2-sided materials in Source?

[Wrangler249]

Hi there, I'm having a bit of a problem with a model I'm working on. In the following image you can see the cloth hanging over the side is see-through from the underside. Does anybody know how to make the material 2-sided? It appears 2-sided in 3ds Max but in the engine it looks as you can see:



Thanks guys

[Surfa]

$nocull 1

Put this in the .vmt

[Wrangler249]

Thanks works perfectly!

[kraid]

But keep in mind that the whole part of the model which is using this material will be rendered double sided.
Rather copy the few polygons which are visible from beyond, and invert their normals.

[Wrangler249]

Thanks, I'll do that wherever I can

[Gary]

But keep in mind that the whole part of the model which is using this material will be rendered double sided.
Rather copy the few polygons which are visible from beyond, and invert their normals.

Which one is more expensive.

[Gambini]

Expensive or not, duplicating the polygons and inverting their normals is a better option because the backfaces are going to be lit according to their postion in the wolrd. While as nocull materials are lit only from the "real" face which gives unrealistic results.

[Gary]

Oh, I see. I never messed with such things and didn't realize.

[Smurftyours]

What if you clone the mesh with all faces inverted, won't that cause texture clipping problems?

[Gradius]

What would they clip with? Backface culling would ensure that there'd be nothing rendered for the texture to clip with.

[kraid]

In general duplicating and inverting the normals is the better way to go.
One reason was allready mentioned by gambini.
Performance wise it depends on the model.
If all faces have to be duplicated there should be no difference for both methods, except of the time you're saving with $nocull.
Even better if your model is Unlit.
But as soon as you need to duplicate less faces, culling will save on performance.