DarkPlaces has its own set of special rules for content, which you have to learn. Many modders for DarkPlaces struggle to make Quake compatible mods because they have habits that don't work with Quake. 

"Where do you stop?"

You stop at making unpacked files take precedence over pak files. That's it. Don't use a fallacious "slippery slope" argument like, "but if I make a reasonable change, then I'll also have to make every unreasonable change everyone else wants!" This has nothing to do with supporting all the formats Darkplaces or FTE uses. You still haven't explained the benefit of leaving it "the way Quake has done it for 20 years?" That's not a reason. How many other non-optimal Quake behaviors have you already changed?


"It's Quake. For every one person who wants something done one way, there's going to be five others who want it done five different ways."

Well, so far you've got more than one person wanting unpacked files to take precedence, and NO ONE wanting it the other way, other than people just saying, "that's the way it has always been" without providing any benefit for that approach.... How many other non-optimal Quake behaviors have you already changed?

Will anyone step forward and say they prefer pak files to take precedence, and give an actual functionality reason for that?


"Gunter in particular has a very bad habit of 'what I want for my mod is more important than anything else', then causing drama and outrage over it. I'm not certain that's useful feedback."

Oh, bite me, mh :P

I just said this isn't an FvF issue -- it's a Quake issue. This would be better for everyone. I have laid out my actual arguments for why, and you have not provided a single counter argument to support your position other than, "I don't like when people want different things and I don't like Gunter because he always out-argues me" ;)

"A general-case solution that's more useful to everyone is always better than a special-case solution that just keeps one person happy."

I completely agree with you, mh! But that supports my (and others') position in this case that the behavior should be changed, because it would indeed be a general solution that would be useful to everyone!

I am dramatically outraged that you would think otherwise!! :D

Can you explain who it's useful for to leave pak file preference in place? Modders who want to inflict unavoidable toxic settings on the user?

I'm aking the same question as Pritchard here, "what benefit is there to keeping this behavior?"

Nobody is answering except to say, "it's always been that way and I don't like the complicated things Darkplaces does."

We're not taking about Darkplaces. We're talking about this ONE behavior. That's where it stops (in regard to this issue). This isn't a change that's going to cause any compatibility problems either....

Please describe the benefits of pak file preference. mankrip did a pretty good job of describing the benefits id saw back in 1996.... Now what is the benefit in the modern day? Isn't the whole point of engine development to improve on the original things that might not have been optimal for the users? I mean, why didn't we keep id's original network code? ;) Would it still serve any useful purpose today, or would it just make things more difficult for the user?



In regard to why I, as a mod author, use a pak file to distribute the FvF client files? Because it's the most tidy, convenient way to distribute a mod, instead of using multiple files and folders. AND it also keeps the user from easily being able to nose around in the files to swipe them for their own use! Heh. So yeah, a pak file still serves as a slight (very slight, really) deterrent for pillaging my content, however, I don't mind if the user wants to use other replacement content on top of mine, and I see no reason to make that a difficult process for them.

Again, this isn't just for FvF -- it's for anyone who wants to use replacement content for Quake with or without mods.

If you're looking for some form of consensus, why not run a poll on Quakeone? Then maybe someone would give an actual functionality reason for preferring pak file precedence.... 

You are new to a discussion about this topic.

I've read or even participated in this same exact discussion 6-8 times, including a couple of times at Inside3D and a couple of times at QuakeOne.

I used DarkPlaces before I ever engine coded and experienced firsthand the pros and cons of the functionality. I also like DarkPlaces as a total conversion engine and both Mark V, and before it, ProQuake acquired several gems from DarkPlaces.

It is safe to say my opinion of that DarkPlaces feature is due to knowing a lot about it works.

Typically, the those arguing for the DarkPlaces way of doing things is inexperienced with using the the feature, and unable to describe the downsides because they don't have the experience to understand the other side of the coin.

And perhaps I'll try to explain again. But probably not today.

Seems like no one is reading or making an effort to understand what I am trying to communicate in my replies.

I may be typing this post just "for fun" as it seems the other ones went unread.

But I hope it does get read ... 

OK, I'll bite.

The upside of having loose files take priority is that the user can easily replace PAK file content.

The downside of having loose files take priority is that the user can easily replace PAK file content.

Think about that - and if you don't have a Zen moment when it becomes clear, you haven't thought about it enough, so think about it some more.

This isn't just about copy protection, it's also about protecting users from malicious (or just plain old badly designed) mods and from themselves.

