Goodbye and Good Riddance to QuARK... any other suggestions?

#1 Mike, you can also look at TrueSpace, or GameSpace. I recall Ted Southard mentioning a plugin and tutorials that'll let you export map file formats for use with map2dif.

#2 I've tried hammer and 2 3ds to map converters. While hammer is nicer than quark, it has legal issues making it impossible to use in any serious commercial project (and also non-commercial)

Both the 2 converters I've used work on very simple stuff, but break when runing map2dif - I havent been able to export anything into Torque, making me believe its even worse than Quark in terms of frustration. I do understand the trouble (using a poly modelling tool for creating interiors)

I think there was someone posting info on an art pipeline regarding Cartography Shop some month ago. Try searching the forums

#3 We use Quark to very good effect. It can be highly customized as well.

#4 Hey all,

Thanks for the feedback :-)

Okay.. Well, here's what I'm finding.

I'm playing with Cartography shop more and so far it's very straight-forward and easy to work with. It's very responsive. No wierdness. I don't see any CSG functionality in the program but it's in the Features list, which leads me to believe that it's only available in the full registered version - fair enough.

I saw a message thread on here that someone is/was working on a converter for it, but it's not ready for 4 yet..which is sort of a bummer, but if it's in the pipeline, then it's just a matter of waiting. At least I know I can create some nice geometry, finally, in the meantime. This seems to be the way I'm leaning right now...

@Joshua:
Been checking out your day-to-night cycle.. the download link for the movie's broken so I couldn't see that (sad face), but it's something that I'm definitely interested in checking out when the time is right.

Anyway, I'm kind of jealous that you and your team are using QuARK without trouble. Apparently many others are using it just fine, too. Intuitively-handicapped as it is, I can see the inherent potential that QuARK has with its direct-to-Torque compatibility for entities and such. Unfortunately, it's nothing but problems at most every turn. Wierd glitches, the program acting all schizo about recognizing textures... now the problem with the 3D viewport freezing in textured mode.. I just couldn't deal with it anymore.

:shrug:

Such is life I supppose.

Edit:
Just for the sake of example, that I'm not just a simpleton or don't "get it" with level editors, etc...
Here's a link to a screenshot of the results of about 40 minutes of "doodling" in CS (not including time for the lighting to calculate, etc)...
http://www.geocities.com/wsimike/screenshot.jpg
(you'll have to copy and paste it into a browser.. no direct linking to GeoCities is allowed, it seems...sorry)

It's not incredibly complex; just some basic brick-laying, base textures, and light placement.. but I did all that in about 40 minutes in CS - having only once ever used the program before. Something like that, at the rate I was going, would have taken me days more to achieve in QuARK, all while fighting the program.

The key difference is QuARK's obtuse and horribly designed GUI, over-complicated learning-curve, and its myriad quirks.

Anyway.. there you go.

#5 I think you're approaching QuArK with pre-conceived notions that are preventing your success. When I began building, quark was the first one I tried, and I was also able to produce runnable maps (for HL) in about 30-60 minutes. I later attempted Hammer and a few others, and found them to be put together completely backwards.
Quark is the only one that allows you to _COMPLETELY_ change its interface, UI, etc. to suit your favorite style. Setting it up to work directly with Torque isn't quite the simple process I agree, but if you follow the directions on Holodeck and a few other spots, your result will check, compile, and export maps in exactly one step.
I do agree the documentation is a bit behind, but what all do you need to know for a working first map? One button is already setup with a simple room (if you read Holodecks quide), using all the important entities and methods you need. One more button and its compiled and in game.

#6 Erik,

What pre-conceived notions? That QuARK's GUI be designed in a logical, straight-forward manner so I can open the program and - *without* having to modify the interface - start "laying bricks". That I not have to dig through pages of documentation and lists of menus to figure out the simplest of tasks?

What of the wierd, random glitches, like the 3D view freezing up on me in textured mode.. What am I supposed to do, keep it in wireframe mode, cross my fingers and *guess* that everything's textured correctly?

What about the program giving me random error messages that it can't find a texture, even after I've just applied it to a surface a moment earlier without a problem? Am I to just ignore that?

