They're All Pretty Buggy Though
#26 posted by ijed
on 2014/06/21 18:43:04
I used them for years. What's wrong with Jackhammer? Basically the same thing but open sourced and in active development for Quake.
I Might Try GTKRadiant 1.5 But...
#27 posted by Breezeep_
on 2014/06/21 20:33:27
where do you get the quake 1 gamepack (or quoth?)
#28 posted by Tronyn on 2014/06/22 13:22:38
anyone else come across that weird/annoying bug in Hammer where changing an entity's properties (key/value) doesn't actually change it?
I bought Worldcraft back in the day on a cd (to think how my life would be different if I'd never gotten that cd!) and have been using it ever since... now use Hammer. Since I almost always try to make giant areas, whether indoor or outdoor, I'm looking forward to trying a totally different engine/editor in the future.
One of the more interesting things about Q1SP design, that only a few people would really be qualified to speculate on, is how editor capabilities and limitations determine or at least influence a mapping style.
#29 posted by ijed
on 2014/06/22 15:22:52
I hit that one all the time. I typically changed the thing, deselected it, then selected it again to see if it had changed :/
That's a pretty big influence right there - I haven't released anything in years... thank SleepWalkr for TrenchBroom :D
#30 posted by skacky
on 2014/06/22 15:37:08
Another issue with Hammer is that it will not display any more brushes in the 2d views if you get past 10,000 brushes, which is problematic.
#31 posted by than
on 2014/06/23 04:54:45
yeah, but you can use visgroups to hide stuff. I guess you might want to see everything at once, but most of the time that limitation causes no real issues as long as you use visgroups.
Dunno if TB has visgroups or something similar, but they are such an awesome feature of WC, and part of what kept me using it for so damn long.
I would love to do some Quake mapping, I tried Trenchbroom but like previously mentioned, I miss the huge 2d grid for some advanced brushwork.
Sock gave me his hacked GtkRadiant setup but I never got it working properly. It would be awesome if the new 1.6 would offer full Quake support. But that will probably never happen.
Too bad Radiant requires so much effort to get it to work. All the different tools needed for compiles and stuff doesn't help either. Ah, maybe I'm just spoiled.
For the most part I don't get the obsession with the 2d view. I've managed to make some pretty neat stuff with TB thus far.
There has only been a very small number of times I have missed the 2d view (usually making gigantic brushes) but this has been hugely offset by how easy it is to make stuff in 3d view.
The cons are really massively outweighed by the pros IMO.
I guess it's just what you are used too. I have a hard time making complex stuff in TB and I can build almost anything with brushes in Radiant.
2D In Trenchbroom
#35 posted by ijed
on 2014/06/24 14:57:48
When I want to measure stuff I just stick a 128 pixel texture on it.
You have to change your mindset with working with it, but I previously mapped with Worldcraft, which I found had a much easier interface than Radiant.
I understood Radiant and built some stuff in it, but it just seemed like a lot more hassle to do simple stuff than in WC.
And QuArK is possibly the worst editor interface ever.
But I agree you can train yourself to use any editor, and get faster at using it than others.
Measuring In Trenchbroom
it's fairly simple guys. Activate the grid, every 64 units is a bold line.
Or when you hold shift it tells you the length of each axis of the brush.
Obviously this is a bit harder with brushes over 1000 units
Yeah As Well
#37 posted by ijed
on 2014/06/24 15:04:05
But at a glance I find a big block 128 texture is quicker.
#38 posted by Spiney
on 2014/06/25 20:28:17
Mapping solely in the 3D viewport in Radiant is pretty straightforward and painless. It's not like TB is the only one doing 3D editing.
#40 posted by Rick
on 2014/06/25 20:46:27
I know it's possible to do some basic brush manipulation and entity creation in Radiant's 3D window, but I don't think I'd call it straight forward and painless.
Even Quark Has Basic Functions In 3d View
#41 posted by mfx
on 2014/06/25 20:54:02
like vertex manipulation, which cannot be done in 2D views.
Calling Anything About Radiant 'painless'
#43 posted by Spirit
on 2014/06/25 21:05:02
You can! Hold n or v or something, JPL knows. Of course this generates garbage though.
#44 posted by Tronyn on 2014/06/25 21:49:25
I love how this has turned into a bitching thread
well if SOMEONE who just make it so (lol)..
#45 posted by mfx
on 2014/06/25 22:14:54
n is free vertex mode. Killer.
#46 posted by Breezeep_
on 2014/06/25 22:23:21
#47 posted by Spiney
on 2014/06/27 12:51:36
Trenchbroom is still the sexiest of editors, just to be clear! :P
#48 posted by killpixel
on 2014/06/27 19:36:23
is indeed sexy, but the lack of an orthographic view makes it a no-go for me :(
I'd recommend GTK/NetRadiant.
As Long It's Freeware
#50 posted by madfox
on 2016/03/13 05:11:45
What I did with Qmap, Qbsp256, Thread, Deathmatchmaker and Qoole will fortunately will be evaluated as my five pence I had left for an editor