Summoning Great Strength
eQtools. Erics Quake Tools.
What's wrong with ericw-tools?
"func_compiler" does have a certain charm.
Or maybe "qompiler" although perhaps that's too vulnerable to typos?
Trying to think of other terms besides "compile"... "quakebake"?
One I thought of was "arcaneutils".
"ericw-tools" is nice and straightforward though.
"func_compiler" is good, disadvantage is it's hard to say and it would be hard to read without the underscore (e.g. funccompiler).
Just Pick A Simple Grim, Quakey Word And Stick "tools" On The End
you get the idea
Arcaneutils is ... ich. The eu in the middle alone is distasteful, let alone the confusion with AD. Plus its so long and just not catchy. Func_compiler is cool, but also long.
Qtils (q utils)
Lichtools (off the infamous nonexistent Lich Fiend)
Maybe just Func_tools:
The Compiler of Erich Zann
The Tools That Compiled Sarnath
I like ClEric and Qompiler (maybe shortened to Qompil?). Putting a Q instead of an initial C is a Quake tradition and it would be a nice nod to it.
I agree with Qmaster that Arcaneutils is meh for the exact same reasons. Oh, and whoever came up with The Compiler of Erich Zann is an evil genius! Reminded me of a Mekong Delta album.
I have a batch file called qompiler :P
its kind of broken right now though.
I Knew It Sounded Familiar!
Map jam where every map title is a possible toolset name and the best map wins the right to name the tools
The Lesson To Be Learned
Don't ask Func for name/theme/feature suggestions...
Better End The Suggestion Period
ok - scratch arcaneutils. Thanks for the ideas.
probably "ericw-tools" is the pragmatic choice becuase I've heard people refer to it as that anway.. hm.
You've added so much to TyrUtils that your fork is not really Tyrann's anymore. It deserves your own brand.
Keep Your Name In It
It's casual and easy to remember. Plus reminds everyone who's working on it.
If a func_wall entity has skip-textured faces that goes deep inside the world's brushes, crossing multiple VIS areas, will said entity be "visible" across all those VIS areas, even though it has no faces to render in there?
Maybe this is more of an engine problem.
I am guessing "yes" they will be visible. skip faces are deleted towards the end of qbsp so they're included in the model mins/maxs - I think.
To optimize for this case I think the engine could build a tighter visible mins/maxs by iterating over all faces/vertices of the model.