News | Forum | People | FAQ | Links | Search | Register | Log in
Best Level Editor For Quake?
just wondering what good editors are for quake.
First | Previous | Next | Last
Best Or Worst? 
I use GTKRadiant 1.3.8(wolfet) version because it is something I know inside out and can easily produce architectural shapes in my head in 3d space quickly. I have floating window setup with a one 2d window and 3d camera view. I often have two versions of the editor open because it is really good to cut and paste between maps and use the secondary as a temporary shelf for prefab shapes.

I have a horrible hacked setup to get GTK working with Quake, which I do not recommend to anyone, but it works! Ultimately there is no such thing as the perfect editor, just what is perfect for you at the time. 
Hammer 3.4 
1 - Get Quakeadapter (google it)
2 - Download the .exe for Hammer 3.4 and drop into the Worldcraft DIR.

Note: Installing Worldcraft with Quakeadapter requires it to go into c:\program files\ (not (x86)) 
I'm Using(haha) A Portable Version Of 
Hammer 3.5
and never had a single problem with it, doesn't count an occasional crash here and there 
Rick: Worldcraft 1.6 Works Fine In Win 7 
I had some problems, but found the missing dll on the internet and it fixed the problem. Although it sounds super dodgy to download dlls from the net (and is! I don't recommend it, but I was desperate), it seemed to fix the problem with no obvious ill effects.

I have a Wc 1.6 bundle on google drive here:

you might be better off with Hammer though, since the 3d acceleration is one thing in Wc 1.6 that I couldn't get to work (it works, but then you can't select stuff in the 3d view, so it's useless). 
Oh Yeah 
The other problem was that the setup program doesn't work in win 7, so I extracted it under win XP and copied it over. The above link has the setup removed. I think I switched out the compiler tools for modern ones and added the Quake .map source and a .wad for good measure. 
.. and all its inherent floating point coordinate issues..
But still, really easy to manage for newbies, hence never tested others... 
It's still in an alpha stage, but it's showing tremendous progress as a replacement for Worldcraft/Hammer. 
The main problem with a JH is a camera navigating. I can place a lot of cameras in Hamre to navigate through the whole damn map. 
What Are The Benefits Of 
Hammer 3.5 over 3.3? 
What Are The Benefits Of 
Hammer 3.5 over 3.3? 
I find I get along easiest in Trenchbroom. I wish it had a few extra features (like primitives - aka cylinders), but it's the fastest Quake editor I've ever used.

The 2D views will help for clipping work, so the next version should be fairly amazing.

I'm just impressed every time I sit down with it and I'm banging out room after room and it just feels so fluid. 
Than, I did find that D3 dll years ago and I couldn't get the 3D acceleration to work either. It just seemed kind of slow without it and not being able to select in the 3D windows made it a no-go for me.

I've actually been pretty happy with Netradiant. I've got 5 years experience with it now on this-map-I-can't-seem-to-finish. As I said, if I ever try to make another map I'll probably use Trenchbroom. 
What Are The Benefits Of Hammer 3.5 over 3.3?
I'm not sure what exact the benefit of using hammer over WC3.3. Basically they're just the same thing. It's a matter of personal preference
Once installed ages ago, i'm still able to just copy/paste to the new OS for mapping. And never bothered about some adapters and other shite. 
They're All Pretty Buggy Though 
I used them for years. What's wrong with Jackhammer? Basically the same thing but open sourced and in active development for Quake. 
I Might Try GTKRadiant 1.5 But... 
where do you get the quake 1 gamepack (or quoth?) 
anyone else come across that weird/annoying bug in Hammer where changing an entity's properties (key/value) doesn't actually change it?

I bought Worldcraft back in the day on a cd (to think how my life would be different if I'd never gotten that cd!) and have been using it ever since... now use Hammer. Since I almost always try to make giant areas, whether indoor or outdoor, I'm looking forward to trying a totally different engine/editor in the future.

One of the more interesting things about Q1SP design, that only a few people would really be qualified to speculate on, is how editor capabilities and limitations determine or at least influence a mapping style. 
I hit that one all the time. I typically changed the thing, deselected it, then selected it again to see if it had changed :/

That's a pretty big influence right there - I haven't released anything in years... thank SleepWalkr for TrenchBroom :D 
Another issue with Hammer is that it will not display any more brushes in the 2d views if you get past 10,000 brushes, which is problematic. 
yeah, but you can use visgroups to hide stuff. I guess you might want to see everything at once, but most of the time that limitation causes no real issues as long as you use visgroups.

Dunno if TB has visgroups or something similar, but they are such an awesome feature of WC, and part of what kept me using it for so damn long. 
I would love to do some Quake mapping, I tried Trenchbroom but like previously mentioned, I miss the huge 2d grid for some advanced brushwork.

Sock gave me his hacked GtkRadiant setup but I never got it working properly. It would be awesome if the new 1.6 would offer full Quake support. But that will probably never happen.

Too bad Radiant requires so much effort to get it to work. All the different tools needed for compiles and stuff doesn't help either. Ah, maybe I'm just spoiled. 
For the most part I don't get the obsession with the 2d view. I've managed to make some pretty neat stuff with TB thus far.

There has only been a very small number of times I have missed the 2d view (usually making gigantic brushes) but this has been hugely offset by how easy it is to make stuff in 3d view.

The cons are really massively outweighed by the pros IMO. 
I guess it's just what you are used too. I have a hard time making complex stuff in TB and I can build almost anything with brushes in Radiant. 
2D In Trenchbroom 
When I want to measure stuff I just stick a 128 pixel texture on it.

You have to change your mindset with working with it, but I previously mapped with Worldcraft, which I found had a much easier interface than Radiant.

I understood Radiant and built some stuff in it, but it just seemed like a lot more hassle to do simple stuff than in WC.

And QuArK is possibly the worst editor interface ever.

But I agree you can train yourself to use any editor, and get faster at using it than others. 
Measuring In Trenchbroom 
it's fairly simple guys. Activate the grid, every 64 units is a bold line.

Or when you hold shift it tells you the length of each axis of the brush.

Obviously this is a bit harder with brushes over 1000 units 
Yeah As Well 
But at a glance I find a big block 128 texture is quicker. 
First | Previous | Next | Last
You must be logged in to post in this thread.
Website copyright © 2002-2020 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors.