Level Design Try to convert a static mesh to brush

[Foo'bar]

...but at least here it doesn't seem to work. It always results in a editor crash.

I've built a building with approx 2.000 mesh trigons, imported it as a ase static mesh into the editor. Now I want to convert it to an additive BSP geometry - but unfortunately I always run into a crash. Is there anything important to think about when trying to convert?



edit: the message is:

General protection fault!

History: CreateModelFromStaticMesh <- UEditorEngine::Exec_StaticMesh <- UEditorEngine::Exec <- (STATICMESH TO BRUSH) <- UUnrealEdEngine::Exec <- WEditorFrame::OnCommand <- WWindow::WndProc <- WWindow::StaticProc <- MessagePump <- MainLoop

Do I have an error in my max model perhaps?

 

[Lt_Kettch]

I think the converted mesh will get bad BSP shapes for example to pointy or convae shapes.

For what do you need it anyway? Meshes are superior in most departments

http://www.hourences.com/book/tutorialsbsp.htm

 

[UncleDrax]

...but at least here it doesn't seem to work. It always results in a editor crash.

I've built a building with approx 2.000 mesh trigons, imported it as a ase static mesh into the editor. Now I want to convert it to an additive BSP geometry - but unfortunately I always run into a crash. Is there anything important to think about when trying to convert?

Do I have an error in my max model perhaps?

You want to create a 2000 face BSP brush?

...
holy crap. why?!

Off hand I'd guess you're throwing the BSP tree into fits.
BSP isn't designed for things like that.... the role of BSP on the UT2 engine is mostly to block out areas and provide occulsion/zoning.

If you have a HW brush (static mesh), why on earth would you want to make it BSP?

The only reason I can even remotely think for doing that it to ensure you get 'perfect' lighting on an object.
Honestly, there are alot of ways you should be able to get close.. it may cost you in adding more verticies to your model depending how it's constructed; worst case you can bake a lightmap on it.

 

[Foo'bar]

The only reason I can even remotely think for doing that it to ensure you get 'perfect' lighting on an object.

Exactly this was the plan. I've built a german B-Werk bunker complex after original drawings and I need to have nice lighting inside with several different zones. All this wont be provided by an static mesh. Unfortunately.

Is there another way to light a static mesh correct?

I think I've found it here

 

[UncleDrax]

Exactly this was the plan. I've built a german B-Werk bunker complex after original drawings and I need to have nice lighting inside with several different zones. All this wont be provided by an static mesh. Unfortunately.

Is there another way to light a static mesh correct?

Hourence has some tips for vert-lighting here: http://book.hourences.com/tutorialsvertex.htm
Some of those suggestions might help you so you don't need to do anything else.

I know you -can- lightmap smeshs, I believe the buildings on Barashka were like that at one point (may have been the mod though). And trying to google for a HOWTO on it failed my 5-minute test (spent 5 minutes and couldn't find a good link)..

Edit:
Looks like you found a tut on it.. awesomesauce!

 

[Foo'bar]

Not the mesh import is the problem but the converting to a brush afterwards.

Anyway, for some reason I managed to convert it correctly into a brush today. Don't ask, I haven't made anything different than yesterday...

 

[Foo'bar]

I don't want to let you stand in the dark look the newest upcoming feature in AlteZiegelei, a so called B-Werk - a monstrous 2-stories subsurface MG-bunker:

 

[worluk]

very nice, i once modeled a Schartenlafette for an Ostwall map i had planned.
Would have been usable
I think it was PzW717, if you need interior plans and pics of something like that, let me know, i have some blueprints around which werent exactly easy to find for me at that time.

Will it have a flamethrower and usable M19 machine nade thrower?

 

[Foo'bar]

Will it have a flamethrower and usable M19 machine nade thrower?

When you'll make the required code, then bestimmt, Brouda!

 

[smokeythebear]

If the problem is lighting, why not just make the mesh(es) special lit so you have more control of how it looks (If it is a problem with ambient light)? Even if you add a hundred small lights it will be more optimized than converting to bsp...

edit*

missed your earlier post. Doing the lighting in max then making it unlit is prob the best idea.

 

[Foo'bar]

Thank you smokey but I think I've done it so far. The mesh has been converted properly, lighting is looking almost perfect and texturizing the walls is way more easy as with a static mesh.
Since the bunker is a pretty complex building I've put some zone portals to it and all is working well at the moment.

 

[jeffduquette]

Damn...looks like your building the Maginot line on AlteZiegelei

 

[worluk]

more like the ostwall (http://www.ostwall.com/ostwall_start.htm)

 

[Foo'bar]

Those B-type Panzerwerk bunkers in fact were located at both western and eastern front lines.

 

[Lt_Kettch]

But wasn't the Magniot Line from the Belgians

 

[jeffduquette]

Hi Foo’bar:

I have also been fiddling with a new level using Keystone’s Debrecen as a template (with Keystone’s kind permission of course). The base map as you know is rather huge. However, there is immense amount of space in non-playing areas. Areas beyond the blocking volumes, mine volumes and static mesh treelines. I got a rather significant boost in frame rates by using the invisibility tool to turn off – rendering invisible -- the quads in the out of play portions of my map.

I was looking at b80 in the editor and I think you could probably get a big boost in map performance by turning off the rather large number of quads in non-play areas. Areas that aren’t masked by tree lines (like over in the flats by Sender and such) could be masked by a few strategically placed ridge lines or the like such that players don’t see the edge of the world from any vantage points within the playing area.

The areas I have highlighted in yellow are the areas I mean.

All the best
Jeff

 

[jeffduquette]

But wasn't the Magniot Line from the Belgians

It's was a joke . Maginot was built by the Frenchies. You're prolly' thinking of Eben Emal.

 

[Foo'bar]

(...)I got a rather significant boost in frame rates by using the invisibility tool to turn off

 

[jeffduquette]

This is going way beyond the original intent of your thread, but since we (or me) started talking about map performance I figured I'd just run with it. I noticed that in the ZoneInfo properties for AZ b80 distant fog end is set to 88000 (~1.68Kilometers). I guess I thought this value had to be a power of 2. Obviously AZ can be played with the above setting, but is there any performance penalty associated with distant fog end not being a power of 2?

Same again for the distant fog start. AZ has a setting of 10000. Again, this seems to work, but is there any level performance penalty one has to pay for this value if it is not a power of 2?

Like I say, not related to the original thread in question, but I think they are important considerations. To make big tank based maps\levels interesting, the rendering\visibility needs to be pushed out to at least 1.3 or 1.5Kilometer distances -- ala Debrecen and Alte Ziegeli. But going on power of 2 your choices for distant fog end are like 32768 (~0.624Km) or 65536 (~1.25Km) . The next step up -- 131072 (~2.5Km) -- seems like it would result in a real hit to frame rates.

 

[Lt_Kettch]

As far as I know the distance fog hasn't to be a power of two, you can choose any value you want