sorting the leak means vis will now run,
it makes a prt file, does this go in the same dir as the bsp when loading it into quake?

I put some light entities into the map, and now when I try to compile, it gets to light, and crashes.

light.exe system error
The code execution cannot proceed because embree.dll was not found. Reinstalling the program may fix this problem.

I see the flame of the wall torches, but there is no light. still fullbright textures.
Strange. Light.exe is in the same place as the other 2 compilers. 

PRT files are just for use with the compile tools. The Quake executable doesn't need it.

The prebuilt builds of ericw-tools require (and come with) embree.dll. Try reinstalling it: https://github.com/ericwa/ericw-tools/releases/ 

re: light crash

You are missing the MS Visual C++ files. TB and ericw tools use 2 seperate libraries. Go to the site and look at the link right under the blue download button.

https://ericwa.github.io/ericw-tools/

Also plz watch my troubleshooting video which will help you with leaks.

https://youtu.be/kFd-D46OCrg 

"you might be missing" 

which of the 3 should I download?

vcredist_arm.exe

vcredist_x64.exe

vcredist_x86.exe

Im using 64bit windows 10 

vcredist_x64.exe 

I downloaded and ran vcredist_x64.exe only. It didnt ask me for a destination when I ran it so I dont know where it puts those libraries. My projects/mapping is on my D drive whereas windows system files are on c
could this be an issue? 

When you extracted the ericw-tools-v0.18.. zip there should be a "bin" folder containing an embree.dll as well as the various .exe's. Maybe just confirm you still have the embree.dll because copying just the qbsp/vis/light.exe to a separate folder would cause the "embree.dll not found" error.

I downloaded and ran vcredist_x64.exe only. It didnt ask me for a destination when I ran it so I dont know where it puts those libraries.
Yeah this is fine, it's part of Windows so it gets installed globally somewhere.

One last thing there are 2 packages of the tools, -win32.zip and -win64.zip. The -win32.zip requires vcredist_x86.exe and the other one requires vcredist_x64.exe. I should probably spell this out more clearly :) 

beautiful moody quake lighting.

Yeah it all makes sense now, I think I moved the .exes thinking it would be ok. I put them where they should be and everything is fine.

THANKS SO MUCH 

Wait what....why would you need separate .dll's for the compile tools? Did something change? What's embree? 

Hello! In my progs I have misc_model entity which places custom models into maps. It has a parameter "model", which contains the path to my model in folder (for instance progs/v_shot.mdl). It works fine, but how should I set my .fgd file to display this custom models in Trenchbroom? Is it possible to do somehow? 

It is possible. I have an improved version of the fdg for progs_dump that has this feature. Here's the bit you need to add to the fgd:

model({
"path" : model,
"skin" : skin,
"frame": frame
}) 

Sorry for being so stupid, but I have never worked with .fgd files before. I have this in my .fgd file:

@PointClass base(Appearflags) size (16 16 16) color(30 150 35) = misc_model : " Place your custom model"
[
model(string) : "Path to your model"
]

Trenchbroom sees the entity in the entity list, bit it can not display the model when i wright the path to it. Where exactly should I add your piece of code so the model could be seen?

P.S. I tried to add your piece of code but got an error. I have downloaded fgd from your drobpox but I still can not sort out how to use fgd files. Thanks for helping me! 

Thank you so much! I found out how the misc_model is made in your fgd file and this worked for me:

@PointClass base(Appearflags, Target, Targetname) size(32 32 16) color(255 128 0) studio({ "path" : mdl}) = misc_model : "A point entity for displaying models"
[
mdl(string) : "Model Selection (ex progs/model.mdl)"
frame(integer)
first_frame(integer)
last_frame(integer)
speed(integer) : "Speed" : 10
angles(integer) : "set 'angle' to 0 if this is used"
] 

Studio is the key bit here 

I'm trying to balance my map for skills, and I'm wondering is it ok to just add the RL near the start for easy skill? Or would that be viewed as lazy?
It just seems harder to remove enemies and still keep the map exciting. 

Depends on the game-wise developpement you tend the player to behave like.
A RL at the start makes it easy to clear path for almost the hardest monster, so then it depends on the ammo, health and armour you supply.

At the other hand with the weakest weapons you can build up a steady monster count that balances on to a harder fight at end.
Don't forget that several knights can make a player already uneasy to fight.

So an easy skill won't say an easier fight IMHO.
Or start with no weapon, there's an easy hack for it. 

Thanks, I do have a build up of monsters, geared at Normal/Hard. I guess I'll just change/remove some monsters for easy. I wanted to keep the ambush/crossfire situations, but I guess not many play on 'Easy' anyway. 

