Layers support in Radiant?

[toneddu2000]

Hello guys, I was wondering if exists a qeradiant compliant editor with layers support.
I noticed quark but I don't like it too much, I'd prefer to stay on the Radiant side (Gtk radiant, Net radiant, Dark radiant, and so on).
There someone who knows a good editor with this feature?
Because I use Blender (first Maya and first again 3d Studio Max) since 2006 and layers are a basic tool for the map projecting setup IMO and func_group is not an alternative for me

thanks in advance

[Chip]

Hello guys, I was wondering if exists a qeradiant compliant editor with layers support.
I noticed quark but I don't like it too much, I'd prefer to stay on the Radiant side (Gtk radiant, Net radiant, Dark radiant, and so on).
There someone who knows a good editor with this feature?
Because I use Blender (first Maya and first again 3d Studio Max) since 2006 and layers are a basic tool for the map projecting setup IMO and func_group is not an alternative for me

thanks in advance

Do you mean groups? If yes, than QuArK has a groups feature. I use it to group buildings, various map structures, entities and so on.

There are no other editors with such features, don't know about WorldCraft though.

[goldenboy]

DarkRadiant supports layers very nicely. Unfortunately its wiki page says it can't be used with other games than Doom 3 and The Dark Mod. I haven't tried using it for Quake yet because I have some bug I'm trying to get help with atm.

http://darkradiant.sourceforge.net/index.php

If it can't do Quake maps, then I'll keep using netradiant...

I do not know of other editors that support layers. Older Radiants support groups, ie an entity whose only purpose it is to allow group selection/handling of the brushes in it (using Expand selection to whole entity etc., and then using hide/unhide).

The layers functionality is really very neat. Pity Netradiant doesn't have it. However all Radiants are open source, so someone could port the layers functionality to Netradiant in theory.

Or get Darkradiant working with Quake...

[toneddu2000]

Do you mean groups?

No, I mean layers. It's very different. Layers are the basis of planning. Trough layers you can hide something you don't want to focus on or freeze a layer to use it as blueprint(see it but no touch it).
I can't even start a complex project without the access to layer system. I can't believe how great mappers did some masterpiece of complexity without layers!

DarkRadiant supports layers very nicely. Unfortunately its wiki page says it can't be used with other games than Doom 3 and The Dark Mod.

This really makes me upset

Sometimes I don't understand OpenSource software, instead of using same techniques to share a common result, developers try to split and follow their own project.
Result: 10000 software which everyone makes a 1/10000 of the total features!

[goldenboy]

This is probably because their knowledge was too limited to maintain GTKRadiant or whatever fork for all games that supports (a lot). They called it Dark Radiant, after the Dark Mod, for a reason :-/

Three possibilities:

1. let's make it work with Quake. I'm in the same boat as you, I also want this. Let's start a thread at their forum and both talk to them (after we try installing the Quake gamepack from GTKRadiant and finding out if it works).

2. Port the layers stuff to Netradiant. I have hacked Radiant before, but depending on how complex the code is it might be over my head.

3. Ask the Netradiant maintainers (div? I forget who it is) to add layers support (and anything else useful) from DarkRadiant.

For Doom 3, which I also map for, Darkradiant seems awesome. If I can get it working.

[toneddu2000]

1.let's make it work with Quake. I'm in the same boat as you, I also want this. Let's start a thread at their forum and both talk to them (after we try installing the Quake gamepack from GTKRadiant and finding out if it works)

fine by me. I didn't take a look at darkradiant but usually gamepacks are easily portable. I always used NetRadiant but a week ago I tested GtkRadiant (because NetRadiand doesn't show the preview of misc_models)and it works just by copying the folder games and the .game file. But maybe darkradiant is different in its structure

2.Port the layers stuff to Netradiant.

This seems to me more difficult but it worths to try

3.Ask the Netradiant maintainers (div? I forget who it is) to add layers support

I always tried to open a constructive discussion on Xonotic forums that wasn't oriented to Xonotic but it was always rejected. It's not like Inside3d forums: there, all the thoughts, discussions are dedicated to the game development, without a look at innovation or experimentation. A very dull community IMO, but if you want to try, maybe they would listen to you!

In my opinion there's a fourth one: I would like to talk with Blender devs to upgrade its very old and useless MAP exporter. If Blender were be able to see shaders and textures in a visor, and to be connected to map compilers (q3map2,etc.) I would never leave my design platform.
But, of course, these are all dreams

[goldenboy]

The thing with Blender as a map editor is that it would also need to be able to place entities, triggers, lights etc.

Also, Blender has no grid (edit: I mean no automatic, mandatory grid that conforms to Quake units and can be switched by hotkeys). A grid is hugely helpful when building map geometry. The more complex it gets, the more likely you are to have leaks when you export from Blender to map. There's a reason they used Radiant for idtech4 games and not 100% Max or Maya.

[gnounc]

Keep in mind the .map exporter is not an official plugin, so it wouldnt be the blender devs you'd need to talk to.

On blender placing entities and the like, blender has a python api, i dont think that part of it would be very difficult at all

[toneddu2000]

The thing with Blender as a map editor is that it would also need to be able to place entities, triggers, lights etc.

