What is your most used editor?

[Bridgeburner56]

7 minutes ago, Mr.Rocket said:

Does anyone here remember a time before DB and all it's variants when we'd have to visualize what our 2d overhead view in the editor actually looked like before testing in game? :P

Yup, my second most used editor is DeePsea. These were the dark times

[Mr.Rocket]

Heh back when we had to save after every sector or even line def, just in case. As well as know what not to do to keep the editor from crashing. :D

Mainly DOS editors having issues like that though. I used Wad Author mostly, and it took a while to finally bite the bullet and switch to DB.

Edited October 12, 2021 by Mr.Rocket

[Pegleg]

15 hours ago, Mr.Rocket said:

Does anyone here remember a time before DB and all it's variants when we'd have to visualize what our 2d overhead view in the editor actually looked like before testing in game? :P

 

Yes, indeed, I remember those days. I started with DCK and DEU in the mid-90's. And those times weren't that dark @Bridgeburner56.

 

Since returning to mapping in 2016, I've been using Eureka.

[Apprentice]

On 10/12/2021 at 6:50 AM, Mr.Rocket said:

Does anyone here remember a time before DB and all it's variants when we'd have to visualize what our 2d overhead view in the editor actually looked like before testing in game? :P

I still do, since I'm not using DB2 or any variant of it. DEU/Deth/Zeth all the way, baby . . .  8)

[QuotePilgrim]

SLADE, pretty much exclusively, especially since I started a standalone game project and using any of the DoomBuilder variants for that would be too inconvenient, since they expect you to be making maps for an existing IWAD and throw a bunch of errors if you don't point to an IWAD they recognize. I could use UDB in theory, but it would be too much of pain to be worth it.

 

Either way I don't like using multiple programs for what I can do with just one, and I learned mapping from a tutorial that was written for SLADE so it just makes more sense to me.

[Noiser]

On 10/11/2021 at 4:43 PM, boris said:

UDB has plenty of quality of life features that make it great for any map format, including vanilla.

Yes, if you have some experience with vanilla I think you can take advantage from UDB's features and ignore what should not be used. However, If you are still learning about static limits, it's detrimental in some areas - like curvy lines leading into drawseg overflows. I already saw that happening with people who asked me for help more than once - and they will not have any idea of what's happening or what they did wrong. That's why my advice was only directed to beginners. It's not your fault (or UDB's fault), just an unfortune of having a lot of features on the same tool. UDMF and vanilla have different demands that sometimes may clash with each other.

Now, here's why I also use DBX - It's faster on my computer and I prefer to look at a simple and clean toolbar (that's part of my workflow). Being able to customize and remove some buttons would be a great feature imo. Ironically, the only button that got removed was the one I use the most, the lighting mode (why?). That's also bad for beginners who may not even know how to change light levels properly.

Another thing that would make UDB better, if possible, is an option to change the render to the same used on DBX\DB2. For me, the higher demand for visual mode is unnecessary as I don't make UDMF maps. A low-spec option would be highly appreciated (again, for non-UDMF) and it would improve accessibility for people who cannot even open the editor anymore. Maybe I'm losing something, but I can't take the claim that UDB "is great for any format" if the tool demands more power for a simple map that could run on a 486 machine. Sorry, but that's unreasonable. 

That said, it's great that we have an advanced tool perfect to forge UDMF maps - and it is really incredible in that front. But that's how far I would go to use it.

Edited October 16, 2021 by Noiser

[Doomkid]

On 10/12/2021 at 3:50 PM, Mr.Rocket said:

Does anyone here remember a time before DB and all it's variants when we'd have to visualize what our 2d overhead view in the editor actually looked like before testing in game? :P

Class of WadAuthor 2001 - 2005!

 

Between how young I was and how primitive the tools were, I never made any maps before 2001. All I could do before then was tinker with savegame editors and WinTex, which I didn't really understand til later on - though I had drawn dozens of "theoretical automaps" in MSpaint from 1998-2000 :)

[The BMFG]

doombuilder 2 is my friend

[DannyMan]

I stick to Ultimate Doom Builder.

[Paf]

UDB, Slade for custom assets, WhackEd for DehackEd.

Sucks I don't have my PC right now, or I would be mapping.

Edited October 16, 2021 by Paf

[Biz!]

UDB, Slade, and WhackED, I have been doomed to Dehacked for life.

[xScavengerWolfx]

UDB (ultimate Doom Builder)

 

[Wavy]

UDB, SLADE 3, and WhackEd

[RonLivingston]

I've always been using extendable wad editor

[Jacek Bourne]

UDB and Slade 3

[maxmanium]

slade

[BetelgeuseSupergiant]

GZDB 2.3 and Slade3

[Wad overdose]

udb and slade 3

[LavaWave]

5 minutes ago, Wad overdose said:

udb and slade 3

 

Yeah same, although since I put files in PK3 I only use SLADE3 for sprite coordinates.

