1.2% fewer faces

If you're looking for mapping help or you reckon you're a mapping guru, post your questions / solutions here

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Alcoholic
General
Posts: 1470
Joined: Sat May 17, 2003 5:57 am
Location: California
Contact:

1.2% fewer faces

Post by Alcoholic »

theres a line in my compiler that says this...

1.2% fewer faces -- 170 faces from 172 <2 removed>

is that bad? i had no errors in my map
User avatar
Zip
Major
Posts: 323
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2003 6:47 pm
Location: Belgium

Post by Zip »

I think that refers to the caulk brushes. The faces you don't texture on caulk brushes don't get draw, that's all nothing to worry about :)
Zip :?
User avatar
Sonsai
Colonel
Posts: 438
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2003 1:40 pm
Location: Wisconsin
Contact:

Post by Sonsai »

I dont get why people worry about this in the compiling, if it's good, it's good. :o
Image
Surgeon
Site Admin
Posts: 1386
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2002 1:15 am
Location: Stirling, Scotland
Contact:

Post by Surgeon »

Its the compiler optimising your brushes and removing any obsolete faces - it has nothing to do with caulking - you get it even if you don't have a single caulked face in your map.... :D .. And yes its good. Its also a good sign as to how efficient a mapper you are. The smaller the %age, the more efficient you have been
Admin
Image

.map Forums

Truth and Honor.
TheShiznaeSpe
Major
Posts: 304
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 11:45 pm
Location: US
Contact:

Post by TheShiznaeSpe »

so my .3% is good?

YES! :D
Surgeon
Site Admin
Posts: 1386
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2002 1:15 am
Location: Stirling, Scotland
Contact:

Post by Surgeon »

No I lied !!!!























MUAHAHAHAHAH APRIL FOOLS (ok its several months late but what the hell)
Admin
Image

.map Forums

Truth and Honor.
Post Reply