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: https://www.celephais.net/board/view_thread.php?id=60097
First | Previous | Next | Last
Texture Questions 
1) What is the correct file format for textures? E.g. let's say I want to modify an existing texture. I know how to use TexMex to export it from a texture wad, and how to add it back in, but I'm not sure what file format I should choose when doing so (I am guessing the answer is not jpg).

2) Would Gimp be a suitable programme for modifying/creating textures?

3) I think I understand the theory behind using skip textures, but why is it possible to see skip textures (as in, see a brush face with "skip" written all over it) in some maps? Shouldn't those brush faces be invisible? An example would be Day of the Lords: if you noclip through it, there are moments where you can see "skip" written on brush faces. 
 
Correct file format is .pcx file

I'm sure gimp would work ok. I use paintshop pro 7.

You shouldn't be able to see skip textures, must be one of those weird quirks of the game if you can see them by noclipping through stuff. 
 
http://www.celephais.net/stuff/texturefaq.htm

The skip faces you see are accidental leftovers i'd say, todays compilers "skip" them ahead of the final bsp compile, were the old tools just draw them and had to be removed with a special compile switch and/or tool.

Gimp is fine, dont expect it to work wonders tho.. 
Thanks For The Quick Answers, Fifth And Mfx 
Thanks for that link; I was actually reading through that before posting to see if it would answer any of my questions (I had a look here http://quakewiki.org/wiki/Textures too).

So if I shouldn't expect too much from Gimp, what is the better alternative? (Just curious; I wouldn't be able to afford any non-free software anyway) 
 
I've always found Gimp and Photoshop too much of a pain to use for Quake textures. Their world is 24 bit.

I have an old copy of PSP 4.0 (still runs on Windows 7) that I use for making and modifying Quake textures. It works with 256 color palette graphics pretty well. I've always used the .bmp format.

I tried a newer version of PSP (x5), but it was way overly complicated for most of what I do, so I deleted it. 
Rick 
What kind of pain you have using Photoshop to make Quake textures? You can switch between RGB and "indexed" color modes, I have the Quake palette with and without fullbright lines... Want help? 
+1 For Photoshop 
It's worth putting time into to learn imo. There are good reasons it's an industry standard (and not so goon ones).

Of course, it can be pretty cost prohibitive, which is one of the reasons I should eat my words and learn GIMP. 
 
Photoshop is great for Quake textures. Make heavy use of the 'gradient map' layer, and make yourself a set of gradients that match the rows of the Quake palette to use with them. 
For Index Colors 
I use LVPro 
 
It's just a personal preference thing, but I find these modern graphics/photo editing programs to have have an overly complex and cluttered up interface for something as simple as editing a bitmap.

I do have a copy of Gimp in my portable folder, some day I may give it another look. 
Wally? 
 
 
I've never thought of the Photoshop interface as cluttered. If you use hotkeys to flip between tools and create new layers when you need them, the interface is basically negligible. 
Jpg Is The Worst Fucking Format For Anything Ever 
Each time you save something in it, the quality downgrades. 
+1 For Wally 
As Spirit said. It's nowhere near as feature rich as Photoshop or Gimp, but its tools are basic enough for anyone to create and or edit some really good textures. That and it was made for the sole purpose of creating Quake textures, so that should be a plus. 
 
I use Wally just to handle wads. 
It's To Bad... 
That editors and engines haven't moved on from the ".wad" file format! For mappers that is. A few older external programs could be eliminated along with it. 
 
That editors and engines haven't moved on from the ".wad" file format! For mappers that is. A few older external programs could be eliminated along with it.

Reading individual 8-bit images from a folder, instead of .wad files, could be neat (if you happen to use the one compiler and one editor that might actually implement it). 
 
Most new GL engines support "external" textures, 24 bit plain files on the filesystem. Quakespasm, Fitzquake, Darkplaces do. They override textures inside BSP files and have to be placed at <mod folder>/textures. They can even be used on a single level if you place them at <mod folder>/textures/<map name> 
 
... meaning you don't have to bother about Quake palette anymore if you don't care about backward compatibility. 
Kinn 
Sorry, you mean at development time. I believe QuArk works the way you want. 
 
Sorry, you mean at development time. I believe QuArk works the way you want.

If only the other 99% of QuArk worked the way I want. 
Agreed 
 
Context! 
If only the other 99% of QuArk worked 
 
What's the 1% that works ... the About Box? 
 
What's the 1% that works

The "X" button in the top-right corner of the workspace seems to function as intended. You probably don't need much else actually! 
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.