wanted func_physbox.

Just showing though that the post wasn't well written and could easily be misconstrued. Think about that before laying into someone who is trying to help.

Am I the only one thinking, ew, brush based lamp.

Nope

Hah, it was just an example.

Use a func_physbox as one of the brushes, and then fund_brush as the other and set the func_brush parent to the func_physbox name.

[QUOTE=hl2phobic;16805904]Hah, it was just an example.[/QUOTE] but if you ever do plan on making something detailed like that into a brush-based model, just learn how to use blender or the XSI mod tool, your map will have better performance due to it.