Iād REALLY recommend, even if you donāt use it like that personally, teach alternate ways of controlling things.
Going to the view menu and finding the perspective toggle is niceā¦ But itās WAY faster if you just press Num5ā¦
When you showed how to move pieces, you wrote āpeicesā in the description 
The problems you had with snapping with the one cube where based on your snapping options. Itās set to closest vertex. You could do active vertex snapping too, although Iām not totally certain if that actually works in object modeā¦ For the scope of this, your solution is fine though, I guessā¦
Seriously, it would be sooo much easier if you just used 2.5 for the template stuff. Itās stable enough for tasks like that and itās easier to handle.
One example is that 2.5 actually has a directly useable file preview. Memorizing a name before being able to put it into the program is kinda lame. - You pointed out the version of that in 2.49 which indeed is crashy. Thatās a point where 2.5 is by far more stable.
At 6:30 you wrote peice again.
You donāt need to apply the array modifier right away. In fact the POINT of modifiers is their non-destructiveness
You could create multiple arrays on one object and when youāre happy, apply them all at once
Why do you seperate the useless faces? just delete them right away.
It would be WAY more useful if you scaled the pink āfinal meshā grid in a way that the grid points are exactly where you want them instead of using two different grids. Thatās just annoying and will sure put off ppl.
Btw, you can costumize your Blender floor grid settings so they arenāt divided 10 times each but more or less often and so itās overally bigger.
In 2.49 you get those options in the rarely used view -> view properties.
There you can switch off the grid alltogether, aswell as axes or you can change the spacing, the Lines and the divisions of the grid into a subgrid.
You could, for example, set Spacing .25, Lines 100 and Divisions 4
The resulting grid is four times finer but the subgrid only has four divisions which the snap option snaps to.
For building a map form blocks like this, options like that would be way more useful.
You could first snap the corner of the pink plane to the corner of the white plane and THEN delete it.
At 7:50 grammar STILL didnāt change and you gotta write āpiecesā too.
As the editor program will be Blender, couldnāt you allow much more freely made custom maps? Wouldnāt it be possible to do slightly hilly terrains or to have rotated stuff in general? - aswell as custom textures and shapes?
You could add a custom textures folder to allow the usage of thoseā¦ Add a size-restriction to the texture which should be in a certain format and a polycount restriction per grid unit to the map and call it āadvanced map modelling modeā
A general polycount restriction should be added anyway.
There are a lot of unneccessary things for the user in this, that would be more or less trivial to change for your programmers.
One of them should look into the export script and figure out a way to not export pieces that have the default name (e.g. that arenāt duplicates) or not export the white plane but instead the pink one, which you could put onto a different layerā¦ (However, just using the standard Blender grid with customized options should work too)
For a simple block-editor-like usage like here, you would certainly make pplās lives easier if you used 2.5ā¦ (Except of course if the exporter doesnāt work for itā¦ HOWEVER, the pyAPI in 2.5 should overally be easier to use and allow WAY more useful featuresā¦ If your developers merely looked into it for a bit, I donāt think it would take them too long to figure out how to port it.
