Staredit Network

Just curious... What difference is there between SCMdraft and starforge?
And which one do you suggest?

There are already 2 threads on this and if you would take the time to use the editors you would know the huge differences that show SCMD2 as a superior editor and not some cheap program thrown together in VB.

oh.... I"m sorry for this thread then... sorry! I'm new and haven't tried SCMDraft2 yet... sorry!

That isnt to say that SF is bad.....


The main difference is that scmd2 is stil being updated. updates fro SAF died a while ago

There is not such difference, StarForge is better for many aspects, and just because it was programmed differently doesn't mean that it is worse or "cheaper". I can tell you that SF has as many or more hours of work than scmd2 does.

SCMDraft has map zoom, viewing two sections of a map, fog of war preview, subtiles (makes walls or corners look the same) and other minor differences. Starforge has a better trigger editor (can't move up or down triggers though), and terrain if you want to make terrain bigger than a width or height of 14. Starforge is very buggy however, so it may screw up your map sometimes (deletes my sounds)

You should get all three just in case: Starcraft X-Tra Editor, SCMDraft, and Starforge.

I don't really see why you would need Starforge unless you need to speed up doing the same triggers for different players (and making terrain over 14). Other than that, you mainly need X-Tra and SCMDraft.

Starforge can copy and paste terrain( custom brush), and SCMD2 can't ( i dont know, maybe new version it will)

I can tell you that SF has as many or more hours of work than scmd2 does.

don't mean its better though for it, does it.

I wont start a discussion about that...



I doubt this, and also do not see how you would be one to judge

EDIT: total source size (excluding MPQ code, Mac code, trigedit, and resources): 1447825 bytes


ADDITION:

just enter the number, but do me a favor and dont enter negative numbers, you then have to wait for it to process 65000x65000 brushes... which takes a while.

You can? Consider the following:

1. First version of SCMDraft was released 2 years before the start of Starforge was announced.
2. The editor is pretty much made from scratch up. I bet more than anything Starforge has borrowed from other already developed code.
3. The rendering engine probably took longer than most of Starforge, considering it's even more realistic than StarEdits!
4. The program is way more stable.

Also, I noticed that SCMD2 takes up HALF as much memory as Starforge does when a map is open.

Now I'm not going to argue over what one is better, but I wanna get some things cleared up.


This is scmdraft 2. This is not Scmdraft v2.0 It is the Second Scmdraft. Starforge is Starforge version 2.x(Forget what version exactly).
Thus you would have to go from the time announced of Scmdraft 2 and Starforge.
Even that dosn't matter. It matters how much time per day, etc..
I really don't care and i'm also sure Heimdal and SI don't care.


Why would he do that? What other editor is open source? I believe Hiemdal coded everything from the ground up. Now if you wanted to get right down to it...
you could go to this standpoint(I do not take or accept this standpoint in any way).

SI writes the ISOM section like Staredit. How starforge writes it's terrain is completely diffrent and heimdal decided against the isom section to reduce space. Heimdal never completed writing his "Perfect Isometric Terrain with no Isom Section".

-------------------------------
Also if memory serves correctly. ONLY THE INTERFERANCE & TRIGGERS ARE DONE IN VB DLL and CALLED BY C++. They are something like that. Heimdal explained it once and my memory is a little rusty.

-------------------------------


I have very very very very few problems with Starforge. Dun know what you fussing about. I havn't had problems with Scmdraft 2 either.


How it looks isn't everything.




Look people, Heimdal and SI really don't care about this, why the hell should you? The fact is that they are both great and fantastic editors coded from the ground up in order to provide map makers a better utility. They are both used for diffrent things for each and every map maker. They both have advantages and disadvantages. Lets stop arguging over what is better and what is worse and lets just take these tools they made us, thank Heimdal and SI, and use there utilites.

So thanks Heimdal and SI I am honored to use both of your utilites to improve the quality of my and everyone who uses your programs maps.

SCMDraft 1 (which sucked, I don't think anyone can deny this) came long before Starforge which came before SCMDraft 2. In a year and a half I learned enough to create an editor that many believe is on par with SCMDraft 2, while it has taken SI much longer to get where he is now. I had a late start. Just wait till SF 2*

As for borrowed code, the only thing I didn't write myself is Stormlib. SCMDraft uses SFMPQLIB, which SI didn't write either.

