What are people's thoughts on rotating bmodel bounding boxes when the "angles" field is set, as described in Baker's tutorial here:
This lets you do "real" rotating doors without setting up func_movewalls.
I had a request to add this feature to QS. As far as I know the only quake singleplayer map to need it is e3m3rq.bsp, from the rmqwinter11 demo.
Here are some pros/cons I thought of:
- strictly speaking, this is a breaking change. for example, in those maps that have a func_train with 'angles' set, (recall the offset elevators in add.bsp or apsp1.bsp), with fitz 0.85, only the visual part of the model is rotated, the bounding box is left in the original place the mapper put it. If you add bbox rotation to the engine, the bounding box is lined up with the visible part of the model. Both maps still seem playable with bbox rotation, but it's possible other content is broken.
- better for mappers than hipnotic rotation, no need for func_movewall
- possible to make rotating fans, etc, with no qc
- already implemented in many engines: mark V (only if you use sv_protocol 668), fte, darkplaces, quakeforge, qbism.
- IMO the chance of breaking existing content is small; because you could consider the fact that bboxes don't rotate in vanilla quake a bug, and it's unlikely that somone would deliberately have the physics bbox in one place and the visual part of a model rotated away from that.
Question for Baker, was there any compatibility reaason you left this disabled in protocol 666 in MarkV?