Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Falling through the floor

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Falling through the floor

    I was testing out this new walkway in my level when I just suddenly fell through the floor. This video should show exactly what is going on:



    I did create a brush in the 2D Shape Editor which was supposed to resemble the intersection walkway found in the ShiptechHardware Static Mesh package. The one with the grate. It came out with some Z-fighting issues, though, and, until now, the walkway was fine. What is going on?

    Thanks in advance!

    #2
    Seems like a BSP hole to me, try setting the brush to build first or build last or recreate the brush.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by Flak Master View Post
      I was testing out this new walkway in my level when I just suddenly fell through the floor. This video should show exactly what is going on:



      I did create a brush in the 2D Shape Editor which was supposed to resemble the intersection walkway found in the ShiptechHardware Static Mesh package. The one with the grate. It came out with some Z-fighting issues, though, and, until now, the walkway was fine. What is going on?

      Thanks in advance!
      This isn't that uncommon, particularly if your brush there is semisolid. Make sure your brush is solid. Follow Baryonyx's suggestions, if none of that works recreate your brushes it if need be (Select all the brushes, copy them, delete them, then paste them in again).

      Comment


        #4
        Quite interesting behaviour, especially since you can crouch on it. Usually, BSP-holes in brushes don't allow to crouch on those (that's my personal experience). However, it could be I had way too few BSP-holes to know that this is also possible.

        First of all, I see you have stairs. I see they are most likely made of brushes and no preexisting static mesh. If the stairs are additive brushes, I would search for the problem in those. As unbelievable as this may sound, BSP-cuts can go through your entire geometry affecting other brushes than the brush of their origin. That's a fact. Back then one could see that very well in the BSP-cut view (sadly that one stopped working after the UnrealEd versions 2.0 and 2.1). Stairs are an incredibly complex structure for BSP and often likely the cause of such issues as they produce many cuts so I advice you convert them to semi-solid brushes in case they are purly solid. If they were made by one subtracted stair brush, I suggest you try to reshape that part with one subtractive brush for the hallway with an appropriate depth where you can fit your stairs in as a semi-solid brush.
        In case your stairs are a semi-solid brush, it could be that your brush, that was done with the 2D-ShapeEd is semi-solid. In that case, try setting it to solid. If all fails, try converting your stairs into a static mesh. The lighting probably won't be the best, but it's better than having a bugged environment. Should this not work, then please show us a zone-view in the editor and a wireframe view in the editor (preferrably the area with the bugged brush and the stairs). I am curious about the relation of stairs - bugged brush. The zone-viewmode is the best alternative one can get to the (now defect) BSP-cut view as it (at least) shows the rough outlines of cuts on surfaces.

        In other words: In case you have complex brush structures that could be done with less brushes, you might want to redo them that way. If there are complex brushes that are solid, you might want to change them to semi-solid.

        Another small question: Do you have zoning yet? Eventually it is zoned the wrong way and a zone-portal is causing this issue - or it is because your map is too big to be handled as one zone and has no zone-portals.
        Off-grid mapping can also be a nasty thing. Eventually it will lead to BSP errors and/or holes. I suggest to make the rough layout of a map min. on grid 16 to 32 and try to reserve more semi-solid brushes and static meshes on the lower counts, as that is better for details. However, that is my personal preference and might not always be the ideal to use for different styles of mapping/maps and it is always up to the mapper after all. Actually it's more of a personal golden rule and so far it kept away most of the nasty BSP issues from my maps and I can recommend to try that style of creating maps.

        EDIT: If you have more mapping or map issues, it would be better to post them in the Level Editing, Modeling & Skinning subforum as that is the appropriate subforum for that kind of topic. I just happened to stumble across this thread by incident as I don't tend to be a lot in the Troubleshooting & Technology subforum.

        Comment


          #5
          Wow, I didn't think people were still posting on this topic.