Don't forget that you can do more than just take away monsters on easy -- you can also replace them with weaker monsters that only spawn in easy mode.

For example replacing a vore with an ogre, or a shambler with 3 knights. 

Thanks, that's what I'm going to do. 

It would be an interesting challenge on its own - a map where the # of monsters decreases with skill, but the overall challenge still increases. 

Start with your ideal hardest level.
For each "encounter" consider the next logical easier encounter to step down to for Normal, then Easy. Either placement change, cover addition (e.g. func_wall post, crate), lower health or lower damage per second enemy swap out, or fewer enemies.

Gets fuzzy if you have near constant encounters but if so maybe pacing is needed on lower difficulties, longer timespans between encounters rather than one long continuous encounter with no breathing room between enemies (e.g. Nightmare).

Weapon-changeout/early-add is good, but remember how it will affect pacing, better weapons earlier = shorter fights = more time between encounters which can make for lower percieved difficulty. 

I did make it for Normal/Hard, with a few strategic Nightmare monsters and I got great feedback from jcr who made demos in Nightmare. His play style is more aggressive than me so it was good to see the map played at pace and it seemed fairly balanced for him.
I just need to rework some battle areas to suit fewer/weaker monsters without making it toooo easy. 

I think resisting "easier is just fewer monsters" design is the right way to go. There should be fewer monsters, just not many fewer, because too few is just plain boring. We're all Quake Experts after 20 years of this, so I think anyone playing custom maps on Easy in 2018 is doing so because they're doing it on a lunch break or a stolen evening away from the kids, and not because they can't handle more than one fiend at a time. Maybe we should think of it more as 'higher investment.' Besides, Quake gives you tons of unappreciated variables that you can tweak by skill, both obvious and subtle.

- Armor makes Quake significantly easier. More reds and yellows, more often, effectively extends the player's survivability in a given fight by hundreds of HP. More Greens, or stretches without armor at all, shrink the until-death buffer to little more than the player's current health. If you do want to keep the same monster loadout on all three skills, give the Easy player several Red and Yellow armors and the Hard player only one or two Greens. They'll feel like completely different games.

- Adding a vote for weapon pickups coming earlier or later. On Easy, the next big weapon might come before the next big encounter so the player can kick ass with it, on Medium it might be placed within it so the player has to engage to grab it, and on Hard it might only come as a reward after beating the fight entirely without it.

- Greater monster variety leads to more ways the player can be attacked at any one time, requiring juggling more variables to avoid damage and find the safe place to be standing at any given millisecond. A shambler and a vore together are harder to handle than a pair of either. Variety also raises the chances of infighting, however.

- The angles that enemies are presented from makes a difference. In front of the player is easier, flanking is harder, behind is bordering on unfair depending on circumstances. Below the player is a turkey shoot, eye level is straightforward, and monsters up high have a distinct advantage.

- Quantity of resources matters, of course. Bigger medkit pools clearly make the game easier, plentiful rockets can be splashed around while rare ones are only for emergencies, etc. Nail weapon DPS is higher than SG/SSG DPS and so on.

- Frequency of resources matters too. A steady drip lets the player feel secure, but isolated bursts create situations where the player has to stretch himself to get to the next 'island'. Depending on where he makes his errors, he might have to stretch pretty hard (eg those 'quicksave with 5 health left' or 'shambler axe dance or bust' moments). Feast-or-famine item placement can induce mild stockholm syndrome, leading to more positive reviews :)

- Unless you're using a lot of Enforcers, maybe provide all players an early Lightning Gun and simply vary the cells provided, as a way of dealing more or fewer 'get out of jail free' cards.

- Don't forget that the difficulty spawnflags are present on every entity. If you're using monster closets, vary the locations of the ambush triggers. Have the Hard ambushes happen when the player is in the worst possible position, and give them a leg up or more warning on easier skills (or even leave the closet open on Easy so there's no surprise at all). You might even duplicate the doors so you can set different 'speed' keys per skill, so the harder ambushes are an instant pants shitting and the easier ones are more like a countdown until the monsters come out, complete with early warning aggro sounds. Doors can be temporarily barred behind the player on hard skills while he is free to retreat from a fight on easier ones. Falling into a pit can be a mild backtracking inconvenience on easy skills but death by spikes on harder ones. How much room is there between nail shooters in this hallway? With careful use of triggerable lights and skill-specific trigger_relays, you can even use light and darkness against the player differently.

Getting crafty with what you change between difficulty levels can give you ideas for entire encounters, although don't rely on that too much for interest, because any given player is probably only going to experience one such permutation and thus won't realize the need to appreciate how different it is from any others.