Any of you guys know of an extended runic/metal texture set? I've found a few more in kdmtex.wad but more choice never hurts. I'd especially like to find all the different runic tiles in both glowing red and "switched off" versions (id1 is missing some in each variant). 

I always build fully sealed and error free as I go. I only run a full vis every so often, but I like to know the map will compile properly without errors before putting too much more work into it. Fixing problems is the least fun part of mapping and I wouldn't want them to pile up. 

http://www.quaketastic.com/files/texture_wads/rmq_darkmet.wad

rmq mqade some runic addons. there are more, idk where to look atm.

rick does it right. 

Also yeah, so far I've done just like Rick. 

provide leaks in early stage.

@mugwump: Might not be the same wad but why not try Runewad? 

A workflow discussion: I can't nail down a specific time frame but a general estimate is every 10 minutes or so I do a full compile. Yes I vis everything and light everything dozens of times per mapping session. Reason being is my current map is probably about the size of one of the large id levels. Vis'ing takes well under a minute maybe a tad longer. But I work on everything in a map at once. Geometry comes first, then game play and then tweaks to lighting and texturing, then back to gameplay. It's very chaotic way to work. (I know.) I ask this here because I'd like to hear other people's workflow in the hope of getting my act together. I'm not looking to get faster per se but I have a lot of room for improvement and I am always open to new ways of working. As far as saving... I save as much less often. It seems that each new area becomes a save point and if I don something risky that could cause a leak or break logic or expose a bug in the editor, I will do a new version of the map. 

Well I managed to fund the culprit - a single brush seemed to be preventing compiling. I'm not really sure why though. I'll just keep test compiling as I go to make sure I'm staying on track.

Interestingly the non-convex face error comes up even when the map compiles and runs fine... not too sure what the issue is there but it doesn't seem to be "structural" 

If you open the map with a text editor,
you can view the structure of the map file.
A rough trade is looking at the warnings
and see if the brush consists of six sides.

If I want to make really sure why a polygon keeps "troubling"
I change all texture names behind the six polygons with a white texture.
When opening the map in an editor I can see which brush in particulary is causing the error.

Of course I use ericw compilers. 

My workflow changes as I learn more mapping techniques but to answer some of your questions:

I compile whenever I want to test something I just set up. This could be a few monster spawn triggers, to a new lighting placement, or even a single brush I want to see in action! When working with lighting, I often always do -extra4 and -soft to ensure I can see what the final product will look like but sometimes just -soft if a minor change was made.

If I do not have a leak, then I always compile with the -fast VIS just to save time. When I want to do a full playtest (Start to finish) I will do -level 4.

If by save you mean physically save the map file then I do that probably every time I add something that I know will stay for the time being. Ctrl+S is muscle memory and TB handles autosaving for the grievous mistakes.

As I stated above, my workflow changes but I am starting to see grey boxing out large sections is the way to go. Like G1ftmacher said before, if you can get through the basic layout then you can get to the more personal mapping phase.

So my workflow would be at this time:

-Brainstorming, mind layouts, inspiration.
-Basic layout of large sections
-Basic texturing of said sections
-First pass detailing
-First pass lighting
-First pass gameplay
-Detailed texturing
-Major detailing and lighting
-Then it gets to a hodgepodge of all of the above but fine tuning.

I am always curious to see what other people do. 

This method is not everyone, but so far I have liked breaking map into multiple pieces, sealing then right away, layering everything and startjJust testing and make it fun. Naming goes something like this: mapname_areaname_version. Then slowly starting to combine these already tested areas together and make compromises Just then if need to be made.

The biggest problem for me personally has been that, even if you just prototype areas, Quake is not really good at that. Everything basically has to be in certain state, before knowing will it work or not. That is why I find working with separate files more efficient. Normally when I do simple layout (ideas) on paper, I don't know about values what they are going to be at the end. Also if making a hud of your map where many paths connects. You suddenly realize you have gone too far, when focusing on something, you thought was important atm (I like to assume everyone does that at some point), it is impossible to go back and visualize everything again, if there is no backups been made.

