Manvis

Post by **jv_map** » Mon Aug 11, 2003 3:53 pm

Make sure to start your map with devmap instead of map

martijn_NL · Post by **martijn_NL** » Mon Aug 11, 2003 6:37 pm

Yes that was the problem jv, i used map instead of devmap.

martijn_NL · Post by **martijn_NL** » Tue Aug 12, 2003 9:05 am

I have one question about manvis. I made a hole in my skybox, so the compiling goes faster, but the compile program says no vis date, so it doesn't compile vis, but is it necessary to not make a hole in my skybox to improve fps?

small_sumo · Post by **small_sumo** » Wed Aug 13, 2003 2:34 pm

Very nice.

panTera · Post by **panTera** » Wed Aug 13, 2003 9:04 pm

but is it necessary to not make a hole in my skybox to improve fps?

Yes, when working on Vis you can't have any leaks. To speed up the compile when testing fps you could somehow skip the Mohlight process and only compile Bsp and Vis. (Since I can't find the right -parameter to do a fullbright compile I just temporarily rename the MOHlight.exe ;-)

diego · Post by **diego** » Sun Jan 18, 2004 1:21 am

I starting adding some ManVis to my map today. It is working but I have a couple of problems and questions. This is my basic setup:

I have 2 huge manvis areas setup with the vis texture and vis_leafgroup class. They are cross linked to each other. Brush A is just a plain 4 sided brush. Brush B is a 5 sided brush that has had some vertex adjustments made to it. Both brushes cover a large amount of area including lot's of structural brushes. When looking around in radient, neither brush can be seen from inside the other. That part is working fine --- Almost.

Here are the problems.

1.) I adjusted the vertex's of Brush B to an Angle because if I had left the edge straight, it could have been seen by Brush A. However, in the game, Brush B is behaving as if I had not moved those vertexs. This makes Brush A stay clipped for too long and vice versa. ie.: The vis data is behaving as if I had never moved those verts.

Should I just stick to 4 sided brushes when using manvis?

2.)While walking around inside Brush B. If I look up at the sky, I am getting a lot of redraw errors. ie. The structural brushes keep redrawing over and over, as I look around leaving a trail. Brush B does not come close to the sky, and I have verified that my shader's are still correct on both surfaces. But it appears that the redraw area is limited to the top surface of the vis brush. The sides don't have this problem. This is similar to the effect I got when I had used the "portal" shader by accident for my "area portal" brushes. Brush A looks fine.

So, I guess my question here would be WTF?

I am hoping the solution is a simple as using only 4 sided brushes.

Any ideas?

Post by **Bjarne BZR** » Sun Jan 18, 2004 2:12 am

1) I cant remember vertex editing any VIS brushes, I cut them with the "Clipper" tool. I dont know, but there COULD be a difference. So the answer is: You do not have to use only 4 sided boxes.

2) I have no idea about this one.

Have you read the vis_leafgroug hands on tutorial here on .MAP? It contains an example map with complex manual VIS: /t.php?id=80

diego · Post by **diego** » Sun Jan 18, 2004 4:24 am

I didn't think we were supposed to use the Clipper Tool for anything. I thought it was supposed to cause more problems than solve.

I did try replacing brush B with a 4 sided brush. I had to place it differently to keep you from seeing Brush A while inside it. But the strange thing is that Brush A's visibility "pops" in at the exact same place even though I have been outside of Brush B for about 350 grid units.

I also think that the redraw problem is actually on the Sky brush. Not the Vis brush. And it IS giving me those errors inside of Both Vis brushes. Not just Brush B like I thought.

I've already read that tutorial and several others before trying this. I did not get a chance to check out the .zip file with the complicated Vis setup. I'll do that now and see if I can get better results. It just takes a long time to compile with the Vis groups in.

Post by **Bjarne BZR** » Sun Jan 18, 2004 2:15 pm

Diego wrote:I didn't think we were supposed to use the Clipper Tool for anything. I thought it was supposed to cause more problems than solve.

The "Clipper" tool is great, its the "CSG Subtract" that can cause trouble if you are not careful.

omniscient · Post by **omniscient** » Sun Jan 18, 2004 7:55 pm

maybe we should ask teh monkey.

Post by **Bjarne BZR** » Sun Jan 18, 2004 9:51 pm

Developers seldom meet the monkey...