Pre-conceived notions? I don't think so. I would call them bare-minimum expectations - which QuARK has met none of for me. I wasted half my weekend fighting with that program and getting nowhere. It's been nothing but a rolling train-wreck and a constant head-ache for me. I'm glad to be rid of it.

If the program works fine for you and you're happy with it, more power to you. But please do not make baseless assumptions as to my reasons for not liking a program. I've provided quite detailed descriptions of the problems it's given me and why I've decided to stop using it.

#7 I've been using Quark for a long time and rarely had undocumented problems (and usually that was only using the nightly build...which was my mistake more than theirs).

You might like looking at GameSpace. The interface is nice and customizable, and it has a level exporter. While my levels are rather simplistic in terms of what most people are doing (I'm working on a top-down/rail-shooter), it's worked nicely so far. If I have something that has difficulty converting, I can save it to a map file and fix it in Quark. So far, I haven't had any problems with the ones I've been working on. I had a few strange problems when I was making test levels to use, but I think that had more to do with me being an idiot than anything else. For the simple levels I've been creating to deal with camera issues, it's been great. And since the actual levels are based off of my test levels, I don't forsee major problems. At least not mapping ones.

Cartography Shop is a nice environment as well, but I've never really used it for much since it opens and then automatically closes after applying the license file. No one is sure why. The previous version worked great, but I only compiled Quake maps using it.

I'm sorry that you haven't gotten Quark working correctly. It's worked great for me on Windows 95/98/2000/XP and XP Tablet edition on my new laptop. With on-board hardware and with GeForce and Radeon cards. So I don't know where yours is having issues. You didn't download the latest snapshot rather than the latest stable release, did you?

#8 Hi David,

I actually did look at GameSpace and was intrigued.. I'd definitely like to give that a whirl.. Unfortunately, I didn't see a demo version for download and I don't have the $$$ to dish out for it right now.

QuARK being freeware was great, and the $$ for CS is not a huge chunk of cash for its usability, which is why I like it. Maybe at some point down the road, if a demo is available first, I might give GameSpace a try. Who knows... that might become my preferred tool if it's easy enough to work with.

As for QuARK and which version.. I really don't know which I grabbed, to be completely honest with you. I believe it was the next-to-most-recent build, the latest stable build (I don't like using beta or test builds). It seems like I'm the only person having trouble with that program, really. I dunno.. it just completely failed to impress me on every level, while managing to aggravate me in spades - and level design is supposed to be fun, dammit! :-)

In any case, that's where I stand now.. I don't know. Maybe at some point, if someone drugs something I'm drinking or I have a memory lapse, or am feeling rather masochistic, I'll give QuARK another try... or maybe not.

Take care,
Mike

#9 Mike,
I bought GameSpace and it is fantastic! The exporters that came with it are mostly bunk, but Ted Southard (sp?) and Mark Owen have created two nice exporters, one for DIF one for DTS, that appear to be lifesaving. I haven't had time to fully "play" with GS yet as there's so much other work to do.

Quark has only one issue for me: the 3D window often has problems. I normally see some OpenGL error text displayed in the window. Saving/closing/reopening usually fixes the problem. I use an ATI 9500 Pro, in case you have something similar - maybe it's a driver issue?

I followed the GG guide to setting up Quark. It worked pretty much perfectly the first time and I was exporting quickly. I never got the initial "test" room to work but then, I never wanted to.

To get Quark working for you, think of it like Torque itself. This is a mature product that's been enhanced, over time, to work better for advanced users. Garage Games is just now, after a few years apparently, putting together some "how-to" beginner guides and tutorials. Quark could probably use something like that for Torque (how to make your first map for Torque and get it exported). I think that was the original intent of GG's document but it never got finished. The link to the holodeck site to do the map-making tutorials left me hanging a little since, as you pointed out, Quark's interface is not intuitive for beginners.

After spending a few hours on it (and then a few more), it became quite easy to use. I quickly designed, changed, and tweaked a small "level" and got it in Torque. I quickly came to appreciate Quark's ability to tweak textures on polygons - my sample level needed lots of small tweaks to get the textures aligned and sized correctly.

I had spent an equal amount of time with Hammer (the prior version whatever it's name is/was). I did NOT like the idea of having to put my textures into a WAD file. There were a few other things that made me go "eww" and, after reading a few posts to confirm my thoughts, I switched over to Quark.