          @Sly
          The stair brushes are semisolid, and everything except for the bottom floor has zones, as the bottom floor is full of terrain. I have not tried converting the stairs to Static Meshes or even Additive brushes yet. However, I did get a video of the build of the map that was giving me issues: (Don't worry; my level has BARELY progressed from this point due to real life circumstances, and I probably won't be working on it until around Christmas)



          All of my CSG brushes are snapped to a 16 Unreal Unit (would be nice to know what scale UnrealEd uses) grid. Speaking of which, in Blender, (this is an off-topic question) I have been trying to set the grid up to something higher than 1, as, if I remember correctly from trying to use it earlier this year, I couldn't set it higher than that. (I'd ask on the forums, but the topic I posted got moved to a part where it doesn't seem like people get replies that often.) Is it possible to do this?

          Thanks in advance!

          PS-If a mod wants to move this topic to the Level Editing part of the UT2004 forums, then by all means, do so. (I don't know why I posted it here)

          Comment


            #6
            What does that wireframe rmode show, exactly: polygons or BSP nodes? If it's BSP nodes, then it's fine, if a bit complex. If it's polygons, then it's way too complex. (If you don't know, post a screenshot of the wireframe and zone/portal modes in the editor.)

            Overall, don't ever use semi-solid brushes, because they're broken in UT2004. Don't use solid brushes if they're complex, either, because they weigh down the BSP tree a lot. Use almost exclusively static meshes. And converted brushes don't count, either, because the conversion mechanism is suboptimal. It's best to either use one of the static meshes that comes with the game, or make your own, even if they're relatively simple.

            Both the stairs and the glitchy platform are too complex. Ditch the BSP stairs entirely and use a mesh, or a ramp. As for the platform, there are too many decorations on it and the engine does not approve of that. Again use a static mesh or remove the decorations to lower the polygon count.

            As for your Blender question, you can always scale down your mesh for editing, and scale it back up when you're done.

            Comment


              #7
              RMode 1 colors: white = BSP, cyan = StaticMeshes, red = SkeletalMeshes.
              Yeah, it looks a bit complex for BSP. The result of too complex level geometry can easily be BSP holes. Usung StaticMeshes for more complex parts is a good idea. And if StaticMesh collision isn't good enough, you can always add BlockingVolumes where appropriate. Those also use BSP-style collision models, but the difference is that all brushes are combined into a single model for the entire level, while each volume gets its own model, which makes it far less complex and almost impossible to fail. (Simple StaticMesh collision is also based on these kinds of BSP models, btw.)

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Wormbo View Post
                RMode 1 colors: white = BSP, cyan = StaticMeshes, red = SkeletalMeshes.
                Yea, that's obvious, but I'm wondering if the BSP brushes actually have a whole lot of polygons as it's shown in the video (like the "fan-like" effect at 1:15). It would make little sense if they were actual polygons (the only way to get that would be to subtract the whole room), so I think the wireframe view shows nodes and not polygons. But if those just happen to be actual polygons, well, then that's trouble.

                Comment


                  #9
                  If you place a complex BSP brush in the editor and view the wireframe ingame, you will see the same wireframe as when you convert it to a static mesh afaIk, so I assume they're in fact polygons.

                  PS: And yes, it seems to be quite critical at some spots. Now I clearly saw how the broken floor is made. Details per brushsinking.
                  Eventually one can leave the details that were made with brushsinking and try to achieve the same result with a "better" method by using less brushes, could be that this will reduce the complexity, some sort of more efficient workaround maybe. Just some random thoughts.
                  It could be worth a try to convert some stuff to static meshes though - or replace by static meshes, like the stairs.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Sly. View Post
                    If you place a complex BSP brush in the editor and view the wireframe ingame, you will see the same wireframe as when you convert it to a static mesh afaIk, so I assume they're in fact polygons.
                    No, when you convert a brush to a mesh, nodes are converted to polygons (meshes can only use triangles, not complex polygons, unlike brushes). If all the brush polygons are triangles, then there are no extra nodes, and of course converting such a brush to mesh doesn't change anything. And I know that the Editor wireframe view shows polygons and not nodes (Zone/Portal view shows nodes).

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Oh, okay. The more you know, the better.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X