Game Development Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional and independent game developers. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Since Quake 1 (I think it was the first), level design tools for FPS games have used solid brushes and CSG operations to define level geometry instead of more conventional poly modeling tools you see in general purpose 3d applications like 3DS MAX.

Why is this? Is it:

  • More productive for the level designer?
  • More likely to lead to closed geometry that won't screw up potentially visible set pre-calc?
  • Results in lower poly count (more cumbersome tools dissuade designers from adding too much detail)?
  • ...
share|improve this question
up vote 4 down vote accepted

Mostly, in practice, it comes down to optimising lighting and visibility calculations. Portalling up a CSG world is relatively easy compared to polygon soup.

It doesn't usually end up with a much lower poly count because many people who do use it allow decorative objects to spice up the world after building the body of the level. It's not normally better or worse for a level designer, but does allow a more "rough it out" approach than traditional mesh builder level design.

share|improve this answer
I watched the 3DBuzz tutorial videos that came with Unreal 3 and they mentioned that designers usually cover the brush geometry with imported meshes. So it's almost like the system exists to provide 2 layers of geometry - a rough layer that's used for visibility calcs and a detailed layer consisting of imported models that are occluded by the world's brush geometry, but don't occlude anything themselves. – U62 Sep 10 '10 at 13:31

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.