I hope you get it working or find something that works for you.

#10 Michael,

Yup, Quark is a nightmare for 3D artist. Only the programmers like it (generality). Even after it is well configured and that you master all of it, it will take you lot more time to do your jobs then anything else you've used as an artist (Double of the time, minimum). But, it's free, legal, and you will be able to do everything if you take the time :) For exemple, I have made a giant accoustic guitar with cords, keys, etc ... that look like as real as if it was made using 3D max(well 90% as real). The collision is perfect with our cars in torque(we can even race on the cords ! the keys or inside the guitar ! hehe) so it's a dream. This is just one of the cool things I've made with it but a good example that you can do everything with it because of how curvy is an accoustic guitar. I also made pianos, and lot more cool things ... hell, almost everything are curvy in my levels :) I hate thinking square like you normally have to think with BSP progs.

So yes, Quark is a nightmare, but there is not lot of options and all the other options have there "bads" and learning curves too. If you're using the lastest release, there is a problem with textures. I was unable to include any textures into that release. So use the one just before this one and it's working (6.3, I think).

Good luck and be patient :)

PS: To the programmers that are saying that 3D artist are hard to find, the reason is right here : The tools we have are too slow to work with so we are double-triple-busy to do everything with those bsp progs :) Give us better tools and we'll be free to work for you, hehe (just kidding but ...) And yes, Hammer is really better for 3D artists (not for programmers) but is a no-go because of the licence

#11 Howdy,

Hmm... well, hopefully Caligari will put out a demo version. I just can't bring myself to pay a few hundred bucks for something I haven't had a chance to try out first.

As for QuARK... ugh. You know, I realize that I'm probably one of the only people (or so it seems) to have the trouble with that program that I had. But, it wasn't really just *one* problem, or *one* complaint about the interface.. it was the whole picture.... All the problems stacked up, and in so short a period of time.

Why in the world is the first tutorial providing hands-on use of the program showing you how to create a spiral staircase?! Why do I have to go searching in some online infobase to find it?

The program revealed more glitches to me in the course of one session than I've experienced in many other programs in the course of months. The "lost again, found again" texture problem that happens repeatedly, at random, in the matter of minutes. The frozen 3D view when in textured mode, etc.

The GUI for a program is supposed to be obvious and intuitive to the user, allowing them to be productive as soon as possible. Even a new user running the program for the first time should be able to tell that to create a cube, they would click on a clearly labeled, or illustrated "Cube" button. Why in the world are the buttons to create objects these tiny little squares tucked off in a corner? Those are the main tools for creating geometry! Shouldn't they be more pronounced?
Why are there not more unique icons for the buttons, so when you're making a wall, or a floor, it isn't depicted generically as a cube on the button?
Why aren't there text labels available, at least, to show up beneath each of the buttons so I don't have to mouse-over them for a tool tip to make sure I'm clicking on the right one?

Alot of people say " you get used to it". I'm sure that's true. But I don't want to spend hours upon hours wrestling with a poor interface before I can do something productive with it especially with options available that don't suffer those problems.

Here's an analogy by way of an anecdote...
I once tried smoking. I inhaled and the smoke going down felt like I was swallowing a golf-ball. Immediately everything started spinning and I felt sick to my stomach. I threw aside the cigarette and went home to sleep it off. I saw my friend who'd given me the cigarette some time later. I told him about the whole experience. His answer was "Oh, yeah, it's kinda wierd at first, and you might feel sick. But you get used to that." My answer was "Why would I *want* to get *used* to that?" And I never touched another cigarette.

QuARK is kinda like that cigarette to me. My idea of learning a program is not to just deal with and learn to work around its problems until I get used to it and am numb to them. A learning curve is supposed to entail learning the program, not learning to work around its problems.

#12 GameSpace may not have a demo, but trueSpace does, and advertising aside, gameSpace is just trueSpace minus a half-dozen tools you won't use anyway. Download that and play with it, you'll get the gist of both.

I do have that .map exporter out now, and you do have to follow a few tutorials to get used to modelling in the "Quark way", because gameSpace will let you model in a "normal" way, which will botch up any .maps you're looking to export.

#13 Ted,

By the "QuARK Way", I take it you mean the general approach to level design for BSP.. e.g. no concave shapes, etc?

