News | Forum | People | FAQ | Links | Search | Register | Log in
What Is Right With Quake Mapping In 2017?
1. Loads of great maps.

2. The full spectrum of mapping covered from the smallest vanilla Jam maps to the largest AD maps.

3. Loads of new mappers appearing out of nowhere.

4. Lots of hype still after 20 years.

5. Mappers doing interesting mapping streams for inspiration and interaction.

6. Mods like AD opening up a variety of mapping potential.

7. Mappers are generally great at using enhancements like fog, coloured lighting, skyboxes, rather than abusing them.

8. Custom engines have settled down to be stable and functional and work well as modern Quake.

9. Often a pleasing focus on exploring and secrets.

10. *insert yours here*

......

The one improvement I'd like to see is for mappers to realise that good, but small / non-epic / imperfect maps / scraps are still worth finishing off and releasing, whether they're simple vanilla maps or sock tormenting us with an unreleased striking castle vista. I'm sure a lot of these things can be fixed up to be worthwhile, and even if they weren't as good as the mapper intended, they will still be cool to play and explore.
First | Previous | Next | Last
 
I think all these mapping Jams have definitely contributed a lot to recent interest for Quake mapping (or otherwise), encouraging new releases through collaboration and helps showcase an active mapping scene with regular results, which looks very attractive at enticing others to get involved in the scene. 
What #18 Says 
plus i think computers have gotten a lot faster, so qbsp + fullvis isn't a hurdle anymore(for detailed/large maps). it is easier now to make a quake map than ever before. 
RE: Fifth 
I played Quake when I was a kid (I'm 25), and while I was aware of the mission packs, I didn't know about custom mapping scenes or editors. In any case I was obsessed with tinkering with another (2D) game. In 2013 I was feeling nostalgic and wanted to replay Quake, so I went online to find a way to run it on my MacBook and found Quaddicted.com. I was so impressed by the screenshots I saw I knew I had to play these maps instead! Then last year I decided it was time to start mapping myself. 
 
I found Daz's Custom Gamer channel and the way he discussed level design for Quake inspired me to switch from multiplayer stuff for Sauerbraten to Quake SP. I had played Quake on and off for a long time before then - it had been in my steam library for a long time at that point, and before then I had occasionally visited the permanent Quake LAN at ACMI in Melbourne (Australia, not Florida...), Which only ever had about 2-3 working machines out of the 4 available but was still great fun with friends.

TB was a big help actually getting into mapping for Quake though... I'm raised on WYISWYG tools and have struggled to get into orthographic editors, which still annoys me but I guess I'm just not wired for it.

Also, definitely agree that the focus and hype recently has been pointed to "epic" maps, which is understandable. It would be nice to see some shorter stuff, but that seems to be what the jams are for at this point. They tend to hit around that 15 minute mark that people like. 
I Got Here Because Of Daz Aswell 
The first thing I watched was Mapjam 2 ikblue/white.
Thats why my first map I'm currently working on uses ikwhite.


pls make more custom gamer!!! Come on Daz!!!
I guess you moved on in life... 
Got There By Looking For Quake 1 Communities 
Back in 2012 I decided to buy Quake 1 for just 10 bucks, thinking t would be a simple game, and boy was I wrong, it became one of my favourite game.
After playing the expansions (SoA>DoE) I went around looking for more stuff related to Quake, got interested in modding first (first it was sound replacements and now Schlossherr), then in mapping after.
I was really surprised Q1 had a community that big (and I still am, lol), because when people talk about Quake, they always think about Quake 3, and even then it's niche. I'm glad it does because this gem is getting the love it deserves, and I have people to talk about the game and design stuff.

Keep on going!! 
Daz Has A Lot To Answer For :D 
 
Found Out About Quake Modding Because Of Daz As Well. 
His videos are interesting to watch since he takes the time to analyze and share his opinions on the maps he plays. I wish he made more videos though. 
Daz 
make more videos, use one of your alter egos if necessary. 
Engines And Tools 
It was really Trenchbroom that got me re-addicted to mapping. It's not that Hammer and other editors aren't great. TB just reminded me a bit of mapping in the original DOS version Quest for some reason and that's the editor I started with in '97. I've tried nearly every editor since then. TB is really the key for me in 2017.

