Fix for maps with deleted brushes

[UTPe]

in case it may help

[Barbie]

<Texture>
The texture of the polygon. Must be specified in Package.Texture format.

Haha, tell this UnrealED. It only uses the texture name only what causes trouble, if you have different packages that contain textures with the same name.

[PrinceOfFunky]

Surely exporting to T3D won't export any brush except for the active one.

Do not use Menu>Brush>Export but Menu>File>Export to export the complete map.

I meant on a stripped map, even Menu>File>Export won't export the brushes except for the active one.

[Barbie]

I meant on a stripped map, even Menu>File>Export won't export the brushes except for the active one.

Because the Red Builder Brush is the only brush in it?

[PrinceOfFunky]

I meant on a stripped map, even Menu>File>Export won't export the brushes except for the active one.

Because the Red Builder Brush is the only brush in it?

It is indeed.

Basically the compiler/algorithm only cares about the faces in the space side of normals, ignoring the void. So really, additive csg brushes that exist in or extend into the void is basically IGNORED by the complier. Of course the exposed part is used in calculations.

Void is not ignored with additive system maps.

[sektor2111]

All right, let's keep having a bit of fun around.
Reading again first post and doing the reversal, setting up bDeleteMe True using this way (like you can do with editing ammo inside map) :
ConsoleCommand <set brush bDeleteMe True> or <set Brush bDeleteMe 1> - in a normal map. Do you now wanna know my results (I cannot check yours after all) ? All brushes did not even blink at this command. And then I draw a conclusion <set Brush bDeleteMe 0> or <set Brush bDeleteMe False> probably even if are there (excuse me but UTPT I think has found only red builder) will not help at this point. If Editor is rejecting such a command I think there are reasons to do that - reasons which I don't have knowledge about at this moment, maybe another time.

Paranoia around: Perhaps some of those Egyptica versions ( stripped ) it's crashing at a moment for a roaming problem because I think a PathNode or something like that has been removed being selected at once with brushes DELETED using Delete command from Editor and nothing like a script.

Wandering stage: Is AllActors iterator able to take in account bDeleteMe Actors ? If yes, flag can be reverted but I have doubts that you can find such a "Model" Brush with this flag in such a map. Advanced actor Editing using an actor selected and actor-name - for Brush - it's not even opening AdvancedProperties in a stripped map - maybe your Editor does that, mine doesn't. If I'm trying manually to handle such a "Brush20" or whatever call, nothing can be edited as I can do with a normal actor which is not "pending deletion".

Code: Select all

class Actor extends Object
   abstract
   native
   nativereplication;
...
var const bool            bDeleteMe;     // About to be deleted.


Other research ? In run-time I had a few bDeleteMe captures, but... in Editor - None last time (months/years here).

[Feralidragon]

I just checked a map with UTPT and with the brushes stripped, and when they are deleted in the editor, they indeed completely disappear from the map file itself.
So yeah... /topic

Having that said though, something that crossed my mind in my way home, was that an approximation to the original brushes could be potentially achieved with simple algorithms (check for cubic shapes, tessellated shapes, etc), or even with AI, by training it with intersected brushes from stripped maps as its input, and make it compare to the same but original brushes in the output.
Could be an interesting experiment, but it's not worth the trouble, there are just way too many maps anyway, and most of the best ones are not stripped at all, so there's really no practical point to this, it would only be for the challenge.

[PrinceOfFunky]

but it's not worth the trouble

I had that thought about AI too and the difference between mine and yours is that you wrote it down even knowing it's not worth the trouble lol.
A supervised ANN could easily be trained to make approximations of objects having the image(or vertices) of a piece of the map and the label as an object's vertices.
A unsupervised ANN could instead fit better for simple shapes or by having as input just pieces of the shapes, but I'm not sure
Also an AI could output just the vertices that are hidden and their chained visible vertices so that the time spent to be trained could be less (we are not talking about big data so the difference would be impercettible).

[FraGnBraG]

... Void is not ignored with additive system maps.

Your sample map is empty ?

Perhaps I didn't express the concept very well... i'll try again:

Additive brush is overlapping a subtract. part of the additive brush is in the void.
As you see, the bsp-tree (built map) ignored the area that is out in the void.

This is another way of looking at it. What did the compiler do?
Created necessary vertices from the "exposed" area of the additive brush to create polygons as required.

So restated - additive surfaces that are in the void are ignored by the compile process...

[Barbie]

Your sample map is empty ?

Have a look at the "Groups"...

[PrinceOfFunky]

Your sample map is empty ?

Have a look at the "Groups"...

Wait, wth? That wasn't intended XD I didn't even know there was a map I made a lot of time ago in there.

Void is not ignored with additive system maps.

What I meant is that you can add brushes in the void in an additive system world, like the ADDITIVE_MAP example, we usually build maps in a subtractive system world because UnrealEd for UT99 only allows us to create a subtractive system world when clicking on File>New.

This one is a clean additive system world map (try adding a cube and a light):

[Swanky]

Just note that some mappers deleted their stuff on purpose to prevent others from using their work. Reverse engenieering might violate their eula and rights.

[JackGriffin]

I'm curious about this. Has it ever been truly tested? I've read the EULA and the way it looks to me you don't own anything made with the game assets. Once it's compiled/rebuilt Epic assumes ownership. I've seen a lot of discussion about this and it's always somebody throwing opinion around but has anyone ever been successfully sued over using someone else's map/mod/texture? I'm not advocating it, don't get me wrong. I just think that aside from the creative commons you get for making something unique once you add that into the game it becomes fair use (legally speaking).

[Swanky]

The way I read it nowadays it's more like a code of honor among leveldesigners. You want to use it, ask the original designer or at least give credit.
Failing to do this could lead to your ripped work being deleted from various servers, mapping sites etc. back then, however.

[JackGriffin]

As it should be. (looking at you KAAL....)

It's been my experience that I've asked at least a hundred times for permission on using some various item someone has made. Never once been fully denied. In fact it's almost always been super positive. This just happened on my unreal coop server. I asked about a private server controller that I knew of and the maker not only allowed me to use it, he updated it for my use and is giving me advice on extending it how I want.

The point is that instead of invoking EULA why not ask? Guys who make stuff get a chubby when someone shows interest. I know it makes my day.