Anyone know a good map editor for Quake 1 or 2

Thanks. I wanna try map for a 3D game.. im gettin used to Doom but I wanna try a diff engine..

GTKRadiant is probably the most popular, although I can't say I've ever used it

MikeRS said:

GTKRadiant is probably the most popular, although I can't say I've ever used it

cheers i googleing it now

Mapping for the true 3d engines will be much more challenging to make, especially the more advanced engines such as Crysis and Quake 4.

I always preferred Worldcraft, but that's probably because it was the first Quake editor I used. Never got the hang of GTKradiant. Valve took over Worldcraft though and renamed it Hammer Editor so it's a bit harder to find Quake compatible versions.
http://quakeone.com/qadapter/
Is apparently a site where you can get the adapter so it works with Quake and Quake II, but the generic Hammer Editor now apparently works only with Half-Life and Source Engine games. I'm sure there's other sites that you can get it to work, or find Worldcraft 1.6a, which was the last version before Valve scooped it up, but the original website for it appears down now. It's extremely easy to use, and I love the simple 3D view, and the X,Y,Z world views. It's pretty straight forward, but it will probably depend on personal preferences whether you like it more than GTKradiant.

I always heard good things about QuArK!

QuArK is the first and best.

QuArK wasn't the first. It's also among the buggiest. It's still 'maintained', but it's a joke now since no bugs get fixed, and new half-implemented 'features' get announced. It's the DeepseA butt of the Quake mapping editor world now. (except QuArK is actually Free Software)

I would recommend a 1.x (1.6 supports Quake2 and Hexen II) version of Worldcraft and not any HL-tailored version with annoying scripts to pretend support with.

been trying with these diff editor types etc.. i tihnk i'll stick to Doom Map making.. I dont think im ready for 3D mapping yet heh. thx for the help guys.

Now don't give up. Doom mapping was hard for me at first. It took my ages to figure out the right protocol and educate in building Doom maps, same thing applies to Quake mapping, all you need is practice. I’m confident you can learn how to build maps for Quake as easy you can for Doom.

David_Dweedle said:

been trying with these diff editor types etc.. i tihnk i'll stick to Doom Map making.. I dont think im ready for 3D mapping yet heh. thx for the help guys.

Bwuahahaha, we're glad you found your comfort zone :P

Have to say: hehehehe

The best Editor for Quake was imo Worldcraft, but this doesn't work properly today. Seems to have problems with modern graphic card, because the 3d sight is somewhat screwed.
There is Quark, but i never get managed to use this really, i always found that uncomfortable.
GtkRadiant can't be used directly, for it cannot make Quake maps, you have to convert them, but this is a story of its own. Which is a pity, because the Radiant Editor is a good one.

cybdmn said:

Seems to have problems with modern graphic card, because the 3d sight is somewhat screwed.

has no problem with my radeon card.

I wouldn't give up just because it's not familiar. I actually started mapping for Quake before Doom, and I actually found it harder to map for Doom. I think it's alot easier to map with actual blocks/brushes than just using lines, which probably explains why I always get VIS errors in Doom. Just stick with it, I enjoy mapping for 3D games more, simply because you can make just about anything you want, the limits aren't nearly as strict as mapping for 2D games. Although I must say some amazing stuff is being done with Doom these days.

I've been wondering why can Quake 1 editors, like even Worldcraft or moreso QuArK, could render 3d effects and usually models too, without slowdown, even at that time, while Doom Builder 1 and 2 have these big system requirements?[/noob question hopefully]

Besides, I wish the 3d games these editors are for were as interesting as Doom. When I get a better machine, I'll consider switching to Doom 3, though.

printz said:

I've been wondering why can Quake 1 editors, like even Worldcraft or moreso QuArK, could render 3d effects and usually models too, without slowdown, even at that time, while Doom Builder 1 and 2 have these big system requirements?[/noob question hopefully]

Modern API ease. When you had to make an editor with a Pentium 100 being the target machine, you'd had to crack out some mad assembly for the 3D view. Not so much anymore these days when you've got 2GHz power in the palm of your hand in almost anywhere you go.

im trying Worldcraft out cause theres this Quakeone site with a add-on or somethin to make it work for Quake 1.. prob is I cant learn how to use it cause I cant find the Brush button.. if I could find the brush button I could continue the tutorial for it but alas cannot find it..

Ugh this Worldcraft tutorial is out of date.. ugh!

3d mapping is not that hard. I used to play around with Half-life 1 and worldcraft (hammer) at some point, however I never finished and released anything.

Torn said:

3d mapping is not that hard. I used to play around with Half-life 1 and worldcraft (hammer) at some point, however I never finished and released anything.

Same here, all I did was complex rooms filled with items and details, once I did a glass elevator and a cityscape that took AGES to RAD properly.

I find it easier than doom mapping simply because it lends itself very well to "lego" building. While it was certainly easier to make a "good to go" set piece in a 2.5D engine before, today.. I'm not so sure. One tries to implement so many 3D-looking tricks or intricate detail you're better off dealing with a pure 3D engine.

Building the map is not what takes forever, compiling it into a BSP file does...the RAD takes a very long time if you use the -extra parameter.

Mr. Chris said:

Building the map is not what takes forever, compiling it into a BSP file does...the RAD takes a very long time if you use the -extra parameter.

I would say the vis -level 4 process would take forever, and BSP would be the shortest process of the three.

Right, bsp don't need so much time, but light and vis sometimes take forever. Plus, you are always forced to look for the polycount, the limit for Quake was 500, afair. And this is not that much, you can reach this fast, if you build an open area with a good complexity of the architecture.