Then of course, the old reliable community here at Func helps a lot. It's never a dull moment here.

But Quake mapping would not be what it is today without the spark of life the source ports give to the game. You have to be able to play the game on modern PCs reliably and we really owe a debt to the dedicated devs of Quakespasm, Mark V, Darkplaces et al.

And last but not least, the tools coders. Thanks to ericw and others for adding modern features to the compilers even while constrained by 20 year old tech. 
I'll Tell You What's Right About Quake Mapping In 2017. 
The state of the tools.

5 years ago we didn't have Trenchbroom or TyrUtils. Mapping was slow, vis was extremely slow, and light was rudimentary at best.

I think the progress of the past few years is owed to SleepwalkR, Tyrann and ericw just as much as it is owed to the talents of the mappers.

The barrier of entry has been lowered and it pays off massively. 
#28 
Anyone care to give me the bullet points on how Trenchbroom mapping is supposedly faster than - say - NetRadiant? I've spent enough time in both editors and I'm at a loss as to why people would think radiant-based editing is slower. Not trolling, I'd just really like to know what I'm missing here... 
+1 For Daz And TrenchBroom/Sleepwalkr 
Daz shared TB on /r/Quake. Downloaded it and it sat on my hard drive for a few years.

Got inspired last year annnnnd here we are.

TrenchBroom answered a lot of desires I had while using Hammer and Quark.

Beyond TrenchBrooms method of building brushes in the 3D view, the lack of an over-complicated UI was a huge help as well. (ahem Quark)

All those buttons staring you in the face(Hammer/Quark) make you feel as though youre missing out on some utility if you dont use em.

Watched mostly all of Daz's videos with commentary to catch up on years of mapping and absorbed a lot of his opinions peoples maps. 
Kinn 
It's a matter of preference really, but when I was using Radiant I felt like I was chopping wood with a blunt axe while holding oven mitts. 
Can You Elaborate? 
Which operations did you find clunky? 
No I Can't. 
I prefer TB end of story. 
Kinn 
I think it's safe to say that Trenchbroom's editing is pretty simple and straightforward, you can draw brushes in the 3D window, but it still offers plenty of 2D editing window options so you can draw brushes on that as well. It's probably the most user friendly Quake editor out there IMHO. 
I Don't Understand TB 
It just doesn't click for me. I definitely don't think it's the easiest editor to pick up. 
Kinn 
I am in agreement with OTP here. I never managed to get competent with Radient but I used Worldcraft for a bit before switching over to TB.

TB is an excellent WYSIWYG editor. I feel more like I am drawing or sculpting with it. I dont feel constrained to looking at orthographic views, I just place something in the 3d space and then I can manipulate it how I need it to look.
I can't think in 2d terms and translate it to 3d, it's just easier somehow to work entirely in 3d.
Of course this presents its own challenges, you have to figure out in advance how everything fits together otherwise you'll paint yourself into a corner pretty quick.

Hope this does a decent job of explaining. 
Sevin 
Are you still using TB1 by chance?

TB1 as in the version with ONLY 3D view? 
Mukor 
I often go back to TB1 because I prefer working in 3d only. Something about TB1 seems pure? I started working in TB2 recently to get used to it and I feel the UI has become a little confused. Or maybe I am confused. 
Mukor 
I've used both, TB2 more. Maybe I should try it again, but the majority of mapping I've done has been in the Source engine with Hammer so JACK naturally makes more sense to me. 
Right 
I'm starting to get a feeling then it's more to do with one's personal experience with manipulating things in 3d vs 2d, and not how much time / how many key presses it takes to do a certain operation. 
Kinn 
I can't help but think some editors must have objective advantages over others, it can't all be personal preference. I find JACK's/Hammer's texture browser/application utilities to be a lot better than every other editor I've tried, for example. 
Kinn Response Part 80 
I think you are right in saying that the overall flow of things is not that much faster if you are used to one or the other. The difference for me was the initial approach-ability of TB. an all 3D view and simplistic UI helped me get used to mapping in general.

I actually tried one of the radients after using TB and although I could make rooms, I found it to be a much more tedious process. If I used another editor for a good while I am sure it would be just as fast as TB.

Hope that makes sense. 
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.