#1347 posted by Yhe1 on 2014/11/04 00:56:48
Does Requiem support BSP2?
#1348 posted by Baker on 2014/11/04 02:21:54
If you do what Preach suggests for fog, you should consider doing it for skyboxes as well.
EUMA's, 2015 Going Forward!
#1349 posted by damage_inc on 2014/11/04 04:59:30
Cousin to the EULA, all maps and mods will be released from this point forward with "End User Mapper's Agreement".
Any player who changes a graphical or gameplay setting, config file or other game enhancing feature, excluding and limited to key bindings, will void said EUMA and have said map/mod removed!
Now we just need the Mappers to DRM their creations to enforce it...
Conservative Hat
#1350 posted by ericw on 2014/11/04 05:01:57
I always thought the fog and sky commands in Fitz/QS were a good balance between mapper control and player tweakability. Yes, they're reset on every map load to the worldspawn values (or if not set, the engine defaults). I like this because I can mess with fog and not have to worry about restoring it to the original value.
If there is really a demand for a way to control the fog of maps with none set in the worldspawn, maybe a dedicated "r_defaultfog" cvar would be the cleanest. But I have to say, I'm not a big fan of the idea, e.g. my jam3 map has no fog setting in the worldspawn; it's really intended to be played with no fog, not "whatever fog".
#1351 posted by JneeraZ on 2014/11/04 12:13:34
"To this, I only ask what other game lets you go in and change things like skyboxes and fog that are integral to the look of the game."
Yeah, I agree. We don't allow anything else to be customized ... what's so special about fog?
Moreover
Is there anybody who seriously goes and changes the density and color of fog, just for the sake of extra eyecandy?
#1353 posted by Spirit on 2014/11/04 12:53:03
Absolutely, checkout the stuff at quakeone.com and the various HD packs.
#1354 posted by JneeraZ on 2014/11/04 13:04:39
Yes, but should that override the mappers intentions? I mean, fog isn't chosen for a map at random.
HD Packs Aren't Fog
I Dunno
#1356 posted by ijed on 2014/11/04 13:54:53
They do stop you seeing the level if you apply enough.
#1357 posted by Spirit on 2014/11/04 14:19:37
Fog is one of the settings that HD packs like to set (afaik, I am not into that kind of stuff).
#1358 posted by JneeraZ on 2014/11/04 14:25:52
We should add settings for tweaking color ranges. Like, if I don't like red lighting I should be able to tint it more towards orange.
Also, lava kind of sucks ... being able to switch that to slime would be great.
#1359 posted by Zwiffle on 2014/11/04 14:31:57
Is anyone here colorblind? Not that this matters a lot, but perhaps there's an argument for a colorblind mode or somesuch.
Doesnt
#1360 posted by ijed on 2014/11/04 14:35:11
Dark Places let you change the colour balance with RGB sliders?
Lol Warren
#1362 posted by Spirit on 2014/11/04 15:09:12
oh, i thought you guys were actually interested in some kind of meaningful discussion. my mistake.
zwiffle: there is at least one ex-mapper. statistically about 5% of men are more or less, they rarely speak about it though. I know of 4-5 players but that's a fraction.
#1360
RGB sliders for fog would be awesome...
#1364 posted by mh on 2014/11/04 15:40:16
Yes, but should that override the mappers intentions? I mean, fog isn't chosen for a map at random.
That's not actually the point being made.
Of course if a map specifies a certain fog setting, the engine should honour it and the player should accept it. That's not in dispute.
The point being made is that where a map doesn't specify it's fog (or water alpha, or skybox, or whatever), right now there are two possible interpretations and both are valid:
(1) The mapper doesn't specify fog because the mapper doesn't particularly care, never thought to do so, or else the map predates engine support for fog.
(2) The mapper is explicitly specifying no fog.
Interpretation (1) is the only case where the player can go nuts with user-specified fog. This is the case that, if you look at the world through mapper-coloured glasses you, may miss becoming aware of.
Interpretation (2) is unambiguous: again, the mapper doesn't want fog and the engine should honour that. Again, that's not in dispute.
The problem is: how does the engine tell which of interpretation (1) or interpretation (2) is the case?
#1365 posted by JneeraZ on 2014/11/04 15:49:55
#2 is the safe assumption.
#1366 posted by JneeraZ on 2014/11/04 15:52:07
Set it to whatever the map is set to on load. Players can change it after load if they want to, but assuming the map is authoritative is the best way of respecting the mappers intentions.
If players change it after load, so be it.
That should really be the end of the debate. :)
Reminder that the original point of debate was:
fog should reset after each map
And it's bloody blatantly obvious it should.
if you look at the world through mapper-coloured glasses
Shame for us all, looking at Quake maps through mapper glasses on a Quake mapper forum.
Let's All Think In Binary Choices.
#1369 posted by Spirit on 2014/11/04 17:08:50
You are ignoring mh's insights on how people out there actually play Quake. Try looking outside the box some day.
#1370 posted by negke on 2014/11/04 17:14:54
What if there was an additional fog-related cvar to toogle persistent fog that carries over across level changes and reloads. Could even be 1 = persists until loading a map that has a fog field of its own, and 2 = overrides maps' fog settings. Disabled by default, so only to be used by people who know what they're doing, who are aware of the possible unwanted effects.
Pfog! Phog!
#1371 posted by Spirit on 2014/11/04 17:30:18
|