hardcore_gamer Posted November 6, 2009 I made a number of custom maps for Doom 3 using the editor that came with Doom 3 and i liked the editor because of the amount of control it gave me of what i was creating. And now i have been playing with the Source Engine to make maps for Left 4 Dead and i must say that i think the Source engine has a good number of advantages of the Radiant/Doom 3 editor with one of the biggest advantages begin that it takes a much lesser amount of time to create fairly good looking rooms since not anywhere as much detail is needed into each room compared to the high-tech corridors of Doom 3. Plus there are countless things and items i can put into the level. which engine do you personally prefer? 0 Share this post Link to post
Nomad Posted November 6, 2009 I've mapped for Doom, and the original Half Life, and I've definitely enjoyed mapping for Doom more. Mapping with Brushes is to damn time consuming. 0 Share this post Link to post
hardcore_gamer Posted November 6, 2009 Nomad said:I've mapped for Doom, and the original Half Life, and I've definitely enjoyed mapping for Doom more. Mapping with Brushes is to damn time consuming. Doom uses 3.5D visuals, it's not exactly a fair comparison. I am talking about Radiant style editors from the Quake and Doom 3 era versus the source engine. 0 Share this post Link to post
Kaiser Posted November 6, 2009 Source/Hammer has better management of assets and data in a map. You can categorize brushes, lights, and other types of entities in Hammer. Plus you also got the cordon tool which allows you to focus on one area in the map as well as compile just that area. Radiant has better controls and feels less clunky than Hammer but it lacks a lot of nifty features that would otherwise speed up the work flow. Radiant also has patches, which is very powerful and useful for creating complicated geometry without having to rely on a 3rd party modeling tool. 0 Share this post Link to post
Super Jamie Posted November 6, 2009 I have mapped for Jetpack The engine has significant drawbacks compared to id Tech 4, Source and even the Doom Engine. 0 Share this post Link to post
SyntherAugustus Posted November 6, 2009 You might want to mess with UDK. 0 Share this post Link to post
hardcore_gamer Posted November 6, 2009 Kaiser said:Source/Hammer has better management of assets and data in a map. You can categorize brushes, lights, and other types of entities in Hammer. Plus you also got the cordon tool which allows you to focus on one area in the map as well as compile just that area. Radiant has better controls and feels less clunky than Hammer but it lacks a lot of nifty features that would otherwise speed up the work flow. Radiant also has patches, which is very powerful and useful for creating complicated geometry without having to rely on a 3rd party modeling tool. Yea the patches from Doom3edit really did allow you to create allot of details on the walls and things like pipes and such. But the Source engine (depending on the game) has loads of models that can be added to the game world like lamp posts in case your map takes place in a outdoor area. And speaking of that, Source engine is much better suited for outdoor maps then games made with Radiant/Doom3edit. Plus the source engine has water and fluids you can swim in. Doom 3 does have dynamic lights while Source uses static lights, but i found it to be to much of a pain to implement the dynamic lights in my maps properly in a way that it made sense. BlackFish said:You might want to mess with UDK. I don't like the Unreal Engine. I love many games build with it but i don't like using it myself since almost everything in the games built using the Unreal engine is build using models but not user created brushes. Super Jamie said:I have mapped for Jetpack The engine has significant drawbacks compared to id Tech 4, Source and even the Doom Engine. Me want! GIMME GIMME GIMME! 0 Share this post Link to post
Ralphis Posted November 7, 2009 You're comparing game assets to engine limitations. Doesn't work like that 0 Share this post Link to post
Kaiser Posted November 7, 2009 BlackFish said:You might want to mess with UDK. I rather stab my eyes out than to work with that god awful engine. erm.. wait I have to deal with that tech every day.. FFFUUUUUUU 0 Share this post Link to post
Kaiser Posted November 7, 2009 Ralphis said:You're comparing game assets to engine limitations. Doesn't work like that Okay, so I misunderstood. Yeah, the best thing about Source is its displacement system, where you can convert faces of a brush into a patch of terrain as well as being able to stitch terrains together fairly easily. The other good thing about it is its baked/radiosity lighting which handles outdoor environments like a charm. Quake 3 engine games can also do outdoor environments as well, but setting up the terrain requires more hassle. 0 Share this post Link to post
hardcore_gamer Posted November 7, 2009 Kaiser said:I rather stab my eyes out than to work with that god awful engine. erm.. wait I have to deal with that tech every day.. FFFUUUUUUU I think the engine itself looks awesome, it's just the way the levels are created that makes me stay away from using it myself. 0 Share this post Link to post