Started a different cathedral

[AluminumHaste]

I was working on a cathedral but realized that I wanted to have vaulted ceilings like you always see in pics of french cathedrals, but my map didn't allow me to do that unless I totally changed the entire thing so I decided to make another one.

 

Well I started last night sometime, can't remember when. There's no lighting yet but you get the idea from the vertexes.

 

 

Yeah I kind of screwed up the scale when I was making it. I was designing it after a cathedral I found on the web. The base of the pillars are the right size, but after that things go a little crazy. To give you a little perspective, the size in radiant units from the base to the highest point in the ceiling is 4520 units.

 

I was all worried that it wouldn't compile but it did, after 119 seconds, seemed longer than that though. I like these ceilings, took me forever to figure them out though.

[Fidcal]

Look forward to seeing that lit and with an AI or two show scale. Here's a link about Builder Architecture... http://wiki.thedarkmod.com/index.php/...er_Architecture you might want to keep in mind.

[AluminumHaste]

Look forward to seeing that lit and with an AI or two show scale. Here's a link about Builder Architecture... http://wiki.thedarkmod.com/index.php/...er_Architecture you might want to keep in mind.

 

Thanks for the link, very useful, and it will be grand.

[AluminumHaste]

Thanks for the link, very useful, and it will be grand.

 

Hmm for some reason it was taking 29 minutes to compile in doom3

So i went back in and noticed that almost all the brushes and patches had been cloned over their parent geometry. Holy crap what a lot of work that is to go and find all the clones that are over top of their original geometry. Is there a faster way to get rid of those? Like make a small program to parse the .map file to find those things with the same vertex points and delete the first one?

 

Do you guys have anything like that?

[greebo]

Hmm for some reason it was taking 29 minutes to compile in doom3

So i went back in and noticed that almost all the brushes and patches had been cloned over their parent geometry. Holy crap what a lot of work that is to go and find all the clones that are over top of their original geometry. Is there a faster way to get rid of those? Like make a small program to parse the .map file to find those things with the same vertex points and delete the first one?

 

Do you guys have anything like that?

There is a feature request for DarkRadiant to detect clones in the map: clone manager tool. Can't make any promises for now, but it will be there sometime in the future.

[New Horizon]

I wonder if there is a bug causing this cloning? Anyone else notice this?

[AluminumHaste]

I wonder if there is a bug causing this cloning? Anyone else notice this?

 

Well create a huge number of patches, say 2000. Select them and hit the spacebar. Then move them and rotate them arbitrarily, say by 90 degrees or 45, and undo it and then copy it to clipboard and delete them and then exit while saving.

Somewhere in there is where things go wrong for me. That and for some reason when selecting entity groups of geometry (patches and brushes) and cloning them, and moving them, for some reason they get the same entity name so that when you compile the map everything goes fine (if a little slow), but when you go to run the map, you get a game shutdown and it says that their is "more than one entity with the same name" and it gives you the entities name such as "entity 34". But there are dozens of these duplicates, but not usually more than one duplicate of the same entity. For example, there will be 2 entity 34's 2 35's, 2 36's etcetera.

[Komag]

That entity number problem is known and will be addressed.

 

If you are using "thousands" of patches to make details in a relatively small area, you really definitely should model the stuff instead.

[SneaksieDave]

Actually, this indicates one possible cause of the problem right there, but resulting from usability issues:

 

1. Create brushes

2. Select them all

3. Duplicate (spacebar)

4. Drag them away

5. Rotate them

6. Undo

7. Undo

 

Visually, it looks like we're back at the original selected brushes, but we are not. We're at the duplicated, selected brushes. If you hit ESC right now to clear the selection, bingo, there's yer clones.

 

I'm not sure if I've ever hit this problem, so I'd guess there is some suggestion that it might be just this, user error. We need to pin down a reproducable situation otherwise to be sure there is an actual bug in there, instead of a usability issue (no less important). One way to mitigate the latter is with duplicate offset.

[AluminumHaste]

Actually, this indicates one possible cause of the problem right there, but resulting from usability issues:

 

1. Create brushes

2. Select them all

3. Duplicate (spacebar)

4. Drag them away

5. Rotate them

6. Undo

7. Undo

 

Visually, it looks like we're back at the original selected brushes, but we are not. We're at the duplicated, selected brushes. If you hit ESC right now to clear the selection, bingo, there's yer clones.

 

I'm not sure if I've ever hit this problem, so I'd guess there is some suggestion that it might be just this, user error. We need to pin down a reproducable situation otherwise to be sure there is an actual bug in there, instead of a usability issue (no less important). One way to mitigate the latter is with duplicate offset.

 

The original gtkRadiant back in Quake 3 days had duplicate offset, which I personally found annoying as it would offset one grid unit on the z axis. I'm glad that this version doesn't have this but now I'm not so sure the tradeoff is worth it.

[SneaksieDave]

Yep, I think that's the common opinion of it: offset sucks, but it's a safety measure. You can not use it and take the chance, or you can avoid risk and deal with annoyance. Can't win!

[Komag]

toggleable offset is a good idea I think. I would also want the offset to be on the X or Y axis, and 8 units preferably.

[AluminumHaste]

toggleable offset is a good idea I think. I would also want the offset to be on the X or Y axis, and 8 units preferably.

 

Yeah that is probably a good idea.