This is a new one.... (Error)
by Ryan Armstrong · in Artist Corner · 09/09/2002 (9:29 pm) · 13 replies
Hey I was working on my map, and when I complied I came accross this error:
::createBaseWinding: Bad face on brush. < 3 points. DMMNOTEL Handle better?
What on earth is that one mean? What could be the cause, and how can I fix it?
I wish the compiler would say which brush is causing the error like ZHLT does. Any ideas?
P.S. This error is caused in the morianUtil.cc file at line 815 in the Map2Dif utility in case that helps at all. Probally not. :)
::createBaseWinding: Bad face on brush. < 3 points. DMMNOTEL Handle better?
What on earth is that one mean? What could be the cause, and how can I fix it?
I wish the compiler would say which brush is causing the error like ZHLT does. Any ideas?
P.S. This error is caused in the morianUtil.cc file at line 815 in the Map2Dif utility in case that helps at all. Probally not. :)
About the author
#2
09/10/2002 (1:08 pm)
Yea you might want to take a look at your portals, that is usually the culprit.
#3
another question at this time: Can I modify a portal, so that it's not a square anymore!
thanks
Matthew
09/10/2002 (1:10 pm)
Nathan's right! you got to be very carefully placing portals!another question at this time: Can I modify a portal, so that it's not a square anymore!
thanks
Matthew
#4
09/10/2002 (1:12 pm)
I don't have any portals in my level though. Its pretty small, so I haven't added any yet. What else could be causing this.
#5
Also in QuArK, sometimes it will move most of the polys from a brush to a folder. This folder also contains the original brush, which now only has one or two polys in the hierarchy. If you move all the polys that are in the folder back to beneath the brush, it would prevent some errors.
Good luck. :)
09/10/2002 (1:31 pm)
If you use QuArK, go to "Search--> Find Microbrushes", then use "I" to go to each one (don't auto-fix, since it will just delete the brushes). Try to readjust the vertices so that you have a valid brush. Also in QuArK, sometimes it will move most of the polys from a brush to a folder. This folder also contains the original brush, which now only has one or two polys in the hierarchy. If you move all the polys that are in the folder back to beneath the brush, it would prevent some errors.
Good luck. :)
#6
09/10/2002 (1:39 pm)
I'm using WorldCraft. lol.
#7
heheh Just kidding. The transition is the worst part of the whole thing. You can set QuArK up like WC in some ways--the look and feel. Other parts are a matter of figuring out the different buttons.
I've been considering making a WC-to-QuArK conversion kit for a resource. E-mail me if you want to try to switch and maybe we can get it going.
Eric
09/10/2002 (1:52 pm)
ahh... I pity you. ;-)heheh Just kidding. The transition is the worst part of the whole thing. You can set QuArK up like WC in some ways--the look and feel. Other parts are a matter of figuring out the different buttons.
I've been considering making a WC-to-QuArK conversion kit for a resource. E-mail me if you want to try to switch and maybe we can get it going.
Eric
#8
09/10/2002 (1:56 pm)
You know this could all be fixed if the compiler simply TOLD me what brush was giving me the error rather then just saying there is one. Zoner's HL Tools does that, and makes it a snap to figure out what brush it doesn't like. As for converting to Quark, I have been considering making the switch, I tried using it once, but it was a bit different, and I am just really used to WC. Are there any features in Quark that make it better then WC? Or is it really just a matter of preference?
#9
It also offers better organization through folders. WC does this to an extent with visgroups, but I like these better.
Another plus is the searching for microbrushes I mentioned earlier, as well as one for broken polys. Both of these can be a real pain to figure out on your own. I also like that you can tell a brush is broken just by clicking on it. If part of it disappears, it's not right. :)
There's also a small 3D or 2D window to view only the selected item.
There are other things I just can't recall at the moment. The only part I don't like is the texturing, and that could just be because I don't know the correct way to do it. In Hammer, you highlight what you want textured and you have the option to put the texture over several polys like a skin. QuArK does this too, but I'm havin' a bit of trouble with it. :-) Luckily it is only on the very complex it is any problem.
email me @ eforhan@yahoo.com and I'll give you some files and maybe we can make up a resource. :)
09/10/2002 (2:13 pm)
It's a better program. For examply, you can use 'negative brushes' which take the place of brush subtraction. So while it appears like your brush has been subtracted like normal, in reality it's only temporarily done so you can move it until you are satisfied. It also offers better organization through folders. WC does this to an extent with visgroups, but I like these better.
Another plus is the searching for microbrushes I mentioned earlier, as well as one for broken polys. Both of these can be a real pain to figure out on your own. I also like that you can tell a brush is broken just by clicking on it. If part of it disappears, it's not right. :)
There's also a small 3D or 2D window to view only the selected item.
There are other things I just can't recall at the moment. The only part I don't like is the texturing, and that could just be because I don't know the correct way to do it. In Hammer, you highlight what you want textured and you have the option to put the texture over several polys like a skin. QuArK does this too, but I'm havin' a bit of trouble with it. :-) Luckily it is only on the very complex it is any problem.
email me @ eforhan@yahoo.com and I'll give you some files and maybe we can make up a resource. :)
#10
09/10/2002 (2:55 pm)
Sonds good to me, I'll contact you via MSN. 
#11
This can also come from the slicing and dicing that happens when two structural brushes intersect causing new surface creation (which might have floating point coords-->roundoff occurs-->bad face occurs...you get the idea).
Yes, portal design can be one culprit (but not the only one) due to the slicing and dicing. Good portal design is a solution for that. Brush intersection design is also critical; detail brushes are a possible solution or good brush subdivision prior to compiling is another.
PS @Eric: right-click on a face and check out the tag face and texture wrapping options :) Also: www.planetquake.com/quark/infobase/maped.plugins.tagside.html
09/12/2002 (9:47 am)
Aside from whether you're using WC/Hammer/QuArK, the issue with this error (in my experience) is caused by roundoff of floating point vertices to integer coordinates during map2dif compile process. If you have small faces the roundoff could lead to the final coords having the same value on a face leading to an invalid brush. This can also come from the slicing and dicing that happens when two structural brushes intersect causing new surface creation (which might have floating point coords-->roundoff occurs-->bad face occurs...you get the idea).
Yes, portal design can be one culprit (but not the only one) due to the slicing and dicing. Good portal design is a solution for that. Brush intersection design is also critical; detail brushes are a possible solution or good brush subdivision prior to compiling is another.
PS @Eric: right-click on a face and check out the tag face and texture wrapping options :) Also: www.planetquake.com/quark/infobase/maped.plugins.tagside.html
#12
09/12/2002 (10:16 am)
Thanks Desmond. :-)
#13
09/12/2002 (12:30 pm)
Yea I found the problem, it was a security camera that I had made, and rotated it downwards slightly that caused the error. Thanks for all your help guys. 
Torque Owner Nathan Martin
TRON 2001 Network