PeTI requires that you start Portal 2 then open the editor. Even when you are in the editor, you have to have some idea of what you want to put down. The Java app is meant as a place to make some quick notes when you have an idea. It would take a few seconds to start and use the thing, unlike PeTI which can require several minutes at a minimum.

I like to design a map top-down on paper (I'll scan in a recent design in a minute), as you said, then just load up Hammer and place all the floor brushes I need. Then I switch to a side view and add walls and proper heights and such.

Or if I don't have a good idea in advance, I just place brushes and entities until the puzzle works. But the first way tends to produce better maps.

before anyone could make this application, they'd need design specs

BenVlodgi wrote:
how would you show different items?... would we need sprites for everything.. how would things go on the walls?

I usually show which item I am using with a letter/number combination, i.e. B3 indicates the third button placed. I suspect it would relatively easy to use some sort of simple sprites like the redstone simulator I mentioned previously does.
Things that are mounted on the walls in my drawings are indicated with a half circle, but in java they could simply occupy the grid space inside the walls since the walls would be one unit wide on the grid.
There could be layers to allow for items to be placed at varying heights. Since PeTI (and to a lesser extent, Hammer) uses a voxel approach to placing items, the java program could assume that the items will be placed within a 64 unit grid.

BenVlodgi wrote:
how would you show portable walls if this is all top down

The background of the grid would be one color. The grid would be another color. The walls would be black when not portalable and white when portalable. The grid and its background would be some color that contrasts with everything else to allow for easy visabilty. Of course, all the colors could be customizable.

BenVlodgi wrote:
IMO if you give it a 3d feel to it, then it would just be the PTI
and if you just do side views, then it becomes a worse version of hammer

It need not be 3D. Side views are not absolutely necessary (or even desired).

Key: lines are walls or sections, dashed lines connect puzzle elements (antlines), lines of circles are grating, lines of slashes are glass, square-in-a-circle = dropper, circle-in-a-square = button, little circle = pedestal button, waves = water, four dots around an item indicate ceiling placement, numbers with a plus or minus indicate height difference, wavy lines are fizzlers, lines of Xs are deathfields, lines of hooks are shields, two triangles facing each other = portal opener, circle-stars are laser relays, circles with lines through them are mounted portalguns, and I'm sure there are others I'm not seeing right now.

These items don't have a number.
D door (entrance/exit)
d door (internal)

So for example, if I wanted to indicate button 3 on the wall, I would draw a half circle against the line defining the wall. The half circle would have B3 written next to it. The antline would be a dashed line connecting B3 to, say, LF1 to show that button 3 is connected to laser field 1.

FelixGriffin wrote:
I think this is what he means. This is the map I'm currently working on.
http://i.imgur.com/QWTg98W.jpg

Key: lines are walls or sections, dashed lines connect puzzle elements (antlines), lines of circles are grating, lines of slashes are glass, square-in-a-circle = dropper, circle-in-a-square = button, little circle = pedestal button, waves = water, four dots around an item indicate ceiling placement, numbers with a plus or minus indicate height difference, wavy lines are fizzlers, lines of Xs are deathfields, lines of hooks are shields, two triangles facing each other = portal opener, circle-stars are laser relays, circles with lines through them are mounted portalguns, and I'm sure there are others I'm not seeing right now.

I totally can't make cake out of this.

when I draw out something it is different, all in all I think nothing beats pen + paper when it comes to drawing up a concept. You aren't bound to any limits due to programming constraints and you can make it as crazy as you want it to be, exactly how you understand it the best.

If you write a program like you suggest you might as well add an exporter for vmfs and before you know you're back in a messed up alternative for hammer.

Lpfreaky90 wrote:
FelixGriffin wrote:

I think this is what he means. This is the map I'm currently working on.
http://i.imgur.com/QWTg98W.jpg

Key: lines are walls or sections, dashed lines connect puzzle elements (antlines), lines of circles are grating, lines of slashes are glass, square-in-a-circle = dropper, circle-in-a-square = button, little circle = pedestal button, waves = water, four dots around an item indicate ceiling placement, numbers with a plus or minus indicate height difference, wavy lines are fizzlers, lines of Xs are deathfields, lines of hooks are shields, two triangles facing each other = portal opener, circle-stars are laser relays, circles with lines through them are mounted portalguns, and I'm sure there are others I'm not seeing right now.

I totally can't make cake out of this.

I understand what he is drawing there. Then again, I have drawn some pretty wild stuff in the past. You don't have to make cake. We can make do with cookies.

Lpfreaky90 wrote:
When I draw out something it is different, all in all I think nothing beats pen + paper when it comes to drawing up a concept. You aren't bound to any limits due to programming constraints and you can make it as crazy as you want it to be, exactly how you understand it the best.

That is true. But how crazy do you really need to make it? Java is surprisingly powerful and can handle a hell of a lot of "craziness". Besides, you can always make the puzzle in sections.

Lpfreaky90 wrote:
If you write a program like you suggest you might as well add an exporter for vmfs and before you know you're back in a messed up alternative for hammer.

I'm not sure how you make the leap from this program to "might as well add an exporter". They are unrelated concepts. This program is meant to allow you to simulate the behavior of a test chamber without actually having to compile it. This saves you a great deal of time. You can assemble a chamber then test it in real time without having to wait for it to finish compiling. Since Java works VERY quickly, you can rough out the chamber on the fly while at the same time simulating it.

lord_blex wrote:
What do you mean by simulating it? That you can see a layout?
I don't see how working on a grid with a mouse is superior to drawing.

The redstone simulator is like using pencil-and-paper too. But just as with this program, you don't have to waste paper or take time to erase anything. Also, it is more than simply "seeing the layout". The advantage of the program over paper is that you are not limited to the size of the paper. You also don't have to use any limited resources such as paper in order to get your idea firmly created in your mind. I know some people prefer to just start making test chambers but I like the convenience of having the idea set in my mind before I ever start to lay the first block of floor. It helps me to see the whole idea completed before I start building.

lord_blex wrote:
No matter how good the program is, it will probably have restrictions.

Hammer and PeTI have restrictions too. Even drawing on paper has restrictions. So restrictions are a moot point. The advantage of a program is the restrictions can be overcome. The restrictions are fixed by the medium. They are fixed only by the imagination and the RAM.

lord_blex wrote:
And if you wanna see if the design actually works, a top down view won't help you either way, so you will have to use PeTI or Hammer.

Wrong. A top-down view WILL help you see the thing work, if only in 2D. The redstone simulator does a marvelous job of simulating the function of redstone circuitry. This program could be designed to work in much the same way. Imagine if your drawing could be animated right on the paper. That would make it MUCH easier to see if your design is worth creating without wasting hours and hours trying to get your idea to work only to find out it is either too hard or simply not possible within the confines of the Portal 2 engine. That seems like something a lot of people would appreciate.

lord_blex wrote:
So just because you are in front of a computer, it doesn't mean you have to do everything on it. At least this is what I think. (Of course I'm not against anyone making this, I just don't think it's necessary)

I never you HAD to use this program. I merely said it would be helpful. Lots of designers spend 90% of the design process on paper. They only go on the computer to actually make the finalized design. I am not one of those people. I like to do everything on the computer.

FelixGriffin wrote:
This is the map I'm currently working on.
http://i.imgur.com/QWTg98W.jpg

I...wow...that is huge. Is that all one chamber? Damn, how are people gonna be able to keep track of stuff?

srs bsnss wrote:
FelixGriffin wrote:

This is the map I'm currently working on.
http://i.imgur.com/QWTg98W.jpg

I...wow...that is huge. Is that all one chamber? Damn, how are people gonna be able to keep track of stuff?

.< Indeed! looks a real maze man!