Whether you like it or not, the way Quake has done it for 20 years is the EXPECTED behaviour. Mods are made and released on the assumption that this is the way it behaves, experienced players run Quake on the assumption that this is the way it behaves, experienced players help out struggling newbies on the assumption that this is the way it behaves.

If it's in a PAK file it takes priority. This isn't about advantages of one vs advantages of the other. PAK files taking priority may even be the inferior option but that doesn't actually matter (I have an opinion too but it's irrelevant). It's about what everybody expects to happen.

You may have a different expectation but don't be so arrogant as to presume that your expectation should overrule 20 years of everybody else's experience. 

The way Quake works, if you have a mod with a pak0.pak in the folder (let's say -game zer) you have 100% assurance the mod will behave properly.

With the DarkPlaces way, a user will say "I don't know what is wrong? I have pak0.pak in place, but some weird model is showing up!"

Later they will say ... "Oh, sorry. I was doing XYZ and forgot to delete it."

The DarkPlaces way takes away the security of knowing a pak file containing a mod is a complete and full assurance of proper installation and running. 

I should add.

I do understand your frustration to a certain extent. I am the person who fought, and lost, the stuffcmd wars a few years ago, and stuffcmd is actually potentially dangerous to your PC, never mind just being a squabble-fest over file loading order. 

@gunter
just stop using paks. you complain that paks taking precedence makes it hard for users to replace files, but you forget that any paks make it hard for the user to know which files they need to replace (and the form of that data too).

that's not to say that I agree with Baker, frankly I see his argument as user-hostile that further discourages people from grouping their content thereby making it MORE likely that people will be stuck with content that they forgot to delete on account of not being able to separate it so easily.

quakeworld downloads often REQUIRE files outside of paks, or at least maps.
The singular exception is when you have md3s or q3bsps that depend upon shaders and external textures that the client won't know to auto-download. In these cases, pk3 is a superior format that offers compression and is easier for people to open. Essentially, such content should be treated basically like q3 content is treated. But until then, just don't use paks. 

PAK files also serves as a versioning system.

If your mod is fully contained in a PAK0.PAK file, you can make an update for it by storing the updated files in a PAK1.PAK file. And then, you can revert to the previous version by simply removing the PAK1.PAK file. I've actually done this in one of my mods, because it gives the advantage of knowing that the PAK0.PAK will likely always be the same, no matter the version of the mod.

Loose files doesn't use a cascaded versioning filesystem, so they require you to remove all previous versions of the files, which makes it impossible to rollback a bad update.

Anyway, a command-line parameter to control the precedence could be nice for development purposes. 

Clearly it makes no sense to change this behaviour except to keel to the whim of a single individual. 

We are reading what you write, Baker, but you're just talking vaguely about Darkplaces. I don't use DP. I just happened upon the functionality in FTE, and I liked it -- actually, I didn't even realize it was different; I just knew that FTE did exactly what I wanted/expected it to do -- it used the player.mdl file that I dropped into a folder.

Now you're saying that pak files are good because they let the modder know 100% that the mod will work for the user, but you've previously been talking about how Arcane Dimensions installs everything unpacked, so it doesn't have the issue of pak files overriding user content.... It's like you're telling me I should do it two different ways! Why can't I have both the convenience of putting my mod files in a pak to ensure easy/correct installation, and also have the ease of letting more tinkery users drop in their own content if they want to?

Sure, they might mess things up, but this is the same issue as any other piece of software you give to a user. The user might mess things up. If they do, they can just delete and re-install the thing....

What I'm now hearing from you and mh is, "protecting the user from himself."

Like if the user installs some replacement content, then later derps out and forgets he installed some replacement content, and can't figure out why there is replacement content in his game....

Would not the same thing apply if he were using extra pak files?

Is Quake 1 really a game for derps? Is that the kind of user you are designing Mark V for?

Everyone derps out sometimes, but unpacked replacement content would still be easier for a derp to find/remove than stuff in a pak file, because it's all easily visible unpacked. In a pak it's hidden.... "What is this pak4 thing I have in my folder? I do not know. And why is my player model so weird?" vs. "What is in this progs folder? Oh, there's a player.mdl in it. Oh! That's why my player looks so weird!"


So, mh says for both pro and con, "it makes it easier for the user to change things."

