 Thanks
#2068 posted by madfox on 2004/06/09 15:41:52
never saw the message before.
 ...
#2069 posted by necros on 2004/06/09 16:15:28
why on earth would any one handicap themselves by using qbsp256? O_o
 See Here
#2070 posted by aguirRe on 2004/06/09 16:56:21
http://celephais.net/board/view_thread.php?id=596&start=132
Using my ConvMap utility, you can actually do the same grid-snapping in a pre-compiler step, just run:
convmap -l2 -i mapname
txqbsp mapname.out
ConvMap will just cut off the fractional part and keep the integer, essentially what qbsp256 does. See ConvMap readme for more details.
 Bengt
#2071 posted by starbuck on 2004/06/09 20:09:28
i got your message and replied just now.
 Q1 Tools Update
#2072 posted by aguirRe on 2004/06/11 05:58:15
at http://user.tninet.se/~xir870k . Minor improvements and bug fixes in several tools and engine. Please see readmes for more details.
Any comments are welcome.
 Wad To Bsp/map To Me.
#2073 posted by truskoski on 2004/06/12 02:44:58
i dont know if this has been asked before, looked on this thread and i couldnt find it so here. is are there any tools to convert a doom wad file into a bsp or map file for quake1? or at least, can it be done?
thats it.
 A Quick Search
#2074 posted by aguirRe on 2004/06/12 02:51:19
of wad2map and wad2bsp at Google revealed some info that might be useful.
 Me Happy, Me Horny Too
#2075 posted by truskoski on 2004/06/12 07:15:04
thanks man
 AguirRe
#2076 posted by Jago on 2004/06/12 12:43:40
I could never figure it out, what�s the exact difference between TxQBSP and TreeQBSP?
 Historically
#2077 posted by aguirRe on 2004/06/12 12:54:54
there used to be a world of difference, but I've crossfed features between them so now they produce near identical result on any map. If in doubt use TxQBSP, that's what I use all the time.
Please note that Tx has watervis default ON, while Tree's got it OFF. Both can be switched either way via options, of course.
 O_O
#2078 posted by Kinn on 2004/06/12 18:35:24
aguirRe, I use Hammer and TreeQBSP, do I have any reason to switch to Tx?
 Kinn
#2079 posted by aguirRe on 2004/06/12 18:48:02
As I said, they both produce near identical result (if watervis is set the same). AFAIK, there's no particular reason to use Tree anymore, but Tx has got a nice feature to select starting hull which is very useful in big maps when hunting leaks in hulls 1/2.
Try it, you might like it ...;)
 Interesting
#2080 posted by Kinn on 2004/06/12 18:50:59
I'm curious: what is the reason for having the two different versions?
 Well, There Were
#2081 posted by aguirRe on 2004/06/12 21:11:47
two versions to begin with, Tree which is made by Greg Lewis and Tx that is made by Armin Rigo (also the man behind QuArK), both building upon the work of the original tools from id software.
I just started three years ago to improve and fix the bugs that I found especially annoying then (like leak handling).
Since Tx was the only compiler at the time that I knew could handle QuArK's float maps and Tree being the most memory efficient and otherwise overall better compiler, I started to work with both tools in parallel.
Over time, they became more and more similar due to my crossfeeding of features and adding work by Tyrann and ideas of my own to the mix.
So far it's been a help for me to have two implementations that basically do the same thing but in a slightly different manner, it's like a 2nd opinion.
 Cool
#2082 posted by Kinn on 2004/06/13 04:17:27
are you considering merging them at some point in the future?
 I Can't See Any
#2083 posted by aguirRe on 2004/06/13 06:17:33
point in merging them. If anything will happen it's me dropping Tree, but that's also a bit unlikely, since I like both and they serve a purpose.
 Re: Q1 Tools Update
aguiRe, my comment is that I'd really prefer you to put the readme files inside the zips... :)
Having the readme also available seperately is fine and good, but by leaving it out of the zip files you're only saving a few kilobytes. I find myself having to download the zip file and then also download the txt seperately.
That's hardly a big deal and it won't kill me, but nevertheless I'd prefer if the readme were included in the zip, unless there's some compelling reason for not doing so.
 But You Have To Admit, Mr Fribbles
#2085 posted by HeadThump on 2004/06/14 23:42:15
that they make for good reading
 Frib
#2086 posted by aguirRe on 2004/06/15 05:59:11
My main excuse for not including the readmes in the zips are for easy updating of the readmes without having to upload the zips again. I'm still on dialup and that means max 33k upstream.
 AguirRe
#2087 posted by JPL on 2004/06/17 04:29:10
I updated my flow yesterday with your new TxQBSP (and RVIS tool), and what a surprise !! Some non understood texture alignement warnings disappear with your TxQBSP new release (there was some r_CuteNodePortal warnings, pointing some textures location out of polys !!!)... I don't know what you exactly did, but it seems to work better with this new version !!
About readme file not included into zip file, I don't think it's a real problem... Downloading some kBytes files is not a big challenge, even with a standard 56k modem... it took approximatively ... 10 seconds at worst... I really it's not able to increase your phone bill, unless you are a little stingy...
Thanks a lot aguirRe..
Bye..
 Hmm
#2088 posted by aguirRe on 2004/06/17 04:59:19
I don't know why the latest minor Tx update seems to make such an improvement for you, but I'm glad it did.
 AguirRe
#2089 posted by JPL on 2004/06/17 05:09:21
With last TxQBSP, it appeared some r_CuteNodePortal warnings, giving a texture location out of any poly face... so it becomes hard to find from where the problem comes (regarding the read of your Q1ToolTips text file: it comes for sure from a unaligned textures..) The more when QuArK "search holes in map" tool found nothing... (in most of case, QuArK "search holes in map" tool can point up problem sometimes not detected, or not clearly detailed with TxQBSP (like poly unaligned location, or texture unaligned, or others..).. Anyway, trying the new one, these warnings disappear... so that's why I'm rather happy the problem seems to be solved... I will see later if they will reborn later (hoping not)
Bye..
 CutNodePortals_r
#2090 posted by aguirRe on 2004/06/17 05:35:15
warning has nothing to do with textures or their alignment; it's caused by brushes being off-grid or misaligned to each other.
The reason why the coordinates sometimes seem to be in empty space, is because the warning then appears in hulls 1/2, where the brushes are invisibly expanded (see also ToolTips for more info).
To find the culprit, look in the nearby area for non-axial or complex brushes and perform force-to-grid actions on them one by one until you see the warning disappear. It can be a bit cumbersome ...
Also, the QuArK built-in leak detection is not very good; it often finds a leak where there is none or fail to find one that really exists.
 AguirRe
#2091 posted by JPL on 2004/06/17 05:42:27
Thx for these precisions... But then, why these warnings disappeared from old TxQBSP version to latest verison ??? Have you an idea ??
 What Do You Mean
#2092 posted by aguirRe on 2004/06/17 08:58:20
by old version, previous i.e. 1.07?
The only thing I can think of is that I know QuArK is shuffling all brush faces around within each brush each time you perform a save-load-build sequence. That can affect all kinds of things like warnings/leaks etc.
However, in both my compilers since a long time, I automatically perform a deterministic face sort to avoid these build variations. It can be disabled by using the -nosortface option. Normally I wouldn't recommend using that option.
I know GlassMan had a similar problem in GtkRadiant when building his gmsp3 map. By manipulating a light entity, a leak would appear/disappear nearby. The editor is probably shuffling the brushes/entities around and this can affect build results slightly.
Otherwise I don't really know.
|