i�m not a expert in quoth and i now only few commands but if everybody is up to, i must follow... 

To Quoth or not to Quoth?

Mapper's discression. 

I would like to enter this, but I have no idea how to set up my gtkRadiant for use with Quoth, so that would suck if it were required or optional.

Regardless, I think March 15th is too much time. I would say by the end of February at the latest. Also, to whom do we submit these maps? 

Zwiffle is also my biggest problem...

no .QrK file for Quark :| only .Fgd 

one of us, just a matter of decide with one... I don�t mind to do it... but as u guys know my English is not a powerful weapon(more like a boomstick)

let�s wait untill tomorow to see who is in and vote! 

Lets just have a pack with some Quoth maps and some Id1 maps, all together in the same pack!

All will run under Quoth anyway, so it doesn't matter :D

Trinca - Zwiffle - Anyone - Make an Id1 map
Anyone - make a Quoth map if you want.

All maps will be accepted (?) :) 

If it's Quoth optional, and someone makes a Quoth map, then why not just make it Quoth-required? I would want to make a Quoth map if possible, I just can't figured out how to get it to work in Radiant.

Like I said, if Quoth were allowed it would totally short-change what I would want to do. 

I made my own .fgd file for WC.

Whats the format for .def files?

I just changed the classname of a feind for example to become an edie or a drole, the enforcer variants and rocket grunts were similar, and Im sure I could figure it out.

I mean IS is def files for radiant? What about Quark? 

As far as I can tell gtk can use .fgd files. 

FWIW, .def files are essentially just dumps of the comment sections that are above each class in the QuakeC source. Assuming the comments are up to date, they are incredibly easy to generate. And I wish the Quoth team would do so. :) 

because a lot of stuff doesn't have comments, so it's not actually a matter of copy and pasting.

in any case, this is the def i use for editing in qe3 (qe3 is .qc files, instead of .def, but format is identical)

http://necros.quaddicted.com/temp/quoth.qc

very likely there's stuff missing and/or outdated info. i usually don't even bother and just copy and paste whatever entity is close by and rename the classname. :S 

That's why I qualified it with the comments being up to date. If you don't have up to date class headers then it's pretty obvious that a complete DEF file is never going to happen. 

Yeah, but what you're saying is "if the team wrote a def file, then there would be a def file". There's no benefit to the qc to write those comments. 

"There's no benefit to the qc to write those comments."

I can think of one : easy and painless generation of a valid DEF file whenever a new version of Quoth gets released. 

Yes yes, you're advocating that he keep the documentation current, to make it easy to release current documentation. He's saying.. the documentation isn't current because the documentation hasn't been kept current. 

taking some risks and doing things that might not be the standard

sounds good 

with skyboxes. 

"He's saying.. the documentation isn't current because the documentation hasn't been kept current."

I know it's a touchy area for some coders but keeping the class header up to date is a fairly standard thing to do when writing code as part of a group. I know Quoth is a free project that's done because the group enjoys Quake and so on but still ... I think it would get used a lot more, and a lot more effectively, if the DEF file was simply released with each version.

The Quoth guys put together sample maps and a whole web site dedicated to the mod - yet can't keep code comments up to date when a new spawn flag is added? :)

Anyway, it's not that important. I just won't be using Quoth until I can work up the energy to piece together what I need from whatever scraps of info are available.

As far as this map event goes, I'm in! 

There's no point talking about it like code comments, because there's no point putting it in the code, we might as well just write a def file if we're gonna write a def file. As far as I know, all of the quoth developers use worldcraft, so we're not going to be able to thoroughly test a def file in any case. 

ye, go replay the pack for inspiracion!!! 

It's not my beer, but putting in the QUAKED stuff doesn't cost anything. As for testing, users will do that for you. Sorry for the OT. 

I really dont see why it matters if people make Quoth or Id1?

It should be up to the mapper surely :)

Somebody give me one good reason why we cant just have it up to the mapper. Mappers choice:

1 - All maps must be in by March 8th

2 - All maps must be limited to 2500 brushes

3 - All maps must be of the coagula style to be included in the pack

4 - Any mod you like!

5 - or die 

To maintain consistency within the pack so the maps can be played in sequence (possibly with a start map).

If I think of a second good reason I'll let you know (however, it seems unlikely given my current state ;) 

Too complicated.

Just make maps. Maybe have a hub if anyone can be arsed.

Simpler is a lot better.

It's a good point about skyboxes tho. Would be nice. Surely fitz or something supports them?? 

the previous coagula comps had a custom progs that would reset weapons for each map. (they had hub maps that linked them together, iirc)