I cooperated a little with guy named Z80 for a map plugin for blender he made (I created a little of documentation) and it exports entities and stuff (you just need to add a property to every mesh you want become an entity). But the problem is that: is for Blender 2.49 ,it's untested and it's EXTREMELY slow.

Also, Blender has no grid (edit: I mean no automatic, mandatory grid that conforms to Quake units and can be switched by hotkeys). A grid is hugely helpful when building map geometry. The more complex it gets, the more likely you are to have leaks when you export from Blender to map. There's a reason they used Radiant for idtech4 games and not 100% Max or Maya.

I agree with you at 50%. The generation of game production until 2005 was as you described. Infact if you compare a Painkiller map (Great game guys, Great game), realised in 2004, 100% made in maya, with a doom3 map, the id map detailing quality is quite embarassing. There's a level made in a ruined monastery positioned on a cliff...magic.
2012 big companies games are trying to use a lot graphic software to make maps and then use the editor as container (just take a look at sample maps in UDK).
In my opinion level editor, for standard games nowadays, is barely useless, but of course is just my opinion.
Yes, of course, maybe you don't have the precision of grid, but you could have the possibilty to create an "organic" level.

Keep in mind the .map exporter is not an official plugin, so it wouldnt be the blender devs you'd need to talk to.

Are you sure? Because in a clean Blender 2.59 installation the plugin was in the core plugin library

[goldenboy]

I know that. I am simply concerned about the quality of a map exporter and especially the reliability regarding "no leaks" when the mesh gets very complex. It is simply about the map compiler and the prevention of leaks. Modern games don't have to use TxQBSP. :?

Doom 3 used boxy corridors, but interspersed with a lot of .lwo mapmodels and patch meshes. I thought that worked quite well. It has no rocky outcrops levels simply because of the theme. ETQW is an idtech4 game that does have lots of outdoor settings and megatextured terrain, and still uses Radiant - as a container, which I think is an adequate role for a level editor, but also for brushwork, indoor areas, and placement of entities. With mapmodels on top. Crysis 2 still uses a (very popular) level editor (with support for brushes).

There might be things a dedicated level editor does better than Blender.

But if Blender can one day be used as a map editor, and produces maps that compile and run properly, then I'll gladly switch to Blender exclusively (I already use it for mapmodels).

[andrewj]

But if Blender can one day be used as a map editor, and produces maps that compile and run properly, then I'll gladly switch to Blender exclusively (I already use it for mapmodels).

I think the most reliable way to make that work is to forget about using ".map" as an intermediate format, and develop map compiling tools which build the output BSP directly from the mesh (not requiring brushes).

It's too bad I don't have the time to play around with such an approach right now

[toneddu2000]

I know that. I am simply concerned about the quality of a map exporter and especially the reliability regarding "no leaks" when the mesh gets very complex. It is simply about the map compiler and the prevention of leaks. Modern games don't have to use TxQBSP.

but it wouln't be possible to add a "surrounding cube" invible in the editor, like a skybox, which permits to avoid leaks and an auto-partioning sytem which limits to render all the map every time? I remember Painkiller exported portals from maya. All the meshes with the prefix name "portal_"(or whatever) were treated like "occlusion meshes", not rendered and used to light the computation of the map

Doom 3 used boxy corridors, but interspersed with a lot of .lwo mapmodels and patch meshes. I thought that worked quite well. It has no rocky outcrops levels simply because of the theme. ETQW is an idtech4 game that does have lots of outdoor settings and megatextured terrain, and still uses Radiant - as a container, which I think is an adequate role for a level editor, but also for brushwork, indoor areas, and placement of entities.

No, no, of course. I din't want to say that doom3 is ugly, the opposite. But, if you look at rage (which is a completely different theme, of course) the map is "organic", II can't explain it. There's no seam between a rusty door and the walls surrounding it. And I think that this will be the road that big companies will follow.

Crytek Sandbox in my opinion is another story because (I used only first version) it seems to me more a world editor than a map editor. With sandbox you could create an entire ecosystem without using any 3d modeling package, put inside a player, a monster, an hut (made in three minutes) and the result was incredible!
An indie engine that resembles sandbox a lot is Phoenix engine by Wolfire Games. Very cool engine and editor

I think the most reliable way to make that work is to forget about using ".map" as an intermediate format, and develop map compiling tools which build the output BSP directly from the mesh (not requiring brushes).

Yeah, that would be great!

[goldenboy]

Indeed the map and bsp format and the map compiling seem to be a limiting factor here.

A large cube around the map (caulk, practically) would indeed prevent leaks, but also increase the vertex, clipnode etc. count massively and the map would run slower because of that, probably despite any visportal-like methods.

Someone who knows the BSP format and Quake engine very well would need to do this work.

Alternatively, one could just stop using the Quake engine and BSP format, and start using UDK for Quake maps instead. A technical migration to another platform, while keeping the content Quake-themed.

About layers in Netradiant, divverent came up with an idea how to implement it. He put it on the TODO list but he's very busy so it might be a while.