I don't know why you're not having a zen moment about that yourself.... You strike me as the kind of person who would use linux because you'd hate Microsoft always "protecting you from yourself" and not allowing you to change things you want to change.... This reminds me of an old commercial: https://youtu.be/FxOIebkmrqs

So do you think it should be easier or harder for a Quake user to change things? Apparently "harder?" So you're a Windows guy, eh? :D

(I'm actually a Windows guy myself, but I'm a superhacker, so I make it do what I want ;)

Ya know, the whole reason that Quake is still alive after 20 years is because it was relatively easy for users to modify stuff.... Zen moment? Should it be easier or harder for users to modify stuff in Quake?

You also throw in that it's about protecting from malicious/badly designed mods... Uh, isn't that backward? Unpacked file preference would help protect from bad mods, because the user could easily see/change unpacked files or replace stuff in a pak file with their own stuff (a bad autoexec in a pak file, for example).


As far as "expected behavior," well, it's "expected behavior" (how it has "always" been) that you must put the Quake CD in the drive to play the soundtrack. But now we can drop mp3 files into a folder and play the soundtrack.... That "expected behavior" was changed to make it easier for the user. This is the same concept: let the user easily drop in files for Quake to use. Should we not allow that because some derp might drop in the wrong mp3 files and then wonder why Ace of Base is playing when they start Quake? :D

And I have to ask, "expected behavior" of whom, really? Certainly not any new players, or other people who have never messed with this stuff in detail. Heck, I don't regularly mess with it in detail, and I actually expected a player.mdl to be used just by dropping it in a folder! Then I was like, "Wait, why is this not working? Oh crap, the pak file overrides it."

So I ended up having to stick my single replacement model into a pak file.

What a hassle. I can't imagine that's good for anyone, no matter what they expect.

And being that many experienced users will be using other engines like Darkplaces and FTE, well, their "expected behavior" would not conform to the 20-year-old way either.

So maybe some old Quakers are "expecting" it, but I bet if you gave them the option, they would prefer it to work in a different, more convenient, way.


Actually, Baker, if you have links to the multiple discussions of this issue you've had in the past, I'd be glad to look them over to see what else I may be missing.

mh, I'd probably be against you on the stuffcmd issue, heh. It is a useful tool for modders -- aure, abuse is possible, but I use it to bind the FvF chat impulse so players lower their gun and blow smoke while chatting. But I think Mark V has some cfg protection for stuff like that. 

"just stop using paks."

Sounds so easy, but in practice that means I'd have to completely unpack my id1 pak1 and pak0 files. That's a mess of files! (I'm not just talking about my mod, but every mod with a pak, and also standard Quake.)

And just because I might want to use a replacement player.mdl ?

Heck, it's actually easier to complain a lot about it and hope Baker might consider changing it ;)

(But really, it's not just to make things easier for myself, but for other people as well). 

There are low-brow engines and high-brow engines.

Low Brow Engine - Your TV remote has 4 buttons (Mark V)

Favors an uncomplicated and reliably smooth and enjoyable experience and will sacrifice options, capabilities and preferences to get there.

Assumes the user knows nothing, has guard rails. Caters to the user that knows nothing -- protects them. Most features are obviously exposed, few features beyond core feature set.

When no one has any questions or problems, the Baker feels like "Mission Accomplished!" It's reliable and intuitive!

High Brow Engine- Your TV remote has 106 buttons (DarkPlaces/FTE)

FTE/DarkPlaces.

Caters to advanced users. Plenty of settings. Plenty of capabilities. Support for cutting-edge techniques. Boundless depths, options, abilities.

Assumes the user knows everything and caters to the user that knows everything. Has layers and layers of features beyond the obvious ones.

When a user has something sophisticated they want to do and realize that FTE can do it, Spike feels like "Mission Accomplished!" It helped someone with sophisticated needs execute their idea!

(This is why Spike and I seem to argue a lot about some things, but agree about others.) 

"Clearly it makes no sense to change this behaviour except to keel to the whim of a single individual."

Uh, no.

I've laid out clear, concrete reasons why it "makes sense," which have nothing to do with my whims.

And I'm going to count at least 3 people here that might prefer it the way I am advocating for. Make that 5:

Myself
Pritchard
mankrip (for a command line parameter to allow the option)

And I will count:
FTE
Darkpalces

(their creators obviously preferred this functionality)


You see me arguing for it, but I am arguing as "the user" and not just for myself. This would make it easier for every user.... It's just that every user doesn't read this forum. Do as I have suggested -- make a poll on Quakeone where there are more users, and see what everyone else actually thinks. 

