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
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. 
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. 
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. 
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. 
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. 
Are you still using TB1 by chance?

TB1 as in the version with ONLY 3D view? 
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. 
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. 
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. 
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. 
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! 
First | Previous | Next | Last
You must be logged in to post in this thread.
Website copyright © 2002-2024 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors.