While I could add support for texture name filtering (ick, but not too bad: just pass in a file with texture names), I realized a mapper might want even more control. qfbsp already supports detail brushes* (from openquartz) by appending "detail" after the texture info on any face in the brush. I thought maybe a "lightmap" flag would be good for marking surfaces that should force lightmap generation. eg:
Code: Select all
( -424 1112 -176 ) ( -424 1112 -192 ) ( -448 1136 -192 ) *teleport 0 0 0 1 1 lightmap
What do others think of this suggestion? Better name? Better mechanism? The actual implementation would be just to make FindTexture not or in TEX_SPECIAL if the tag is seen. Heck, could even add a nolight (fullbright?) flag to force TEX_SPECIAL and thus have fullbright surfaces (eg, video screens).
* Just substitute "detail" for "light" in the above line for how detail brushes are marked. It seems that if any face of the brush is detail, the brush itself becomes detail (don't need the flag on all faces). Detail brushes in qfbsp/qfvis are implemented by grouping all nodes within a detail brush in a single cluster, the bounds of which are that detail brush. Nodes not in a detail brush go into single-node clusters. qfvis then vises clusters rather than nodes, then expands the clusters into nodes for filling in the vis info.