News | Forum | People | FAQ | Links | Search | Register | Log in
Map Editor Poll 2015
What map editor are you using?

And if you don't mind sharing, what is your reason for using editor A over editor B or C?

I used to make maps using Worldcraft (1.06 or whatever it was). I never completed those maps actually, I got somewhat far into a few of them.

TB is fun to map with. I used to have a lot of fun mapping with UED back in the day, I used to find that I would get so far and I couldn't make out what was happening on the grid, the beauty of mapping with TB is you never need to look at the ridiculous mess you made of the grid. 
Jackhammer. I like 2D views for a lot of operations and the VIS groups are nice for organizing stuff. 

I've used Worldcraft/Hammer for years and wanted something new. trenchbroom is just way faster and it's much easier/quicker to create good looking architecture and rooms. I miss the 2d views sometimes but I can easily create prefabs on Hammer and import them later on. 
TrenchBroom as well. I want to learn Jackhammer to use in conjunction with TB after seeing this video from skacky on pipes and spiral stairs:

Anyone try Sledge? It's another hammer clone that is aimed at GoldSrc; no explicit quake support, but seems to load the fgd from jackhammer fine. 
Radiant 1.5

No other editor has the power the Radiant editors do. I've used nearly every editor under the sun at one point or another, but Radiant is the best for Quake. There are just so many little features I use constantly that are rarely found all together in other editors, and a 2D grid just gives you so much speed and precision once you learn to use it. 
I Chime In 
with what Scampie says, plus QuArK.
And Trenchbroom!! 
@scampie -- hehe, I was hoping for about 100% Trenchbroom/Jackhammer, but I expected maybe some of the elder Q3 capable mappers use Radiant.

[Was hoping Spirit was only Quark user, heh.]

I tried TrenchBroom once, but I'm a bit too used to the 2D layout. 
I use Radiant. sikkpin's QE3 build, actually, but, same dif. 
I had a good look at Trenchbroom and Jackhammer, but eventually went back to radiant because it just feels more efficient, and 2d views are essential. 
Is mapconv and all that jazz still necessary if one wants to try Radiant these days? 
Apart from the floating point issues I really don't understand people's aversion to Quark. It's interface is intuitive to anyone who ever used a OS with floating, resizable Windows (like Windows) and with groups etc you have a lot of power. The texture tools are (still?) unchallenged. 
Quark is the Linux of Quake editors. 
has weird navigational controls if I recall.

I enjoy an editor that is easy to navigate through whatever it is you're working on. TB is basically the most intuitive thing to navigate IMO, you just fly around. 
The orbiting in TB is awesome. I wish Jackhammer had that. 
Radiant 1.5 supports Q1 out of the box, opens and saves the correct .map format. Saves .maps in /id1/maps/, looks for wads in /id1/. Suggest not bothering with it's build menu though, use something like necros' compiling gui.

Not sure what other versions work without any converting, later versions of GTKR dropped Q1 support, and NetRadiant has a bunch of things broken like using floating window layout. 
Warren, that's a very distorted world view. Quark is the Windows. Radiants are more like what you call Linux. Weird multiple floating windows (OMG GIMP WHY NO PS ZOMG CANT USE!!1), unintuitive UX etc. Honestly. You just don't realise because you learned something else first.

It's how I like GIMP and Blender and cannot get anything does with PS or 3DSMaya4D. 
Spirit, the fact that you prefer GIMP and Blender is something I fully expected to hear. In fact, I would have wagered large sums of money on it. 
Yeah, Let's Not Have A Reasonable Discussion But Some Dumb Ad Hominem 
Take it for what it is - light hearted ribbing. 
no YOUR mom is linux 
Pleasuh, It's GNU/Linux , Haven't You Hurd? 
Honestly though, as I have said many times before, sit a newbie before Quark and any other map editor and I am sure she will be able to use Quark rather than the other one. 
Give Them A Cheat-sheet 
and I'm sure that TB would come up trumps. 
Teach A Man To Fish 
...and he'll say "why are you talking about fish, I want to make a Quake map." 
I used to use GIMP but I got a job where I have access to full Adobe CC, so I have started to use Photoshop for almost everything.

