<!--QuoteBegin--PonY_the_tiger+Jan 8 2004, 07:57 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (PonY_the_tiger @ Jan 8 2004, 07:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Just wondering, what differences will I actually see using batch compiler with ZHLT comapered to using Worldcraft and ZHLT? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The end result should be identical -- both Hammer's in-editor compile system and BC are just wrappers around the compile tools that simulate typing arguments at the command line. People prefer BC because it's got a friendlier interface and it doesn't freeze Hammer when you're using it; if you give the tools the same arguments, it doesn't matter which front end you use.
<!--QuoteBegin--PonY_the_tiger+Jan 8 2004, 04:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (PonY_the_tiger @ Jan 8 2004, 04:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> everytime i adjust my map, and use BP to compile it - it always compiles the same way as before? :s <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Are you sure you export your adjust map from Hammer to a new .map file each time? Otherwise the BC will just re-compile the old .map file.
Remembering to export to .map again is very important. I've wasted many a compile forgetting to do that.
The batch compiler is also nice in that you get live updating of compile status... (where it says ...10%...20%...30% and so on...) It allows you to close hammer if you need the memory resources (useful for getting makescales done a bit quicker sometimes) Once you get used to it, clicking check boxes for compile options and what not makes life so much easier.
Also there is a program called hlfix that will handle rmf->map conversions for you correctly. Hammer currently has a problem with vertices on a non-integer coordinate. (I.E. 1.5, 4.2, etc. my math skills suck so if integer was the wrong word please correct me) Anyways it does not export those to a map correctly and will move them to whatever nearest integer coordinate it wants, creating leaks that you can't find in the rmf. (although you shouldn't be doing stuff off a gridline anyways) Either way you should be able to find it with a little digging around on the forums, might be easy to find off the website for batch compiler which is hosted by countermap on counter-strike.net.
(And here we see the "go forth and look for yourself" philosophy taken to it's ugly, vague-description-based extreme)
... or you could just read the sticky <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Comments
The end result should be identical -- both Hammer's in-editor compile system and BC are just wrappers around the compile tools that simulate typing arguments at the command line. People prefer BC because it's got a friendlier interface and it doesn't freeze Hammer when you're using it; if you give the tools the same arguments, it doesn't matter which front end you use.
Are you sure you export your adjust map from Hammer to a new .map file each time? Otherwise the BC will just re-compile the old .map file.
The batch compiler is also nice in that you get live updating of compile status... (where it says ...10%...20%...30% and so on...)
It allows you to close hammer if you need the memory resources (useful for getting makescales done a bit quicker sometimes)
Once you get used to it, clicking check boxes for compile options and what not makes life so much easier.
(And here we see the "go forth and look for yourself" philosophy taken to it's ugly, vague-description-based extreme)