Talk:Brush: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Innocentive (talk | contribs) (brushes convex?) |
MofoMan2000 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
I conclude that brushes in Hammer can either be convex or conave and would suggest to drop the reference to that property of a brush. Or am I missing something?--[[User:Innocentive|Innocentive]] 23:57, 4 February 2013 (PST) | I conclude that brushes in Hammer can either be convex or conave and would suggest to drop the reference to that property of a brush. Or am I missing something?--[[User:Innocentive|Innocentive]] 23:57, 4 February 2013 (PST) | ||
:Hammer will handle concave brushes alright, but once it is created it will show up as "invalid" in the "Check for Problems" dialog, and BSP compilers (for any Quake-based engine) will error and refuse to compile it. So it is an "invalid" brush in that case, I don't think it can be considered a brush. | |||
Revision as of 23:53, 13 June 2013
I'm currently working on a German verison of this page and I'm wondering whether it is correct to define brushes as convex 3D shapes. The linked Wikipedia article explains that there must not be an angle greater than 180° in convex polygons. While that is true for the standard brushes available in Hammer, vertex manipulation allows you to create single brushes with angles greater than 180°.
I conclude that brushes in Hammer can either be convex or conave and would suggest to drop the reference to that property of a brush. Or am I missing something?--Innocentive 23:57, 4 February 2013 (PST)
- Hammer will handle concave brushes alright, but once it is created it will show up as "invalid" in the "Check for Problems" dialog, and BSP compilers (for any Quake-based engine) will error and refuse to compile it. So it is an "invalid" brush in that case, I don't think it can be considered a brush.