Skulks And Clip Brushes

taledentaleden Join Date: 2003-04-06 Member: 15252Members, Constellation
in Mapping Forum
<div class="IPBDescription">...and 1.1</div> I couldn't find any specific mention of this, so I'll just ask-

Do we know for certain whether 1.1 will allow skulks to climb on clip brushes or not? This can be an important thing for mappers to know right now, since it can drastically change the kind of architecture that is practical to put in a level, and if we assume one thing and end up being wrong, it could mean a lot of work to redo.

So, anyone know for sure on this?

-tal
Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome

Comments

  • RPGreg2600RPGreg2600 Join Date: 2003-03-16 Member: 14578Members
    My guess would be no, don't wan't skulks climbing on clip brishes.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • taledentaleden Join Date: 2003-04-06 Member: 15252Members, Constellation
    Well, alright, I could see places where you would specifically want skulks to not be able to climb your clip brushes. However I can also see places where you would want the advantages of using a clip brush without restricting skulk movement (like to envelop detail pieces and make the clipping hulls in that area simpler) - notable examples would be rough ceilings that you want to turn into a flat plane for clipping purposes, but still want skulks to be able to climb on it.

    Maybe a secondary clip texture could be created for this purpose? The compiler would treat it like a normal clip brush while computing clipping hulls, but would somehow also compensate for the anti-skulk property? I dunno enough about how the compilers work to know if this would be practical..

    -tal
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • CageyCagey Ex-Unknown Worlds Programmer Join Date: 2002-11-15 Member: 8829Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
    <!--QuoteBegin--taleden+Apr 13 2003, 05:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (taleden @ Apr 13 2003, 05:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well, alright, I could see places where you would specifically want skulks to not be able to climb your clip brushes. However I can also see places where you would want the advantages of using a clip brush without restricting skulk movement (like to envelop detail pieces and make the clipping hulls in that area simpler) - notable examples would be rough ceilings that you want to turn into a flat plane for clipping purposes, but still want skulks to be able to climb on it.

    Maybe a secondary clip texture could be created for this purpose? The compiler would treat it like a normal clip brush while computing clipping hulls, but would somehow also compensate for the anti-skulk property? I dunno enough about how the compilers work to know if this would be practical..

    -tal <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    It's been a while since this was brought up, but I think searching should still give you more information on the devs' collective position...

    The official word is adding that second clip texture would mean a rewrite of the skulk code, which isn't currently going to happen. I'm speculating (since I haven't seen the source) that the skulk code clips the skulk bounding box against hull 0 (the vis hull) to determine where the skulk can wallwalk, and if that's the case the check for a hull 0 wall to clip against will fail for clip brushes, which are removed from hull 0 before BSP creates the final BSP trees.

    If you want to "clip" off an area to make skulk passage easier, you can use an invisible func_seethrough to get a similar effect (not ideal, especially since it adds to the entity count as you mentioned, but it's a start).

    I'd personally like to see textures simulating the various clip textures available in Q3 engine games (missleclip etc).
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • PhyPhy Join Date: 2003-03-01 Member: 14163Members
    edited April 2003
    I think that in Rel's Custom Compile Tools 1.7 (search the forums) you can create a brush with the NULL texture on all sides that is included into the clipping hull the skulk can walk on, but its faces are discared.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • CageyCagey Ex-Unknown Worlds Programmer Join Date: 2002-11-15 Member: 8829Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
    <!--QuoteBegin--Phy+Apr 14 2003, 01:33 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Phy @ Apr 14 2003, 01:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I think that in Rel's Custom Compile Tools 1.7 (search the forums) you can create a brush with the NULL texture on all sides that is included into the clipping hull the skulk can walk on, but its faces are discared. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Both Merl's 1.7 and my extended version allow the use of NULL, but if NULL is used in the main hull it acts as a vis blocker and also acts as a solid brush, removing faces that it overlaps.

    Using NULL in an entity fixes both shortcomings -- the faces are still discarded.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
Sign In or Register to comment.