Quake 1 mapping

I'm interested in mapping for Quake 1 and I was wondering how difficult it is to make a map. I've messed around with Trenchbroom but it's difficult and I don't really know allot of things, like holes in maps etc. etc. So I was just wondering from people that have made decent maps for Quake 1 how hard it is.

On my first Google search for "quake 1 mapping forum" - http://quakeone.com/forums/

And with a little more digging - http://quakeone.com/forums/quake-help/servers-coding/245-making-quake-map-101-a.html

Easier than Doom, IMO. I've never tried Trenchbroom, mostly because it looked like it'd be harder than a tradition editor like Radiant.

Texmex? Why the hell do you need to use a separate program to texture your maps?

I've tried it before and was difficult for me, though I prefer Unreal's way of brush making and whatnot

It's not that difficult once you understand the basic principles. First you need to find an editor you're comfortable with, then play around or, ideally, open some existing map file and see how things are done.

Here is an introduction to mapping using Trenchbroom. The problem for beginners with the current version of TB is that it doesn't display information on the entities (tip: open the def file in a text editor). 2.0 is in the works and will do this properly.

Here you can find some beginner tutorials for Radiant.

Map compilers - get treeqbsp.exe and visbjp (includes light.exe and vis.exe).

A good place to ask Q1 mapping questions is the Mapping Help thread at Func_Msgboard.

Marnetmar said:

Texmex? Why the hell do you need to use a separate program to texture your maps?

It's not that you're using the program to texture, it's that Quake's textures are embedded in the BSPs, so you need something that can extract them into a wad the level editor can make use of. Of course, there are plenty of texture wad downloads out there, so it's really a non-issue.

I've messed with radiant before and that went waay over my head, though I never really sat down and went through a tutorial. I've dozens of ideas floating around for quake maps, like Quake Night coop specific episodes etc. I think that would be fun. Thanks for the help guys. I'm going to spend a hefty amount of time learning how to map for Quake.

Yeah, check out a few Radiant tutorials. I started with Worldcraft (now Hammer) and a couple tutorials and caught on pretty quickly. Radiant isn't any more complicated than WC, IMO, but people tend to find it less intuitive for some reason. Once you get it down, though, mapping for Quake is as easy as Doom (maybe easier, I think so).

Every mapper/map I knew of used Worldcraft, seems to be the default one.

Quake mapping really isn't that hard. I've pretty much nailed the basics and I want to get fluent with triggers and stuff ... But Damn, wish I got into this much much sooner. Thanx again for pointing me in the right direction guys.

Wow, Trenchbroom seems really impressive.

I was using Worldcraft in '97, '98 to make tiny little battle arenas for Reaper bots to flatten me in, over and over =) I'd say that creating structure is easier for Quake maps than Doom with a couple of drawbacks; firstly, that doing room-over-room architecture is perfectly possible but without a lot of setup in the map editor it quickly becomes a mess of very slightly differently coloured lines all sitting on top of each other and two, texturing surfaces is both more fiddly and more powerful - I remember you could change both the zoom factor and rotation on the texture of any wall.

It's pretty amazing. I was blown away how easy it is but how complicated it appeared. When I was younger I'd fiddle with editors and stuff but never grasped how to use them at all. Hell, since I've learned how to map for Quake and use brushes, I've been experimenting with CS:Go and my all time favorite game Kingpin.

I keep hearing how making maps for Quake is easier than doing the same in Doom, and I just can't see how that can be. Wouldn't adding a whole (or at least 0.5 of a) dimension complicate things?

Flesh420 said:

Kingpin.

Make yo move while the radio's loud!

I wouldn't say its easier, maybe about the same. The creative freedom without having to mess with anything that wasn't supposed to be there (Ex. 3d floors in Doom) is awesome and changed the way I think about layouts by a huge margin.

IMO, now that I'm thinking about it, perhaps Doom is a smidge more difficult just because you don't have the same freedom and have to mess with hacks and stuff, whereas with Quake you've plenty freedom and can 'easily' create just about anything you want.

"I said, what's the mother fuckin' count?" ;)

Designing a level in true 3D, placing geometry exactly where you want it is simply more intuitive than having to fill in height separately. This went doubly so back in the day, before Doom editors had 3D previews. Texturing in Quake offers a lot more freedom than Doom, too.