and i couldnt find any (is it a gl engine?), ive got screenshots of the same shells box in both engines too 

I just checked and it is present in GLQuake, and Darkplaces, but not tomazquake. Tomazquake is a gl engine, so i'm going to check the source to see what cheap hack he employed to eliminate that problem. 

do you mapper people light maps with software or gl in mind? Just interested to know. 

i looked in the TQ source, and he does indeed have a special hack where he replaces that row of white pixels with a row of more sensible green pixels. I wonder if this would be better or worse than a "fixed assets pack," from a user standpoint. 

that sucks. Can you tell me which OS, video card, etc? Not that i have a clue how to fix it when windows locks up, becuase i don't know (even in theoretical terms) what causes it. 

I light maps primarily for GL, but I also try to make sure software is good or at least playable. 

I light only for GL. i can't be arsed to light for software. i hate lighting enough as it is. 

The way I lit could.bsp was to light the first 1/3 of the map and check it in both GL and software. After that, I just copied the light ents from that section into the rest of the map and then only tested the lighting in GL. In fact, I even forgot to test the final map in software until metlslime mentioned the square spotlights (which I couldn't be bothered to fix). 

if you bind a key to "toggle gl_overbright" in fitzquake, you can run around the map seeing both winquake and glquake lighting at the touch of a button! 

i light for gl, software can suck it 

if you light for software, its more likely to look washed out in GL, but if you light for GL it usually has nice contrast in software i find. Binding a key to "toggle gl_overbright" in Fitzquake as metl suggested would be a good way of testing it out though... 

why light for the bad lighting model nyyyyyyargh 

"if you light for software, its more likely to look washed out in GL, but if you light for GL it usually has nice contrast in software.."

true 

my brain can only cope with one at a time anyway ;) 

I light for Gl because I hate software quake with a burning passion 

That should be GL (or gl possible) 

GIQuake: Counterstrike for Quake? 

because it looks blah 

cuz oldskool maps look even more oldskool in it :) 

The wild lighting & the gritty pixels. A GL engine that could replicate both & play at 1600x1200 would be great. Is the pixel blurring an inherent part of GL or could it be toggled out? 

Sure you can play as if in software mode
Go to console and type:

gl_texturemode

usually, it's bilinear filtering so it'll print this:

gl_texturemode gl_linear_mipmap_linear

if you want to play in softwarelike mode type the following:

gl_texturemode gl_nearest

that's it, enjoy your square pixels :) 

as far as i know, you can't perfectly replicate software quake in opengl, because they do mipmapping differently -- quake did it based on distance only, and 3d hardware does it based on distance AND angle to the camera --which is why a wall or floor at a sharp angle to the camera has such a blurry texture on it.

But you can get rid of the linear filtering of pixels by using a gl_nearest_* texturemode. And with anisotropic filtering, i think gl_nearest itself might look pretty good even though it lacks mipmapping.

Pro Tip: if you want square particles like in software mode, set r_particles to 2 in fitzquake. 

I use gl_texturemode gl_nearest_mipmap_nearest 

GL > software. 

ugly rendering problems in glquake > ugly rendering problems in software quake.