The other way I've seen it done is with a prop_indicator_panel in a static prop frame, as described on the VDC. The frame is also used in all of Valve's Portal 1 maps.

Which method, the func_brush and env_texturetoggle way, or the prop_indicator_panel and prop_static way, is more acceptable in Portal 2 maps?

spongylover123 wrote:
Valve uses an overlay then an env texture toggle, though I may be wrong

I looked at the example maps, and they actually used func_brushes along with an env_texturetoggle.

Random wrote:
I've just been slapping a doorstate overlay onto surfaces so I can refer to all of the light related entities with the same name.

I think I've found my new favorite method.

MasterLagger wrote:
Also, considering the mistake of the check on a func_brush appearing backwards if not made or edited correctly makes me use the prop_indicator_panel even more.

Oh, so that's how that works! I remember playing a few maps with backwards check boxes when I just started using Hammer, and I couldn't wrap my head around how people had managed to do that.

BrainstoneX wrote:
I personally use the prop_indicator_panel without a frame. That way I can use the advantages of the entity, easily move it and still have the typical valve look, as this entity has no visible frame.

That's actually what I've been doing as well, but I looked into how Valve did it after I discovered that, without a frame, indicator panels can't be perfectly flush with the wall it's on. It's either on the same grid line as the wall, in which case it flickers just like overlapping brushes, or it's just one unit off the wall, then it's very subtle, but still not quite right.

~lp