Hey 'lopers,

Before I get too far ahead in my map, how should I be putting brushes together? [Birds eye view]

The last engine I was familiar with stressed to build the way Fig. 1 illustrates. But I've seen both Fig. 2 and 3 used in Source and other engines. Are there any noticeable benefits to a particular way? (compile times, performance, ease of use?)

fig 2, less faces to texture..

fig 2 for the win. texture the inside textures "NODRAW"

Depends. I generally use fig. 3 if it's an inside-only room, but if the player can explore both the inside and outside of the room I use fig. 2.

Alright, 2&3 it is. Thanks for the quick response everyone.

Yes, never use #1. O.o

it actually doesnt matter, but id pick #2 or #3 because they are easier to texture. Many people claim #1 is bad, but it isn't. vbsp is smart enough to cut and merge faces in such a way that #1 and #2 are equal ingame, as far as the sides of the brushes are concerned anyways.

As people have said, none of these make any difference if you are only exploring the interior of the room. If you will be going outside then definitely use Fig 2, as not only does it reduce the number of faces visible, but those faces will also cut leaves. This diagram shows how your map will be divided:
As you can see, Fig 2 creates far fewer leaves (quicker for the engine to process in-game) and will also be quicker to compile. The only downside is that the required vertex manipulation can sometimes cost you more time than it will save. If these edges will only be touching the void or another wall there is absolutely no point spending time on making them all neat and tidy like this. You might as well stick with Fig 3 (I find that one easier to work with than Fig 1 but it's really down to personal preference).

EDIT:

zombie@computer wrote:it actually doesnt matter, but id pick #2 or #3 because they are easier to texture. Many people claim #1 is bad, but it isn't. vbsp is smart enough to cut and merge faces in such a way that #1 and #2 are equal ingame, as far as the sides of the brushes are concerned anyways.

I just re-read that after writing my post. I wasn't aware that VBSP merges faces, so maybe my advice wasn't entirely accurate...

CrowbarSka wrote:EDIT:

zombie@computer wrote:it actually doesnt matter, but id pick #2 or #3 because they are easier to texture. Many people claim #1 is bad, but it isn't. vbsp is smart enough to cut and merge faces in such a way that #1 and #2 are equal ingame, as far as the sides of the brushes are concerned anyways.

I just re-read that after writing my post. I wasn't aware that VBSP merges faces, so maybe my advice wasn't entirely accurate...

not only that, but your vision of how visleafs are cut is not accurate as well. Flush walls never create extra leafs.

I learned something. Thanks zombie.

Nevermind visleafs, it's gonna start to fill up T-juncs.

zombie@computer wrote:... Many people claim #1 is bad, but it isn't. vbsp is smart enough to cut and merge faces in such a way that #1 and #2 are equal ingame ...

That's what I was looking for
I thought I had heard something about vbsp taking care of Fig 1, thanks for the reminder.

And now I'm going to have to rethink room layout for visleafs. yaaaaaaay

you'd be surprised the nightmare you make for yourself if you try and fig2 everything. fig1 works perfectly fine. The only thing i do is try and make my short side brushes as long as possible so in fig1 I'd give the the corners to the top/bottom brushes rather than the side brushes. You want to avoid small brushes so its good habit to get into IMHO

As somebody said, all them are equal if you're only exploring the interior of the room and all other faces are nodraw.

If you explore outside, 1 and 2 are the best ones.

1 is a bit stupid, there a twice as much faces to texture
I dont know what difference it would be ingame because Im no vis expert but I do know double the work for the same effect is a bit dumb to do dont y'all agree?