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
#1372 posted by JneeraZ on 2014/11/04 17:56:17
"You are ignoring mh's insights on how people out there actually play Quake."
Nobody here does that. And we all play Quake.
01100110 01101111 01100111
#1373 posted by ijed on 2014/11/04 18:23:55
#1374 posted by Spike on 2014/11/04 19:15:17
I'm gonna say to make the fog command a mapper/mod setting that gets reset on map changes. With mods stuffcmding from triggers etc, doing otherwise is too unsafe.
If users want to override it, they can either do it on each map change or the engine can implmement something per-map like:
http://ezquake.sourceforge.net/docs/?commands#skygroup
maybe.
I'm Not Ignoring
I'm dismissing.
#1376 posted by mh on 2014/11/04 20:33:04
Shame for us all, looking at Quake maps through mapper glasses on a Quake mapper forum.
Ah, but the question is: what's the purpose of releasing a map?
Sure, you can make a map for your own satisfaction (hell, even I've done that), but why release it? You release it to be played, by players, unless all you're interested in is a mutual back-slapping exercise among the mapping community.
I'll Just Keep On Derailing The Thread
#1377 posted by ijed on 2014/11/04 20:53:36
what's the purpose of releasing a map?
Can't justify working on it anymore.
#1378 posted by JneeraZ on 2014/11/04 20:59:05
"You release it to be played, by players, "
Yes, and ideally they play the map you designed not the one they customized. :)
Talking At Cross-purposes
#1379 posted by Preach on 2014/11/04 21:33:47
I think there's a lot of cross purpose chat here, so I'm gonna try and post a few non-controversial things that everyone should agree on.
1. Maps with a fog key on should be loaded with those fog settings.
2. Going to a map with no fog key should reset fog to default in some sense.
There is a useful discussion buried somewhere in this thread, but it seems to be drowning amid people trying to argue in favour of 1. and 2. when actually nobody is arguing against them. mh, is this a fair point to start from?
|