Valve hammer, or worldcraft?

Angel_Kill · October 2002

<div class="IPBDescription">...</div>Just curious, what do you guys/gals(?) use, WC? OR VH? What would be a wiser choice for NS? Currently i use the most recent revision of Valve Hammer.....

Plaguebearer · October 2002

Quark.

<a href="http://www.planetquake.com/quark" target="_blank">http://www.planetquake.com/quark</a>

in-editor lighting, baby.

JediYoshi · October 2002

World Craft, more tuts for it, even though it's basically the exact same thing. But Quark is good, yes.

Angel_Kill · October 2002

I find quark far more difficult to use...is there a way to possibley make my shapes in Valve Hammer, then light them in quark?

KungFuSquirrel · October 2002

Hammer = WC 3.4. It's WC with a different name and bug fixes. No reason to not use it over WC 3.3.

Campaignjunkie · October 2002

I would personally use Quark if it had true vertex manipulation... I need my triangular pyramids! <img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'>

I prefer VHE... My computer is pretty weak, so I consider it pretty important for the 3d renderer to stop what it's doing when I minimize.

Epoch · October 2002

I have no experience with Quark, but its advocates certainly have positive things to say about it. You can't go wrong with Valve Hammer Editor, it's what I'm familiar with, and it has never given me any problems. Both seem like very stable, capable map editors, so I suppose it's just a matter of preference.

RhoadsToNowhere · October 2002

Also Quark. Tree diagram + path duplicators + negative poly's + awesome 3d in-map editor = pwn.

Freemantle · October 2002

I picked up quark and made a good CS map (my first) in about 5 days. It's comparable to speedball, but with better lighting.

Edit: I still can't get negative polys to work. I always get leaks no matter what.

Janos · October 2002

Im a golden oldie, wc 3.3 <img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'> (could be i cant be arsed to d.load hammer just o damn lazy i guess)

Legionnaired · October 2002

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (RhoadsToNowhere @ Oct. 10 2002,21:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also Quark. Tree diagram + path duplicators + negative poly's + awesome 3d in-map editor = pwn.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
in-map editage?!?!?!?!?!

OMG! LINKAGE!!!

Plaguebearer · October 2002

Negative polys are a gimmick. I never use them. As for vertex manip, it has 'true' vertex manipulation - you grab a vertex, and move it. How much more 'true' do you need? <img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'>

Legionnaired · October 2002

I;m confused, you compile the BSP, right?

And then you run around in the BSP...

and edit the RMF?

Or is it an RMF?

My head hurts. I may need some Vicadin.

Plaguebearer · October 2002

He means that you can set windows in Quark to be 3d renders, either wireframe, solid-mode texture, or actual texture, and you can edit the map in those views, as well as in the standard top-down or side views.

Woggy · October 2002

UnrealED <img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'>

Janos · October 2002

edit them in 3d? kool...would get 2 confusing 4 me i think ill stick with wc...or maybe try it out.

Wolv · October 2002

<i>Edit: I still can't get negative polys to work. I always get leaks no matter what.</i>

As Plaguebearer said, negative polys don't have much use, but if you <i>do</i> want to use them you will also have to use a hierarchic tree-view: Negative polys only effect polys in the same group as where they are placed in.
All a negative poly does is being brush-subtracted from all polys in the group it's placed in and being deleted itself when the map is exported. As a result you can't see any leaks and errors that may have been caused by the subtraction.
The only cases I've found where they are useful are when you have to make windows in a wall, but don't know their optimal size and location yet.

oh, btw:

QuArK rulez!

devilblocks · October 2002

For what its worth, I use the hammer

Scythe · October 2002

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (Woggy @ Oct. 11 2002,10:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">UnrealED <img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
/me shudders *

UnrealED for UT1 was horrific. I made a cube that I fell out of and gave up on it. I've been reading a lot of stuff about UnrealED for the Unreal Warfare engine and I think I'll have a crack at that if I can get my feeble, fleshy brain around subtractive geometry.

--Scythe--

Belgarion · October 2002

Janos- you and me buddy. we can be true to WC 3.3 ^_^

Scythe- yeah.. i tried mapping for UT too, but i just can't really get the hang of it. the ability to have it make spheres, staires of various types, and mirored surfaces, AND being able to see the lighting before compiling is defintly VERY nice. but like you said.. subtractive geometry. and i can't figure out how to manipulate vertexes.. just doesn't make sense how people can make such cool maps with it. ESPECIALLY in UT2k3... ughh... i like WC.

Belg

Merkaba · October 2002

Bah, I could have sworn I replied to this thread. I guess it didnt send properly.

Anyway, here are my views in quick format:

Quark - Too bloody slow, but has nice texturing features. 3D view is extremely clunky and sluggish. OpenGL lighting is useless.

Hammer, or Worldcraft - Has everything you need to build a fully functioning map. Fairly simple to use, but has some rather annoying bugs and a distinct lack of features to make some things a bit easier. Runs much faster than Quark. 3D view is best I've ever seen (for a Quake engine game) since you can fly around in it so quickly and easily.

Valve hammer, or worldcraft?

Comments