Textures [null, clip, sky]

Textures [null, clip, sky]

Hammer Mapping — Page [1]
sprinkles

Chrome Whore
2009 Sep 6 • 2547
10 ₧
Through looking around I have read some 'stuff.' Such as the null, clip, and sky textures are the same; as in they render differently, and should be used on surfaces that will not be seen to decrease load time and increase fps. To contradict that, others say that those textures don't actually decrease load time and increase fps.

Furthermore, I read somewhere that putting [for example] a 128x128 texture on a bigger surface will cause that surface to render in 128x128 squares thus increasing load time and decreasing fps.

There are some other few things -for example putting a 'complex' object adjacent to a 'simple' surface will cause that surface to render in as many sides as the complex object- but those all checked out with Valve.

So what are your takes on these...err 'things?'

Also will using the null texture [correctly] reduce world polygon counts?



Another thing, if I have something like a giant rock that you are only going to see say 5 out of 9 faces, would it be more efficient to hollow it and delete the four faces and null the back of the other five?
 
 
2009 Nov 24 at 19:47 PST — Ed. 2009 Nov 24 at 21:31 PST
sprinkles

Chrome Whore
2009 Sep 6 • 2547
10 ₧
Well I did some tests.
To start out, I used Map Viewer to establish fps and world poly counts.

The default [that is without any null textures and no hollowing and such] was 38-40 fps with 101 out of 187 world polys visible.

By adding the null texture to the outside [unseen] walls I got a 20 fps increase! -58-60 fps 101/187 world polygons visible.

A little more tweaking with null texture and hollowing some of my bigger brushes [to 5] [again nulling the unseen walls] 62-64 fps 166/187 [the reason the total number of brushes didn't increase is because I deleted some of the unseen brushes].

After extensive hollowing, deleting and more nulling 64-66 fps 224/375 world polygons visible.

All in all, that is a 61% fps increase!
However, if you take into account that the world polygon count doubled that means a stunning, jaw dropping 122% fps increase.
[check my math]
 
 
2009 Nov 24 at 22:43 PST — Ed. 2009 Nov 24 at 22:47 PST
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse

Find the Hole II Participation Medal
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
 
 
2009 Nov 25 at 03:44 PST
sprinkles

Chrome Whore
2009 Sep 6 • 2547
10 ₧
Down Rodeo said:
That's quite impressive. You're like a proper scientist.



So does that mean you're going to let me cut you open and move all your organs and such?
 
 
2009 Nov 25 at 05:04 PST
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse

Find the Hole II Participation Medal
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
 
 
2009 Nov 25 at 05:20 PST
sprinkles

Chrome Whore
2009 Sep 6 • 2547
10 ₧
I want to make a torch, but how do I get the flame/fire in Hammer? or however you do it.
 
 
2009 Nov 25 at 05:39 PST
Killer-Duck
Homicidal Anatidae

2008 Mar 5 • 1169
633 ₧
sprinkles said:
Well I did some tests.
To start out, I used Map Viewer to establish fps and world poly counts.


Do you get the same result when running the map in the actual game? It could be that Map Viewer renders the graphics differently from the game-engine. (Not saying it is so, but it's always good to double-check that sort of thing...)
QUACK! QUACK!
 
 
2009 Nov 25 at 05:55 PST — Ed. 2009 Nov 25 at 05:57 PST
sprinkles

Chrome Whore
2009 Sep 6 • 2547
10 ₧
Oh look at that it might be the env_sprite entity [I swear it wasn't there the first time].



Also my above test gave me about 40% of my solids being invalid, so.....


Furthermore, after I fixed [deleted] the invalid solids and well started all over the compile time is astronomical [well only the leaf thread part] so back to square -1 again.
 
 
2009 Nov 25 at 05:59 PST — Ed. 2009 Nov 25 at 13:33 PST
SuperJer
Websiteman

2005 Mar 20 • 6230
Sprinkles: Please explain what objects you are "hollowing" in your tests and why.

Using the hollow feature is dangerous on non-rectangular brushes. Sounds like the source of your invalid solids.

Hollowing is never going to increase efficiency, it just fractures polygons and adds (unnecessary?) clipnodes.

If you are getting more FPS with more wpoly, something is wrong with Map Viewer.
 
 
2009 Nov 25 at 18:13 PST
SuperJer
Websiteman

2005 Mar 20 • 6230
sprinkles said:
Such as the null, clip, and sky textures are the same; as in they render differently, and should be used on surfaces that will not be seen [...]

null, clip and sky are completely different things. null changes nothing about the solid, but removes the visible face from rendering. However, I believe having all null faces on a brush can cause unexpected behavior when the brush is part of an entity in some rare cases. clip is used to block player movement. That's all it does. Importantly, however, clip does NOT stop leaks. It ONLY blocks players. Other than that it counts as empty space. sky, obviously, is used to display the sky box. Faces with sky are not rendered (like null) and cause the engine to draw the skybox in the direction of the face. The skybox is just a big box around the player, so it can block far-away objects, and if you are not careful, you will be able to see things beyond sky faces, like other rooms.

sprinkles said:
[...] to decrease load time and increase fps. To contradict that, others say that those textures don't actually decrease load time and increase fps.

clip has no such effect. null and sky can increase fps if used in place of normal textures, where appropriate.

sprinkles said:
Furthermore, I read somewhere that putting [for example] a 128x128 texture on a bigger surface will cause that surface to render in 128x128 squares thus increasing load time and decreasing fps.

This is not true. However, the scale of the texture will affect the lightmap/patch density, which could be disastrous. This can be adjusted with the -chop option in hlrad.

sprinkles said:
[...] putting a 'complex' object adjacent to a 'simple' surface will cause that surface to render in as many sides as the complex object [...]

This is true. Avoid this problem by making the complex object a func_wall, for example. Then remember that brush entities will not stop leaks and build accordingly.

Also keep in mind that hlbsp breaks up and organizes all the open space in your map into convex pieces. If you make the open space in your map really complex, hlbsp has to do more work and so does the game engine.

sprinkles said:
[...] giant rock that you are only going to see say 5 out of 9 faces, would it be more efficient to hollow it and delete the four faces and null the back of the other five?

DO NOT hollow it. hollowing will just add a lot of faces. If you are lucky they will be merged back together by hlcsg/hlbsp. But don't tempt it. Feel free to put null on any face that need never be seen. It won't hurt. It may not help much either, but it won't hurt.
 
 
2009 Nov 25 at 18:26 PST — Ed. 2009 Nov 25 at 18:40 PST
sprinkles

Chrome Whore
2009 Sep 6 • 2547
10 ₧
superjer said:
Sprinkles: Please explain what objects you are "hollowing" in your tests and why.

Using the hollow feature is dangerous on non-rectangular brushes. Sounds like the source of your invalid solids.

Hollowing is never going to increase efficiency, it just fractures polygons and adds (unnecessary?) clipnodes.

If you are getting more FPS with more wpoly, something is wrong with Map Viewer.




What was I hollowing? Everything freak'n everything. 'Rocks' 'Boulders' 'Things' 'Squirrels' If it was on my map it got hollowed. The theory here was that decreasing faces [which may increase world polygon counts]...ok..yea I jus......yea that was a bad idea. I was doing not thinking, and now that I am thinking, basic rectangles have 6 faces. Hollowing increases that from 6 faces to 6x6 faces.



Nonetheless though, the Null texture works nice, that's indisputable.
 
 
2009 Nov 25 at 18:33 PST — Ed. 2009 Nov 25 at 18:34 PST
Page [1]