As for stability and imaging...I know there are some bugs and there is no iscript support. It's not so bad that I can't use the program to create maps myself.

Anyway, use whatever one you want, or both. I couldn't care less. Just don't go around talking as if SI and I didn't pour our lives into these projects.


*Not an indication that there ever will be a SF 2

Edit: Just for reference, SF's code size (not including form layouts) is 929572 bytes. Although I don't think it's really fair to compare code size because writing a GUI in C++ takes much more code. And who knows, maybe you're just inefficient

scmdraft doesn't have well all the sprits and the color units thing and the x2 speed but starforge color is messed up when it comes to looking at the terran and scmdraft is good so i preferr is scmdraft lol

Ok... I've compiled a small list comparing the two editors.

----
Qualities of SCMDraft (as of private prerelease #7):

1. Isometrical terrain is properly created
2. Doodads are properly saved
3. Graphics are more displayed correctly (look at the tank in SF, etc...)
4. Backup database
5. Location selection is done better
6. Very hard to crash, especially after the bug report system
7. Automatic string recycling
8. Sounds properly saved: Heimdal, CC.org is wrong.
9. Minor interface things like window manipulation
10. Fog of war
11. Repairs maps with sections omitted by StarForge, etc...
12. Better undo feature
13. Zoom (although slow)
14. Cleaner selection and output, as well as health bars, energy bars, powered field, etc... (try to select sprites in StarForge)
15. Using more StarDat.mpq resources: animations (iscript), full support for mods (name tables)
16. Own, faster MPQ code (made by DW)
17. Plugin support & sample code
...and other miscellaneous things that I don't remember but could possibly be listed

----
Qualities of StarForge (as of latest version I could get my hands on...):

1. Trigger editor
2. Custom terrain brushes

Feel free to add to this list, but I believe that SCMDraft is superior.

Thanks for clearing that up for everyone who didn't already know.

That's exactly the way I see it

Yeah you didn't even mention a couple of the things that I really use SCMD2 for. Like DW's trigger editor. I prefer it over SF's.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, TrigEdit does not enable disable trigger actions/conditions while in SF if you edit a trigger, it will enable all the conditions/actions.

If you think SF is awsome for mass produce triggers, take a look at TrigEdit

SCMDraft2 can restore doodads.
Has a very awsome map image output.

I didn't want to be the one to start this, but if yopu insist....
scmdraft 1 may not have had triggers or sprites, but other than that it was stable and did what it was meant for (units / terrain / locations / doodads), it actually had better doodad support than SF currently does and the nonreleased experimental version had better 'isomless isom' than SF currently has.

Scmdraft 2 does not use stormlib as stormlib has issues with staredit. (Cannot open file for writing error for instance), also stormlib doesn't support all the storm.dll read functions the first versions were using while CKMPQ does.

I dont know why you say writting GUI in C takes more code, it doesn't take alot, it probably even saves code because you dont need a function per event, you just use the windows loop.

I was just trying to correct a few things that chu said. I'm not trying to start anything either. He assumed that I borrowed a lot of code, when in reality we are both using existing MPQ libraries.

I just was clarifying what you said about stormlib / sfmpq, since both are not advanced enough for my needs DW made a better one.
however saying scmdraft 1 sucked is not what I would consider clarifying something chu said.

I'm sorry if it sounded like I was implying that you borrowed a lot of code. Maybe I should have been specific about the MPQ code because thats what I suspected you borrowed.

Different programs by different creators, leave it at that.

This kind of discussions are started by lazy people. I mean, is that hard dl both editors and check wich one you like more and delete the other one of you dont want both?!

Right, that's just my opinion. SCMD2 is a very impressive program, I'm not going to deny that.

I'm not going to fight about which program is better. Like I said before, it doesn't really matter to me which one you use. It's just that comments like and make me want to leave Starcraft forever. I'm sure some people would like that.

Just show some respect for effort, is all. I won't say anything more about it.

While I dont see saying nobody can deny this makes it just your opinion, I'll leave it at that...

However when you complain about a random stranger saying your program sucks, which happens to every program 100 times over, saying it in a thread where you as a known member have said that scmdraft 1 sucked is pure hypocrisy