Subtle, tastefully done coloured lighting is fine, of course... as long as it meets the following criteria:

- Make sure everything is fully supported in FitzQuake.
- Make sure the .lit file or whatever it is loads automatically.

As long as the above is true, I'm happy to view your maps as intended! ;) 

I see little reason for colored lighting, interpolation, or any other fancy stuff in Quake. Quake is Quake. Accept it for the greatness that it is or map for another game. Adding, for example, bump mapping to Quake is the ultimate in silliness.

I agree that colored lighting is great and I use it every single day at work - but I don't want it in my 1996 Quake game. 

I can respect this! I think the lighting will look good with white light. I have looked at the level with white light and it looks OK to me! There are just a few spots where sourced lights are red, so the red light will look weird with white light coming out of it. But I suppose that in ID's levels there were red light textures anyway, so... ?

You can still view the level in FitzQuake though! (and disable coloured lighting out of spite i suppose.... ? )

Mr Fribbles : FitzQuake is what I work with. It's the engine I use. I like FitzQuake a lot.
Its my favourite. Darkplaces sucks because it's so buggy with most maps it seems. Its buggy with mine anyway, and I wouldnt recommend playing it because it doesnt spawn any of the doors in the level.

This is what I mean - I make the map for FitzQuake. So that people can view the coloured lighting. But people dont want to view coloured lighting.

This brings me to one conclusion:

Coloured lighting sucks. What a terrible idea that someone came up with. Almost as terrible as alphamasked sprites, new enemies, god forbid a torch, breakable objects (they werent in the original Quake, so why bother implementing them), skyboxes look awfull, leave it in yer Quake 2 ALRIGHT, we dont want it here, arena type battles with monsters spawning in waves, that looks terrible too, and it wanst in the original Quake, so why not just forget doing that for fun, my 1996 game doesnt support 3D acceleration, and I dont want it either, it RUINS the whole experience, we dont want ladders, whats wrong with the lifts supplied in the original game, why bother making a ladder? People just want to run around in a lo-res environment, in 320x200, 8 bit colour, shooting dogs, grunts, enforcers, knights, ogres, wizards feinds and shamblers and thats IT. Anything else is too much and we dont want it here. PEOPLE dont want it here. I can speak for more than one person, because I am legion 

People absolutely HATE having to use more than one engine. There isnt a SINGLE PERSON OUT THERE who can get their head round the idea that one of these TERRIBLE custome maps/mods might be better off in one engine than another.

EVERYONE has ONE SETUP which is COMPLETELY RIGID. People dont like the idea of having to read a couple of lines of documentation to figure out how to run something, and if it doesnt work perfectly in their setup at that time, they will jump straight on the bandwagon that whatever it is is CRAP, BADLY CONCIEVED and delete it from their hard drives in disgust! (still without having read the documentation)

EVERYONE IS LIKE THIS. I KNOW BECAUSE I AM LEGION. 

I think I finally get it... 

I agree, to a point. Coloured lighting isn't anything I've bothered with personally, but if it enhances a map and still looks appropriately 'quakey', then I don't think it hurts. Having said that, I've only seen literally a few Q1 maps with coloured lighting anyway, so it's both an uninformed opinion and a pretty moot point.

Stuff like model interpolation, and other minor enhancements and fixes though... well, it's all fine as long as it's in the spirit of the original game. Of course, everyone has their own idea of where to draw the line. Model interpolation is something that I kind of appreciate if it's there, but I won't use an otherwise questionable engine just to have this feature.

Adding, for example, bump mapping to Quake is the ultimate in silliness.

I don't think anyone can argue with this!

I appreciate your purist stance... and I can truly respect it since you're a GENUINE purist (using software Quake!) and not a weaksauce hardware pretender! ;)

I do consider myself a pretty uncompromising purist though, and I think many others here are too. This is why there's so much love for FitzQuake - it's an enhanced engine with lots of fixes and genuine improvements, but metl stays true to the proper Quake look and feel and, well, he just knows what's what. And that's it. 

Ricky

The Quake engine wasn't written with colored lighting in mind so all of the artwork is geared towards supporting white lighting. That's why I oppose colored lighting in Quake.

It's not a hard line stance against colored lighting in general. As I said, I use colored lighting every day at work and I love it. But it has no place in Quake.

What I'm saying is not hard to grasp and, sure, you can take it to ridiculous extremes and screams IN ALL CAPS but it doesn't change a thing. That's how I feel about it. You're free to disagree. But I won't be playing your maps if you require me to use a specific engine or jump through a single hoop to do it.

The only thing I really want done to the Quake engine is for someone to raise the internal limits on edicts and r_speeds and things like that. That's all I would need. 

but didnt undertand them.

So, you do like FitzQuake? Or you dont?

Supposing you were playing a level which was supplied with one of those AWFULL .lit files, would you jump through hoops to make sure there is no coloured lighting when you play?

My map runs in every engine I think. I went out of my way to make sure that it does! Bspinfo.exe all the way baby! I dont require anyone to use any specific engine to play it.

I am simply asking one Question:

"If you downloaded my map (which I dont think you would) to play (which I dont think you do) would you play it with or without the .lit file?"

