'nuff said bitches. 

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. 

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. 

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... 

...that the compiling software choice is far more critical than the editor is. 

 

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. 

really*
derp

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 ;-) 

Wonder how your two year younger self would respond after reading that. 

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.