Is Mitering Worth It?

Dain

L3: Member
Oct 21, 2009
106
43
Does the performance increase (if any) gained from mitering corners in hammer outweigh the time it takes to to either vertix-manipulate or clip nearly every single brush?

i.e. Is fig. 2 really any better than figs. 1 and 3?

Basic_Construction.jpg
 
Feb 17, 2009
1,165
376
From looking at Valve maps, it seems that fig. 2 is the best one. But as a noob, i am using fig. 1 :(
Lets wait for somebody who can tell the difference.
 

Ravidge

Grand Vizier
aa
May 14, 2008
1,544
2,818
fig 1 is the worst, because it has surfaces drawn that can't be seen. they get included in vrad process. (where the walls overlap)

fig 2 & 3 does the same thing. And are equally good in this example.

Edit: There are 2 thing you need to know

1. brush sides that faces the void gets removed automatically by the compiler.
2. brush sides that are completely covered (not even 1 unit can be seen of the face) gets removed automatically by the compiler.
 
Last edited:

Ida

deer
aa
Jan 6, 2008
2,289
1,372
There's no reason to drag out the old vertex tool every single time you make a wall, when figure 3 works just as well. Your third option is the best.
 

Zwiffle

L6: Sharp Member
Jun 24, 2008
269
161
I miter a lot, but that's because it's a habit I picked up mapping for Quake for so many years. The need to miter sort of went away when Doom 3 came out because that compiler automatically optimized the tris for you, so you could run with figure 1 and get the same result as in figure 2. It was cool like that.

I'm not exactly sure how Hammer does its tris, but I miter just to be safe. I don't see how mitering would make it any worse, at the very least.
 

Psy

The Imp Queen
aa
Apr 9, 2008
1,706
1,491
I always thoughts VBSP was clever enough to merge two faces that share them same texture co-cords and the same plane.
 

UKCS-Alias

Mann vs Machine... or... Mapper vs Meta?
aa
Sep 8, 2008
1,264
816
I did some test with it and have some surprising results... The Vbsp and Vvis results were exactly the same (not that i would notice any slowdown with such small area). In vrad everything was the same except the overview that shows the object and memory count:

Example 1 said:
Object.names.......Objects/Maxobjs..Memory./.Maxmem..Fullness.
------------.......---------------..---------------..--------.
brushsides..............60/65536.........480/524288...(.0.1%).
planes..................44/65536.........880/1310720..(.0.1%).
vertexes................61/65536.........732/786432...(.0.1%).
leafbrushes.............11/65536..........22/131072...(.0.0%).
edges..................116/256000........464/1024000..(.0.0%).
physics...............[variable]........3754/4194304..(.0.1%).

Example 2 said:
Object.names.......Objects/Maxobjs..Memory./.Maxmem..Fullness.
------------.......---------------..---------------..--------.
brushsides..............72/65536.........576/524288...(.0.1%).
planes..................54/65536........1080/1310720..(.0.1%).
vertexes................49/65536.........588/786432...(.0.1%).
leafbrushes.............15/65536..........30/131072...(.0.0%).
edges..................106/256000........424/1024000..(.0.0%).
physics...............[variable]........3530/4194304..(.0.1%).

Example 3 said:
Object.names.......Objects/Maxobjs..Memory./.Maxmem..Fullness.
------------.......---------------..---------------..--------.
brushsides..............60/65536.........480/524288...(.0.1%).
planes..................44/65536.........880/1310720..(.0.1%).
vertexes................51/65536.........612/786432...(.0.1%).
leafbrushes.............10/65536..........20/131072...(.0.0%).
edges..................109/256000........436/1024000..(.0.0%).
physics...............[variable]........3754/4194304..(.0.1%).

Note: all similar results are trimmed out to prevent you from searching. Bold marked ones have the lowest value for that and should be best for it.

The image of how the map looked in each stage are added as attachment.
 
Last edited:

SiniStarR

L8: Fancy Shmancy Member
Mar 31, 2009
585
116
i like mitering because it makes the 2d views look very clean, although if you ever have to rescale something its annoying as hell because you then have to fix the angles. And for me, I forget that alot XD
 

gamemaster1996

L13: Stunning Member
Sep 30, 2009
1,064
134
I'd go for fig 2 for bigobjects and fig 1 for smaller objects as fig 1 is simple and easy and also you dont need to bother much with smaller things as much as big things
 

UKCS-Alias

Mann vs Machine... or... Mapper vs Meta?
aa
Sep 8, 2008
1,264
816
But thats on a very small scale. I bet if you had lots of brushes it would be a different story.
Well, i expect the diffirences to grow bigger but still have the balance the same between them. But on a side note. It does show that situation 1 is the worst to use, simply as 3 beats it. However, #2 and #3 combined seem to have all the ideal values together. So i think its about having a fine balance between them.

Personaly i prefer to use method 3. Simply because its easy to edit and better than method 1. method 2 is good for details though.

And again notice that carve again gives the worst result. it creates situation 1. (hollow is also carve, but then only affecting the brushes you hollow and with premade brushes for you that will be used to carve)
 

YM

LVL100 YM
aa
Dec 5, 2007
7,135
6,056
You can quite clearly see that example 2 is smaller, which is always good. its also easier to handle for texturing since you dont have that 16 unit strip at the side of the brush.

But you've gone too far with your mitering. you've taken the technique to the pointless extreme. there is only ONE corner in your map that needs mitering, and thus only one corner is actually making any difference. you dont need to mitre the outside corner edges because the visible brush faces already meet exactly and faces touching the void are all removed automatically.
 

Dain

L3: Member
Oct 21, 2009
106
43
So, for example, I have mitered this whole building; have I gone too far or is this okay?
116rlp3.jpg
 
Feb 14, 2008
1,051
931
I use both methods.

For buildings that the player can walk around or have visible wall sides, I tuck away the corners with vertex editing, as in fig 2. In any other case, I use fig 3, simply because it's neat, easy and frankly easier to make.

The only use I can see for fig 1, is if you have an upper floor in a building. Though I am a little OCD with my nodrawing sometimes, and I might even not use that there.