You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I was playing around with region brushes, discovered that it only supports cases of single region brushes:
---- LoadMapFile ----
�[38;2;255;000;000m************ ERROR ************
ParseBrush: Multiple region brushes detected; newest at }
�[0m#### Finished with exit status 1
I understand this is beyond the scope of the original intent of this tool, but I was hoping that I could include that I could include an L-shaped region of my map by using two intersecting region blocks (i.e. the CSG union of the two brushes).
I get that I could accomplish the same thing with a region and an antiregion brush, I just think it would be intuitive if it worked this way.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The reason for this is that generating a region brush is a bit more complex (since the region brush is expanded into 6 brushes - a hollow box) and I'm not sure offhand how I would handle the case of generating more than one of them together.. probably some kind of CSG, I dunno.
Anti-regions are inherently more powerful because it doesn't have that limitation as the brush itself just goes from A to B without any additional processing.
I forget if we have a “csg_subtract(brush list, brush list) -> brush list” in the codebase but I think we could just subtract all the region brushes from a solid box the size of the map?
I was playing around with region brushes, discovered that it only supports cases of single region brushes:
I understand this is beyond the scope of the original intent of this tool, but I was hoping that I could include that I could include an L-shaped region of my map by using two intersecting region blocks (i.e. the CSG union of the two brushes).
I get that I could accomplish the same thing with a region and an antiregion brush, I just think it would be intuitive if it worked this way.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: