Breakable Lights, yes or no?

Do you like to have breakable lights on your map? I’m thinking about adding some to my map. I’ve got some set up so you know, on break the light goes off.

I’m only going to add a few though of I do.

Breakable lights are sex. But toggleable lights won’t have any indirect lighting. :confused:

If you make your whole map with breakable lights, then good luck because I bet your map will have a high amount of memory stored on it.

Yeah. Breaking lights are so badass. If you make them, don’t forget the sparks and the zap sound. Otherwise it looks like shit.

I’m not doing the whole map. Just a few in some places. Like only in a few rooms that can be lit with sunlight easily. Maybe like 5-10 just for the fun of it.

If you are going to use breakable lights, then generally only make really bright ones break (like spotlights and other really bright ones). That way they can be used to tactically limit visibility.
Also, if you make some sort of construction lighting that’s breakable, then you basically have to make all of that same type of light breakable, otherwise it’s too inconsistent and results in players not using it because they don’t know it can break.

Light changing on cable, shooting cable makes it fall down, touch ground and destroy ? Awesome !

They pwn but it all relates to the way they’re used. They can be a bitch in Hammer and cause texture errors if you have too many near eachother. A good method tho is to have circuits of lights so like if one breaks all the others go out. I used this for my map af_omega_v2 and it is a really cool feature, but I didn’t do actually breaking glass and stuff because of the complexity.

Func breakable that has glass gibs? and an env_Spark
it’s really simple/

This could be fixed with manually added fill lights tied to the same trigger, but it wouldn’t look as good or realistic as proper radiosity of course.

For what I’m doing they add to the ambiance.

Well, if I have those lights, I’ll at least have some backup lights or something that can be toggled.

If a light entity has a name, it doubles the amount of time it takes to compile that light entity. If you have 2 shining on a single brush, it quadruples it. Three? Times nine. Four? You mad? Times SIXTEEN.

Named lights (lights with inputs and outputs) are dumb.

And it’s reasons like this we BEG Valve to make the big switch to dynamic lighting (Which may happen in Portal 2).

At the same time you would lose the only thing that keeps Source decent looking at this point.

Source really needs support for full dynamic lighting instead of this pre-baked shit, it would be much easier to make a map full of breakable lights :frowning:

Just wait till Portal 2 comes out.

Gets annoying on RP_ maps.

I was using cs_office light props which don’t exactly break. Yea I guess the fixtures could have been breakable but not the bulbs themselves.

I don’t think you appreciate the performance hit this would have to source. We’re talking about an engine that was first created (in essance) before 1995 (Because goldsource is based on the quake engine, and source does contain snippets from goldsource) The game at its core could not compute radiosity as well as all the other shit it has to do. We’d need more paralell computing as part of GPUs (MORE, More than 300 cores) to do anything like real-time radiosity WITH shadow maps.