I admit I have this little OCD thing going on. All the point entities have to be equal distance from adjacent brushes and entities. All of them have to be at the same height.

Everything on my desk are also perfectly aligned and at 90-degree intervals in their rotation. If anyone touches an object on my desk, I would know about it, because it's misaligned.

I have a ruler for such purpose.

That's one reason you won't see any destroyed chamber style maps from me. The skewed angles just bother me too much. I like everything neat, tidy, and in perfect alignment.

I do so many of these things. I do align logic/point entities to the grid (and usually next to each other in straight lines) whenever I map. I'm not as obsessive in real life, but I do have a fondness for cleaning things and reorganizing them.

For the record it is a bit comforting that a doctor is a bit of a perfectionist.

What really gets me is when people try to use non-quadrilateral/90 degree shapes in their maps, like cylinders or other odd geometry. There's a few exceptions (Old Aperture underground elevator shafts), but most of the time the textures (which were designed for perpendicular walls/ceilings) just look like crap.

If only I could stop at the point where everything looks reasonable instead of absolutely perfect in my eyes. Though keeping everything absolutely perpendicular is too much work! I have my VAPD currently at 22? with my pen on it at 15?. Drawing tablet at 2?... > WinstonSmith wrote:

I do align logic/point entities to the grid (and usually next to each other in straight lines) whenever I map.

Same, but I always thought that the .bsp would gain more data by putting it to not the grid, as it's coordinates would be something like "52.34bladf 3.84bla89 4.73bla3" instead of "52 3 4". I doubt it would change much though. A couple of bytes maybe?

chickenmobile wrote:
I always thought that the .bsp would gain more data by putting it to not the grid, as it's coordinates would be something like "52.34bladf 3.84bla89 4.73bla3" instead of "52 3 4". I doubt it would change much though. A couple of bytes maybe?

I recall a help manual for Adobe Flash saying that the computer finds it easier to process if you input powers of 2 to filter properties.

NuclearDuckie wrote:
chickenmobile wrote:

I always thought that the .bsp would gain more data by putting it to not the grid, as it's coordinates would be something like "52.34bladf 3.84bla89 4.73bla3" instead of "52 3 4". I doubt it would change much though. A couple of bytes maybe?

I recall a help manual for Adobe Flash saying that the computer finds it easier to process if you input powers of 2 to filter properties.

You shouldn't have said that. I have a sudden urge to put all my entities in a spot that is a power of 2.

I map like a programmer, so no, my maps look good once compiled, but they're a mess otherwise. Non-visible point entities are placed in a logical fashion, but never too organized.

And any multiples of the number 13 bothers me. For example, one of my maps has been rated 13 times. I am just on edge until someone rates it again one more time so it's not 13 or 26.

My next map will be perfectly fit to the grid and aligned from the start.

I think we have a few OCD Players as well.

Yes, I do that too, compulsively. Everything has to be aligned to a 16-interval grid or I get this... itch! I put all brush entity origins at the center too if they're not used as pivot points.
(It does actually look less cluttered in Hammer's 2d views.)

On the other hand, grouping things like relays together according to function is an actual good idea if you are making anything slightly complicated.

I'm not as obsessed about textures being 1 pixel off, unless it's easily fixable. (Some of my maps have angled walls where it's nearly impossible to get a whole number of tiles on the wall, due to rounding errors.)

You have to create brushes in dimensions that fit the power of 2's, and of course, completely sticking to the grid. Never decrease the grid to less than 8 unless in a few situations (fizzler, laser field, etc), and use a grid of 16 or more the majority of the times.

satchmo wrote:
You have to create brushes in dimensions that fit the power of 2's, and of course, completely sticking to the grid. Never decrease the grid to less than 8 unless in a few situations (fizzler, laser field, etc), and use a grid of 16 or more the majority of the times.

8 is a good grid size to stick to, however I use the minimum grid size for accurately positioning models or in some cases, vertices on oblong shapes (which coincidently fit into models). I would never use ALT+Move in order to get something to the right position. It seems... wrong.

Instances help a lot with this because they allow you to quickly make an isolated feature and not care how messy it is in the context of your maps.