The same questions also applies to fence textures: they're an specific kind of data that needs engine support, otherwise they look broken in the game.

And faithfulness to the Q1 feel will depend entirely on the mapper. A new map format isn't needed to lose the original feel of the game, there are several custom Q1 maps that does this already.

It's a matter of using new features where needed, to do things properly instead of using hacks. Alphamasked textures can be faked with sprites, and scrolling textures can be faked with moving entities, but they're much simpler to create when using a map format that supports them natively.

Part of my my purpose is to make the task of map creation easier, to replace hacks with proper implementations.

Each eyecandy I implement is directed at eliminating a visual artifact that Id Software would certainly have eliminated if they had had more development time. Sky horizon fading and hybrid skyboxes are an example � and they are more faithful to the Q1 feel than static skyboxes.

I make sure to follow a minimalistic "if it's not broken, don't fix it" approach. Which is why I'm not going to support replacement textures, parallax mapping, bump mapping and other features that "prettyfies" the game without allowing for more gameplay possibilities or for easier creation of assets.

And all that is because as an engine coder, using engines coded by others would be akin to a mapper using maps bought from an asset store instead of creating his own. I have my own ideas for a game engine, and I want to bring them to life.

My minimalistic improvement approach is a way of ensuring I can do that even if I'm completely on my own. If others would like to follow it, that's a bonus.

I never had much luck with teamwork, so I must make sure I can do everything myself. 

It is clear that you've put a lot of thought into this. I hope you can get it through to completion.

On a side note, why re-write an engine rather than contributing to an existing engine? Your comment seems like you'll be doing it for philosophical rather than practical reasons. It sort of seems like you'll be re-inventing the wheel if that is the case.

Unless you want a bare-bones engine. In which case, yeah, go nuts. 

And faithfulness to the Q1 feel will depend entirely on the mapper.

These are wise words. 

Because I'm really not sure whether other editors can read them back in properly. One option would be to have TB write with quotes if the input map file had them in the first place, and have some option to turn this behavior on and off.

Demonstrating how bad the QBSP parser is doesn't really prove anything other than "QBSP doesn't conform to the agreed upon standard". And from what I have seen so far, the unofficial Quake specs appear to describe the least common denominator that all tools that I have seen so far understand.

I do agree though that having texture names in quotes would be the best option. I just fear for compatibility, and it's quite important as a lot of people seem to use more than one level editing tool. 

The 'agreed upon standard' also doesn't include floating point coords, nor Hammer's texture planes stuff.
Writing out .map files that the same editor cannot later read in is always going to be broken however you look at it.

By all means only use quotes when they're actually needed (yay for smaller file sizes), but do make sure they're used when they ARE needed, because writing out a file that can only be read by your own program is muuuuch better than writing out a file that can be read by nothing.

The times when you NEED quotes are:
empty texture string.
texture name contains spaces / other whitespace.
texture name contains chars that an unofficial parser may consider to be punctuation.
texture name contains non-ascii chars

Also, I wouldn't call QBSP's parser bad, I'd much rather call it simple. And by simple, I mean that its tokenizer is consistent and predictable.
That said, showing exactly what weirdness you can throw at it is fun, as well as a possible way to hide other optional extensions (without needing the qbsp to write out multiple copies of the same texture). 

"why re-write an engine rather than contributing to an existing engine? [�] Unless you want a bare-bones engine. In which case, yeah, go nuts."

I want to learn how the whole engine works, and the best way to do so is by rewriting it.

I will never accept that I can't fully learn how it works. If Carmack created it all almost alone, then it's humanly possible.

All my life I've been taught that I should give up and get an uninspired job where I do nothing but follow orders. I refuse to not study and I refuse to not be creative. I may only switch to another engine when I finish learning this one.

I refuse to give up. 

 

Carmack is kind of an exceptional individual, but more power to you. Doing it yourself is very rewarding. 

If Carmack created it all almost alone, then it's humanly possible.

Way to go assuming Carmack is human. 

For a hobby project. Doesn't mean you can't get a job that pays the bills though. 

Writing a game engine from scratch - nothing stops you from trying to get it greenlit. 

that's awesome.

Do us a favor, if you make a new map format, document and comment the hell out of your code so that others can implement it in their own engine too :) 

Carmack also wasn't nearly alone - Michael Abrash was instrumental. 

SleepwalkR: I do have a full time job. The payment is low, but it's almost stress-free and gives me free time to study.

ijed: There are some plans for a commercial release using it.

Shamblernaut: Sure!

Lunaran: Yes, and I've already beaten some of his contributions. My particle drawing code is faster than his x86 ASM code, and my Z-buffer drawing code in C is as fast as his x86 ASM code. I like the challenge of optimizing the software renderer. 

There's a lot more to a game engine than the renderer. Don't pat yourself on the back too hard JUST yet. :) 

 

Great stuff! I'd recommend posting over at the vogons, there are some super smart and retro affine people there. 

keep a hold on me! 

That thing looks great.

Also, somebody should tell the second Orbb that his RL is backwards. 

 

A true medieval Ogre!

And Bender, the robot from Futurama, armed with the Perforator! 

I know, have another look, I changed the pic.
It was quiet a lot of work to get the both parts together,
when I saw too late how the launcher is placed.

Open for command, please hit me, before these beastards do! 

why is there bender lol i'm dying 

rocket launcher is on backwards :| 

Madfox is Chaotic Chaotic.