[mrthejoshmon]

I still use Doombuilder 2 and you can't convince me to upgrade to newer and better tools because I am stubborn and/or hate myself.

[RetroAkaMe]

6 hours ago, Paf said:

Sucks I don't have my PC right now, or I would be mapping.

Well, ask your DOS emulator if he could run a doom editor

[Naarok0fkor]

UDB the most. SLADE is also very important. I use Whacked4 as a reference tool because the work done with it can be made from SLADE. Paint.net is also essential for graphics although I have to use brushes from other painting programs like GIMP...

[boris]

11 hours ago, Noiser said:

Yes, if you have some experience with vanilla I think you can take advantage from UDB's features and ignore what should not be used. However, If you are still learning about static limits, it's detrimental in some areas - like curvy lines leading into drawseg overflows. I already saw that happening with people who asked me for help more than once - and they will not have any idea of what's happening or what they did wrong. That's why my advice was only directed to beginners. It's not your fault (or UDB's fault), just an unfortune of having a lot of features on the same tool. UDMF and vanilla have different demands that sometimes may clash with each other.

 

The vast majority of the points in my list don't have anything to do with actually building anything. The notion to use a harder to use editor because getting stuff done slower makes it harder to reach static limits is mind-boggling.

 

12 hours ago, Noiser said:

Now, here's why I also use DBX - It's faster on my computer and I prefer to look at a simple and clean toolbar (that's part of my workflow). Being able to customize and remove some buttons would be a great feature imo.

 

On my 7 year old computer UDB's visual mode is significantly faster than DB2/DBX. The crowded toolbar is a valid point, in fact I considered making it customizable before.

 

12 hours ago, Noiser said:

Ironically, the only button that got removed was the one I use the most, the lighting mode (why?). That's also bad for beginners who may not even know how to change light levels properly.

 

In the GZDB family there are actions in Sectors Mode to modify the light levels. Thinking that a user who doesn't manage to change a box named "brightness" in the sector editing dialog is not really likely to figure out that Brightness Mode even exists, and on top of that figure out how to use it.

 

12 hours ago, Noiser said:

Another thing that would make UDB better, if possible, is an option to change the render to the same used on DBX\DB2. For me, the higher demand for visual mode is unnecessary as I don't make UDMF maps. A low-spec option would be highly appreciated (again, for non-UDMF) and it would improve accessibility for people who cannot even open the editor anymore. Maybe I'm losing something, but I can't take the claim that UDB "is great for any format" if the tool demands more power for a simple map that could run on a 486 machine. Sorry, but that's unreasonable.

 

There is no higher demand for Visual Mode. If there are no UDMF features (like lights) nothing will be rendered, obviously. The only thing that's unreasoable here is to expect a modern program to run on 28+ year old hardware (which DB2/DBX don't do either, obviously). And UDB hardly needs modern hardware. The only requirement that's really different from DB2/UDB is a OpenGL 3.3 compatible GPU. And pretty much every GPU made in the last 11 (1) years can do that. As I said earlier I'm using a quite dated, 7 year old computer myself.

[ketmar]

my own fork of Eureka. because this is the only editor that can be easily built on my GNU/Linux. others are using wxWidgets (oh, i won't even start talking about how… no, i wont!), or .net. not that there is something wrong with that, but i just don't want to spend my time trying to make that all work.

Edited October 16, 2021 by ketmar

[CBM]

7 minutes ago, ketmar said:

my own fork of Eureka. because this is the only editor that can be easily built on my GNU/Linux. others are using wxWidgets (oh, i won't even start talking about how… no, i wont!), or .net. not that there is something wrong with that, but i just don't want to spend my time trying to make that all work.

is the source available on github?

[ketmar]

2 hours ago, CBM said:

github

lolnowai. ;-)

 

also, there's nothing really interesting there. @printz is now in charge of Eureka, and it's better to go with his version anyway.

[CBM]

1 minute ago, ketmar said:

lolnowai. ;-)

 

also, there's nothing really interesting there. @printz is now in charge of Eureka, and it's better to go with his version anyway.

ok, just asking.

 

Since I will eventually need a good map editor that runs on Linux :-)

[ketmar]

8 minutes ago, CBM said:

Since I will eventually need a good map editor that runs on Linux :-)

i'm pretty sure that UDB is easy to run on most modern GNU/Linux distros. my system is quite… special, tho, that's why i wrote "can be easily built on my GNU/Linux". ;-)

[CBM]

1 minute ago, ketmar said:

i'm pretty sure that UDB is easy to run on most modern GNU/Linux distros. my system is quite… special, tho, that's why i wrote "can be easily built on my GNU/Linux". ;-)

ok :-)

[Mr.Rocket]

29 minutes ago, CBM said:

ok :-)

ketmar's O/S is currently under development.

Said Operating System will be called k8 O/S, code name is currently k8vavoom.

There is talk that at some point there will be a Live CD ISO for dedicated Windows users. :P

Edited October 16, 2021 by Mr.Rocket