Sorry about that. In the description for the video I linked to the same link on ericw tool's website. I wasn't aware of the issue. Thanks for letting me know. 

Here's episode 3. Brush tool and misc tips. 

Thanks for ep2 & ep3 :)

My suggestion for one of the upcoming episodes - tell us about setting up a map compilation directly from the TrenchBroom, without using an external GUI for compilers. 

Honestly I am not going to spend time on that at least not any time soon. I had this planned but Sleepwalker told me not to bother as the tool is going to get a re-worked eventually. I'm not sure why it's an issue to use the GUI. Unless you are on Linux or something. 

Clip tool. 

will be revamped at some point because it appears to cause a lot of trouble. My plan is to extend the game definition so that you set up your compilers in the game preferences, similar to the game path.

Then you can refer to these compilers in the compilation profile by using a variable, e.g. ${QBSP} -myparameters ${MAP_FILE} ${OUTPUT_FILE}

That way, we can set up builtin profiles so that people don't have to do anything except for setting up the paths to the compilers. 

I can never seem to get the Necros UI to work (QBSP can't find the map, etc) ... but the in-editor tools work great. Heh. 

Im so thankful someone else couldnt get NecrosGUI set up. I never got it working either. :D 

Did you follow MY directions? If you did, would work. No spaces in the files names. I even have a video showing you how.

Fine go ahead and type in manually every time you want to tweak a command line setting while lighting your map. I will be busy playing my map after toggling options on and off in Necros' GUI. 8-P

And Muk why make Qompiler? Something lacking in TB? :qthink: 

batch files allow you to loop through a large set of maps to recompile them. one click and you can compile multiple maps. Very useful for recompiling large batches of breakables to new light settings.

"Something lacking in TB?"

lolwut? 

Yeah that's a cool edge case scenario newbs won't be using for quite some time. You found a limitation in TB's compiler setup and needed a different tool. :thumbsup:

I'm just trying to get new users in quickly with the tool I am comfortable with. And with Sleepwalker's blessing BTW. 

This is the beauty of having a large selection of tools. Everyone has their own preferences and needs, and there's is a tool for everyone. There really is no point in fighting about this.

I'm fine with the fact that the tutorial does not use the builtin compilation support. It doesn't really matter which tools are used as long as it gets the job done. One thing is for sure, it's easier to set up necros' UI than it is to set up TB's compilation profiles, at least in their current state. 

Sorry. Muk knows I love him. Something about compiling triggers us both.

<offers hand to Muk> 

Vertex Tool 

It's not that I don't WANT to use the UI ... clearly I do since I tried to. :) It just doesn't work for me.

Does it have a limitation like you have to be on the C: drive? Because I'm not.

But regardless, this video series is great dumptruck! I've been watching every one ... 

No restriction to run on C but you need to ensure that all your parameters are pointing to that drive/directory. I tried to mix and match drives but the GUI is looking for the relative path. I got an error there.

I'm sure the GUI assumes your working and bin folders are in the Quake directory. So make sure your settings for qbsp, light and vis are pointing to the right folder and drive. Then ensure your working directory and game engine of choice is under Quake and it's pointing there.

Luckily the in-editor is working for you.

And I am very happy the tutorials are helping people! 

Please @ me when you tweet about them so that I can retweet. 

Ahh it might be a folder issue ...I'm definitely NOT in the Quake directory with everything. 

Edge Tool

I forgot to process the audio before uploading. It's not as "crunchy" sounding as usual. :( 

TB really seems like a more powerful editor than a Hammer derivative like JACK. Looks like it's just generally easier to create simple and more complicated geometry. 

is how I like to describe it. Once you learn the kb shortcuts and UI you can really fly. I create 100% of my brushes in 3d. Only use 2d to align entities and to inspect my brush alignment. 

I wonder how it compares to Radiant. Radiant has always looked like a foreign language to me, yet I believe Sock uses it and he creates such massive, complicated designs. I feel like the kinds of things he and several other mappers create for Quake are outside the realm of possibilities for a Hammer derivative map editor. 

Was a huge inspiration for TB. QERadiant, that is. I used QERadiant for my own mapping after I had started out with Worldcraft. In WC, you spent most of your time switching between tools, whereas in Radiant, you could do a lot of things without these "mode switches". My speed increased a lot once I got the hang of it.

In TrenchBroom, I have tried to recreate this fluidity. The most common operations should be easy and quick. You should be able to manipulate objects directly, without strange gizmos like in popular 3D packages. And you should be able to do everything in 3D if you want. That's why the 2D views came much later - they are there because some things, such as proper alignment, are easier to do in 2D.

It makes me happy to hear TB described as "elegant", because that confirms that we got things right in many aspects. Granted, not everything can be easy. Sometimes you do need gizmos, e.g. for rotation. But the bread and butter cases should be easy and quick. 

I feel like the kinds of things he and several other mappers create for Quake are outside the realm of possibilities for a Hammer derivative map editor.

Note, I'm not aligned with any one editor but... do you sincerely believe that?

I'm just thinking of some of the most amazing HL2 maps/mods I've played, all built WITH Hammer, and then trying to make sense of your comment. 

There is literally nothing that you can do in TB or NetRadiant or Jack that you can't do in any of the others. In all those editors you have the tools to make any convex brush, they all now do Valve220 texturing, and that's all you need. The only difference is the efficiency of the UI. From personal evaluation of all three I still believe Radiant (the latest version of NetRadiant) is the daddy in terms of raw speed of banging things out, but I haven't had a look at TB in quite a while, things may have changed, I dunno.