To be honest it is not fun at all calculate manually something like that* but because I haven't figured out other ways to correct these when things doesn't went as planned. Maybe J.A.C.K handles these better atm.. maybe.. but I'm not that used to J.A.C.K's interface yet. 

*For me it was just:
- Created a 16 sided cylinder 192x192x128.
- Moved all the points in one of the bases at the same time in the same plane as the base is to make the ''curve'', with the vertex editor tool.
- Repeated the previous steps another time and joined both cylinders to get one fourth.
- Cloned and rotated 90� that structure 4 times and joined the pieces to create one tube.
- Cloned and rotated 45� the finished tube 7 times.
And got this.

I didn't even check if it was on grid, calculated a single thing or tried to make it look good thats why i only used two pieces per 90�. I was only checking if it was doable so made it simple.
All looks OK in game and the compiler didn't give a single complaint so i didn't bother. Maybe you encountered problems because you made it detailed, hence the need for calculations.


* About Trenchbroom i don't know much, but i suppose that for this basic operations is the same as any other editor and from what i heard it supports map format 220 so no problem there either. I don't use JACK much either, except for Quake 2, just WC from 1.1.2 to 3.3 since i began mapping, which is similar.
Mainly because till a few years ago i only knew of WC 1.1 and QuarK as back on 198x-199x everyone in the city with a computer depended on what the rich guy or guy with family abroad or in a really big city got for almost every software we had.

* About carving (subtracting from one brush using other), is one of the only three tools WC1.1 had: Create cubes, wedges, cylinders and spikes was one, carving the second, and hollow (to create hollow boxes) the third.
It was quite limiting that's why it surprised me the spiral staircase on grid back then. But thanks to the limitations it has i had fun making some crazy things till i hit the editor's limit on what could be displayed in-editor and had to put the most of it apart. 

read that you had problems with brushwork instead of problems with texture alignment and realized just now.

For texture alignment in those circumstances, align them bit by bit when you have the first cylinder brush done and use texture lock for the rest. I use the map format 220 from HL which has enhancements to texture alignment, but i i am not sure if Trenchbroom supports that or just can open those files. 

I've not really touched it, but TB2 seems to support the 220 format, at least for creating and loading. Not sure how stable the support is though.

Speaking of which, is there any tool that can convert between standard quake and 220? I'm interested in seeing what difference it makes (if any) for my work. 

You would have to use the Valve 220 format for that kind of texture alignment. The basic orthogonal (align to world) projection would never look right.

https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Texture_alignment 

So basically I should use J.A.C.K for those kind of brushwork/rotation practices. So I highly doubt mfx was able to pull this off 100% in TB itself. Unless he took like 3 months manually calculating messed up faces or just using Valve 220 format. Not sure how does it work in TB, what are differences.. have to check it out after this noir jam. 

I've had issues with texture lock in the past when rotating brushes. One thing I've tried doing in the past was making a cube and then rotating it with texture lock on so that one of the diagonals was parallel to the z axis, but after I did this the textures were completely warped. 

I'm a bit of confused about what I have done.. what does this remind? (possible gameplay section in my noir jam map) : https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwxYkKdSD855LTE2dS1wSXJHUDg/view?usp=sharing 

It reminds me of HL2. 

just do some squash and stretch and weird rotations, ez 

math or patience? 

guess with a rotation, press 'fit' tool, repeat until it's pretty close 

HL2, not episode 1 or 2.. that tech tower section? Also I think it reminds a bit of Duke Nukem 3D's episode 2, latest maps. 

This was fun

standard format & patience 

a bit of phong and it'll be smoother than baby poop. 

Interesting... We say baby skin in France. 

 

I think in Australia we say "Baby's bottom" which is like half way between the two on the creepy/gross scale. 

I really dislike how vanilla WinQuake's "gamma" cvar makes the colors washed out, so I'm working on a new system using two cvars: pal_darkness to define the minimum brightness, and pal_brightness to define the maximum brightness; the resulting value is normalized between them.

Default settings (same as gamma 1).

Maximum brightness scaled up.

Minimum brightness also scaled up.

Now, a question: Does the resulting image looks fine for everyone here in this personal settings test? Afterwards I've reduced pal_brightness a bit, to 2.5, but I don't know if this is still too dark for most people.

Anyway, one of my goals with this is to improve the image quality for YouTube videos, since YouTube compression is bad for dark colors, and WinQuake's brightness control makes the colors too washed out. 

I think 5 might look good. Doesn't QuakeSpasm allow you to set brightness and contrast in the options menu? I have my contrast turned up a bit, it seems to boost brightness a little as well.

Also, how'd you move your HUD to the corners like that? 

Looking at your personal settings test on my phone in a dark room, it looks good. Dunno if it's enough for YT vids though. And yeah, the new contrast feature in QS is very useful to have a brighter and more vivid image without washing it out. 

Hmm. I've tried increasing the brightness, but this time in another map:
E1M1, default brightness

E1M1, pal_brightness 3.5

E1M1, pal_brightness 5

5 seems to distort some colors too much. 3.5 seems to be the maximum that doesn't distort the colors too much, at least for me.

The below shots were also taken with 3.5:

E1M1, well lit area.

E1M4, dark area.

sevin: This HUD is custom coded. 

Still on my phone, but this time with the lights on, I agree that 5 might be too much. E1M4 dark area looks nice but the brightest parts of E1M1 well lit area seem a bit overbright. Maybe you should try 3 again but it's hard to judge how it would look on video, though. 

On video it always looks a lot worse, which is why I've lost the motivation to record gameplay videos. 

Can you share the code for the HUD? I'd love to use that.