got bored, googled Quake1 and found....

[Ebisu]

you'll probably use Unity or UE. And those engines don't have good support for BSP brushes because they're outdated.
.

While it may be true that bsp stuff is outdated, it's not an inherently bad solution to making maps. While it is an old method, with the use of modern tools you can do so much with bsp based games, and not only that, it's practical.

[Mindf!3ldzX]

golden_boy, I don't really have a choice. And the reasons are too convoluted to explain.

I do what's possible for me.

That's what matters. Tools are designed to make a job easier, and as long as the tools you are using are getting the job done!

[mankrip]

golden_boy, I don't really have a choice. And the reasons are too convoluted to explain.

I do what's possible for me.

[xaGe]

Making normals in gimp is pretty easy with either normalmap or insanebump plugins.

Normals can be easy to create if you used blender 3d.

Other than that i really wouldn't know how to make normal files besides photoshop.

But sometimes it can be a pain to create because of some weird stuff the bake generates from the high res model()s).

[golden_boy]

You missed the point about having the manpower to learn. Learning to efficiently use a different tool can take more time than indie developers have.

Learning a 3D modelling suite pays off in spades though. Yes, it takes some time, but what you get is absolutely worth it. Having that tool in your arsenal will allow you to improve over time, and do things you couldn't do otherwise, while Worldcraft is comparatively limiting (Milkshape, too.)

I personally think that the ability to learn new tools and self-improve is a fundamental skill that every game developer needs. Blender is just a tool that's leagues better than Worldcraft, Milkshape and QME, and it can make all three of those obsolete. So it would be the natural next step if one wanted to develop their skill set.

I have often made the experience that Quake modders (or Quake modders gone indie) are incredibly unwilling to learn new tools, though. I think that is a huge disadvantage. You're limiting yourself.

But sure, it's your choice of course.

[mankrip]

it is normal today to learn a 3D modelling application instead of some 15 year old BSP editor.

Only in the world of Quake modding it's normal to use outdated tools.

You missed the point about having the manpower to learn. Learning to efficiently use a different tool can take more time than indie developers have.

Learning to use Worldcraft takes zero time, because I already know how to use it.

if you want to create character models or items, you'll need to learn it anyway!

I use MilkShape3D to model characters and items, and qME to UV map them. Using those to make a whole map would be incredibly more difficult than using WorldCraft.

Plus, you're ignoring indie games like RetroBlazer:

[wicked_lord]

When I get bored I find shit like this that makes me laugh all day and night.

Got Bully?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRi6KGe0tss[/ame]

[golden_boy]

Laymens terms please?

Can I do this stuff (cool level geometry) in "regular Quake1"?

If we're talking about geometry (ie polygons), I'm not sure what you mean by "cool". You can create pretty high-poly maps even in Quake 1 with BSP2 and the use of detail brushes.

If you're willing to use Q3BSP (and Darkplaces or FTE) then you can do quite a bit more. Q3BSP has not only curves (patch meshes) but you can also create parts of your level in a 3D modelling app such as Blender and compile those assets into the map. Both FTE and DP also support collision on those models now; FTE even supports collision hulls (a simplified version of your asset for collision only, textured with a meshcollide shader.)

So yeah, absolutely.

And most modern Quake engines support normal maps.

Normal maps can be created by modelling in a 3D modelling suite and "baking" the geometry down to a texture, or directly from a 2D image in various ways. Using normal maps is more a question of art style than a technical problem.

[golden_boy]

Unreal also assumes that indie developers are going to use it. And smaller indie teams with no more than a couple people can't afford to produce content like industry workers.

It's not about having the same workflow as AAA studios, it's just that if you want to make 3D games today, you'll probably use Unity or UE. And those engines don't have good support for BSP brushes because they're outdated.

That means that it is normal today to learn a 3D modelling application instead of some 15 year old BSP editor.

Only in the world of Quake modding it's normal to use outdated tools. Take a look at the #indiedev feed on Twitter, LOTS of people there use 3D modelling apps. And if you want to create character models or items, you'll need to learn it anyway!

It's completely normal, mate.

It's 2014.

[Shambler234]

Normals can be easy to create if you used blender 3d.

Other than that i really wouldn't know how to make normal files besides photoshop.

But sometimes it can be a pain to create because of some weird stuff the bake generates from the high res model(s).

[mankrip]

Unreal assumes you're using Max/Maya etc. for your environments, and a 3D suite in turn has even better geometry tools than any "level editor". Same goes for texturing.

Unreal also assumes that indie developers are going to use it. And smaller indie teams with no more than a couple people can't afford to produce content like industry workers.

I'm already a one-man team coding, texturing, mapping, doing game design, QA and so on. As an example, if I was required to do all my textures in Allegorithmic's MapZone, I'd switch to another engine instead. I'm happy enough with simple 8-bit indexed color texture editing, even though they aren't as impressive as what more modern games uses, and I've also got many other aspects of the game to work on.

Indie developers can't focus too much on any specific aspect of the game. They don't have the manpower to learn and produce as much on specific aspects of the game as industry workers can. Balancing the workload is vital.

I don't know how to create normal maps, bump maps and stuff like that, so I'm not going to implement support for those in my engine. I'm going to work on vital features instead, because there's no one else doing that for me. Likewise, Worldcraft/Jackhammer are good enough for the kinds of maps I'm going to make. More than that would be overkill, and would make it harder for me to finish my projects.

[Phenom]

Laymens terms please?

Can I do this stuff (cool level geometry) in "regular Quake1"?

[MadGypsy]

woops, I meant id1/textures... not radiantRoot/textures

[MadGypsy]

@radiant hi-res

To do this with Q1 you treat radiant like an engine with replacement textures. Simply make sure your hi-res are in a radiantRoot/textures folder and in radiantRoot/games/q1.game your texturetypes line looks summin like this

texturetypes="mip hlw bmp png jpg tga"

you still have to have a wad with this method. Radiant will load and show you the wad but will display the replacements in the map view panes.

[golden_boy]

It's true that Hammer (and Radiant) have better BSP editing tools than Unreal, but the point is that Unreal assumes you're using Max/Maya etc. for your environments, and a 3D suite in turn has even better geometry tools than any "level editor". Same goes for texturing.

So this really is kinda irrelevant.

This is guy is using high res textures straight from the editor...is this a Hammer feature?? How is this possible, I thought Q1 editors only read standard .WAD files?

Probably a Hammer feature. Hammer is not a Q1 editor, it's a Source editor. I expect it has improved since the days of Q1. Radiant can also use hi-res textures in the editor, ever since Q3.