News | Forum | People | FAQ | Links | Search | Register | Log in
Screw The R_speeds Thread !
Hi everybody. It's time to voice your opinion of how much the Quake engine can be violated by modern hardware.

Also a usefull thing to do would be to quote your machine specs, so that we can see what we are up against if anyone makes a "hippopotamus-sized" level (not an un-optimized pig level, those are crappy IMHO)

(even though I've made and released several)

Points of argument could be reasons for not playing big levels (ones beyond standard Quake limits), what acceptable r_speeds levels are in modern engines or why you choose to build big levels that require custom engines.

OK, My Machine Is 
C2D 6750(@2.66Ghz), 2Gb RAM, 8800 GTS 512, XP32

I think that if a level is well designed it's probably good. By well designed I mean it looks good, plays good (r_speeds aside) and doesn't leak. Vis blocking can be used at the players discretion nowadays (ooh, I'm gonna take some shit for saying that), but a level must be fully vised. If it's not fully vised then I see that as poor mapping. I mean for a finished map, all other things aside, the level must be visually optimised. If a mapper can't get it to vis then they should go back to the drawing board. Also I think there should be no areas where packet overflows occur (probably guilty of that too).

OK . . . . 
I Don't Think Fully Vising Is Necessary 
If it takes weeks if it doesn't make it that much better for low end comps anyway and with high end comps it's still playable with fastvis.
I have a low end comp (1.8 GHz) and can't play em anyway. 
1.8Ghz Should Be Fast Enough To Play 
all of these maps. Sickbase was made on an Athlon 1.7, and I was playing at 1024x768. Something like WarpC has much better vis-blocking than Sickbase so it should run faster.

What is your GPU Bambuz? 
People Can Break Whatever They Want 
But if people really want to stray far from what quake was built for and considering not even vising map you're really better off throwing away the standard .bsp compability and mod the engine for something that's more suitable for what you're doing(q3 .bsp might be good enough in many cases). 
r_speeds be damned, quick VIS passes, huge levels - do you really want to be making Quake levels? I think maybe you're mapping for the wrong engine. 
I Agree With The Two Above Me. 
Screw The "R_speeds Thread" 
This Can't Be A Serious Suggestion 
All maps have to be vised, no matter what. Even with a powerful machine, a large map will run poorly unvised. Just try r_novis on one. If vis takes weeks to complete, then so be it. It's basically the mappers fault for making the map too open, intentionally or by accident.
There are few occasions where fastvis is enough, simple space maps for instance - in this case, there's often no real difference in the vis result compared to a fullvis, except for the duration of the process. Remember the long delay of the release of Travail? That was due to my stupidity of not realizing that a fullvis was totally unnecessary for qtfin2. :P
But in most other cases it is and should be regarded as mandatory.

High(er) r_speeds, on the other hand, is somewhat acceptable nowadays, since most people's machines can handle it easily. Back then, the rule of thumb was trying to keep r_speeds under 600, maybe 800 if justified. Today, I'd say up to 2000 is ok for a single player map, though one should still try to tweak it as much as possible, of course. 
The Truth 
If you release a map without doing a full vis on it, you're an asshole. 
I Agree! (there's Two Things We Agree On) 
Slave on a fast vis was >10000 in places (!)

It took 60 hours to vis, and r_speeds are more than halved.

It's still a good example of what you DONT really want.

I look up to stuff like Marcher Fortress, Insomnia, Aderlass2, er WARPSPASM etc. These are examples of maps which look visually impressive in many places but have good r_speeds.

I think the only map which I have released which did have good r_speeds was the very first one, dvstart. ! :-|

Thehand was good except for the final area, looking towards and beyond the GK door was a bit hefty.

ALL maps were full vised though.

e1m4rmx will be better. Vis-blocking is already done in the layout, so I cant take much credit for that, but atleast it should have good speeds! :P 
You Know What? 
This and other recent discussions have given me inspiration for my next map. It's a bold, grand concept, so brace yourself!