Photoshop doesn't have 'colour to alpha' though. I still use GIMP for that. I'm sure it can be done with PS but I can't figure out how. Probably something to do with fucking around with channels or something.

I'll tell you what though, GIMP falls severely short on downsampling. Photoshop's bicubic is way better than anything GIMP has to offer.

So if you don't want your picture to look like ass, I would stear clear of GIMP for downsampling. You can always load an exported image into Chrome and zoom out.... then take a screenshot! 
After using Worldcraft for so long, I immediately fell in love with Jackhammer. 
Trenchbroom. I'm new and it was linked in the guide I found. Later I would try bsp, quark, or radiant, based on various comments I have skimmed across. 
I learned quark first and wish I had put in the extra effort to learn Worldcraft or Radiant back then. Yeah, the quark UX is similar to vector graphics or page layout software. I think what matters more is how much friction there is once you get over the initial learning curve of a tool.

IMO quark has some particular powerful tools (the texturing tools, duplicators, the 'linear mapping' tool for distorting brushwork), but the basic mapping UI is really inefficient. 
I just realised I completely blocked out the horrors of vertex manipulation in Quark.

Ricky: If you share some examples in GA I can take a look. Bicubic = bicubic. Maybe PS adds some sharpening? 
Editors that put everything at your fingertips without collecting it into baby-soft modes and menus are difficult to learn, but once you've learned them they stay out of your way and let you execute. Whether or not you can sit an idiot down in front of some software and have them achieving right away isn't necessarily a measure of how useful the software is.

I'd rather have a cacophony of key and mouse binds and ctrl/alt/shift modes that are always quickly accessible, over having to push past the software trying to explain itself with every action I take. I'm only a beginner once. 
Right, exactly.

That's MODO for me. Everything is there on the UI and it's pretty clicky when you're learning it. However, once you get more advanced and you've got hundreds of hot keys and custom PIE menus and forms set up you can basically turn off the default UI and just fly... 
Heh, I was getting into Maya the other week, and Lun will attest that I messaged him and whined about the shortcuts... but as I've learned some of the shortcuts and the hotbox, it's already feeling good to use, better than 3dMax which I already know. 
Radiant 1.5 
I bought Thred after the broken messages of Qmap, followed the whole Quark tree centerpoint on Quark4.07 with modeleditor (unique) to Quark6.3.

Then, after having QRadiant1.4 installed well, I was surprised by the real sharp fitting on the grid and the feeling the maps are more accurate.
What I don't understand is, why maps made in Radiant are so messed up after been used in Quark, as if some of the information gets distorted by integers. 
So ... I'm trying out Radiant 1.5 and I see this is my texture browser:

Is there a way I can reclaim the left half of the window? There doesn't seem to be a splitter I can grab or anything. 
Care to elaborate on your love for Radiant? I like it, but I know when I'm in it, I'm not using it to its potential, and don't know where to start on it. It seems every time I went digging I just landed in Q3A Only Ville and was frustrated because I was curious about doing things in Quake. 
The cacophony of keys is how I feel about Blender, it is really nice to use once you are "fluent". An editor like Quark definitely cannot live up to that, it is very point and click. 
I i understand correctly, in Photoshop I would:

* go to image layer, select all, copy, deselect all
* create a new fill layer (whatever solid colour you like)
* go to the channels of the fill layer and make the mask channel visible
* paste the image into the mask channel, make mask channel invisible again (so it isn't all red)

Simple! Or not.... 
Warren: shorter directory path only way, sorry :(

scar3: I mostly just like that it has a good 3 point clipping tool, I can csg merge brushes, and pulling faces keeps adjacent faces at their same angle so you can mitre things and still work with them which makes brush curves stupidly easy. beyond that, it's lots and lots of little things that are just nice and you miss in other editors 
"Warren: shorter directory path only way, sorry :( "

Ugh. Well, there's strike one. Talk about shitty UI design... 
Shitty UI Design In An ID Tool? 
Not sure you can blame Radiant 1.5 on ID ... there was plenty of time for the coders working on that to address that crap. :) 
pulling faces keeps adjacent faces at their same angle

I miss this SO MUCH when I have to be in Hammer. I have use for proportional scale handles exactly 0% of the time. Such a dumb, stupid tool.

