Subtractive
#7340 posted by Spirit on 2008/04/10 09:41:14
yes, quark has those. Called "diggers" or something. I'd use them carefully though.
Digger
#7341 posted by JPL on 2008/04/10 09:44:09
Wow
#7342 posted by than on 2008/04/10 16:34:57
quark has some cool features! Not sure I want to switch now though... not after 10 years of Worldcraft.
Holy shit. 10 years. Argh.
1.6
#7343 posted by RickyT33 on 2008/04/10 17:09:37
1.6a
#7344 posted by ijed on 2008/04/10 17:29:23
I've tried QuArK, but I could never get into learning how to use it and always went back to wc. The massive amount of features makes it a shameful retreat.
Maybe its the interface - I don't like most modern interfaces with their helpful "features" and round icons for square buttons (fuck XP start menu) but the way QuArK is laid out doesn't gel with how I think about mapping in Q1. Odd. Or lazy.
#7345 posted by JneeraZ on 2008/04/10 17:37:25
No, that's fair. I always felt that I should be using Quark as well but I could never get into it. It never clicked for me.
#7346 posted by rudl on 2008/04/10 19:27:28
Diggers are very good when you're unsure how to build an area.
Tag and glue features are also very nice.
For those who think quark is complex download an older version. And you don't need the interface. Quark has a lot of shortcut keys too.
But it it doesn't suite for quake too good. And is a bit buggy.
Bsp is about the oposite of quark: it's cleaner,(look at the map source,less compiling errors, Hom effects)
but has less features.
Ogier is the most 3D editor I have seen so far.
And radiant seems to be similar to Ogier but not as efficient.
haven't tied Worldcraft yet. Doesn't run on my sys.
#7347 posted by - on 2008/04/10 19:53:52
Oh god, that digger is ugly. In their example, 12 tris are created more than a properly built and mitered wall of that example. And since it's done post compile, you can't even fix it.
MITER 4-LYFE
#7348 posted by JneeraZ on 2008/04/10 20:20:19
The point of them is the trade off though. Easier level building/tweaking in exchange for messier brushes. And, really, if the level runs correctly does the brush configuration really matter?
#7349 posted by - on 2008/04/10 20:38:50
When you do coding, do you favour methods that work, or methods that work quickly?
#7350 posted by rudl on 2008/04/10 20:48:16
diggers=Compile it and see how it looks ingame.
When you want to have a door somewhere else: just move the negative, otherwise you have to modify more than one brush and doing this severeal times would be a lot of work.
When you are sure build everything around the negative brush.
#7351 posted by JneeraZ on 2008/04/10 21:08:44
"When you want to have a door somewhere else: just move the negative, otherwise you have to modify more than one brush and doing this severeal times would be a lot of work.
When you are sure build everything around the negative brush."
That sounds sensible. If you're concerned about how the brushes are laid out, go with this strategy. Fast iteration times = win.
Negative Brushes Etc...
#7352 posted by metlslime on 2008/04/10 23:17:19
I have to say, considering some of the extra UI involved in some of the features described above (especially the process of linking texture alignment across multiple faces), I'm not sure if it's worth it. Moving doors and stuff in radiant has never been a huge issue for me, and creating/modifying alcoves is also pretty fast. Retexturing multiple faces with the same alignment is very fast too (edit face one, grab the texture alignment with a click, then apply it to other faces with one click each.)
Radiant is far from being perfect or ideal, but I think one of the nice things about it is that it makes a small collection of core interactions very efficient, and you can usually do complex things using those.
#7353 posted by JneeraZ on 2008/04/11 13:35:36
While it's not for everyone, I think you'd really have to get into Unreal mapping to fully grasp how great the subtractive brushes can be. Nowadays we mostly use meshes in Unreal so it's not all that applicable anymore but subtractive brushes were so incredibly useful back in the heady BSP based days,
Of course, UnrealEd would let you see the resulting BSP right there in the editor viewport and you moved the wireframe brushes around to change things so it's not quite analogous to Quake mappping.
Subtractive Brushes + Meshes
#7354 posted by - on 2008/04/11 19:04:03
=
Awesome
#7355 posted by JneeraZ on 2008/04/11 19:26:20
It's changed somewhat though. I'm not sure how recent your experience is but UnrealEngine3 switched from a subtractive world to an additive one.
So you add brushes like you do in Quake now. Subtractives still work and are heavily employed but you don't start with carving out a space anymore. You start in empty space.
Willem
#7356 posted by - on 2008/04/11 23:17:04
I've been working with UED3 for the last 2 years of my life.
Subtractive geometry is awesome, since you can build a quick area out of 'Quake style' additive brushes for your layout and gameplay blockouts, then later, when you get art assets and want to trim out a level, you can carve out of your flat blocked out level to place wall meshes, or to add larger scale details to the BSP.
#7357 posted by JneeraZ on 2008/04/12 01:32:33
Oh cool! We're doing things a little differently for Gears 2 in that we're blocking out levels with BSP. Then, once we determine that the layout is fun and gameplay is solid, we convert those BSP brushes into blocking volumes (for those who don't know Unreal - basically, clip brushes), and then add meshes inside of those to flesh the level out.
Works well!
So THATS What You Doing!
#7358 posted by RickyT33 on 2008/04/12 04:36:24
Cool!
Loved Gears one! (I could tell you were a pro)
You remind me of another pro (but not quite as nasty!!!)
(dont know where to look now!) :-o
Da Fuck?
#7359 posted by - on 2008/04/13 09:15:25
Why did no one tell me you were Warren Marshall?
#7360 posted by JneeraZ on 2008/04/13 12:47:26
Because it doesn't matter? :) I'm just a guy who likes making Quake maps.
Just Logical
#7361 posted by Sielwolf on 2008/04/13 14:26:54
that the creme de la creme of the industry comes back focussing on the best game ever... I´m John Carmack btw hehehe
#7362 posted by JneeraZ on 2008/04/13 15:20:31
I KNEW IT!
#7363 posted by quakis on 2008/04/14 09:36:15
Just wondering if anyone has any idea on this small issue.
http://www.quakeone.com/qadapter/ - I followed this guide to get WC3.3 to work for Quake mapping, but I noticed a small issue. When I want to apply textures, I can't seem to select a seperate face of the brush - but this should work? I'm just wondering if anyone has a clue on this?
I've tried using QuArK, but I find the process of applying textures quite slow. Guess I'm too spoilt and used to Hammer editor. Haven't really tried out WC1.6a fully yet though.
Shortcut
#7364 posted by than on 2008/04/14 16:37:38
shift+a. Press that to get into texture application mode and that should let you select separate faces. There is also a button (a cube with multicoloured sides) that does the same thing.
No idea what the problem could be otherwise. Perhaps it's a 3d card driver problem? I can't select anything in the 3d view in WC 1.6a if I enable 3d acceleration, but v3.3 and up are very different to 1.6a and support proper opengl rendering.
|