#26 posted by necros
on 2004/10/07 13:44:07
no, FQ doesn't have bumped edict limits, neither does it handle packet overflows differently from GLQ...
i find this is the major flaw of FQ atm... well, that and the skybox bug, bug that's fixed in the next version anyway.
#27 posted by Kinn
on 2004/10/07 13:47:28
Necros, I'd probably say almost the same thing if someone asked me to describe my dream engine.
However, I'd settle for FitzQuake + increased entity limits + packet overflow reduction + tga sprites (Additive blend mode).
Q3BSP support is the holy grail of engine features for me though. I know DP has it, but I've already described the issues I have with DP.
#28 posted by HeadThump
on 2004/10/07 14:09:20
I went ahead and sent a copy of the extension list. It may be a little under documented but there is enough info there to get a grasp of the cvar settings. There is also a tutorial on Inside3d on modding for DP that can be useful as well.
On the general question; I am still using glquake/fitzquake for the next handful of levels that I'm pushing out the door because they are single map adventures (two very nearly finished, I'm just trying to improve my brush work and texturing at this point), but after that I'm going to need a custom engine and Q3 bsp capabilaties.
#29 posted by metlslime
on 2004/10/07 15:19:19
Thanks for the nice comments on fitzquake, guys.
Jago: turns out i wrote most of fitzquake's core rendering stuff. I do have some darkplaces code in fitzquake, though it's mostly utility functions like frustum culling and vector math and that sort of thing.
Lordhavoc: darkplaces is extrememly customizable and I think it could satisfy most people if only they knew how to customize it. Lack of decent documentation is the biggest problem with darkplaces, in my opinion.
Hey Metl ^_^
#30 posted by Kinn
on 2004/10/07 16:23:21
Would you be willing to consider bumping up some of the map limits (like aguirRe is doing with his engines) for a future FQ release?
Pretty please? ^_^
#31 posted by metlslime
on 2004/10/07 18:31:10
but wouldn't that just encourage mappers to release maps that go over the limits?
#32 posted by Jago
on 2004/10/07 20:43:07
That's the point. Many mappers (me included) feel that it's time to push the boundaries/limits of the Quake engine. Now if only all engine writers could agree on BY HOW MUCH they should push them.
#33 posted by nitin
on 2004/10/07 21:10:55
tried the latest version, it actully works ok on my system and looks and runs better than prvious builds. I've got most the options the way I want (it took a lot of fiddling but anyway).
Can someone tell me how to revert the blood effects back to normal and also how to get the weapon and monster effects back to normal. Right now there's a big coloured glow on things like scrag attacks, rocket explosions etc.
Also, is it me or is the player turn speed and jump speed different than normal?
#34 posted by nitin
on 2004/10/07 21:11:20
and I'm happy that the DP software lighting now looks like fitz's.
#35 posted by necros
on 2004/10/07 21:28:53
yes, i noticed the jump speed and turn speed too... not sure if it really is different or not...
also, disabling bump mapping really speeds things up, though the hell knight now has the cpu crusher attack added to his normal attack when using dynamic lights... :P it's too bad because the dynamic lights work fine for other monsters, but because the hknight shoots 5 projectiles at the same time, it starts hurting my vidcard. :P
also, why is the jumping messed up? when i jump, then hold down the jump button while still in the air, when i hit the ground, the jump sound gets made but i don't actually move up. is that a bug?
Bumped Engine Limits...
#36 posted by JPL
on 2004/10/08 02:07:44
... will encourage many mappers to start very huge map.. Engine limitation for sure limits mappers' creativity ;)
#37 posted by metlslime
on 2004/10/08 03:13:57
I think limits create the necessary context for creativity.
#38 posted by HeadThump
on 2004/10/08 03:31:14
But what if someone wants to make a FarCry clone mod using FitzQuake? It would take several applications of Terragen per map to achieve those lush landscapes. It would be a pity to deny this well, likely non-existent person.
#39 posted by nitin
on 2004/10/08 04:09:11
why not have raised limits and then let the mapper decide whether he wants to make a humongous map or a standard map?
