I have an idea for a map making program for ET or any future splashdamage game. why not make the program more user friendly perhaps by combining the terrain editing style used in Simcity 4 and the house building style of The Sims. One could make the terrain with the terrain editor then click on the build option , drop objects , create rooms and bunkers like you would do with the sims. When you click on a certain object you can select to go into a scripting mode, select any one of the preloaded scripts or make your own. In addition to this, you can choose a waypoint mode so you can plot out a route with waypoints and add in event markers which have their own scripting options ( like having a tank blow apart a wall when it hits an event marker). Another plus to this program would be to make it easy for people to add in or trade custom objects and scripts. What do you guys think?
Idea for creating a map making program
O_o :eek: :eek2: :eek3:
ET:Sims… Yeah I can see it…
runs away
You will NEVER have the flexibility of Radiant with an editing tool like that. Though I sometimes hate Radiant with a passion, it IS and will always be the best tool to make Q3 based map. Period. End of discussion.
I’m not a fanboy, very far from that but it’s the best suited tool.
What if I want to rotate my brushes? You know weird angle stuff, or I want to make something out of patches, skies. Oh, please tell me how you would use dotproduct2/alphamod volumes!
Maybe you should stick with level design for The Sims 
j/k well, kinda.
actually I would like such a tool…
its far too complicated to get up a simple ctf map… that would help people get a fast blockout of the map…
if you want to dig deeper into details, well, you could do that, write your own scripts whatsoever… but for
the beginning part radiant really is too complicated. i mean i have understood with all those little pieces you
could make your own puzzle - but why can’t i just press a button and have a tank? only thing i would have
to do is laying out it’s route…
it definitely takes more time learning the tools than designing the map. but what makes mappers start
mapping? do they say ‘yay, i want to get intimate with radiant’ or is it more like ‘hoorraaay, i’m going to
design the most tricky map the world’s ever seen!’ ? i bet it’s not the first one.
Map for FarCry if you want to stick a bunch of prefabs in a box. Radiant is a piece of software that requires skill, but the tradeup is that you have complete freedom to create whatever you can imagine. If this level of freedom is not what you want, then you need to find an engine with tools that dumb things down for you.
Tools like you describe would introduce an influx of cookie cutter maps that have no level of originality, and that would not be a good thing for the community IMO.
i didn’t say i want to get rid of the mappers’ freedom, i DID say mapping could be a lot easier.
originality is in no way connected with the ease of use of any given program / tool.
Actually something like this could be good to sketch out a map. Assuming the utility creates a map file, you could always drop it in radiant and tweak + add details.
By who’s definition of “ease of use” are we going by? To me, radiant has become extremely easy to use because I have invested the time to learn the software. I am past the learning curve. For me, a cash register at McDonalds would seem like a hard thing to use since I have never operated one. But obviously, it’s not hard to use once you’ve spent enough time using it.
Originality is limited by the flexibility of your tools. Flexibility in a tool inherently increases the complexity of the tool. Therefore originality is indeed connected to the ease of use. They are inversely proportional.
BTW, can someone tell me what is more simple than a common brush object? It’s just a box! In fact, radiant is much easier for creating broad ideas than making small details. Modelling programs are much better at making details and complex objects (and therefore modelling programs are much more complicated and have a steeper learning curve).
I agree with Chavo. I looked at the Far Cry editor for a couple hours. In the attempt to make things easier, it has become far too complex imho.
Radiant becomes even easier when you have access to a large library of prefabs (models, brushwork, entities, and scripts)
Oh! I think I just found out the neatest Editor for Q3 engines… The Pong Lever Editor!
Seriously… Radiant is not that hard to learn. What is hard to learn (for most people) is how the Q3 engine works. VIS, detail, etc… Radiant in itself is pretty easy. What makes radiant a great tool (except for the damn crashes of course) is its flexibility. You can make maps for almost ALL Q3 based engines. That’s called portability. And since a lot of games are written with that engine, that makes it one of the best tool.
While I’m thinking about it… If some of you that think radiant is hard to learn, you better not think about mapping for Doom3… Radiant/QERadiant is embedded in the doom3 executable. It’s a complete part of it AND you don’t even have to compile maps. Anyway, not in the sense we do right now.
ET seems to work well when you can control everything with the power of your mind 
dude, im not saying u cant do it but please think, this would require alot of work and u would have to do, add tools and make a mappers life easier, tbh ill just stick with radiant for now, but please it sounds interesting, keep me informed
have to agree all of your post - but who sais a simple (to use) tool can’t be flexible?
well i don’t say radiant isn’t well suited to create levels with, but it’s somewhat incomplete.
just remember all those nasty little errors you come around. why can’t i see the terrain
texturing in radiant? why can’t i simply insert a tank? well it’s cool to have the ability
to customize everything, but you want peeps to start it simple. who wants to get crazy
with tanks? i bet 90% out there just want a tank (or truck) to move, destroy and repair.
if you want to do something crazy with your tank, well, you could do it… but people tend
to get started with easy things… to get a basic understanding. same with textures: what
makes people scatter them around in hundreds of different folders? i wish there where
only categories where to find textures in. one could organize them by applying something
like qer_editorcategory in the shader. wall, roof, window, grass, rock, sand, water, fire…
by applying ‘window, alpha’ parameters, the texture could show up by filtering for window
aswell as alpha textures. next thing is the tree planter. it took me months to realize how
to use it. not a single word about it in the documentation (at least i didn’t find anything).
it took me additional months to read something about a configuration file which stores
information about the models, the plugin uses.
yes, it is easy if you know it - but it takes ages to MAKE you know it.
it’s all those little things that bug you and make map developing, especially for newbies,
not the funniest thing in life. sure, there will never be a single-button solution… just
press it and voilà , here’s your map… but it could be a lot easier (to understand).
I think they are operated with windows and some stupid Visual basic program. they are kind of easy to use.
- You hit buttons what customer wants ect. Big Mac meal
- You hit modifiers like coca cola as a drink.
- Machine tells how much is it. and you ask customer for the money
- You enter the amount the customer gives you
- machine opens register and says how much you must give back.
- If you are puzzled just yell you boss come help you.
Oh btw I can use radiant as well.
The terrain editors are useless to me IMHO because you can have more control in radiant and with new alpha volume the blending is easier too.
@ thore
Funny…
Why can I “simply” put a tank and you can’t? 2 mouse clicks, a bit of browsing in the FS and there’s a tank!
Moving/repairable/escortable Tanks and trucks are NOT easy things.
Textures organization is pretty simple. It’s mostly setup by map name/theme and their use in that map/theme.
Ex:
Egypt, Egypt_wall, Egypt_floor, … Why is it so hard to understand?
The tree planter. It’s not obvious I’ll agree. I wondered for some time how to use it, what was its purpose but you know what? When I decided to learn it, I use the marvelous tools everyone has. A brain, good common sense and lacking those, the Search button just right here in the forum. Since I lack both formers, I used the search and first hit I got all the info I needed and more.
You HAVE to tell me what’s incomplete in Radiant! Btw, lack of documentation is not a valid answer. We’re talking about capabilities of a software, not how you learn to use it. Radiant could be a lot more stable (1.4.0 is getting there), it could have some more features, there are bugs in it. Name me 1 perfect software that can do the things Radiant can (complexity-wise, so Notepad is an invalid answer) that is bugless, does not need any new feature, etc. Impossible. Even the biggest corporate software have bugs. Yes, even linux software has bugs.
If you’re so inclined, you can make a plugin for Radiant to add functionality. You could make a plugin to put a tank, add splines, triggers, the other models for it but you’d still have to make the scripting. Maybe a scripting plugin?
My point is radiant is an interface to make brushes. It’s not a magic wand or a mind-reading software that will make your levels for you. I’ll personally go and shoot the bastard that will cripple the mapping community with a tool like Sim Editor
Seriously though. No more of that crap. 
Something to think about next time you want to curse Radiant for its useability:
3dsmax -> $3500
Maya -> $2000
Lightwave 3d -> $1600
GTKRadiant -> FREE
Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
Actually you could quite simply craete an external program that does some of the things you ask, like putting in tanks etc.
In fact it has occurred to me to write such a program for insterting complex entities, but as ever, time is the issue.
For example:
With ‘my’ (hypothetical) program you have a new set of entities, eg mml_tank.
Then you save your map file and run it through my program, which locates the mml_tank entity and swaps in the real settings.
I can think of many more bits like this, but quite frankly I’m too happy mapping and ignoring tanks for now
just because it’s free it doesn’t mean it couldn’t be done better.
now that i have my driver’s license i can say how easy it is to drive
a car. but remember the early days, when downtown traffic really
made you wanna scream? for those who get used to it it’s easy to
say everything’s fine.
i won’t repeat myself over and over, as the content of what i have to
say would remain the same. it’s not about a single tank model, it’s about
a working tank. it’s about trees you have to clip manually. it’s about
terrain you can’t see in radiant. it’s about light you can’t see in radiant.
it’s about [insert reason here]… not to mention broken shaders or
entity defs…
all those little things that interrupt the mapmaking progress… okay,
radiant is free - and it’s fine that way, but that doesn’t mean one
shouldn’t dare to criticise the prog. that’s how you sound like: “how
could you DARE to criticise a free tool?!”
Indeed it is “how dare you criticize a free tool” especially when it is volunteers who work on it in their own free time with no compensation. You are complaining about things that are a result of your laziness. Clipping trees?!
I think everyone here would agree that additions, improvements, and new features to the editor would be a good thing (However, that would introduce new complexity to the tool which was an initial complaint if I remember). These tools have been offered up to the community “as is” from id et al. It is now the community’s responsibility to manage and improve these things. Incessant complaining will accomplish nothing, and I guess that’s what rubs me the wrong way. So what are you going to contribute to make Radiant easier to use?