Count me in with mankrip re: the command line switch to change the behavior. Why not give the user the option? I don't see the downside. 

I hadn't really considered the "versioning" aspect of pak files, but it certainly does make it easier when, on the rare occasion, I update the contents of the FvF client pak file, to know that all the user will have to do is replace their pak file with the new one and they will be correctly updated. If I were handing them the mod as unpacked files, that could be messy and tricky if I ever removed some of the files.... I'd have to give special instructions to delete certain files during the copying of the new files.

So that's another reason why I use a pak file for FvF -- easier/more foolproof updates for the user.


And I too would be happy with a variable to alter the file/pak precedence. That would still make it easier for people, because I could tell them, "you need to set this variable to let your replacement model work correctly." 

A command line option doesn't seem objectionable. I'll consider it without making a promise as to when.

So it is very likely to happen, unless it somehow interferes with something else. Which doesn't seem likely.

Having the option available would be nice, there are sometimes it is nice to change things on the fly easily.

I just don't like that as normal default behavior. 

Excellent. Thanks for considering it.

I'd also hope it will includes a console variable for easy setting, even knowing that would be something like, "this setting will not take effect until you restart Quake/the map/whatever is required."

I wouldn't dare suggest a menu setting, knowing how much you hate menus ;)

But then again, a menu setting would make it easy for the low-brow derps who Mark V is intended for!

*Throws an FvF ninja bomb and runs away* 

I'm disappointed Baker. 

Stuffcmd("screenshot")

Nice denial of service you have going there.

You see Gunter - you need to think beyond what you immediately want. 

Yes, I already agreed that abuse was possible. I just said so.

But do you remove all the potential valid, good uses of the command because of hypothetical bad uses? (Has your example ever actually been used in a mod?)

Hey Baker, I think mh is asking you to prevent screenshot from being used in a stuffcmd!

Mark V already protects your cfg file getting messed up by stuffcmds.

I can't think of a legitimate reason to allow stuffcmd screenshots.... So that's something that could be prevented.

But removing the whole stuffcmd functionality would be throwing out the baby with the bath water. 

There's no simple way to implement a cvar for it, because config files are only loaded after the filesystem is initialized. It's impossible to make a cvar change the filesystem initialization behavior.

Now, if such a cvar would be used to change the filesystem behavior on the fly, that would open a can of worms, specially on engines that supports changing the game directory on the fly: Set a mod dir, change the precedence, and add another mod dir; the precedence of the previous paths gets screwed. 

And that's why you wouldn't make a good engine coder.

In the end, Baker is interested in improving his engine for the users, and not just winning an argument for the sake of winning an argument.

Actually, that's why I post here too -- not to "win arguments" but to improve Mark V for the users, of which I am one!

My ideas of what might be an improvement may not be the same as other people's ideas, so we argue about it, but it is not personal, not even with mh for me (he's done great things for Mark V), though sometimes I can't tell if he gets caught up in just wanting to win the arguments or not ;)

In the end it would be silly to stubbornly refuse something that several people are stating a preference for, if the only reason is "don't give in to Gunter." Baker is not that petty!

And I'm certainly glad other people do speak up to state their preferences here, so that mine is not the only voice. 

It's not about whether I would make a good engine coder. I probably wouldn't but not for the reasons you gave.

It just appeared, from an observers POV, that you basically bullied and harassed Baker into adding a feature after he gave you plenty of well-reasoned answers as to why it wasn't a good fit for the engine.

I mean, I have asked him to include stuff from time to time but I am in awe of the relentlessness of your stubborn pleas.

Maybe I am just better at taking no for an answer. 

There were wins here.

Gunter did argue annoyingly hard.

Then again, he did eventually suggest a viable solution -- which no one has ever done before -- in the idea of making off by default but with ability to opt-in.

mh signaled he had complicated feelings on the subject and I've used DarkPlaces before for some deep modding where the functionality was helpful.

I've also seen DarkPlaces beg and scream for help because they messed up something so terribly bad and no ones wants to reply to them because usually it's a super-newb who barely can find their Quake folder so they get the "leper treatment" or insightful advice like "delete your Quake and reinstall".

So ... I think I'll have a beer and hope to laugh about this in the future. ;-)

/Gunter has found some very, very obscure bugs in the past. And spotted inconsistencies few would notice, allowing them to be resolved. 

You surrendered like a Frenchmen! D:<