I'm going to make a map. Not just any map though. It's going to be epic. At least 1,000 monsters! 100,000 brushes! I'll know I'm on the right track when I start breaking all of the standard Quake engine limits, but at that point I'll just be warming up!

I really couldn't be bothered with tedious stuff like vis blocking. It doesn't matter though, because I'm not going to vis it anyway!

I'm just going to keep adding stuff until the compiler won't build the map anymore. At that point, I'll delete a few brushes and call it done! By this time I'm sure the map won't run in any engine known to man (another sign that I'm doing well), so I'll have to get my own special .exe with massively increased limits so I can run the map. Maybe I can convince someone to make me a special version of QBSP as well, so that I can add even more stuff!

Common sense? Self-control? Testing? Compatibility? Fuck it all! It's all going out the window! This is ART, man. Don't oppress me with your bullshit limits. If you don't like it, you just don't understand it. You just don't understand ME.

Guess what? It doesn't matter if you don't appreciate my art anyway, because the map will only run in my very own special engine... and you can't have it! 
post of the month

But some engines can run Q3 maps amirite? So why not use that format? 
Because Those Engines Are All Fruity And Queer. 
I Always Thought A Good Idea Would Be 
To make a map which was right next to all of the limits.

Hard to do though!

The thing is that one could make a HUGE map, and stay within the limits. 64 lightmaps is quite a limiting factor, but if parts of the map are made up of rocks then scaling the textures up would increase the possible size of the map.

So has anyone ever made a map which was at all of the limit?

Which map was the closest? (AguirRe?) Breakfast at Twilight must have been close! 
MR Fribbles 
Awesome post, you've captured my method of mapping exactly, and it's the way plenty of others operate nowadays too. Lol.

I've found that ever since I started using Hammer instead of old WC, that the "automatic scale" of things I build is bigger. I think it's the 3d accelerated, quick-moving camera. The ability to get around areas in 2 seconds in-editor in smooth 3d makes it really difficult to stick to rooms 'n hallways. That said I've always hated rooms 'n hallways.

I do vis my freaking maps though. Not to do so would be a jackass thing to do as stated above, even if it does take 2 weeks (as one of my new maps does, although Masque was only a few days). It's the mapper's fault/choice/responsibility. If something looked awesome and it was unvised there's no way I'd download it. 
"That said I've always hated rooms 'n hallways."

Again - are you sure you want to make Quake maps? 
I Dunno Man: 
What about all of those coagula maps? The ones where everything is inside the void? 
Isnt The Point 
that although people want to make maps that are probably better suited to other engines, those other engines dont have games that supply the same fun gameplay as quake. 
Wasn't There A DP Special Map 
That featured the earth in real scale. So you just dropped for minutes until you hit the ground.

Maybe an alternative to traditional vising could be developed for huge maps for fast computers. Some coarser way of boxing visible areas. 
There Are Ways To Do Huge Levels With Tons Of Detail That Run Fast 
But none of those ways include using an eleven year old engine that had a performance target of being able to render ~800 polygons per frame.

Quake seriously is best when you play on the game's strenghts. Squeezing out all these shitty huge maps just because you can doesn't make them good.

I hate 
It's not like there's an overly large amount of limit-breaking maps already, and I doubt there will be that many in the future, so much of the sarcasm and hating seems out of place. 
I don't understand how making large maps is _offensive_ (no one's forcing anyone to play them). It's kinda hard to argue against Marcher and Breakfast at Twilight dude, though I suppose you do need to make a hater comment on every thread.

And yes, Willem, I do (or did, when I was building the architecture I'm now setting up gameplay for) want to make Quake maps even though I don't like maps that are pure rooms and hallways. The Shadow Over Innsmouth was a fucking great example of the kind of map I've always wanted (and generally failed) to make - something which pushes Quake into new, outdoorsish territory, yet retains the dark atmosphere and netherworldly feel. 
[Isn't The Point] that although people want to make maps that are probably better suited to other engines, those other engines dont have games that supply the same fun gameplay as quake.

quoted for copious quantities of sheer unadulterated TRUTH.

