Moving Platforms
#12998 posted by hakkarin on 2013/06/02 17:43:24
I tried messing around to figure out how to do it but can't figure this one out. How do I get brushes to move around like you see in many of the areas in the game? (Quake). I am talking about things like platforms that move back and forth and also things like those those cubes at the end of E1M2 that move around. How do I create those?
Hakkarin
#12999 posted by mfx on 2013/06/02 17:58:07
thats a lot of questions..
head over to:
quakewiki.org/wiki/mapping
in entities you'll find what you looking for
googling the unofficial quake specs should be helpful too.
Hakkarin
#13000 posted by mfx on 2013/06/02 18:00:56
func_train and Path_corner to be more unprecise
Moving Platforms
#13001 posted by Rick on 2013/06/02 18:03:37
For platforms that only move in one direction like back and forth, or up and down, you can just use a door. For more complex motion you'll need to use a func_train with multiple path_corner entities.
That's One Question To Be Precise
#13002 posted by negke on 2013/06/02 18:07:23
Moving platforms are func_train entities. They move along an interlinked set of path_corner entities. The plaform starts at the path_corner it targets (if it has a targetname itself, it will only start moving after being triggered); each path_corner targets the next one, and the last one the first. If the platform is supposed to stop at the last path_corner, set "wait" "-1" there.
Da Fuk
#13003 posted by negke on 2013/06/02 18:07:47
Slow typer...
Random Marksurfaces
#13004 posted by Preach on 2013/06/07 01:46:32
OK, my next foray into the realm of messing with BSP compilers, and the first real success (sort of).
http://tomeofpreach.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/random-algorithms-and-bsp/
Now with graphs! Yes graphs!
#13005 posted by necros on 2013/06/08 21:45:21
Very interesting research into the BSP process, Preach.
It's weird how the results we so different from a box map and a full size one.
Have you tried this test with maybe some small maps like DM maps?
Other Tests
#13006 posted by Preach on 2013/06/08 22:50:39
Afraid I didn't try any map in-between. I'd go and give it a shot now, although I expect that the result would be more like the latter than the former. Unfortunately I can't do that easily right now, because I've been revising the code for a future post, and don't have the original compiled at the moment...
#13007 posted by necros on 2013/06/08 23:49:59
I was mainly interested in pinpointing where it started to become 'bad' and to try to pinpoint what it is about full maps that don't show up in box maps.
Cutoff Point
#13008 posted by Preach on 2013/06/09 00:27:52
I may have some insight into that from the new tests. It seems like there's a very fine balance to strike with random input - it seems to work best for trying out different ways of resolving "ties". I guess that in the simplest of test maps there really isn't any difference between just tie-breaking and randomising everything - but I think as soon as you add any real detail then the difference matters.
Just To Say
#13009 posted by ijed on 2013/06/09 02:33:22
I'm following this as well, thanks for the work.
Nothing solid to add though.
Ijed
#13010 posted by spy on 2013/06/09 07:06:40
is it possible to make rmq using some modern free engine?
i remember i've seen e1m1 on crytek eng
Shit Wrong Thread
#13011 posted by spy on 2013/06/09 07:07:37
And That Promised New Method
#13012 posted by Preach on 2013/06/10 00:54:55
http://tomeofpreach.wordpress.com/2013/06/09/quasi-randomised-algorithms-and-bsp/
So here's the way I was talking about, it gets you some improvement, even in the average case, over the deterministic compile run. I'm pretty sure that because the randomness is so low level, it's almost always a case of multiple tying brushes, and the randomisation changing how the tie is broken.
It's not mentioned in the post, but I did check and this version also performs well on the simple test map file. We achieve the same minimum of 160 (over 100 tests), and I'm beginning to suspect that can't be bettered. The graph shows an improvement in the average case, similar to the one that's in the article. So that's reassuring.
Not Ijed
#13013 posted by gb on 2013/06/13 09:50:48
is it possible to make rmq using some modern free engine?
that would end up being a free quake replacement, and zenimax would probably sue you for theft of IP.
Not Sure I Understand The Question
#13014 posted by ijed on 2013/06/13 15:28:52
It's on a free engine... if you mean porting it to something like Unity or sauerbrauten then yes it'd be possible, but in that case it'd be better to make a standalone brand new FPS game using the same ideals as Quake.
Making a classic FPS game isn't too taxing in terms of asset and feature creation, as long as you make a feasible plan and still to it.
An idealistic FPS is almost impossible to make :)
And a AAA FPS would be a great big waste of time.
It also depends how much of a hobby or job the project is in terms of both your own time and if you can pay others for theirs.
Prevent Monster From Running Off High Edge
#13015 posted by deqer on 2013/06/16 03:53:58
I have a thin and narrow platform (shaped as a square) that monster_ogres run around. It's over 256 units high from the ground, supported by 4 pillar/beams.
When monster_ogre sees the player, they run off the edge, dropping down to the floor below.
I was surprised to see this. I thought monsters don't do this.
I can't seem to find any information on this in google or quakewiki.
Figured It Out
#13016 posted by deqer on 2013/06/16 06:16:54
The problem is the UI bounding box for the entity (in TrenchBroom) is misleading/inaccurate. I made my platform as wide(or narrow) as the entity's box, so the entity falls off the edge.
To prove this, I surrounded my platform with walls, and the entity was stuck.
Same issue with the monster_dog box. I put a monster_dog in the corner, and it's stuck. I had to move it 8units away from both walls (of the corner) for it to work.
Pretty annoying.
#13017 posted by necros on 2013/06/16 07:09:01
the engine checks for collision in a >= way (as opposed to > ) so monsters have to be at least 1 unit away from walls to avoid getting stuck and have to be on platforms at least 2 units wider to avoid falling off.
note also that narrow pathways will be very difficult for monsters to move into because the checks for movement are done in discreet steps.
Thanks
#13018 posted by deqer on 2013/06/16 07:43:08
I added your information to http://quakewiki.org/wiki/Entity_guide
Feel free to adjust, or find better place for it in quakewiki.
Max Leafs Visible
#13019 posted by deqer on 2013/06/16 17:12:42
"max leafs visible: 416 near (-832 -2824 576)"
Although this doesn't appear to be a warning or error message, I still see it as one. I wasn't getting it before, and now I am; and I have no idea what it means.
I've googled it a number of ways, and getting no good results.
What does it mean, and how do I troubleshoot it?
Does it mean too many polys for a certain area of the map from point to point?
Nah It's Not An Error Message
#13020 posted by RickyT33 on 2013/06/16 18:15:16
It's just a report
It tells you that of all of the places in the map, the one with the most leaves visible to it (as in when the player is stood there) has 416 visible to it. You can go WAAAYYY higher than 416. The other three numbers are the coordinates of this position.
How Do I Use Quoth Content In My Quake Levels?
#13021 posted by hakkarin on 2013/06/16 19:12:21
So I heard about this awesome content pack called Quoth that adds a lot of stuff (monsters, weapons etc) into the game for modders to use in their levels. However, I have no idea how to make any of this stuff show up in NetRadiant (the level editor I use) or appear in-game. How do I load these custom resources into the editor and use them?
Quoth In Radiant
#13022 posted by deqer on 2013/06/16 19:34:09
Alright, Ricky. Added to quakewiki.
hakkarin,
This page: http://spawnhost.wordpress.com/tutorials/quake-1-radiant-tutorial/ talks about Radiant, and mentions Quoth
|