From what I've seen, the 'simpler' the map editor being used, the simpler the resulting map will be, and that pretty much means the map is gonna stink. Any map that can be thrown together in a matter of mere 'hours', I'd wager it's gonna turn out to be a boring and poorly designed map.However.It looks like, for once, someone's finally made a more user-friendly map editor for Q2. Only about 15 years late to the party, but better late than never I guess. The whole thing looks very similar to MilkShape3D model editor. Maybe at some point I'll take a more hands-on look at it and finally try my hand at mapping, which I've been curious to do for the longest time but never had the patience to attempt learning any mapping programs. Honestly, I've never had that much of a problem learning with a map editor like quark.
Map Builder Dnd
I wouldn't even say it's not user-friendly, however, user-friendly implies that you'll be able to hand it to anyone and they won't give up because of how complicated it might seem, and this map editor doesn't seem any more complicated than something like quark if you hide all of the colorful buttons at the top. In short, no map editor is completely user-friendly. Hands-on experience with any map editor is an absolute must.No matter what, if you start out making maps you're gonna be asking questions like, 'What the fuck are vertices?' Or 'What are groups?' If you're just getting into making maps, I'd reccommend you open up other peoples' maps and see what makes them tick, that includes what entities are used, how they're used in the map, and what they do. But wait, you can't open.bsp files with this editor!Also, I think it's kind of misleading that someone makes a video of an obviously experienced map maker creating maps in this editor like it's absolutely no trouble at all, when NO ONE just starting to make maps would be able to do something like that the first time they tried it.
Creating deeply detailed maps requires experience, vision, and understanding what you're using, no matter what map editor you're using. Besides, there is sooooo much more to making maps than simply creating brushes easily and drop and click entities.I'd personally reccommend quark to anyone starting out since there's more than enough information about making maps on their homepage and because of how universal it is, but there really are tons of editors out there. I think I tried both GTK and Qoole before settling with quark, and those are both editors that are still pretty widely used. Yes, this is indeed the first user friendly map editor for Quake 2, but like you say it's about 15 years late! It's ideal for making terrain amongst other things!
Personally I think Quark is horrible for anyone starting out, and I wouldn't recommend it to my worst enemy, unless of course they want to hit a brick wall and never get into itOn the other hand the learning curve for Trenchbroom is minimal, and most people should have no problem picking it up. If you can watch a video, you can make a map. Placing items is as simple as drag and drop, with snap to surface. I'm no expert, and I've learned how to use it in a couple hours, with the help of two short YouTube videos.
Here's my first public map ever, made in Trenchbroom in around 6 hours (source.map file included):Note: ATM to use Trenchbroom with Q2 you'll need the addon. Reading about it is one thing.
Based on that alone it's not what it seems. But have you tried it?
The advantages for me over GtkRadiant even with version 1 are huge. For example, you can select and extrude obscured faces in seconds without even having to rotate views! Entities are drag & drop and snap to surface, so you can place all your items exactly where you want them in minutes. And there are a ton of these small design decision touches meant to cut down on useless steps. Also Trenchbroom is still under development and other powerful features are on their way. Version 2 with full Quake 2 support is soon to be released to the public.
I'd like to see anyone create rocks and complex landscape geometry in GtkRadiant more efficiently than seen in this video:So overall the workflow it offers is probably like x10 faster than GtkRadiant, at least for someone familiar and used to the controls. Lack of orthographic views isn't a deal breaker at all, since it provides you with alignment markers and live measurements in 3d view.
The results are faster and more accurate than any editor I've tried so far. And I actually found that once I got used to working all in 3d without having to switch between views saved me a lot of time. I'd try it before giving it a pass. I can't really speak to how it is for mapping, but I gotta assume that mapping with it would be as useful as modeling with it. And QuArK absolutely SUCKS BALLS for modeling. If you're modeling very very simple shapes, it's doable, but it's gonna take you a while. And it'll take you a LOT less time to do the same things with a program like MilkShape.
But if you want to model something pretty complex that isn't a basic symmetrical shape. Forget about it.
Quake Mapping Tools
As far as I can tell, there's no way to easily select and hide groups of individual vertices and vertexes so that you can effectively isolate one part of the model in progress for modification.QuArK is 100% free, a pro.QuArK 'can' get the job done, another pro. I guess.But.QuArK is a pain in the ass to use compared to other programs out there. Seriously, if you're using QuArK as your #1 modeling or mapping program, you owe it to yourself to try something else, because I guarantee you another program would be much quicker to use once you learned the basics of it, and would probably have a lot more functionality as well. Spent a few hours messing about with TrenchBroom.Kind of interesting / fun, but I found myself pining for some sort of CSG capability.Is there any way in TrenchBroom to do something like 'subtract' the geometry of one brush from another?For instance, it's super easy to create a big 'wall' - but how does one then punch a hole in the wall for a door or a window?All I could figure out was to manually construct the wall from multiple brushes, leaving a gap for the door or window. But that seems around ten times more painful than just making the wall and then 'subtracting' the shape of the door from it with CSG.Is there a better way to do something like this in TrenchBroom then the manual approach mentioned above?