'nuff said bitches.
I Still Prefer GTK Radiant 1.5
#2 posted by affine
on 2014/06/20 01:44:54
Trenchbroom has some weird viewport navigational bugs and doesn't lend itself well to CSG's incredibly planar behavior.
This is just my opinion, but I believe the only reason why everyone likes Trenchbroom is because those same people find 3D-only editors to be of great use in other game engines. These game engines, though, prefer static meshes over complex brush setups, which are without a doubt best edited from an orthographic perspective.
I tried so many times to figure out GTK Radiant and I have given up on it. TB is something you can make decent maps with and have fun at the same time.
#4 posted by -
on 2014/06/20 02:13:52
I've shifted back to GTKR1.5 myself. I used TB since it came out and made many nice scraps with it... but I find that I just prefer the precision feeling of a big 2D view. And CSG Merge combined with the clipping tool makes me work so fast on complex geometry. I think you just end up with more power over brushes in Radiant, and I've become reasonably quick with it through the years.
That is not to say TB is bad, I think it's a great editor and many people use it well. I think it is going great places with the next version as well... which can be an important point, SleepwalkR is going to keep working to make it better. Radiant is never going to get any better as a Quake editor. Which is a shame, because many features in TB are absolutely great and would be very handy in Radiant. I am looking forward to TB2.
Back in the day people would argue about editors, but it always really came down to 'Use which you like best'. Back then it tended to be between Worldcraft 1.6 or BSP... or some weirdo obscure editors like Stoneless. These days, I think TB, Radiant, or some version of Hammer/WC are the only real options, and again, it's really personal preference.
#5 posted by quaketree
on 2014/06/20 05:41:59
It works on pretty much any computer and is easy to set up. It just works. TB is the 2nd option. GTK is third. All of them will do as far as making a level goes but as far as slinging brushes go that's the current order in my book.
Then again my first editor was the first version of Quoole (sp?) so what do I know...
I Should Add...
#6 posted by quaketree
on 2014/06/20 05:50:19
...that the compiling software choice is far more critical than the editor is.
#7 posted by negke
on 2014/06/20 08:02:55
#8 posted by skacky
on 2014/06/20 08:20:17
I've been using Hammer for most of my life so I think it's the most convenient, however Trenchbroom is an excellent editor that makes most things reammy trivial. Problem is it doesn't have 2d views so making complex architecture is quite hard sometimes, and for now it likes to crash for no real reason.
#9 posted by skacky
on 2014/06/20 08:21:00
I have no doubt TB2 will be a huge improvement over TB, which is already great.
I'll add 2D views to TB2, shut up already ;-)
#11 posted by Spiney
on 2014/06/20 09:58:42
Wonder how your two year younger self would respond after reading that.
#12 posted by Rick
on 2014/06/20 14:27:36
I used to use Worldcraft. As a matter of fact back in the 90s I actually paid for the full registered version, but when Windows 7 first came out I had a lot of problems trying to get Worldcraft to work with it.
I had tried the original QERadiant a few times while trying to make a Quake 3 map and just couldn't get used to how it worked. Hammer was never really for Quake, so I didn't consider it.
Somebody here suggested Netradiant. I tried it and it worked fine on Windows 7. Eventually I got used to using it, so that's where I've been for the last 5 years. It has never crashed in that entire time.
I tried Trenchbroom a year or so ago. There were some quirks but my conclusion was that I'd probably try it on the next map.
In Netradiant I use a three view setup. I spend most of my time in a big 3D window that takes up nearly the entire screen with just a single 2D view and the texture browser on the sides. So I think Trenchbroom's 3D only aspect may be a plus if I can just get used to it, but some things seem to be better done in a 2D view.
Best Or Worst?
#13 posted by sock
on 2014/06/20 14:47:49
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.
#14 posted by RickyT33
on 2014/06/20 15:04:01
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
#15 posted by spy
on 2014/06/20 17:47:05
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
#16 posted by than
on 2014/06/20 18:40:11
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).
#17 posted by than
on 2014/06/20 18:41:55
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.
#18 posted by JPL
on 2014/06/20 19:41:25
.. and all its inherent floating point coordinate issues..
But still, really easy to manage for newbies, hence never tested others...
#19 posted by Orl
on 2014/06/20 21:18:04
It's still in an alpha stage, but it's showing tremendous progress as a replacement for Worldcraft/Hammer.
#20 posted by spy
on 2014/06/20 21:39:11
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
#21 posted by Drew
on 2014/06/21 00:28:01
Hammer 3.5 over 3.3?
What Are The Benefits Of
#22 posted by Drew
on 2014/06/21 00:46:18
Hammer 3.5 over 3.3?
#23 posted by JneeraZ
on 2014/06/21 12:36:04
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.
#24 posted by Rick
on 2014/06/21 15:35:41
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.
#25 posted by spy
on 2014/06/21 17:43:17
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.