Quake .map format versus .Map 220 format

[Baker]

[goldenboy]

Just saw this again and wish to comment.

Valve 220 map format deserves to die a fiery death, at least where Quake mapping is concerned.

Reason: If I use Radiant, and another guy on the team uses Worldcraft, I cannot load his map into my editor even if I'm trying to debug a global problem (since I also do game design and coding). This is simply due to the fact that Valve 220 format was meant for Half-Life and Radiant (naturally because of its lineage) uses standard Quake .map files.

Same goes for the use of Half-Life wad3 format in Quake mapping (worldcraft again). Die in a fire, Half-Life formats.

It creates communication problems between mappers, and massively hinders the workflow in a team, or when person B tries to edit person A's released map source.

That is a breaking flaw that makes Worldcraft a culprit in any Quake map-related cooperation or when map sources are passed on. Worldcraft only got so popular among Quake mappers because cooperation between them is rare. But no man is an island and problems are just waiting to happen.

Use of Valve 220 (i.e. Half-Life) map format in Quake should be discouraged, not encouraged. That at least is my opinion, and I deal with the problem regularly.

Edit: I would actually go so far and say that Worldcraft itself should die in a fire. This because it is closed source, which means it can never be updated or expanded or augmented to support new features or new map formats. This was one of the problems when we discussed BSP2 - we could not use anything like Quake 2 surface flags etc. because we could not change the map format. Because we had to keep it worldcraft-friendly. In other words, Worldcraft directly acts to prevent progress regarding map formats and features because it is a black box. The Valve 220 map format is an annoyance that pales in comparison to this.

[Arkage]

I am going to have to stand up for World craft here. Out of all the map ed that I have tried, I can't say any of them trump WorldCraft.
I will admit that using it for Quake mapping is a pain, (converting texture to wad3 just to place them) but the fact that people go through all this just prove it does have something to offer.
It has by far the best UI and has the smallest learning curve that i have seen. less time learning a program, more time mapping

I will admit it is annoying that it is closed source, it would have been great if we could add features and enhance it but, sadly not.
Maybe an open source clone would be something to consider?

[leileilol]

Not only is there a Worldcraft vs. Radiant problem, there's also QuArK vs. Radiant problem because of QuArK's self-promoted so-called "float precision" which regresses compatibility more than anything else. This'll cause problems for even id Tech 3.

Besides, if someone prefers and insists Valve 220... then where the hell are you recruiting from!?

I do use Worldcraft myself - but only the 1.x versions, never any Half-Life ones, which are just dolled up HL exclusive 1.6 versions really, with a revamped 3d preview.

[ceriux]

i know if you use hammer 3.5 (the last hl1 version) you can even view models with in the editor. i'm with arkage , an open source clone of it would be amazing. (with supports for making and compiling quake,hl1,and rmq maps?! <3) the editor is very easy to use and has great tools for making complex brushes with ease. plus to mention leilei also seems to have a point. your editor also has problems working with other editors as well, so how can you bash worldcraft/hammer?

[leileilol]

[ceriux]

fair enough, but i was still able to pull my point out of what you said. which is also still valid...

[Baker]

I don't like the idea of multiple .map formats for a single game. When I first started playing around with mapping, I liked Worldcraft 1.6a the best. However, the software 3D rendering often became slow. But the real pain was trying to rotate an object and then the textures getting massively screwed up and no way to fix. At that point I was like "Why am wasting 1 hour on trying to realign these textures? This is a waste of time." ---> Worldcraft 3.3

Long term I'm not saying I think Worldcraft 3.3 is "great" or anything, but yet it is the one I myself can easily and happily use for my own private mapping. I think Worldcraft is easily understood in about 5 minutes, really.

I do not know if the "classic" .map format actually can support texture rotation correctly in any form. Something I want to learn more about as time goes on. If it can, I liked to be able to back convert. If it can't, I'd like to be able to forward convert.

[hogsy]

I remember reading somewhere that the original .map format doesn't support texture rotation

[negke]

[Baker]

[negke]

I don't use Quark and I don't use any non-standard map format. Qbsp only translates the brush information into bsp/quake-compatible data.
So, of course does the classic map format support texture rotation. Only id didn't seem to have used it in the stock maps.

You wrote it yourself: (x1 y1 z1) (x2 y2 z2) (x3 y3 z3) texture x-shift y-shift angle x-scale y-scale

[Baker]

[negke]

Wait, what exactly is your problem? That properly aligned textures got misaligned again at some point? The thing with Quake textures in a .map is that, unlike in Doom, they are fixed with the grid, not the surface. This means if you move a brush (or face), the texture will not move with it and has to be realigned manually. This is even more visible (and complicated) with rotated textures. Is it this behavior you meant? WC3.3 may have texture-locking enabled by default, so it might have seemed like it was a problem specific to 1.6 or the old map format.

[Baker]