I'm banging out a remake of DM-Stalwart from UT99 to brush up on my brushwork (har har) and I noticed just by chance that a ledge I had made was able to be jumped on in Darkplaces, but not in Quakespasm. I changed to Quakespasm because it doesn't fudge the lighting (I spent time on that lighting!) and it looks like it's fudging the player physics too. Is there something I'm missing, or does Darkplaces have buggy/improper player physics? 

Also curious if there's a .wad floating around with greybox textures. I'm using one of the tiled floor patterns from the stock textures, but I've seen plenty of screenshots where prototype maps have a few differently colored grids as placeholders. 

The physics in Darkplaces and Quakespasm are different. This is because Darkplaces is based on the Quakeworld engine, whereas Quakespasm is based on the netquake engine (What was originally dosquake->winquake->glquake) 

Which set of behaviors should I target? Quaddicted recommends Quakespasm, so I suppose it'd be safer to target that engine. Is there a consensus on which engine is preferred for SP/DM? Up until I discovered this today I had no idea there were differing physics models across Quake/QuakeWorld, so I'm kind of thrown. 

The jumping difference is down to step physics. When the player hits an obstacle, the engine checks if the player can clear the obstacle by being pushed 18 units higher. This is how you can go up steps without needing to jump for each one. In regular quake, you must be standing on the ground for this to work. You might notice this if you jump while climbing some steps - you get blocked by the netx step and lose your forward momentum.

Darkplaces relaxes this requirement, allowing you to climb stairs even if you are off the ground. This fixes the blocking when you jump into some stairs. However, this also lets you climb a ledge you are pressing against, once you are less than 18 units short of the height needed to land on it. In effect, darkplaces lets you climb ledges 18 units higher than normal. This is not a qw physics difference, it's specific to darkplaces and can be disabled with sv_jumpstep 0 

But you will have to save them as a pcx file and stick them into a wad yourself...

http://24.media.tumblr.com/9867c768459a284b2f6f3ceba2e72982/tumblr_mikryv2oEs1rrpymyo1_250.png

http://31.media.tumblr.com/74903748e7dc77eecc7eac9d0032bc17/tumblr_mikryv2oEs1rrpymyo2_250.png 

because most people will be using a similar engine (like fitzquake, directq or rmq). This is at least true for the singleplayer side of things.
If I am not mistaken though a lot of the multiplayer engines are based on darkplaces (like Nquake). 

https://anonfiles.com/file/30705c2042e16922502fd84e7237e8f0

This is the greybox wad I use in my current DM map. I made the textures in Wally. Have fun. 

negke & co., how do I make an item float in midair in vanilla quake? There must be some way to circumvent the droptofloor part. 

you rest the item on an object that gets removed when the map starts... 

Indeed, this works even in deathmatch. Thanks. 

weapons don't drop to floor until a frame or so passes. 

correct me if i'm wrong but I think it actually needs to be after 1 second, because the game starts at 1 second.

so, a nextthink of 0.5 would actually run at 1 second and would be before droptofloors are called.
to be safe, it should be at least > 1. 

Was to have the player touch a trigger once that killtargeted all the func_walls I had set up for the feature.

Worked on all engines as I recall. 

Simplest setup is a func_wall that removes itself (no need for triggers). Add the following fields:

"think" "SUB_Remove"
"nextthink" "0.2"

necros: I've heard that one before, but it's either incorrect or irrelevant in this context. Setting nextthink to 0.X in a map works fine. If anything, if the game starts at 1 second, then all of such values will be automatically executed at 1.X. 

To clarify a few wrong statements above: there are so-called NetQuake type engines - the ones that Quake SP runs on as well - and there are QuakeWorld engines which, among other things, have client-side prediction and modified physics, and are originally not meant to be used for SP. Some people use NQ engines for multiplayer games, some prefer QW. Naturally, certain NetQuake ports geared more toward singleplayer, while others are made with multiplayer in mind.

All engine ports are based on the original WinQuake, GLQuake, or QW sources released by id. Darkplaces, on the other hand, was largely rewritten from scratch as far as I know, and as such handles several things different than regular engines. It supports both NQ and QW servers, but it's not the base for any other ports. 

The nextthink/SUB_Remove on a func_wall makes sense.

I was thinking there is probably a way to hack the floating object itself to not go to droptofloor() but I was too lazy to think that up myself. And whatever works, right.

I used triggers on all the start spots in this version, might just go and do the SUB_Remove thing in the next one.

I remember we had a spawnflag for this in RMQ and also spawn/deathtargets on IPS. But if one targets vanilla deathmatch, custom progs is a no go. 

I just stuck in a simple if that skipped the droptofloor() call for that one. 

precisely dick!

Just stick with QS for your map... 

It's a DM map, no one uses QS there :) They use stuff like glpro, qrack, and ezquake.

I have a hard time getting my .lit file to stick already. Seems half of them have no coloured lighting. 

Are there any good tools to be aware of outside of the usual workflow? Aside from the editor and texture utilities, what else do you leverage while you're making a map?

In particular I'm trying to think of a good way to plan maps. I was using graphing paper, but has anyone used something like google sketchup/layout, or another program? A simple way to layout a design from multiple angles would be awesome.

I was just using paper, but it's hard to keep track of the map from multiple angles, and to keep track of what line is what. 

Thing with planning maps... paper is fastest but lacks 3D. And if you do it in 3D you might as well do it inside the editor?

I like planning on paper, if you practice sketching straight in linear or orthogonal perspective and just do lots of little sketches it's pretty okay, you just have take peace with the fact you can't draw from all angles. 

dividing your time between layout and looks (dev texture etc) can be a huge save of effort. 

Trenchbroom makes it very easy to bang out huge swaths of geometry with little pain, but I find that the thing I have trouble with is keeping layers matched between floor levels. Such as the first greybox rough revision I made for my remake of DM-Stalwart, there are four or so different floor heights, and they all connect via ramps and stairs, but a couple of my levels ended up uneven with each other, which didn't really matter in the rough layout, but for when I do the real-deal I need to make sure that should be square with each other are.

Is there a good technique to prevent snafus like this? Such as making floor platforms first, or placeholders? I seem to remember at one point in 2D view editors I'd setup all the floors first from the top perspective, then use a side perspective to move the layers to the heights I wanted, and work from there. 

there are four or so different floor heights, and they all connect via ramps and stairs

One of the strengths of Trenchbroom, I find.

Resolving height differences can be a bit of a pain, but the fact that there is height differences is a good thing for your map and is worth the trouble.