It's not like there's an overly large amount of limit-breaking maps already, and I doubt there will be that many in the future, so much of the sarcasm and hating seems out of place.

as above. 
my private opinion is that building intelligently, with vis blocking and some basic limits (I really mean the standard protocol here) in mind, and with basic compatibility and portability in mind, is just good practice (tm). And when you build according to good practice, which any good craftsman does, you will have reasonable r_speeds.

However, when you're building Warpspasm or Nehahra, it might be that other rules apply. But yeah, that's not the norm.

The problem with Warpspasm-type maps I think are not puny limits like static entities, not even huge open areas, but the standard protocol. There are some limits that you can't break without breaking the standard protocol, I think the model count for example.

So r_speeds aren't really the problem I guess, although I still think that a well-built map will automatically have bearable r_speeds. Personally when a map goes over 1000 all the time, I start to ask stupid questions :-) but not many maps do. Not even Ijed's. His maps play well indeed, even for me on my old laptop without hardware accel. I mean, even Marcher runs OK for me (!!!) so if a map requires "gamer hardware" then sorry, the map must be faulty.

It's probably the amount of stuff crammed into a map. The obvious solution is to split it up. Map loading time practically isn't a factor in Quake... and a hub system would even let you carry keys across maps (Quoth does.)

JPL did it with 5rivers. That wasn't so bad I thought. It would be nice if mappers could disable the status screen between parts, though. Or maybe that's already possible.

Neg!ke split his Zer map up, too, I'm sure there are more. It's like, definitely do-able :-) You don't go blind from doing it :-)

That's another benefit of hub-type maps, a lot of limits don't apply anymore. Sure you can have 1000 monsters and 300 torches, in a 5-part hub. No problem. It will even run in Winquake.

Think about it. 
Screw The "R_speeds Thread 
we want PORNO!!! 
Im Definately Starting To Swing Your Way Gb 
if you know what I mean. 
Screw The "R_speeds Thread
#25 posted by Trinca [] on 2008/04/17 01:05:52
we want PORNO!!!/i>

Every time I screw the R-speeds, they turn around and bite me on the ass.
Bah Who Needs Visblocking 
distance fog culling baby
and I leave it to you to find out how to do that (yes you can) 
you could easily hack vis to exclude leafs based on distance rather than using portals. 
I experimented with that briefly speeds... I figured if I used the -visdist option (if that's the one) and had some fog in the level it might work.

In reality the limited vis distance thing seemed a bit unpredictable (I guess it depends on how large the leafs and stuff are etc). Perhaps with a larger distance set it'd be useable (I tried something small like 512).

I also don't quite know how Quake fog generally works, since I've never used it in a map myself. Is it possible to set it up so that it does completely obscure vision beyond a certain distance?

Of course, I didn't play around with it much and you're probably talking about a different method anyway! 
Yes It Definately Possible To Set It To 
obscure vision beyond a certain distance.

type "fog 1" to enable very dense fog. It works the same as r_wateralpha, 1 is completely opaque and 0 is completely transparent (off), so "fog 0.2" would give quite thick fog. For a subtle fog effect try "fog 0.02" for example. You can set the colour too: "fog 0.02 0.5 0 0" would give thin red fog. It's "fog density r g b"

Here's the readme from AguirRe's engine:

I dont know how much of the syntax is compatible with FitzQuake, but the simple "fog density r g b" command works in AguirRe's and FitzQuake - That's the command I was using to enable fog in the "pit" area of The Hand That Feeds You.

Go experiment! If you want thick fog try anything above "fog 0.5". Infact that will be VERY thick! "fog 0.2" is quite thick . . . 
Fog Culling Issues 
There are two main issues with fog culling.

1. Distance-based culling works in a sphere around the camera, but opengl fog uses the "depth" to calculate fog thickness, and that means you can only safely cull stuff that is on the far side of a plane that is parallel to the viewplane. In other words, objects on the edges of the screen might be outside the sphere but inside the far clipping plane. Another way to see this is that you can see objects clearer if you turn so that they are in the corner of the screen.

2. Linear fog eventually gets to fully opaque, but exponential fog never quite does. Though I guess it gets close enough, so maybe this isn't quite an issue. 
<- Imaginary Plush Mr Flibble 
Yeah! Use fog culling so the huge maps don't show their hugeness. That's exactly what map-penis-aware mappers want!

Btw most engines render fog differently (and ugly). 
In Reply To #13 
If you mean the current version of DP, try using an older (less bloated) version with support for the format or the nehahra engine. Though I wonder how big of a task it would be to port bare bones Q3 support to fitz/aguire. 
The only other thing needed for distance vis/fog would be a skybox of the same same (flat) colour.

That'd solve artefacts with metslime problem #2 and ones in the skybox for #1 (since there'd be no visible sktbox). But it'd still reveal geometry if you turned your head.

What About The Onld 
is it "gl_farclip" command?

Couldn't you use that to make sure you can't see anything past a certain distance? 
Linear fog eventually gets to fully opaque, but exponential fog never quite does. Though I guess it gets close enough, so maybe this isn't quite an issue.

I guess this is what I was wary of... some implementations of fog I've seen do the latter (never quite go fully opaque) and this certainly would be an issue if you had a limited draw distance, and everything beyond that was not rendered (HOMtastic!)

To use the technique I mentioned earlier, you'd need:

- carefully chosen visdist parameters combined with intelligent brush placement to encourage the desired BSP chopping
- probably some very good vis blocking in addition to that anyway (or let's say player line-of-sight blocking, at least)
- fine control over fog settings (e.g. ensure that it goes fully opaque at a specified distance from the camera)

Would it be worth it in the end? Probably not, even if it worked. It might be fun to experiment with this on a small scale first though, to test the waters.
the map also was like 10k x10k units running in DP only. on a 300mhz cpu + voodoo3

oh dear, this is dated 2003 /me cries 
and on a serious note 2000k r_speeds ELEK`s cathedral map ran fine on that very same old 300mhz in MHquake. cause it doesnt have any monsters.
people always look at w_poly, but its often e_poly going over the roof with AI, collision and dynamic lights from all those monsters that bogs down the performance

Does anyone still have something like 500mhz celeron? would be interesting to do some testing.
Or whoever here has the slowest PC - lets set him as a benchmark. whatever`s playable for him would be playable for everyone else. 
I've Got A P3 550 128MbRAM Shit Onboard Video 
somewhere in my 'cupboard'. Under a big pile of old clothes and empty boxes....

...I could use that!

Anyone wanna go lower?

Also in all seriousness is there a way of benchmarking demo playback in Quake1?

If so we should pick a map + demo for the purpose!! 
timedemo demoname

whats the highest r_speeds map with the most monsters?
could try the final arena of 5river land - that wasnt very smooth even on my athlon 2.2 
those are disqualified for crashing fitzquake! 
IF Its Edicts That Crashed Fitz 
You know you can up the edicts limit. What was the command to do that?

I know this might sound tarded but how about Slave? r_speeds are quite high but it'll run in any engine . . . Also there's a couple of speed runs already made....

The fact that it uses Quoth2 - this could be a problem? Thos who have played it - I think the worst area is the walkway leading across the side of the outdoor area, where the Feind jumps across. 
Slave? huh does it have any really bad places?
its not about overal map testing, more like finding out at what r_speeds it gets unplayable (~ below 25 fps) on and old pc like that, so just try to see the worst places.
I reckon that overall the fps would be good 
Heh - It's A Funny Map In That Way 
The area out side which the player starts in is the worst. You end up in that area a few times as you progress through the map. Whan I made it I was aware i was making a bit of an "unoptimized pig" of an area, so I went to great lengths to make sure that the rest of the map has good vis blocking. And it does! But try it Speeds, the very first door you approach, what are the r_speeds there (high if I remember correctly).

I dunno, it's a suggestion. We should probably maybe go for something which uses standard progs I guess....

Wasn't Hrimfaxi's Cappuccino quite bad in places (somebody mentioned it when ranting about one of my levels)?
well, you should`v closed the roof or just placed some skybrushes there. lots of stuff being drawn that you cant possible see.
still 2600 woply and something like 10000 epoly of the idle monsters is not that horrible 
Hence the name of the map.

12k wpoly is as much as I got w/o breaking 32k marsurfaces limit. unvised. 48 monsters, collision hulls optimised tho. still runs at ~33 fps on my athlon xp 2.2 and bambus has ~30 on atthlon xp 1.8 in fitz

who uses a slower PC to play quake? 
Spede's Map
Athlon XP 1800 or so,
geforce4 mx
More Test Results 
p2 400 MHz with GF2MX 32MB
21-22fps at just 2800 wpoly/4800 epoly
fitzquake too 
Duuh . . . 
how do you make fitz show fps? 
Need To List Resolution... 
if your card is fillrate-limited at that resolution, it makes a big difference to framerate. 
Why Wont It Go Over 72fps? 
Oh, I Found It: 
Hah - this is the other way!
I jus' did it on my PC for crack!

we should plot the results on a graph... 
p2 400 MHz with GF2MX ran at 640 x480
me (I have gf7600) and bamb @ 1024x768 obviously
another one 2.4GHz (celeron) with GF7600GS :

so there you go - for a ~five year old pc (~2ghz speed) ~10k wpoly with ~10k epoly would be still playable

but if you care for the really old hardware I guess about 2000/4000 is a good limit

and be carefull with the hordes in the open detailed areas - lots of dynamic light really eats fps

btw DP runs this map ~2-3 times slower 
Cant Let It Die 
engines speedtest. timedemo, average fps
(all run in the same v mode)

aguirRe gl quake 49
MHquake 6 47,6
latest fitzhack 43
DP (from Spe 27 2007) 19 
This Is Definitely True 
people always look at w_poly, but its often e_poly going over the roof with AI, collision and dynamic lights from all those monsters that bogs down the performance

Very much so - I've found this to be the case as well. Epolys have a much more severe performance hit than Wpolys (with hardware acceleration).

For example, I had some collision hull issues with pkeg1 (the classic "getting stuck on invisible edges where angled brushes meet other surfaces"). I initially fixed this by making some of the problem brushes func_wall, but I saw a noticeable performance hit after doing so.

This suggests that some popular solutions for reducing r_speeds (e.g. making pillars func_illusionary so they don't create lots of BSP splits and extra polys) might actually cause decreased performance, even though the r_speeds will be lower. 
Grunts and dogs in place of, say, Enforcers and Scrags cause problems as well because they're more likely to gib, hitting both epoly and entity count. 
Engine Speeds 
There's more reasons for poly limits in an engine than just how fast your processor is. Sickbase had similar poly counts to a Quake3 map (in the thousands), and Quake3 runs its maps a hell of a lot better than Fitzquake ran sickbase. Engines will use certain methods over others because of computational/memory/etc tradeoffs, and the choice is usually determined by a good educated guess at how big your data set is going to be. An engine properly optimized for its target hardware and content will not scale in power linearly with the cpu speed of the machine you put it on.

The weapons and monsters in Quake are also all designed to be used in the kinds of levels that Quake shipped with. There's no ultra-long-range combat or vehicle bits, because monster movement, aggression, attack range, projectile speed, leap distance, etc, are all based on spaces no bigger than a large atrium. Quake monsters in Far Cry, for example, would only work in the indoor bits.

There's more. Part of what I think is essential to Quake's fun feel is the fact that it's lower fidelity than new games. The story and the combat have a simplicity to them that is conceptually inappropriate in higher detail or higher resolution. I'm going to call on the warren spector lectures I've been going through recently (specifically Hal Barwood this time), but only because it nicely quote-packages something I would have said here anyway: "maintain level of abstraction." He describes how the simpler and more toony pixel-art look of games like Indiana Jones and his Desktop Adventures or Yoda Stories is conceptually appropriate to the more casual slant the game takes. The more fidelity you see, the more you expect in other ways. The success of Gears of War is probably proof that most of the market doesn't think that way, but we're clearly not most of the market. 
FitzQuake Doesnt Run Sickbase 
It doesnt work. Only runs in AguirRe's engine. 

I would argue though that Gears may have a lot of visual fidelity but the core gameplay loop is extremely tight. Cover and limited weapon selection drive the gameplay down very defined paths which are easily understood.

I think the graphics draw people into Gears at first but the easy to understand gameplay keeps them there.

If Gears was hyper complicated (say, matching the gameplay against the graphics) it wouldn't have done nearly as well. 
"That featured the earth in real scale. So you just dropped for minutes until you hit the ground."
Yes, there was a DP only map that did that. Urre made it. In a text editor. It took about 23 minutes for me to reach the bottom, with accelerated time. Humorously it was losing precision near the end, as my shotgun kept struggling to keep up with me as I fell further and further. And the surface of the 'earth' (since its just a plain, not a sphere) is ridiculously huge. Not exactly a practical map, but neat in its own right. You can dl it at his page here, 
R_speeds, DM 
Please keep r_speeds under 800

from, thread here:

So if you care for your map's DM play (who does?), perhaps r_speeds do matter?

At least my e1m2 remix is vanilla DM compatible (including jump distances etc), if just for tradition, and most of the rest should be, except for the boss maps. Luckily it's almost all rooms-and-corridors, so naturally low r_speeds (mostly 200-600) even after applying Ijed's "30% bigger" rule (I love that one.) ;-P

So I guess what I'm asking is, who cares for deathmatch? Whose maps will be DM capable? 
I dont think anyone plays sp maps in dm at all 
I hear some ppl still play e1m2.

The runequake folks play a lot of id1. 
Re: Level Of Abstraction 
"The story and the combat have a simplicity to them that is conceptually inappropriate in higher detail or higher resolution."

I miss this level of abstraction, when there was a basic cheesiness factor that no one could really break out of. I like the idea of games as a limited form of entertainment where the player's enjoyment is based on the art/atmosphere and a simple gameplay mechanic (this is why I like Quake, Rune, etc). In a way, Quake really was no more refined than a side-scroller, it was essentially the same concept but with better art and action. Now, when someone makes something like Painkiller, it is not only deliberately a throwback, but even so it's also influenced by Blade, Underworld, the Matrix, etc. In a way Quake was the last cheesy game where they weren't doing it deliberately.

Basically I guess I'm arguing there should be more games that focus on simple but effective/tactical action, without civilians, npc's, soundtracks by the latest band, or voices by hollywood actors. It'd be great to just be able to jump into a game with a quality SP campaign you could blast through and then on to DM, the "arcade" type element in games seems lacking now.

Essentially, a long time ago I was looking better to a more dynamic game world, better graphics and especially photorealism, but now I consider this basically a curse. 
I Guess What I'm Saying Is 
they spend so much money these days adding shit to games that I don't even want. 
everyone who plays 4on4 plays e1m2. It's the standard map along with dm2 and dm3. 
About Modern Quake Dm Maps 
The scene actually playing newly released deathmatch maps is smaller than the singleplayer scene. 
Well People Do Play 
skull, vio's map etc... but yeah it is limited. 
DM Spawnpoints 
But surely it can't hurt to throw in some DM spawnpoints? Base_debris, slave, and dragon.bsp apparently don't even have spawnpoints... I find this a bit weak, it doesn't cost much and players get more bang for the buck, so why ignore it? I like some botmatches now and then, and having more maps to choose from is nice.

bambuz: I know that, it was just the obvious reply to what speeds said. I'm well aware that it's a deathmatch icon (ferrari and all that), that's why I put in the effort :-) I don't care if anyone plays it, it just seems like the right thing to do.

I think "no DM support" should go on the list of bad practice (TM). The id maps have it, so it's practically a standard, and it's not hard to do. 
I've never added DM support to any of my single player maps. They just don't work as DM maps generally. If you want a DM map, make a DM map. They are very different beasts.

id probably did it to expand the amount of content they were offering for sale. By doing that, they give the shareware version a bunch more life because people can DM on the maps as well.

The problem is that you then have to design your single player level with circular routes in mind and connections all over the place. 
A valid question for a remake project though, since the id maps have lots of routes that aren't used or are just extra to explore in the SP version, ie. they're not blocked off. 
Well, I think they did it because they all liked deathmatch and they had all those maps to play around with. They probably thought "why not". They were just playing friendly matches.

Some id1 maps work really well in TDM, like e1m2 and e3m7(?) can't remember... others are just fun...

runequake ppl love azure agony etc... I think what you mean is that they normally aren't good 1on1 maps.

Perhaps your standards for "good DM map" are too high. I was thinking more along the lines of "fun for a friendly match, or some bots."

I just checked a lot of maps, and apparently from the last year or two, most maps don't even have DM spawnpoints. Friendly exceptions are Neg!ke's amd Efdat's Zer maps, which look interesting enough for some bot fun.

It's so easy, why not toss in some info_player_deathmatch? I think it's clear that you can't expect too much. But it might be fun for a few loonies. And it shows that you care, and that you're willing to go the extra mile.

It's just one more thing that I don't get. It's cheap fun. Plus, technically, you have an error in your map (crash when deathmatch=1.)

What's wrong with amateur mappers following the same "more bang for buck" idea? We're not making money with this, but it's always good to give ppl more to play with.

And when making remix maps, you can always touch up the deathmatch a bit, remove the most glaring problems etc.

I might actually enlist the help of some DM playtesters. *makes note* I really think the maps would lose something if I dropped DM. 
Yea Add Info_player_deathmatch And 
mark the key doors as not in deathmatch and, if it's an episode map and there aren't many weapons, add a few only for dm. 
I Started To 
For warp, and there�s vestigal remains in there until I decided that nobody would bother for big maps, so stopped. Warpb is really the only one that has extra stuff.

I included alot of the broken / unusable teleports for this. If, as Spirit said on another thread the DM player community is smaller than the SP, then it was probably a good call. 
I Just Always Forgot 
i dont think there's a reason to put dm spawn
points for such giant maps like marcher or warpbcd people will never play 'em, but on the other hand why not put dm starts on smaller maps like resent dragon, etc 
Most old, say, pre-1999 custom maps have DM support (however crude). It probably has to do with the way it was initially played. Back then, people generally weren't as skilled and determined when playing deathmatch. It was more about mindless fun and shooting people of the same low skill in familiar environments. Yes, I know there were already highly skilled players, QW and so on, but still. Even if a map sucked in terms of connectivity and layout, some people still got a bang out of it. I assume not much thought was put into the item placement in most cases, and if it was, it didn't require much additional effort.

Despite the fact that, indeed, hardly anyone will actually play newly released SP maps in DM, even if they have an appropriate size (which the warp maps have not, so not adding DM entities was ok). Nevertheless, I think it's kind of nice to have some sort of DM support simply for a sense of oldschoolness. My next map will have it too, even though it totally sucks for DM and I'm sure nobody will ever even consider having a match there.

Large maps can make interesting DM maps too if done properly. Certain (most) parts can be blocked off and new routes opened. A good recent example for this would be efdat's zerTM, as goldenboy already mentioned. 
Plus, technically, you have an error in your map (crash when deathmatch=1.)Actually it's the engine's (or mod?) fault not to have any decent kind of error handling.

Deathmatch on SP maps is sometimes fun, we played neg!ke's zerst�rer map a bit and while it was not a great dm map, it was great fun.
What is much more important are coop playerstarts in my opinion (even though even less people play coop). 
Yes, co-op starts seems reasonable to me although I wish id had included more tools for co-op play. Like additional spawn flags where you could have things appear only in a co-op game. That would have allowed a whole sub-genre of maps aimed at co-op players. 
try the latest release of quoth as it contains a few enhancements for coop (including only in coop/not in coop flag support) as well as TONS of very significant time savers (especially for large maps with lots of spawning enemies) and optimisations. On top of that, there are the new monsters and other entities (including 2 weapons) you can use in your maps. Quoth is totally awesome.

The mapping docs for it are also really good, though there are a lot of currently undocumented features, such as the improvements to func_train, the func_button that can be attached to other func_entities etc. 
As For Dm 
Although I didn't used to bother with DM support, I think my old maps would have been ok in dm with enough players. I'm trying to at least put in spawns and hide doors etc. in my current maps and am going to include full dm support in my large base map as it contains a lot of underwater sections which might be quite novel in dm.

DM3RMX is currently the only rmx map I've seen to maintain dm support, although it is based on a dm map, so it would seem odd to omit it. I blocked off all the new areas and kept it fairly faithful to the original map.

coop support is a must for sp maps and is very little extra effort unless you have a lot of areas where the player gets trapped so you need to create teleporters etc. to help out. 
It goes without saying that DM support means a bit more than placing DM starts and removing doors. A little thought should be given to the item placement and how movement can be improved, e.g. by creating DM-only teleporters and passages, or removing obstacle details. Of course, one has to consider benefits/disadvantages for the SP mode as it's the main focus of the map.

With Quoth2, proper coop support is quite possible indeed, and there are many ways in which it can be spiced up, like areas that can only be reached by working together (bunk-up). Regular coop always somewhat suffers from a lack of ammo or a fair distribution of it and the weapon-target bug - fortunately this can be dealth with now. The main problem are trap or 'one way' situations like than said. Some extra triggers or teleporters for the other players would have to be added. 
I know Quoth makes co-op easy, but I was referring more to back in the day when Quake first came out and mapping was hot. That would have been the time to really capitalize on co-op but id didn't really provide decent tools for that. More of a half-hearted, "eh, here's some co-op player starts - have fun!" 
Are you working on anything currently? 
Youi mean you can mount a button on a moving train now?!?!?!?!


Nice That We Talked About It 

e1m2qmx will retain the classic dm loadout 99% (all classic jumps etc will still work, too), the others might be adjusted a bit. I might ask some QW players for playtesting. I'll restrict Quoth use to SP. Talking about jumps, the usual speedrun goof (slope-GJ etc) will be exterminated :-)

Maybe I'll post some screenies at some point, haven't decided yet.

Ricky, I played slave a bit more. The fuse thing is nice, and could be taken even further. :^) Some nice machinery.

Sorry for taking this so far OT. Yes, down with r_speeds! :-E 
yes, a few bits and bobs. The main thing is finishing the map I was going to include in the base pack before everyone decided it wasn't worth releasing together. That's not too far off - should be ready in the next month or so if I get time to work on it.

I also have a couple of other maps nearly done, including dm1rmx, which I will try and get done for the deadline of the remix pack and release alongside it - if not then I guess it will be soon after the base level.

I want to get these maps done before the summer kicks in because a. the weather is too good to be inside playing Quake and b. my computer overheats a lot in the summer :(

p.s. none of the maps have crazy r_speeds although they do go over 800 in places. The map sizes are quite big though. The basepack level is big and the other one (I guess apsp3) is huge, though they are both fairly small scale in terms of room size.

Some (but not much) info here: 
looks great! 
your shots of dm1rmx look awesome. I've never sussed out myself how dm1 could work for SP, so I'm looking forward to seeing it.
But...please don't use that sky texture :/ 
Interesting Stuff 
Looking forward to those. 
Gief Apsp3 
"APSP2 - Satan's Caramel Surprise" 
lollin here 
Post A Reply:
Website copyright © 2002-2017 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors.