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
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. 
I've been mapping with Hammer for almost a decade, but once I tried TB I didn't look back. It's so much faster to create brushwork with it. I also find Radiant clunky as well personally and intensely dislike it. 
Simple Question... Simple Answer.. 
Bear In Mind 
"Radiant" is a group of about a million different variations of an editor, some of which are objectively old, shit and clunky. I'm really referring to the latest version of NetRadiant. 
To Clarify 
I was using the oft-derided here GTK Radiant 1.5, and that was in fall 2012 so I remember little about what exactly I was trying to do with it. 
Oh Yeah 
There was one variation - it may have been GTK 1.5 - that really fucked with the immediacy of simple manipulations. 
I was using a few versions back of NetRadiant to also clarify. :) 
You are all wrong and Quest rules. HTH 
Interesting Discussion 
Glad to hear that TB's interface seems natural and easy to use to some people - that was one of my main goals. I have tried going for consistency in how the interface works, which is I think what sets TB apart from Radiant, which always seemed a bit inconsistent in how it used keyboard shortcuts and modifiers.

That said, I don't believe at all that you can map faster in TB than you can in Radiant. It doesn't have a secret ingredient, and what's more, it's still missing a lot of time saving power features like an arch builder, a primitive builder, terrain builders, and better texturing tools. But I do think that the features that are there work together well and allow for comparable mapping speeds.

I do remember when I switched from WC to Radiant I was really impressed by how much faster I was mapping in Radiant once I got over the initial clunkiness of the interface. Two things that immediately converted me were the "click outside and drag to resize brush" and three point clipper tools. So what I tried doing in TB is give mappers similar tools for speed, but a more consistent interface that's easier to learn.

Kinn, it's nice to see you trying out TB and giving feedback on what's missing for you - thanks! 
Yes, I really don't want to feel like I'm missing out on something great, so I'm trying to give TB my best shot. I'm probably gonna keep pestering for radiant-like features though! 
I would say in most cases it's the simplest features that make a difference in how fast or efficient you can work.
For instance, I always thought it was a shame how in Radiant the "drag to resize" feature mentioned above was so unreliable since it worked on all axes at the same time - if you didn't move the mouse 101% horizontally, it would move or resize the brush to the front or back. The custom Netradiant is much improved in this sense, because by holding shift while dragging it locks the movement to the current axis in the same way that TB does. I'm actually not sure if this is a new feature or if it has always been in Radiant and I just never noticed. Probably not, but would be typical if the latter was the case. Pretty much like I kept discovering "new" and highly useful features in Quest even after a decade of using it... 
I remember Radiant's resize feature working in exactly the way that TB's does. I'm referring to the original QERadiant for Q2 though. 
Probably a symptom of the "100 variants of radiant" problem, but when I tried Radiant, I remember the "drag to resize" feature stretches the whole brush.. as in, you're stretching the bounding box, and all of the brush's vertices are stretched to fit in the new bounding box. TB doesn't have this at all (and I think TB's face dragging is a more useful default, although the stretch the whole brush behaviour could be useful in some cases) 
For the record, I call that "Scaling", and there's already a feature request:

I plan to implement that soon, but I want it to be more like a free transform tool like in Photoshop. You could then use it to scale, skew, and non-uniform-scale the selected objects. Maybe even rotate, too. 
Which editor has the best tools for making arches, cylinders, hollowed-out cylinders? I use Trenchbroom but I haven't tried any other editors. I picked it up because of Daz's video. 
If you're working with different editors then where's your new map? It would be good for quake mapping in 2017. 
If you're working with different editors then where's your new map?

I'm not really supposed to say anything about it yet but it's a quake engine RPG type game. A free thing, not commercial. Hey, if it all goes tits up I can always turn the maps into quake maps. The design philosophy is pretty much the same. 
Sounds Cool 
Fingers crossed :} 
it's a quake engine RPG type game. A free thing, not commercial.

I wish you the best of luck on your efforts! 
Which editor has the best tools for making arches, cylinders, hollowed-out cylinders? I use Trenchbroom but I haven't tried any other editors. I picked it up because of Daz's video.

Cheers Bloughs 
I appreciate it :) 
Has made mapping even easier for those moving from Source to Quake.

Also, yes, if you don't have as good an aptitude for turning 2d into 3d, TB is your match. I always felt severely restricted by TB. Maybe its better in TB2. Did that ever get released yet?

Oh and radiant is unintuitive, not as bad as *cough* Quark though. 
MissBubbles, Naitathingy, the Episode Jam. 
First | Previous | Next | Last
Post A Reply:
Website copyright © 2002-2017 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors.