Forum

Quake .map format versus .Map 220 format

Discuss the construction of maps and the tools to create maps for 3D games.

Moderator: InsideQC Admins

Re: Quake .map format versus .Map 220 format

Postby negke » Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:58 pm

Yes, more of a missing editor feature, indeed. I can't think of any editor that has properly-working & stress-free texture lock. In Quest, I would never use it, because it screwed up the originally clean offset (not noticable after compiling but awkward for further in-editor use), and it wouldn't work with rotation at all. In Radiant, locking textures for rotation works, but it resorts to using floats for offset and angles which qbsp can't interpret and thus rounds, so it still requires manual work.

Keep in mind that WC3.3 isn't meant for Quake mapping originally (and, to a lesser extent, neither is modern Quark). I think people only use it because they like how WC works, but prefer whatever technical improvements 3.3 has when it comes to certain features that are still relevant for Quake mapping (=nothing map format-specific).
negke
 
Posts: 150
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 5:53 pm

Re: Quake .map format versus .Map 220 format

Postby goldenboy » Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:32 am

@ Worldcraft fans.

So what we have here is ease-of-use versus closed source + incompatible map and wad formats.

You are basically giving the finger to anyone who needs to work with your map sources ("convert it yourself if you want it").

I bet you also toss your junk out of the car window.

I recently was trying to debug pushables in RMQ. The problematic entities were in a map using Valve 220 format that wasn't even created by me, but tasks such as this usually end up on my "desk" in our team. So there I was at 3:30 AM with Spike in an IRC channel, and he told me the origins of the problematic pushables. Well great, I couldn't even open the map.

Die in a fire, Valve 220 format. I say this from a real-world teamwork gamedesign perspective where it is entirely possible that I need to open other people's maps for debugging problems. Are we on the same page? :evil:

I guess if you're mapping for yourself in your bedroom, then it doesn't matter.
User avatar
goldenboy
 
Posts: 924
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 11:04 pm
Location: Kiel

Re: Quake .map format versus .Map 220 format

Postby Baker » Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:42 am

goldenboy wrote:Well great, I couldn't even open the map.


Linux no haz teh text editor?

/Possible TV dramatization version of problem based on true story.
The night is young. How else can I annoy the world before sunsrise? 8) Inquisitive minds want to know ! And if they don't -- well like that ever has stopped me before ..
User avatar
Baker
 
Posts: 3661
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:15 am

Re: Quake .map format versus .Map 220 format

Postby r00k » Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:10 am

I might have just skimmed this thread but there seems to be the complaint about roatating brushes and opps the textures are unaligned ? I used BSP(the new one) and just holding shift+LMB draging the texture i can re center on the brush, unless im just off of what u guys are talking about.
r00k
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 10:39 pm

Re: Quake .map format versus .Map 220 format

Postby Baker » Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:45 am

Well there is sort of the sub-argument going on about how closed source map editors suck and have no future.

Quake is changing. And some of the map editors in use cannot adapt to any type change since they are closed source, therefore a tombstone sits atop their markings.
The night is young. How else can I annoy the world before sunsrise? 8) Inquisitive minds want to know ! And if they don't -- well like that ever has stopped me before ..
User avatar
Baker
 
Posts: 3661
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:15 am

Re: Quake .map format versus .Map 220 format

Postby leileilol » Thu Feb 16, 2012 2:22 am

Kind of ironic with your stance about it when it was you who encouraged the use of hammer with that one adapter thing.
i should not be here
leileilol
 
Posts: 2783
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:23 am

Re: Quake .map format versus .Map 220 format

Postby Baker » Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:18 am

leileilol wrote:Kind of ironic with your stance about it when it was you who encouraged the use of hammer with that one adapter thing.


Back in 2006, I wanted people to be able to map really easily and was supernewbie to setup, but I was also sad that from my perspective the only course of action was to bandage a dead map editor and hope for something better in the future.

A few years back: DarkPlaces users complained a lot about ProQuake cheat-free keeping them from playing on those servers. I ended up doing engine updates for ProQuake while simultaneously trying to get ProQuake cheat-free taken off servers in favor of anti-wallhack. Sometimes you just do what you can with the circumstances that are available and that is the best you can do.
The night is young. How else can I annoy the world before sunsrise? 8) Inquisitive minds want to know ! And if they don't -- well like that ever has stopped me before ..
User avatar
Baker
 
Posts: 3661
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:15 am

Re: Quake .map format versus .Map 220 format

Postby SleepwalkR » Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:43 pm

Baker, you can't really convert from 220 to standard format, you will always have a different texture alignment. The problem lies in the way texture coordinates are computed from the texture info in the map files. In standard Quake, the texture axes are always contained within one of the XY, XZ and YZ planes - this is why textures get distorted on slanted faces. The 220 format allows the texture axes to be contained within the face's boundary plane, hence the textures do not get distorted. If you convert from 220 to standard format, you'll end up with distorted faces where there weren't any before. The other direction is fine though, you can just store the texture axes as Quake would have computed them in the texture axis data in the map file.

I think the point of the 220 format is that it allows true texture lock in the editor. In standard Quake, you can get reasonably well working texture lock (much better than what all current editors have), but you'll always have the texture distortion. I have implemented texture lock in my editor so that it always aligns textures with the X texture axis. If you arbitrarily rotate a brush, you'll get texture distortion on slanted faces, but at least the texture pixel at the center of the face remains invariant and the texture remains aligned with the X texture axis.

See here for a demonstration: http://vimeo.com/29137304
SleepwalkR
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 5:42 am

Re: Quake .map format versus .Map 220 format

Postby Baker » Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:11 pm

Thanks for info SleepWalkr, back around 2008 Avirox, Scrama and I had in depth discussions of the Half-Life map format and Scrama unearthed some utility to turn map format 220 back into regular .map format ... however this utility had no source code (and I'm not really sure who made it) so I at least thought it was possible to do properly. Apparently not.

Heh, so you are making a map editor. :D Cool.
The night is young. How else can I annoy the world before sunsrise? 8) Inquisitive minds want to know ! And if they don't -- well like that ever has stopped me before ..
User avatar
Baker
 
Posts: 3661
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:15 am

Re: Quake .map format versus .Map 220 format

Postby ericw » Mon Dec 15, 2014 8:58 am

I just had a need to convert a valve 220 map to vanilla quake. Tried a couple of converters (MapConv.exe, MapConverter.exe, TrenchBroom 1.1, Quark 6.6 beta 4). Quark produced the best output (looks flawless), the others had misaligned textures in places or failed entirely. So, if anyone else needs to do this, try Quark!

This is how you do it:
- Set quake 1 game mode (Games -> Quake -> Quake 1 in the menu).
- Open the valve 220 map
- Go to Options -> Configuration, select Games -> Quake 1 on the left pane. Set "Output Map Format" to "Classic Quake"
- Go to File -> Save as file... and select "Quake .map file" in the file type box.
ericw
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 2:11 am

Re: Quake .map format versus .Map 220 format

Postby xaGe » Mon Dec 15, 2014 8:12 pm

Good tip, thanks for sharing.
User avatar
xaGe
 
Posts: 461
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 8:29 am
Location: Upstate, New York

Previous

Return to Mapping

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest