WinTex Substitute for Windows 7

[hornbrod]

Mother board smoked, had to get a new PC, Windows 7 OS. I've been using WinTex for years for simple pwad/iwad editing; replacing sprites, sounds, modifying graphics, basic stuff. Of course WinTex won't run on Win 7 as well as a lot of my other favorite programs. What's a good simple (I stress simple) pwad editor I can use as a substitute w/o a two year learning curve? Thanks all......

[Enjay]

SLADE

[hornbrod]

Downloaded and installed. It's a lot different than WinTex, has a lot more features than what I need, but I'll figure it out. Thanks Enjay.

[printz]

Just who is the dude who keeps advertising DeuTex and WinTex as reliable WAD managers to outside people?

[Enjay]

It's a lot different than WinTex, has a lot more features than what I need, but I'll figure it out. Thanks Enjay.

No problem. It is very different to Wintex (personally I never liked Wintex, but that's irrelevant) and it does have a lot of features but I found it pretty easy to navigate and get the hang of. It's also very up to date, currently maintained, compatible with new editing features, reliable and pretty stable. So, it's pretty much the best choice of available tools IMO. Although, in my set ways I still use DeePsea for most of my WAD lump management. Old habits die hard etc etc.

[wildweasel]

Just who is the dude who keeps advertising DeuTex and WinTex as reliable WAD managers to outside people?

Notice, if you will, that he said he's been using WinTex "for years" - perhaps even before XWE became the de facto standard. So it could very well have been the best WAD editor of the time, when he started using it. It certainly was for me, back in 2000, before XWE matured enough to be usable.

[hornbrod]

Notice, if you will, that he said he's been using WinTex "for years" - perhaps even before XWE became the de facto standard. So it could very well have been the best WAD editor of the time, when he started using it. It certainly was for me, back in 2000, before XWE matured enough to be usable.

This is true, have been using it since it was DOS based in the 90s. It always did what I needed it to do, so why change? Maybe I'm a lazy bastid, but I don't change if something works for me unless I'm forced into it or it's broke. In this case, WinTex is broke thanks to Win 7.

[Xaser]

You'll grow to love SLADE once you get used to it. It offers a much finer degree of control over wads (lump ordering, texture editing, etc.) than Wintex ever did.

[Enjay]

Heh, "back in the day" I used to do my WAD lump editing with DMAUD, DMMUS, DMGRAPH, DEU, DEUTEX and an army of bespoke BAT files. Despite such an awkward array of separate programs, I still preferred doing it that way than fighting Wintex to get what I wanted done.

[Kappes Buur]

In those days NWT was a godsend.

[taufan99]

In those days NWT was a godsend.

Heh, NWT makes me remember this TC

[InsanityBringer]

Oh, Wintex. I remember the amusing amount of hacks I had to go through to make it do what I want -- and how it would do crap like not allowing lumps with any name (unless it was a graphic or flat).

[Eriance]

Slade only need 1 feature - the ability to edit images directly as wintex, and then it surpasses wintex in every way.

[NeuralStunner]

Slade only need 1 feature - the ability to edit images directly as wintex, and then it surpasses wintex in every way.

Which was merely an automation of convert, export, launch app, wait, reimport, reconvert. Such a thing is already done, to an extent, by the PNG optimizer...

[Enjay]

Slade only need 1 feature - the ability to edit images directly as wintex, and then it surpasses wintex in every way.

You mean edit like you would in a drawing/painting package of some sort? Personally, I have always found those kind of built in editing features far too limited. Unless all I want to do is change a couple of pixels, I find exporting the graphic and using a real painting package is much better. In fact, most of the time I would do that for a very simple edit too. The limited nature of such painting features in programs where painting is not their primary function is perfectly understandable but they are so limited that I'm surprised that anyone has any real use for them and that such use justifies the effort of including the feature in the first place.