What sort of entity? If it can be modelled with brushes, then an external bsp model will do it. 

i think so??
basically setOrigin() the entity to an area where it is bright, then manually change .origin to the new place.
I've never tried it though. 

It's a func_breakable, or to be precise, various of them. The external bsp should do it,since resting the origin sounds like it'd be fiddly across this many entities.

I forgot about external BSPs, those should do the trick well enough. I suspect there'll be a problem with collision though. At least there was with expanding door triggers when I tried instancing their BSPs a while back.

Thanks guys. 

actually no! external bsps can have perfectly working collision; several of the sarcophagi in ne_ruins were external bsps. 

Like I say, it was only the trigger bbox of the door with a weird offset, the door itself was fine. 

The following keys can be used on any entity with a brush model:
"_minlight" "n"

Set the minimum light level for any surface of the brush model. Default 0.

http://disenchant.net/utils/ 

:} 

Thanks mech, that looks to be an even easier solution. 

Want to know what is the bsp2 standard now? I've read about two versions out. Any place to get the specs. map limits and such? What compilers, engines and editors. The info seems scattered around. A web page with current info would go a long way towards moving things forward. 

https://www.quaddicted.com/tools/bsp2_format

2PSB is deprecated 

Of course the differences between BSP2 and 2PSB are rather tiny so you can still use them as a guideline.

Why is 2psb deprecated when there is very little difference between it and bsp2? Doesn't make sense to me. 

Because BSP2 > 2PSB and supporting 2PSB makes compiler and engine programmers cry in their sleep. 

Because BSP2 > 2PSB and supporting 2PSB makes compiler and engine programmers cry in their sleep.

Is that just your opinion or do you know that for a fact? Have you asked the people who create engines and compilers if they get 2PSB nightmares? :) 

Why support 2 standards that are similar if one will do the job? It's unnecessary overhead and code maintenance. 

Can this be done? I want to cast a Q symbol but I don't want the brush to be seen. 

 

With that new compiler that lets you cast shadows from brush entities, you can give the brushes the classname "info_null" and set "_shadow" "1". Does waste a model precache though... 

You could potentially use a bunch of negative lights too, but that would likely look like ass and be a pain to do. 

I always thought it would be cool if someone made an engine where you could go round the map and "spraypaint" the lightmaps. Basically just go round with a dynamic light that never went away. Then you could add a negative "brush" that subtracted rather than added light, and you could use it to fix up glitches or do weird effects. It'd probably be hard to make it robust in the face of recompiling the map, perhaps you could replay a demo to repeat any painting you performed. Anyway, that's my mad thought for the day... 

 

Um...hesitant to ask, but...

Is there any sort of maybe legal issue with using something from the mission packs? I know Quoth used the Scourge(the scorpion to you heathens who don't know) from hipnotic's pak (hipnothetically, of course), but is this legal? And to what extend? If someone hosts the entire mission pack in the zip along with a custom map so that someone can play it, is it illegal?

Methinks melord thou art a theif. Y/N 

Don't host the entire mission pack; it's copyrighted (and actively being sold on steam) - that would be illegal.

Including a few assets from the mission packs in a Quake mod is probably fine, but the copyright on those assets (models, textures, whatever) is still held by whoever owns the rights to the mission packs. So you're working under the assumption that they are OK with what you're doing, which they probably are. 

I'd agree that including the scorpion in a mod like Quoth without permission is strictly speaking illegal. It's the same for maps that use texture sets from other games like Quake 3 or Daikatana, taking an art resource and re-purposing it in a similar setting, essentially is a act of redistribution without permission.

Morally speaking, I'd say what differentiates it from including the entire pak and all the maps is a matter of substitution. Including all the maps would make your mod a complete substitute for the mission pack. Someone who downloaded that would have no reason to buy the mission pack, harming that product's potential sales. Including the monster in a different mod doesn't do that; the value of Scourge of Armagon is preserved.

I guess it's kind of a map-centric view of things, but I think the experience of the mission pack is "play through these particular maps", rather than "play against this monster in some notional maps which may or may not include the maps supplied". If a cease-and-desist order were made, we'd comply without hesitation, but for a free mod I doubt we'll ever see one. 

you can just say it's a parody and get off scott free... that's how I got away with all those murder rapes. 

The Mapper's Ethic for Other Mod Inclusion:
I won't include the maps.
I won't include the demos.

I will include the monsters I want.
I will include the items I want.
I will include the code I want.
I will hide them in the .pak file(s).
I will include a "Special Thanks" in my readme.txt, whatever it may be called.

I might consider notifying the author before releasing my map...
...if I can find their contact info.

I won't release if the author doesn't want me to, but they will have to act fast.

I will revoke a release if the author of content I have used wishes me to do so.

Signature___________ Date________

Here's a pen ./

Side question: Didn't the Drake Mod use the Quoth Drole?