yeah, for whatever reason, I've yet to find an editor that has the correct bounding box for the quad damage. 

Ah, there it is -- "Bonus item fell out of level". I had to scroll up, because there were some other error messages too, e.g.
FindFile: can't find textures/b_nail0/nail0sid.tga
(and several other similar ones)

Weird, the QD was 16 units above the floor. I wonder if this is related to another issue I've been having with TB, where entities I try placing in the map replace earlier entities. FWIW, when I move the Quad to some location far away from where I've been building, it does appear when I test the map. 

Ah, good that you got it fixed. In the early days (Worldcraft 1.6) you pretty much couldn't believe any bounding box. I was always moving stuff around, 8 units at a time, from one build to the next, hoping it would finally decide to show up.

I finally ended up making a custom .fgd that was mostly correct, but I was never quite sure about the z axis. 

Cool, progress :-)

Is there enough clearance around the quad to the sides and front? That's about all I can think of, if moving it to another part of the map fixes it. Also check that it wasn't outside of the +/-4096 bounds by accident. If all else fails, upload/paste the relevant part of the map 

I hear IonRadiant is the official and only map editor for Daiktana so far. However, I also hear it was even worse than the game itself because of troublesome setup process.

Is there an alternative to Ion Radiant? When can Trenchbroom or Jackhammer support Daikatana since it's a Q2 engine game as well? 

Thanks for your responses, Rick and ericw!

Hmm, "fixed" is maybe not exactly the right term. I just shifted the Quad to a position far away to see if it would appear at all, but it's not somewhere where it would make much sense to have it, and I still have no idea why it would not appear where I originally placed it.

ericw, yes, there's plenty of clearance on all sides. I don't think it's out of bounds, although I'm still not sure how to check that with TB. What I have done, though, is to move everything in my map to where it's shown when you first open the map in TB. I assume that means it's more or less centred, right (i.e. near 0, 0, 0)? And I'm working with a really tiny structure at the moment, so if it's even near the centre of the map, there's no way it could extend to +/-4096...

I might just ignore the problem for now and make do without the Quad. The map is still in its infancy and item placement can still be changed. But should I run into the same issue again, I guess I'll upload part of the map.

Thanks again. :) 

Honey wads ... anyone? 

One option, you can dump the wad from a bsp with bsputil --extract-textures (available in tyrutils or my branch). 

One option, you can dump the wad from a bsp with bsputil --extract-textures (available in tyrutils or my branch). 

Thanks! Ok, bear in mind this is new territory for me ... so I copied honey.bsp into the directory where I have tyrutils and typed

./bsputil --extract-textures honey

That created a file called "honey.wad", but when I try to use that in TB, it seems to be empty. What am I doing wrong? 

I fixed it though, but wait for SleepwalkR to merge it I guess 

Oh. Other wads work, though... 

Do you have TexMex? That's one of the best tools for messing with texture wads. It can read the textures from a .bsp and save them as a wad. I didn't see it a quaketastic or quaddicted, but there's a lot to search through there, I may have missed it. 

Don't know how I missed.

http://quaketastic.com/files/tools/TEXMEX_34_NOSETUP.7z 

I'll give that a shot. I've used TexMex once before, about a year ago or so. Can't remember what I used it for, but it wasn't for this. I never realised one could simply extract textures from a bsp. Thanks for the link; I no longer had TexMex on my computer, so that really helps. 

texmex has aged really well, as a tool. still massively relevant and functions perfectly on modern OSes. 

And it's messing with me:

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm196/voiceofthenephilim/why%20light%20why_zps5n36j9nx.jpg

Three of the lights it claims have a value of '0', despite very much having a value. All of them use the '_surface' function. Does anyone know why they refuse to light? 

can't imagine why off hand. That is a slightly old build, could be worth updating just in case that fixes it: http://ericwa.github.io/tyrutils-ericw

Are there any different keys set on the ones that aren't working compared with the one that is? 

What is that Jitterning stuff? I've never seen anything like that when I run it. 

That was some debugging code left in by accident in an older build 

I'm assuming this isn't possible, but it couldn't hurt to ask...

Is it possible to increase or decrease the size of a brush while preserving its shape? As in, let's say you've created a cylindrical shape, and you want a larger version (not just longer, but with a larger diameter). Is it necessary to create a new, separate brush (as I've been doing), or is there perhaps a tool or function that lets you simply increase/decrease the scale of the brush (kind of like you can do with images in image editing software)? 

For those using TB: I've only just noticed that I can see three lines in-editor, an orange, blue and green one, corresponding to the x, y and z axes (not necessarily in that order). Is the point where they intersect the centre of the world (i.e. 0, 0, 0)? 

1st. Its possible to scale brushes up/down the amount you want with some editors. Trenchbroom currently doesnt do this for you.
2nd. Yes. 

 

Scaling complex brush shapes isn't something you want to do in Quake anyway.

What I do sometimes to scale up cylinders is to cut them into wedges, and pull the faces on each wedge outwards/inwards. In editors like TB and Radiant which preserve the adjacent angles of other faces when you pull on a face, this works really well. And in Radiant, which has CSG-merge, you can merge all the wedges back together into a single brush.

Otherwise, what I actually do more often, is to just remake the shape I want at the bigger size. This style of curve is what I most often use, and it's all about the ratios (interior angles have 1/4 and 1/1 slopes, outer faces are 1/2 and 2/1), and it's easy to make at all scales with the clipping tool.