Talk:Leak: Difference between revisions
(→Leak) |
m (→Leak: yes) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
Can we move this page to [[Leak]]? It would make a nice addition to [[:Category:Glossary]]. The page Leak cannot be categorized as long as it's a redirect, on the other hand '''Leaks Explained''' wouldn't be a good glossary word. [[User:Jupix|Jupix]] 05:57, 2 May 2006 (PDT) | Can we move this page to [[Leak]]? It would make a nice addition to [[:Category:Glossary]]. The page Leak cannot be categorized as long as it's a redirect, on the other hand '''Leaks Explained''' wouldn't be a good glossary word. [[User:Jupix|Jupix]] 05:57, 2 May 2006 (PDT) | ||
:I vote yes. --[[User:Vaarscha|Vaarscha]] 06:07, 2 May 2006 (PDT) | |||
Revision as of 06:07, 2 May 2006
Entity origin outside the map
The entity origin outside the map leak is probably THE biggest pain I've ever run into with leaks.
One thing that would greatly help with leaks is if the build tools and their errors were better integrated with Hammer. If allowed, Hammer ought to not run vis and rad in the event of a leak, and instead stop the build, load the point file and immediately center the map on the entity that triggered the leak. At a minimum, allowing one to go to the start of a leak trace automatically would be fantastic - far better than relying on flying around in 3d space to find it or trying to find the coordinates via the build log.
rant off :^)
--Holtt
Leak
Can we move this page to Leak? It would make a nice addition to Category:Glossary. The page Leak cannot be categorized as long as it's a redirect, on the other hand Leaks Explained wouldn't be a good glossary word. Jupix 05:57, 2 May 2006 (PDT)
- I vote yes. --Vaarscha 06:07, 2 May 2006 (PDT)