Solved Vertices being awkward (In Radiant)

[MUG]

So, I need an awkwardly shaped brush for a map me and Sef are working on, so I changed its shape by adjusting a couple of vertices, however the result of this gave me an awkward split across what should be a flat face. Is there a way to remove these vertices? or an easier way to get a brush of this shape without that problem?

 

Another example of an awkward split face that needs to be one face:

 

There are going to be a lot of these types of shapes in this map, so I really need to find a solution.

 

Anyone?

[MUG]

Can't you use patches instead?

Using 6 patches instead of a brush, with completely flat sides seems somewhat ridiculous.

[MUG]

Better that than having to rebuild it later anyway because you messed up the vertices and caused compile errors. Plus, it's better to use patches rather than having complicated multi-faced brushes when possible. Just an opinion boss. Do what you like.

Thing is, it's not a complicated multi-face brush. Its a standard 6 faced brush, its just distorted into an unusual shape and for some odd reason radiant sees fit to randomly add extra faces when I do so.

[Delta_135]

what gtkradiant are you using?

1.5 have some problems with vertex tool (if that what you are using)

[CaptainChar]

ive had issues like this, but ive never used the vertex tool, I kinda forgot it existed tbh >.>;

[MUG]

what gtkradiant are you using?

1.5 have some problems with vertex tool (if that what you are using)

1.3.12

[Delta_135]

1.3.12

 

i don't have any experience with that version

sorry.

 

but why don't you use 1.4 to make those specific parts of the map

or just make a prefab in it and import it to 1.3?

[MUG]

i don't have any experience with that version

sorry.

 

but why don't you use 1.4 to make those specific parts of the map

or just make a prefab in it and import it to 1.3?

 

I suspect I will get the same problems in 1.4. I seem to recall it doesn't work for me or something anyway though. Experiments will be made.

[RebelChum]

I'm not seeing where the awkwardness in the brush shape is coming in. Is it not only angled but slanting down or something?

 

What're you going for?

[MUG]

I'm not seeing where the awkwardness in the brush shape is coming in. Is it not only angled but slanting down or something?

 

What're you going for?

The line I have scribbled out got added by radiant automatically and isn't meant to be there, it should be a single wonky rectangular face (as depicted by the blue outline), rather than two faces, causing it to oddly extend outwards, rather than remaining flat as it originally was:

[Scooper]

It's probably adding that line because you are creating an "impossible" rectangular shape. For it to remain perfectly flat, all the 4 corner vertices need to be in the same plane in 3D space. What you're doing is offsetting one of the corners so it's no longer in the same plane as the others.

 

You can visualize this by using your own fingers to form a rectangle/square. Then bend one of your wrists so it simulates one of the corners being moved. If you look at your hands from a different angle now, you'll see that it's creating that bend that extends outwards.

 

You basically can't make a rectangle and then move only 1 of the corners and expect it to remain a single flat surface. You're basically creating a rectangle that is twisting if you do that, and that's not supported.

[RebelChum]

What I'm trying to figure out is why you're not using the clipper tool like this;

 

[MUG]

What I'm trying to figure out is why you're not using the clipper tool like this;

 

Because it is a far more complex shape than that. It is distorted on multiple axis in different directions.

[RebelChum]

Is it slanted in and down or something?

 

It's hard to tell from the above screenshots.

[MUG]

Is it slanted in and down or something?

 

It's hard to tell from the above screenshots.

Aye, it is tapered in this kind of shape when viewed from the side: >

 

As well as being at an angle like this when viewed from the end: \

 

and is far less slanted at one end than the other.

[RebelChum]

Hop on the hydroball teamspeak.

 

@@MUG It's actually quite a simple fix but not easy for me to explain via text lol.

[MUG]

Hop on the hydroball teamspeak.

 

@@MUG It's actually quite a simple fix but not easy for me to explain via text lol.

Can't right now, middle of the night =P

[RebelChum]

You.. don't have headphones?

[RebelChum]

@@MUG

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHji-961468 ?

[MUG]

Regrettably, nay. More complex than that again. The slant is steeper at one end than the other. The piece of wall is effectively a wall that connects two walls one of which is slanted more than the other.

[RebelChum]

Regrettably, nay. More complex than that again. The slant is steeper at one end than the other. The piece of wall is effectively a wall that connects two walls one of which is slanted more than the other.

 

So on the sloped wall brush, the top narrows in but not the bottom?

[Scooper]

You guys realize that I've already posted in this topic what's going on right?

[RebelChum]

,

You guys realize that I've already posted in this topic what's going on right?

 

 

...Yes?

 

Now it's on to actually making it work.

 

@@MUG If what I said in the last post is correct, in that you only want the top of the sloped brush to narrow, the only thing I can suggest is a square cylinder.

[Scooper]

Well my point is that what he has posted an image of, and explained, is not possible with brushes. So there is no point in "making it work". The only plausible solution is to use patches, but I'm not sure if that would allow him to get twisting rectangles either. Since they are rendered as triangles as well.

 

(Assuming I've understood him correctly and what he wants IS in fact effectively twisting rectangles.)

[MUG]

Aye @@Scooper is right. I was just being think and trying to create a flat plane that would be physically impossible as a flat plane.

 

I've gone with this outwardly "curved" arrangement with two brushes: