Yeah I know about wallworm. I don't own the software it goes with though, and don't ever plan on purchasing it. Always upset me a bit that something like that was never adapted for Blender. Feels natural to give the free open source model tool everybody loves the tool, but they never did.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Rectus:

I guess the hardest part of implementing it would be how to make it user frendly.

Sticking to a CSG workflow in an editor not designed for it severly limits what you can do with it. Unless you want to make everything out of discrete cubes, you'd need to either be really careful to not make any convave bits, or some kind of real-time invalid shape detection.

If my previous comment didn't make it obvious enough, this is *NOT HARD* to do.

At all.
Like, not even close.

As someone who has been an amateur in blender for years now, you have either never used Blender, or severely under-estimating how simple it is to use.

It is not hard to limit yourself to not using complex things. At all. It is not hard to make things out of basic shapes. At all.

It is ESPECIALLY NOT HARD TO DO THESE THINGS compared to the OLD, DECREPIT THING KNOWN AS HAMMER. I could literally model a map in WOOD on a LATHE and export it as a vmf easier than you can make a map in Hammer. It wasn't even good when it was new.


I'm tired of being told the "hard part" would be actually using Blender to make a map. Y'all. Seriously. A braindead skunk could make a map out of discrete convex shapes. Wtf.


Do I need to go and make an entire map in Hammer, out of discrete brushes, before anybody will give any credit to the concept of Blender for map making? Because I can do that.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Rectus:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Maxwell_Edison:

I know this is a damned old forum post but I just can't help myself. What exactly do you mean by this?

The basic "Brushes" that Hammer uses are simple shapes with defined faces.
I would assume that, especially since Blender prefers working with Quads rather than tris, the exact opposite of what you're saying should in theory be true. A cube in Blender shouldn't be hard at all to interpret into a Brush.

Not sure if there are further limits, but brushes are limited to convex hulls without holes. To make a converter you'd have to shrinkwrap or decompose any concave geometry, or you'll get invalid brushes either Hammer or the compiler can't interpret.

What, wait, are you tellling me... hnnm.. that if you were to model a map in blender and export it to hammer... you'd have to... treat it like a hammer map!?!?

woaah!! what!!


Honestly I really don't understand why people think that's a big deal. Fellas I'm not trying to convert like, pre-existing maps from other games into Hammer. No shit, that wouldn't work. I want to *model* in blender with the intent of making a map from scratch.


It's weird until you realize that Blender is many times more powerful at most conventional things than Hammer, and ages more intuitive. I am 100% sure I could build a map from scratch in Blender, even adhering to making sure everything is blocked out in Brush-appropriate meshes, in a fraction of the time as using Hammer.


I'm just quite frankly tired of being limited to Valve's poorly thought out editor. Even if I wanted to learn Hammer to the point of making beautiful maps, it is not a skill that transfers to pretty much anything else, or has any use outside of Source mapping.

Blender, on the other hand...

Sorry, this turned into a long convoluted post.

TL;DR Yeah no duh you'd have to put forth /basic effort/ to make your map Hammer-compliant in Blender. That's ok.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Artfunkel:

There are many limits on what geometry you can have in a BSP map file, and Blender doesn't know how to adhere to any of them. An importer might make sense but an exporter would be too hard to use.

On top of that, Source 2 has a completely different format.

I know this is a damned old forum post but I just can't help myself. What exactly do you mean by this?

The basic "Brushes" that Hammer uses are simple shapes with defined faces.
I would assume that, especially since Blender prefers working with Quads rather than tris, the exact opposite of what you're saying should in theory be true. A cube in Blender shouldn't be hard at all to interpret into a Brush.