#40 posted by JPL
on 2004/10/08 04:26:42
Creativity needs huge spaces to grow... Creativity in a small space is limited, so boosting up engine limits allow mappers to create much more creative maps... Take just the example of a tree: it can grow very easily if unconstrained due to "nature exhuberant creativity". Put the same tree into a small flower-pot, and never it can grow as it should...
I think that creativity works like this... but I understand your point of view metlslime, with constraints, mappers have to "use their brain" much more than if they are unconstrained... And what about brainstorming without constraints ?? It can give very good results, isn't it ??
#41 posted by .
on 2004/10/08 04:36:00
About Quake not running on Mac OSX.. do you mean the original code, or... what exactly? Because I run this port: http://macglquake.sourceforge.net/
and all I have to do is copy the ID1 dir from my PC Quake cd.
Trees Don't Make Quake Levels!
#42 posted by metlslime
on 2004/10/08 04:36:42
I Beg To Differ
#43 posted by Quaketree on 2004/10/08 05:02:39
#44 posted by Kinn
on 2004/10/08 05:12:21
but wouldn't that just encourage mappers to release maps that go over the limits?
Firstly, I'm not talking about architectural limits (like map boundaries and stuff) - just increased edict counts, stop packet overflow and stuff.
Well I suppose this is just a request to make my new map playable in FQ, I guess. Otherwise I'll have to say it's DarkPlaces only, which might not go down too well, round here. :(
#45 posted by metlslime
on 2004/10/08 05:28:16
you could make a map that's compatible with ALL engines, even if it looks better in some :)
#46 posted by Kinn
on 2004/10/08 05:30:34
Please will everyone that seems to be able to get the latest DarkPlaces running, tell me if they experience what I'm experiencing:
With all versions after the 21may04 version (inclusing the latest Oct 6th version), the screen seemingly jerks and stutters at about 2 FPS, even if the FPS counter says "60 fps". What's more it feels like really, really bad lag rather than a low rendering framerate, almost as if I'm playing online on a 56k, but not quite. (I'm never online btw.)
Btw - I have *all* dynamic lighting features turned off; even dlights like the rocket glow turn the game into a 1 FPS slideshow.
With the May 21 build, it's silky-smooth again.
My system: Dell Inspiron 8200 laptop, 1.5GHz, 512MB RAM, GeForce4 440 GO.
I use this command line:
C:\QUAKE\darkplaces.exe -nocdaudio -novorbis -nojoy -noudp -noipx -noserial -nolan -sndspeed 11025 +exec bdw.cfg +skill 2 +developer 1 +map start
My vid drivers are up-to-date, and in any case, I don't feel I should have to worry about my graphics hardware just *to play Quake*.
Sorry, I don't want to turn this thread into a DarkPlaces tech support forum, but I've had no luck solving this problem using other channels of enquiry.
#47 posted by JPL
on 2004/10/08 06:20:27
... it was a kind of comparison... I know that trees don'r make quake level... silly guy ;P
#48 posted by necros
on 2004/10/08 08:55:02
honestly, i don't understand the point of keeping limits in.
and i, personally, will make my maps regardless if they are playable in all engines or not. i try to get them to work in all of them, but if they can't i won't redesign a whole map just for that.
i think fixing edict limits is actually more for players who use your engine than for mappers. because then people will be able to use your engine instead of another one when they'd prefer to use yours.
#49 posted by Kell
on 2004/10/08 09:02:53
because then people will be able to use your engine instead of another one when they'd prefer to use yours.
metl, read this. A Lot. Print it out and tape it to your fridge door. Spraypaint it on the road outside your apartment building. And stop acting like such a stuck-up ass.
#50 posted by Kinn
on 2004/10/08 09:06:51
i, personally, will make my maps regardless if they are playable in all engines or not. i try to get them to work in all of them, but if they can't i won't redesign a whole map just for that.
Yes. I made Bastion 2 with the idea that it will have to use a raised-edict engine. The map is basically done now, and I can't really re-design it so that it will play in standard engines sadly :(