GlasWolf on 10/11/2005 at 08:26
Quote Posted by Bardic
For one thing I don't like to add solid BSP in T3ed (I think I was brainwashed that solid is bad). I get hung up with how can I make an outdoor wall using 2 subtracted rooms and subtracting the area above the wall so you can climb over. Rather than make a bigger room, and add a 4' hgh solid bsp.
Is there a reason not to do this? Like Bardic I'm using the traditional method and wondering if I'm just being daft. Presumably you can still zone beside additives... it's all BSP, right?
Ziemanskye on 10/11/2005 at 17:12
Yup.
You can even subtract the whole area and build additively if you're so inclined (though if you mis-texture/zone it it'll decimate performace).
Krypt on 10/11/2005 at 19:05
It ends up basically the same once you build Flesh BSP whether you build out of additives or subtractions. It's more of an editor organizational preference than anything. I preferred to build as much out of subtractions as I could because it makes it look cleaner in the editor and easier to change later. Doing 3 subtractions to make a wall is a little much though if you ask me :p I find it cleaner and easier to parse in the editor with one big subtraction and adds for the walls.
GlasWolf on 10/11/2005 at 20:01
Good to know, I'll give it a shot. Thanks guys.
SubJeff on 10/11/2005 at 21:18
I try to approach it the "less BSPs are better" way. I've designed areas on paper and then thought about the best way to build them using the least brushes. I'm also in favour of giving impressions without actually delivering iyswim. For example - I'm convinced you can do a LoTP type mission by carving out the spaces and having a false "drop" to street level that kills you if you fall a few feet (with nothing below that small drop), instead of subtracting the entire space and then adding buildings (though I don't know how it was originally done).
Fingernail on 11/11/2005 at 16:53
It's more efficient to do things that way in terms of computation, but it's a very unnatural way of thinking about the raw physicality of the place you're describing in 3 dimensions.
It can potentially lead to unnatural looking environments, simply because buildings do not always fit in a predictable pattern, and by thinking about buildings as the negative rather than positive space (in terms of what you're doing to them), you could miss the point somewhat.
So it would be best to plan exactly what shape the buildings are, on paper probably, and then how they would look from a street or rooftop, then work out how to craft air brushes around them. As opposed to creating a few air brushes to describe a rough block shape. Very few buildings are actually square or rectangular or aligned with each other.
GlasWolf on 11/11/2005 at 19:04
I'm sure some of you experienced types would find the building process I'm going through hilarious. Because it's an outdoor area the walls, floor and ceiling paradigm just doesn't quite fit... I'm leaning towards the idea of using additives outdoors and subtractives indoors. Build times for a big outdoor brush are a pain though. Now I'm wondering how (if) I can zone any of the outside areas at all, and whether my level (or my head) will a splode when it comes to looking at zoned areas from above.
Gestalt on 11/11/2005 at 19:31
My level so far is mostly subtracted cubes with a bajillion static meshes to make things less rectangular and add detail. I'm redesigning the mansion portion at the moment, since I realized that the symmetrical layout I had would be rather boring to run around in. Pretty, but boring.
Fingernail on 11/11/2005 at 21:29
Aha the Kingdom of Prester John.
Nice location, I hear they have many beeres and lyones also.
Gestalt on 11/11/2005 at 21:45
There were more beeres before I got here.
You wouldn't believe how many people have trouble following directions to my house. I asked for help the last time I moved, and nobody showed up.
