The only thing that's worse than ....

[ReX]

.... working with triangular sectors is circular sectors. In my most recently completed set of levels I had a map with a large triangular shaped room with equal sides (an equilateral triangle). At first I thought it would be clever to have an odd-shaped room (as it also happened to fit my needs for that room). Soon however, I was regretting the idea. Working with linedefs at odd angles (60 degrees in this case) was a huge pain:
1. keeping contiguous line segments straight after splitting the lines and joining sectors to it;
2. trying to get opposite lines in rectangular sectors parallel, when these sectors were at 60 degree angles (e.g., doors, windows, etc.);
3. adding sectors to the corners of the triangle.

In my newest set of levels I have been working with sectors in concentric circles. It's even more of a pain, as I'm working with far more angles (15, 30, 45, 60, 75). Keeping the lines in concentric circles parallel is tricky, as is making sure that radial lines stay straight.

As for my other levels in this new set, I'm going to make sure they are neither triangular nor circular (although there will definitely be circles and triangles in them. Just not room-sized or map-sized ones.)

[DeePsea]

You describe the "problem", but why exactly is that a significant problem (granted that it's slightly more work to compare angles)?

[DeePsea]

Why is there always one less post here every time I view this message?

It's pretty simple to do all the things you mention. You can even make an "arc" (like a big bend) out of a straight line automatically. So what normally takes 15 minutes can be done in 30 seconds.

It's sorta interesting to see one want complexity, yet complain that it's complicated:)) Help files are there for a reason.

[ReX]

deepteam said:

You describe the "problem", but why exactly is that a significant problem (granted that it's slightly more work to compare angles)?

One problem is to keep lines straight after they have been split and the middle vertices moved. Whether one snaps the vertex to a grid or not, it requires eyeballing it to make sure the two or more line segments are straight. When working on a grid with a vertical, horizontal, or 45 degree diagonal, the grid points easily enable a line to be kept straight after being split and the vertices moved. When working with a 60 degree angled line, for example, very few grid points are aligned along the line. So if you split and move the middle vertex then more often than not you're not going to have two line segments that are perfectly aligned. One way around that is to not move the middle vertex manually, but instead to set the linedef length so that the editing program chooses the optimal grid point on which to move the vertex. However, sometimes it is desirable to move the vertices or line segments manually, especially if a sector is attached to the segment.

With circular sectors, the problem is not creating the circles, but rather the same problem with angles as described above. Only, with many more degrees of angles. And with radial lines. And with arcs and radial segments. And with .... you get the idea.

[DeePsea]

Thanks for explaining. You are describing the problem as it relates to the editor you are using.

Straight line in the vertical or horizontal sense is duck simple. Just press shift+A and the line is guaranteed to be straight. The line deviation permitted is determined by the current grid size.

Straight lines are more important in the nodebuilding sense, since in the game one can't really see 1 or 2 Doom units. There are 2 exceptions> One is where those cause glitches in display (an integer rounding problem at higher res). And secondly, node building distortion caused by "angled" lines can invite trouble for polyobjects.

Lines at an angle are very easy to make the same, just look at the real "angle" value displayed when drawing. When you "drag" the line length is displayed in real time - making "equal" segments a snap. However, the "exact" same angle is not visible in real game play and a few degrees difference can't be noticed.

Circles are a variation and one should not spend time on small length differences or small angle differences, although both of these can be corrected as before.

If the level appearance does not change, better time can be spent in other areas. The only thing that is easy to do (and should be done)is to keep vertical and horizonal lines perfectly straight, since this creates more efficient nodes, thus improvig game play. Mostly important for large levels and/or slower machines.

No design attributes that make a level interesting are much of a problem. The last thing that should get in the way of level design is worrying about hassles to get details "the same".

[Lüt]

deepteam said:

It's pretty simple to do all the things you mention. You can even make an "arc" (like a big bend) out of a straight line automatically. So what normally takes 15 minutes can be done in 30 seconds.

It's sorta interesting to see one want complexity, yet complain that it's complicated:)) Help files are there for a reason.

I've tried your circles, I had to manually straighten them out in WadEd. It was a good start but took just as much time anyways (I am talking down to 2-pixel accuracy). I set the snap to one but it was still funky when I lined it up with the grid. Good try though.

[DeePsea]

A "circle" uses the polygon draw tool (the arc tool works with an existing line and is not meant to make a circle - has to keep the end-points). Press F1 in tool mode to see the key commands to change the size/#sides.

Normally SNAP to grid is OFF to keep the vertices accurate to ONE pixel. The lines created are within 1 unit in length of each other, hardly "funky". Grids are inappropriate with "circles" since the whole idea is to get a "circle".

The line length is "onscreen" as a vertex is dragged, if one wanted to make each line exact for some reason.

As I explained below, +/- 1 units of difference doesn't mean anything to the design of a level. This is mostly an academic issue, except if the lines are very short (like 4) where some texture -might- make a difference.

If one wants to align it to a "64 grid" (for flats), then just drag the whole circle and visually align over the grid. One should not mess with the vertices since that again destroys the circle and the 1 unit precision. All very easy to do.

It would take a damn clever designer to draw a 64 (or more) sided "almost perfect" circle drawing by hand in less time. For starters, one has to take the time to calculate the length and angle required ahead of time to even come close.

Since you mention it, Waded is pretty cumbersome to work with. That it doesn't let one take advantage of a crisp high res screen is just one visual handicap. There is also no option to get more screen real estate - those menu boxes take up a huge amount of space (press I to toggle the information display).

[Lüt]

Why is there always one less post here every time I view this message?