Having to go into vert mode and gather up all the verts on the faces I want to move is such a chore when I know that in Radiant I'd need just one click and drag in the right place and it's done. 
Editor Wars 
My voice goes to Jackhammer. 
Why Has No One Mentioned QED Yet?? 
I used QuArK for all of my maps (and still using it on a current "extremely slow progress project"). As spirit said, apart from its floating point issue (that can be resolved by staying on-grid), this is an awesome editor, very easy to take hands on. Also, people from QuArK ( made a very complete tutorial. Mapping for a mod is also very easy... It has some useful duplicating function, as well as texture tool that are really working well. It also has a terrain tool (never tried it to be honest), as well as various pre-defined brushes, including some "carving/cuting" tools...

Well, I never used others editor, tested some,but never found one that is as easy as QuArK.. maybe I am too lazy to try again... I go for QuArK 
I Used Thred... 
back when I did all my first Q1 maps, this is the editor they used for Aftershock I think. 
and pulling faces keeps adjacent faces at their same angle so you can mitre things and still work with them which makes brush curves stupidly easy

What does this mean exactly? Is this different from what TB does? Just wondering. 
Is this different from what TB does?
Nope, it's exactly what TB does, glad TB does it like that. Worldcraft does a fucked up face move that keeps the face the same size, doesn't scale it based on the adjacent faces, so you have to fix your mitres after resizing things.

I've said before, I used TB for like a year and loved it... but the lack of 2D grid just killed it for me. A few other features I missed were csg merge and texture find/replace. 
All Of That Is In TB2 Though ;-) 
Get Your PhD Finished!!! 
I always thought Quark was like Qoole in that it had accuracy issues keeping brushes on the grid.

Haven't made a Quake map in...(cough cough) but the last time I did it was GTKRadiant 1.5 and I used to use Worldcraft 1.6 
It's Already Pretty Much Feature Complete 
but possibly buggy. 
"possibly buggy"

On the subject of Qoole, I loved the interface but it did have precision issues. The breaker for me though was the edge manipulation would just die after so many uses, on a per map basis. I guess I was just loyal to it because it came from the same guy who did WADED for Doom, my preferred tool of putting Arch Viles and Mancubi every where. 
"feature Complete But Possibly Buggy" 
the editor or your thesis? 
Both, Sadly. 

Still use it for creating quick ideas despite having moved to Blender.

Still the best tool for mapping for Quake with q3bsp, and is also the tool of choice for a ton of other idtech-based games. Can also be used for q1bsp mapping. One familiar editor for many games.

Reason: Ability to work mainly in the 3D viewport but having side/front/top views available in a modal 2D viewport. Hotkeys. Ability to fly through the map just like noclipping in the engine. Nice plugins, features.

I'm also very fluid in it and don't need to think much while mapping, which is nice.

UI design might be a matter of taste, but actual brushwork in it is very comfy IMHO. 4 pane view is available for people who like that stuff (personally I can't stand it, I want a big 3D window.) 
you can have a grid and a big 3D window, just don't waste screen space on three partially redundant grid views. 
TB2 allows you to have one of four layouts: one big view that you can cycle through 3D, XY, XZ, and YZ, or two, three, or one of three layouts where you have one 3D view and one, two, or three 2D views. If you have less than three 2D views, one of them can be cycled through the remaining 2D views.