So my current method is not to think too much about trying to connect everything right away. I am sure everyone has their own way, it would be interesting to hear more like how people layout their maps? 

So Bloughsburgh, you have a very structured workflow compared to me. Funny how I work on game play and lighting very close together per section and interchangeably but you segment those out in steps. I am all over the place! Also I meant "Save as" - like a new version of the map - I guess with TB and other modern editors auto save makes this less of a concern. I am used to the old days when one CGS operation could scrap hours of work.

Newhouse, very interesting that you break the map into smaller more manageable chucks. I am a professional video editor and I often use the same technique on an edit. If I am working on a 60 second TV spot with a 5 second montage - I bust that montage out into a separate piece so I can really focus on each frame in the editing program. This might work for me.

This is all fascinating - I hope others will jump in a share their workflow. 

Dunno anything about workflow but my method so far has pretty much been make-it-as-I-go: I work on one room until I think it looks good then I move to the next room. I'm just not the kind of guy to plan ahead, I'm better at improvising. 

Looks like I'm not the only one then. As I think about it, I'm realizing all the issues I am having in my map are because I grey-boxed and planned ahead. 

Sometimes planning ahead is impossible, when working in a situation you're not familiar yet. Maybe after, planning ahead becomes more effective. 

To be clear, there are certain global end goals that I do define beforehand, but the way to achieve them remains purposefully improvisational. This is how I work as an artist, in music as well, as I have found with experience that it allows my creativity to take me to unexpected places. I never made anything good with a very defined plan. 

theres a vine texture in AD that I want to use in my map. and I also want to try transparency with brushes, like in sock's metal monstrocity. How do I achieve this? 

Set the brush as a func_illusionary. This allows players/monsters to walk through the brush. You can use the flag "alpha" to set transparency. Honestly, just open up the metmon map and check it out yourself! :) all the authors .maps are included with AD. 

I haven't completely greyboxed a map either...but I have a significant visual plan in my mind of how the layout will be. Ultimately I go room by room and wing it to achieve said layout. It almost always deviates from the original. ;) 

Vines in AD are a combination of a texture with palette colour 255 and func_illusionary. They do not use brushes with the alpha key set to achieve that.

Engine support can be a bit of a hangup - mostly DarkPlaces, since the first download offered on the site is from 2014 or so and doesn't have support. Other modern engines and newer versions of DP support transparent textures just fine though. 

I mention "alpha" in conjunction with "func_illusionary" because he asked about transparency, not because I think its required for func_illusionary to work.

I typed my initial response while still in bed. I should've spaced out both ideas. 

The alpha value will not have the desired effect - the entire brush will be transparent. The vines in AD are entirely non-transparent, but the rest of their texture is. That's completely separate from the alpha value of the brush. 

In an editor the textures will look something like this: https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS1LSsZWB4Oc0pSm2QDhsSz0fQmW_B5cYNCIy8IXZq4D_0yXWajB9_ySaPj 

The vine feature is called "fence textures" or "alpha-mask textures".. the texture name also needs to start with a "{" character.

(sidenote: it's possible to make them work in the 2014 build of DarkPlaces, AD does this by supplying .tga files. There is a "fixtrans" command in DP that helps prepare the .tga's) 

Most of the techniques I employ are derived directly from "top tier" maps.

Func_illusionary + alpha is in use in ad_necrokeep to good effect.

http://imgur.com/a/2S7ZP 

sidenote: it's possible to make them work in the 2014 build of DarkPlaces, AD does this by supplying .tga files. There is a "fixtrans" command in DP that helps prepare the .tga's
I didn't know that. The September 2016 and newer builds, however, do support alpha-masked textures from the get-go and don't need this command.

@Pritchard The DP site at icculus doesn't seem to be maintained these days. The new builds are not in the /download subfolder but in /files (which is, of course, not accessible via the on-screen menus).