If that's the case, no problem. I'm accustom to that.

In any case, I guess I'll try a demo of TrueSpace then and see what it's all about.

thanks!
Mike

#14 The problem with using general 3D modeling programs for CSG modeling is well, that they don't support the CSG constraints natively and only at export or conversion time do you discover the problems.

Stay away from the 3DStudioMax to map stuff ( and just about anything else like it ).

See as Ted points out you have to model in the "Quark" / CSG way regardless. And not using a CSG editor is just asking for more problems unless you are INTIMATELY familiar with the rules and contraints of CSG modeling. Since you have to make sure that all the CSG rules are followed with no help from the program.

Unfortunately using a non-CSG modeler is just trading one set of problems for another set of problems.

Regardless of your personal experience, Quark has been a stable and rock solid product for a very long time, I would have to say any problems you are having with stability are machine specific and related to your specific machines configuration or hardware. It runs just fine on all 4 computers I have.

The workflow is "backwards" compared to normal unconstrained 3D modeling, but that is CSG modeling. The interface is obtuse, but it ia an open source project, you kinda get what you pay for more often than not in those situations.

Start simple start small, and work up from there.

#15 Heya..

Whatever the reasons, QuARK doesn't perform acceptably on my system, so I'm not going to waste any more time trying to get it to. It's a dead horse at this point and I'm done beating it.

As for CSG-style level design.. I'm perfectly familiar with that. Building with basic primitives, carving, adding, etc. and then the compiler takes all those separate "blocks" and combines them into a single contiguous mesh, along with recursive calculations for visibility and the such.

I worked with the Unreal editor since Unreal1 and have worked with many other level editing programs, including WorldCraft (pre-Valve), Serious Editor, etc. since. So if it's a matter of bringing a Level-Editor mentality to a 3D modeling program.. that's not a problem.

#16 @Micheal

We use CS4 and it is great for leveling designing and interiors.
John "BobtheBuilder" Kabus. is writing a new exporter that converts the CSM format into whatever you need it to be.

Nothing wrong with Quark we started with that. But the main reason we switched is none of our tools have license issues of any kind and all are commercial tools supported by the creators. 24/7

Its just the question of what you are willing to invest. There are free tools "Open source" that work great with torque. and there are commercial tools that work great with torque.

Anyway like your screenshoot

John H.

#17 @Johnny:

Thanks! :-)

Cool! So you're finding CS to be a good tool, then. *And* there actually is a plugin being coded for Torque? Even better..

I already ordered it and just earlier received the email with all the reg. and download info. So now I just need to get home and get it set up!

Quick few questions for ya..

First, I read that there is now HalfLife map exporting in 4.0/4.1.. is that the format (V220, I think?) that Torque supports? If so, that at least gives me a path to work with until the plugin is in place.

Second, what do you think of the CSG functionality they added in in 4.1? I haven't had a chance to see it in action yet (not in the demo). That's gotta make editing so much faster; can't wait to try it out.

About the screenshot... thanks :-). It's nothing spectacular, but I wanted to illustrate the difference for me in a program with an intuitive interface versus that "other program" and its rolling nightmare of problems. Starting with literally no concrete idea of anything to build and pretty much no previous experience with the editor, I just started laying bricks. About 40 minutes later, I had what you see there (even used the nifty "render to image" function CS has for that shot.. heh). That speaks volumes to me, more than any testimonial or bullet list of features, of the ease-of-use and thought that went into CS's interface design.

Also.. have you played with the Texture Maker from Game Creators? I'm playing with that demo, too, and man is that a powerful program. I've gotten some really nice results that would go perfectly into a level, and/or act as a great base to build from for a matching texture set. I may have to buy that, too.

Anyways... thanks again for the feedback..

Mike

#18 The thing about QuArK is that it's got some powerful tools. I would die a from hair-pulling if I had to go without "Find Microbrushes" again.

#19 Texture Maker is a great program. It has everything that you'd expect from a texturing package.

#20 When I was creating mods and maps for HL and SoF I used WorldCraft alot and used Quark for debugging like Eric said, it has some incredible debugging optomizing features that none of the other tools had. That said the workflow for actually building stuff was terrible. But it has some things that are must haves for creating really professional tweaked .map files.