News | Forum | People | FAQ | Links | Search | Register | Log in
Mapping Help
This is the place to ask about mapping problems, techniques, and bug fixing, and pretty much anything else you want to do in the level editor.

For questions about coding, check out the Coding Help thread:
First | Previous | Next | Last
Open the .pts file in your editor, you should see a dotted line leading you to the leak so you can fix it. 
sorting the leak means vis will now run,
it makes a prt file, does this go in the same dir as the bsp when loading it into quake?

I put some light entities into the map, and now when I try to compile, it gets to light, and crashes.

light.exe system error
The code execution cannot proceed because embree.dll was not found. Reinstalling the program may fix this problem.

I see the flame of the wall torches, but there is no light. still fullbright textures.
Strange. Light.exe is in the same place as the other 2 compilers. 
PRT files are just for use with the compile tools. The Quake executable doesn't need it.

The prebuilt builds of ericw-tools require (and come with) embree.dll. Try reinstalling it: 
re: light crash

You are missing the MS Visual C++ files. TB and ericw tools use 2 seperate libraries. Go to the site and look at the link right under the blue download button.

Also plz watch my troubleshooting video which will help you with leaks. 
Above Should Read 
"you might be missing" 
Sounds Good. 
which of the 3 should I download?




Im using 64bit windows 10 
Still Getting The Embree Message After Vcredist_x64.exe 
I downloaded and ran vcredist_x64.exe only. It didnt ask me for a destination when I ran it so I dont know where it puts those libraries. My projects/mapping is on my D drive whereas windows system files are on c
could this be an issue? 
When you extracted the ericw-tools-v0.18.. zip there should be a "bin" folder containing an embree.dll as well as the various .exe's. Maybe just confirm you still have the embree.dll because copying just the qbsp/vis/light.exe to a separate folder would cause the "embree.dll not found" error.

I downloaded and ran vcredist_x64.exe only. It didnt ask me for a destination when I ran it so I dont know where it puts those libraries.
Yeah this is fine, it's part of Windows so it gets installed globally somewhere.

One last thing there are 2 packages of the tools, and The requires vcredist_x86.exe and the other one requires vcredist_x64.exe. I should probably spell this out more clearly :) 
It Works Perfectly Now =D 
beautiful moody quake lighting.

Yeah it all makes sense now, I think I moved the .exes thinking it would be ok. I put them where they should be and everything is fine.

Wait what....why would you need separate .dll's for the compile tools? Did something change? What's embree? 
Trenchbroom Custom Model Display (.fgd File) 
Hello! In my progs I have misc_model entity which places custom models into maps. It has a parameter "model", which contains the path to my model in folder (for instance progs/v_shot.mdl). It works fine, but how should I set my .fgd file to display this custom models in Trenchbroom? Is it possible to do somehow? 
It is possible. I have an improved version of the fdg for progs_dump that has this feature. Here's the bit you need to add to the fgd:

"path" : model,
"skin" : skin,
"frame": frame
Sorry for being so stupid, but I have never worked with .fgd files before. I have this in my .fgd file:

@PointClass base(Appearflags) size (16 16 16) color(30 150 35) = misc_model : " Place your custom model"
model(string) : "Path to your model"

Trenchbroom sees the entity in the entity list, bit it can not display the model when i wright the path to it. Where exactly should I add your piece of code so the model could be seen?

P.S. I tried to add your piece of code but got an error. I have downloaded fgd from your drobpox but I still can not sort out how to use fgd files. Thanks for helping me! 
Thanks To Dumptruck_ds 
Thank you so much! I found out how the misc_model is made in your fgd file and this worked for me:

@PointClass base(Appearflags, Target, Targetname) size(32 32 16) color(255 128 0) studio({ "path" : mdl}) = misc_model : "A point entity for displaying models"
mdl(string) : "Model Selection (ex progs/model.mdl)"
speed(integer) : "Speed" : 10
angles(integer) : "set 'angle' to 0 if this is used"
Studio is the key bit here 
Is It Ok To Just Add The RL On Skill 0 ? 
I'm trying to balance my map for skills, and I'm wondering is it ok to just add the RL near the start for easy skill? Or would that be viewed as lazy?
It just seems harder to remove enemies and still keep the map exciting. 
Depends on the game-wise developpement you tend the player to behave like.
A RL at the start makes it easy to clear path for almost the hardest monster, so then it depends on the ammo, health and armour you supply.

At the other hand with the weakest weapons you can build up a steady monster count that balances on to a harder fight at end.
Don't forget that several knights can make a player already uneasy to fight.

So an easy skill won't say an easier fight IMHO.
Or start with no weapon, there's an easy hack for it. 
Thanks Madfox 
Thanks, I do have a build up of monsters, geared at Normal/Hard. I guess I'll just change/remove some monsters for easy. I wanted to keep the ambush/crossfire situations, but I guess not many play on 'Easy' anyway. 
Don't forget that you can do more than just take away monsters on easy -- you can also replace them with weaker monsters that only spawn in easy mode.

For example replacing a vore with an ogre, or a shambler with 3 knights. 
Thanks, that's what I'm going to do. 
It would be an interesting challenge on its own - a map where the # of monsters decreases with skill, but the overall challenge still increases. 
Suggestion: Progression, Plan Your Encounters 
Start with your ideal hardest level.
For each "encounter" consider the next logical easier encounter to step down to for Normal, then Easy. Either placement change, cover addition (e.g. func_wall post, crate), lower health or lower damage per second enemy swap out, or fewer enemies.

Gets fuzzy if you have near constant encounters but if so maybe pacing is needed on lower difficulties, longer timespans between encounters rather than one long continuous encounter with no breathing room between enemies (e.g. Nightmare).

Weapon-changeout/early-add is good, but remember how it will affect pacing, better weapons earlier = shorter fights = more time between encounters which can make for lower percieved difficulty. 
I did make it for Normal/Hard, with a few strategic Nightmare monsters and I got great feedback from jcr who made demos in Nightmare. His play style is more aggressive than me so it was good to see the map played at pace and it seemed fairly balanced for him.
I just need to rework some battle areas to suit fewer/weaker monsters without making it toooo easy. 
1 post not shown on this page because it was spam
First | Previous | Next | Last
Post A Reply:
Website copyright © 2002-2022 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors.