Hey
I'v replied to this question already:
In that specific case i'd like to know the way to get non sane texture definition to be able to fix it.
Assertion is not a bug in the first place
Also i don't feel, that it is a good idea to remove this assertion (man, who put it, was way wiser, than me; this single simple one is catching numerous potential pitfalls in texdef operating functions)
It's simple check:
- Code: Select all
inline bool texdef_sane( const texdef_t& texdef ){
return fabs( texdef.shift[0] ) < ( 1 << 16 )
&& fabs( texdef.shift[1] ) < ( 1 << 16 );
}
So you gotta remove huge shift value somewhere in your map
Or i can do that for you (send map file)
Or if you are producing new cases during mapping process - let me know how to reproduce them
Also: you probably might to put that in your map, while building in some other editor even .o Afaic current custom netradiant shouldn't produce 'nonsane' texdefs
Tanks u 4 feedback