And another Question:

"Do you have a working copy of FitzQuake to use?"

It doesnt sound like you would play my map anyway, because its not your sort of map.

Also: Surely more edicts and a higher r_speeds tolerance would indicate a map of size or detail which wasn't meant to run on "proper" Quake? Contradicting you original narrow minded approach to your precious 1996 shooter? 

What is your problem with me exactly? Can't I like something different from what you like? Is that not allowed anymore?

I'm tired of reading your CAP LOCKED jabs and digs. We're done here. 

The Quake engine wasn't written with colored lighting in mind so all of the artwork is geared towards supporting white lighting. That's why I oppose colored lighting in Quake.

Sold.

I never really thought about it much, but I guess this is the reason that all coloured lighting effects in many of the 'quake' ports out there look like utter arse. I always figured it was just someone with no artistic skills or taste implementing it, which is why it came across so poorly.

I guess it was probably both.

In any case I've never felt compelled to add coloured lighting to any of my own maps... pretty much nobody else bothers either. I guess we old-timers instinctively know it's wrong, even if we don't know why. :) 

Supposing you were playing a level which was supplied with one of those AWFULL .lit files, would you jump through hoops to make sure there is no coloured lighting when you play?

Personally? No. If my engine of choice loaded the .lit file automatically, with no interaction or intervention required on my part, then I'd simply accept it as the author intended - provided it looked good/appropriate.

If it looks naff or even vaguely questionable, I'll go out of my way to delete or disable the .lit file though. In fact I've done this before, in one of the three maps I've played with coloured lighting in Quake. :) 

Let me answer your questions:

"What is your problem with me exactly?"

I dont have a problem with you. I'm just slightly exasperated. I keep asking you questions but you give me no straight answer. I suppose we're having a debate. I actually like you :-)

"Cant I like something that you dont like?"

Hey, its free country mate!

"Is that not allowed anymore?"

No, its still allowed (but I'd like to think I'm working on it (joke))

Its just feels to me like its a shame that your stonewalling my .lit work. I worked hard. Then someone turns around and says "Well out of principal its not right, and I'm not interested"

Well fine.

I thought your mod was good. I thought the maps were good. I played them. 

"Its just feels to me like its a shame that your stonewalling my .lit work. I worked hard. Then someone turns around and says "Well out of principal its not right, and I'm not interested" "

I was never talking about you directly. I was talking about colored lighting in general. 

I have the litfiles zip for the quake1 original levels. I prefer playing through ep1 with them installed. Each to his own.

But if you think about it the argument about Quakes 8bit pallette not supporting the colored lights I say its not quite true; 16-32 bit rendering would mean that the shades of colour added to the original colours of the pallette wouldnt look crappy because of the higher bit-depth. Because a high bit depth allows for more increments of colour than the texture has on it, the result would be an individual leaf with a high bit-depth texture on it.

So it could look fine! If done right.

You could just as easily say that "Maps which are too dar or fullbright look crappy - too dark = very little visibility at all; fullbright = texture's 8 bit pallette only too obvious...)

I agree that some coloured lighting looks crappy. People make levels with (RGB 255 0 0) as their colours, which looks crap. There are so many shades and colours you can achieve with the RGB system that to go for just pure red, green or blue will look retarded. Completely. Its that same as lighting in general, or brushwork. Bad brushwork is bad. Bad lighing is bad. I'm not argueing with this point. 

"whats the difference between a texture which has been geared towards coloured lighting and a texture which hasn't?"

for a question? 

http://www.fileplanet.com/184974/180000/fileinfo/Portal---Ren_Test-3-Mini-Map-Pack

Fileplanet only download link Im afraid, not tried the maps but they look fairly professional from the screen shots, enjoy! 

I see it like this, no Fitzquake / tyrquake / whateverquake, then no Marcher Fortress, no <insert crazy ass huge q1sp here> so its worth it imo. 

Don't worry, I played your recent level (TheHand?) in AGLQuake, just to avoid having coloured lighting :D 

This is what I'm talking about...

Shitbag 

I have the litfiles zip for the quake1 original levels. I prefer playing through ep1 with them installed. Each to his own.

Heresy! In a bygone era you'd have been burned at the stake for even suggesting such a breathtakingly shit idea. 

Have at you! 

http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=xbkxh9czzxm&thumb=4
http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=hmpbc29g2es&thumb=4

Map even works in Winquake!

I think it looks better in FitzQuake though... 

Ok, had to muck about for an hour to get the code to compile again. Here's fitzhack without the monsterclip stuff that broke zer.

http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/~ajd70/fitzhack.zip 

Watch out for the laser-eyed Mr Fribbles, he is a penguin-halfbreed and likes fish a lot!

Those two screenshots simply look like they are using different toned textures. I agree that the "yellow sunlit" one looks better though. :) 

Given that engaging in this debate in an attempt to make some progress is a prospect not unlike plunging my hand into boiling acid to rescue a dead rat, I'm going to be brief:

This:

I see little reason for colored lighting, interpolation, or any other fancy stuff in Quake. Quake is Quake. Accept it for the greatness that it is or map for another game.

is not being a purist. It is being a puritan.