I used to make maps using Worldcraft (1.06 or whatever it was). I never completed those maps actually, I got somewhat far into a few of them.
TB is fun to map with. I used to have a lot of fun mapping with UED back in the day, I used to find that I would get so far and I couldn't make out what was happening on the grid, the beauty of mapping with TB is you never need to look at the ridiculous mess you made of the grid.
Jackhammer. I like 2D views for a lot of operations and the VIS groups are nice for organizing stuff.
I've used Worldcraft/Hammer for years and wanted something new. trenchbroom is just way faster and it's much easier/quicker to create good looking architecture and rooms. I miss the 2d views sometimes but I can easily create prefabs on Hammer and import them later on.
TrenchBroom as well. I want to learn Jackhammer to use in conjunction with TB after seeing this video from skacky on pipes and spiral stairs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jckgE8aUDSY
Anyone try Sledge
? It's another hammer clone that is aimed at GoldSrc; no explicit quake support, but seems to load the fgd from jackhammer fine.
No other editor has the power the Radiant editors do. I've used nearly every editor under the sun at one point or another, but Radiant is the best for Quake. There are just so many little features I use constantly that are rarely found all together in other editors, and a 2D grid just gives you so much speed and precision once you learn to use it.
I Chime In
with what Scampie says, plus QuArK.
@scampie -- hehe, I was hoping for about 100% Trenchbroom/Jackhammer, but I expected maybe some of the elder Q3 capable mappers use Radiant.
[Was hoping Spirit was only Quark user, heh.]
I tried TrenchBroom once, but I'm a bit too used to the 2D layout.
I use Radiant. sikkpin's QE3 build, actually, but, same dif.
I had a good look at Trenchbroom and Jackhammer, but eventually went back to radiant because it just feels more efficient, and 2d views are essential.
Is mapconv and all that jazz still necessary if one wants to try Radiant these days?
Apart from the floating point issues I really don't understand people's aversion to Quark. It's interface is intuitive to anyone who ever used a OS with floating, resizable Windows (like Windows) and with groups etc you have a lot of power. The texture tools are (still?) unchallenged.
Quark is the Linux of Quake editors.
has weird navigational controls if I recall.
I enjoy an editor that is easy to navigate through whatever it is you're working on. TB is basically the most intuitive thing to navigate IMO, you just fly around.
The orbiting in TB is awesome. I wish Jackhammer had that.
Radiant 1.5 supports Q1 out of the box, opens and saves the correct .map format. Saves .maps in /id1/maps/, looks for wads in /id1/. Suggest not bothering with it's build menu though, use something like necros' compiling gui.
Not sure what other versions work without any converting, later versions of GTKR dropped Q1 support, and NetRadiant has a bunch of things broken like using floating window layout.
Warren, that's a very distorted world view. Quark is the Windows. Radiants are more like what you call Linux. Weird multiple floating windows (OMG GIMP WHY NO PS ZOMG CANT USE!!1), unintuitive UX etc. Honestly. You just don't realise because you learned something else first.
It's how I like GIMP and Blender and cannot get anything does with PS or 3DSMaya4D.
Spirit, the fact that you prefer GIMP and Blender is something I fully expected to hear. In fact, I would have wagered large sums of money on it.
Yeah, Let's Not Have A Reasonable Discussion But Some Dumb Ad Hominem
Take it for what it is - light hearted ribbing.
Pleasuh, It's GNU/Linux , Haven't You Hurd?
Honestly though, as I have said many times before, sit a newbie before Quark and any other map editor and I am sure she will be able to use Quark rather than the other one.
Give Them A Cheat-sheet
and I'm sure that TB would come up trumps.
Teach A Man To Fish
...and he'll say "why are you talking about fish, I want to make a Quake map."
I used to use GIMP but I got a job where I have access to full Adobe CC, so I have started to use Photoshop for almost everything.
Photoshop doesn't have 'colour to alpha' though. I still use GIMP for that. I'm sure it can be done with PS but I can't figure out how. Probably something to do with fucking around with channels or something.
I'll tell you what though, GIMP falls severely short on downsampling. Photoshop's bicubic is way better than anything GIMP has to offer.
So if you don't want your picture to look like ass, I would stear clear of GIMP for downsampling. You can always load an exported image into Chrome and zoom out.... then take a screenshot!
After using Worldcraft for so long, I immediately fell in love with Jackhammer.