I call the four view layout the mode for WC fans and anal auto rape enthusiasts. 
Changed Over The Years 
I started on qoole 2.50 and even now It's still the favourite. Unfortunately the rounding errors absolutely kill it as far as leaks go. I only recently found out about Trenchbroom though and so far I'm loving it. 
Lunaran: no YOUR mom is linux

YOUR mom is BSD... You guys can make up names for the letters better than I can. :P

Who loves ya baby... 
Hammer In The (*) 
I bought Qoole CD for $25 at the time (1997). Yes, rounding errors, displaced faces :(

Started my Hammer anal auto-rape by 2002 with the Torque Game Engine. Yes, I'm resilient. I even stepped backward using Worldcraft 3.3, for Quake's sake.

All this time I've been looking for tools that free me from Windows. Tried QuArk long ago, Radiant from time to time, always beaten by the learning curve and getting back to WC, to actually finish stuff.

When I leave WC, it will be to an editor committed to Quake 1. Don't wanna bother learning Radiant if it's leaving classic Quake support behind. But maybe Radiant is the safe, long term choice (so I don't have to learn all the junk all over again). :S

Tried to open a WC level (both RMF and MAP) on Jackhammer few days ago, but it screwed all my texture alignment.

You all are right: one 3D + one switchable 2D screen would be better. Wanna try TB2 when it's out, cause I need 2D and a strongly enforced grid. I'm not modelling a mesh polysoup after all. 
TB1 doesn't produce polysoup. Have you tried it? The grid IS strictly enforced. 
Worldcraft 1.5, still going strong! :D 
Gonna give it a try, then. Does it have something like visgroups? 
No. Not yet... 
Used Worldcraft 1.6, then WC 3.3 with that extension thing. Tried all the others, but always came back to Worldcraft/Hammer to get stuff done, need my 2D views to know which direction I'm moving stuff. Found Jackhammer and jumped ship immediately, sorry Worldcraft old friend.

Trenchbroom looks awesome but miss my 2D...TB2 sounds amzing if it has the WC fanboy mode! WOOT! Also if it can allow larger map extents.

...unless Jackhammer implements face dragging in 3D view. Also JH's continuous select mode is awesome.

First editor to include lighting preview in the 3D view will win the Quake Master prize though. 
I first tried Trenchbroom, then jackhammer, which is what I used to make my Map Jam 6 submission, and now I've switched over to GTKRadiant 1.5. I'm starting to get the hang of it now. 
I'm using Jackhammer, and will try Trenchbroom sometime. 
I primarily use jackhammer, I use the windows version through wine, as the linux version has borked textures.

I have never had the patience for trenchbroom, although it does intrigue me. I like the 3d editing environment, but without a overview of the whole map it is limiting to my poor feeble brain. I may eventually make prefabs in trenchbroom and import them into jackhammer should these features become available.

And I am super super excited for microbrush and *hope* that at some point wine will support it :) or shrinker releases a version with earlier opengl support. 
Used Qoole back in 1998 for Quake. Then moved to Hammer 3.4 for Torque. Then Worldcraft 3.3 for Quake. Then Jackhammer and now I'm happy.

I chose Qoole because it felt robust and easy to use. I got all the others for backwards compatibilty and to reduce the learning curve. I'm very comfortable with this WC-like UI. 
I bought Worldcraft back when both it and Quake were new. I still have the disk and receipt somewhere. The few maps I've released (up until Map Jam 6) were made with it.

Probably the only reason I tried it was because I had used DCK for Doom mapping and figured Ben Morris could probably make something I would like just as well for Quake. I was right.

When I got back to mapping in 2007, I found Worldcraft didn't want to work so well on more modern systems. It got worse when I switched to Windows 7, so I had to find something else.

I ended up on Netradiant. It's not much like Worldcraft but works pretty good once you get used to it. Vertex manipulation is a pain at times because of how it won't allow invalid brushes. Getting where you want to go requires that you avoid making invalid brushes on the way. The clipper works but 3 point is very difficult to use.

I use a very big 3D window, a single tall skinny 2D window to the side and a short wide texture window below the 3D view. Flying though the map in the 3D window is absolutely mandatory and it has to work the same as I play the game. Aim with the mouse, forward-back and strafe left-right with the arrow keys. 
Post A Reply:
Website copyright © 2002-2017 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors.