A command line option doesn't seem objectionable. I'll consider it without making a promise as to when.

So it is very likely to happen, unless it somehow interferes with something else. Which doesn't seem likely.

Having the option available would be nice, there are sometimes it is nice to change things on the fly easily.

I just don't like that as normal default behavior. 

Excellent. Thanks for considering it.

I'd also hope it will includes a console variable for easy setting, even knowing that would be something like, "this setting will not take effect until you restart Quake/the map/whatever is required."

I wouldn't dare suggest a menu setting, knowing how much you hate menus ;)

But then again, a menu setting would make it easy for the low-brow derps who Mark V is intended for!

*Throws an FvF ninja bomb and runs away* 

I'm disappointed Baker. 

Stuffcmd("screenshot")

Nice denial of service you have going there.

You see Gunter - you need to think beyond what you immediately want. 

Yes, I already agreed that abuse was possible. I just said so.

But do you remove all the potential valid, good uses of the command because of hypothetical bad uses? (Has your example ever actually been used in a mod?)

Hey Baker, I think mh is asking you to prevent screenshot from being used in a stuffcmd!

Mark V already protects your cfg file getting messed up by stuffcmds.

I can't think of a legitimate reason to allow stuffcmd screenshots.... So that's something that could be prevented.

But removing the whole stuffcmd functionality would be throwing out the baby with the bath water. 

There's no simple way to implement a cvar for it, because config files are only loaded after the filesystem is initialized. It's impossible to make a cvar change the filesystem initialization behavior.

Now, if such a cvar would be used to change the filesystem behavior on the fly, that would open a can of worms, specially on engines that supports changing the game directory on the fly: Set a mod dir, change the precedence, and add another mod dir; the precedence of the previous paths gets screwed. 

And that's why you wouldn't make a good engine coder.

In the end, Baker is interested in improving his engine for the users, and not just winning an argument for the sake of winning an argument.

Actually, that's why I post here too -- not to "win arguments" but to improve Mark V for the users, of which I am one!

My ideas of what might be an improvement may not be the same as other people's ideas, so we argue about it, but it is not personal, not even with mh for me (he's done great things for Mark V), though sometimes I can't tell if he gets caught up in just wanting to win the arguments or not ;)

In the end it would be silly to stubbornly refuse something that several people are stating a preference for, if the only reason is "don't give in to Gunter." Baker is not that petty!

And I'm certainly glad other people do speak up to state their preferences here, so that mine is not the only voice. 

It's not about whether I would make a good engine coder. I probably wouldn't but not for the reasons you gave.

It just appeared, from an observers POV, that you basically bullied and harassed Baker into adding a feature after he gave you plenty of well-reasoned answers as to why it wasn't a good fit for the engine.

I mean, I have asked him to include stuff from time to time but I am in awe of the relentlessness of your stubborn pleas.

Maybe I am just better at taking no for an answer. 

There were wins here.

Gunter did argue annoyingly hard.

Then again, he did eventually suggest a viable solution -- which no one has ever done before -- in the idea of making off by default but with ability to opt-in.

mh signaled he had complicated feelings on the subject and I've used DarkPlaces before for some deep modding where the functionality was helpful.

I've also seen DarkPlaces beg and scream for help because they messed up something so terribly bad and no ones wants to reply to them because usually it's a super-newb who barely can find their Quake folder so they get the "leper treatment" or insightful advice like "delete your Quake and reinstall".

So ... I think I'll have a beer and hope to laugh about this in the future. ;-)

/Gunter has found some very, very obscure bugs in the past. And spotted inconsistencies few would notice, allowing them to be resolved. 

You surrendered like a Frenchmen! D:< 

"Gunter did argue annoyingly hard."

I do everything annoyingly hard!

(That's what she said!) 

Fifth's joke was better. 

I shall prepare a PowerPoint Presentation to prove it was not.... 

Is 64-bit Linux support coming? That would be awesome. 

There is a Linux version available on the Mark V page for those interested in provided feedback and willing to experiment.

A few people have said it works very well. One person had some audio issues with their sound system. Tested on Ubuntu, told it works fairly nicely with Debian.

Your mileage may vary. 

No makefile for linux. :( 

I may have missed something in the avalanche of posts, but when Gunter started talking about having to unpack the id1 pak0.pak and pak1.pak files I started to wonder if there's a fact being overlooked...

The pak file precedence over loose files only applies within a game directory, right? I believe it is the case that a loose file in a game (mod) directory takes precedence over any file in id1, regardless of whether the id1 file is in a pak or not, correct? Is everyone on the same page about that? 

Post #874 has compile instructions. 

I believe you understand correctly how it works.

But say you want to only replace the player.mdl when paying standard Quake... with the one contained in this pack:

http://quakeone.com/forums/quake-mod-releases/works-progress/9573-authentic-model-improvement.html

That becomes rather annoying to do, since it's not as simple as just dropping the replacement model into progs\id1\, because the pak file will override it.

So you end up having to create whole new "mod" folder just to use one replacement model, then you have to create a batch file to run quake -game whatever, or you have to type "game whatever" in the console if your quake engine supports it....

What happened with me is that a player took that model and applied the FvF skins to it, so I wanted to try it out. The problem is that FvF already contains a reskinned player.mdl in its pak file in my FvF mod folder.... So again it was not so easy to just drop in the player.mdl and try it out.

So Spike suggested "stop using pak files" and that's why I described having to unpack the id1 pak0 and pak1 files too, because even if I'm not playing FvF (or any other mod with a pak file) I'd still have the same problem if I were trying to just replace the player.mdl (or some other model) for standard Quake. 

OK I'm going to try this one more time.

The way Quake has always loaded content goes like this:

- Gamedir 1/PAK files/Loose Files
- Gamedir 2/PAK files/Loose Files
- Gamedir 3/PAK files/Loose Files
- Etc.

(And yes, even stock ID Quake can load more than one extra gamedir; try -rogue -hipnotic -game XXX").

Here is the Quaddicted Single-player maps archive: https://www.quaddicted.com/reviews/

This is a repository of content all authored under the implicit assumption that certain Quake engine behaviours are consistent.

I say "implicit" because I'm absolutely certain that none of these authors (or at best very few of them) ever sat down and actually thought about this. But nonetheless the assumption is there, so please don't try to play silly buggers about it.

Change the content loading order and do you know what is going to break in those maps? Because I sure as hell don't. So they'll have to be tested, somebody's going to have to go over them and check that there's nothing in them that breaks.

What you have is one case, and it's not even a gameplay case - it's a test case. And you're behaving as though you believe that one case should take priority over everything else. You're jumping up and down shouting "I WANT I WANT I WANT" like a child, and not showing any awareness whatsoever that there is a whole body of existing content and Thou Shalt Not Break Existing Content.

One test case in FvF does not get to take priority over the body of existing content.

Feature requests are always more likely to be listened to and taken seriously if the person making the request gives some indication that they've thought it through and that they understand the implications. I'm not seeing that from you. 

I don't think anyone has put much thought into that compatibility angle before.

Considering the volume of single player releases, it would require an enormous amount of effort to find the ones with conflict situations. 

This is the kind of thing I've been bitten by before.

Even what seems like quite simple changes, say something related to behaviour of the viewsize cvar, can explode spectacularly if a mod uses it in an unexpected manner.

I think the key phrase there is "in an unexpected manner". The definition of an unexpected manner is that you actually cannot predict in advance what the impact is going to be, so it's no good someone asking for a list of disadvantages to a proposal.

"When in doubt do what ID Quake did" is a good maxim for certain classes of changes. With the SP community having converged around FitzQuake and derivatives, "when in doubt do what FitzQuake does" is also a good maxim.

We're not just talking about engines either. I've seen enough content made with buggy tools that just happens to work because engine behaviours or quirks accept it. I've been in a "put the bugs back" situation more than once.

The onus is on the person asking for a change to demonstrate that the change is benign, or at least that's the way it should be. Changes to very fundamental behaviours of core subsystems should always be approached with extreme caution. 

Ok, I see it is IS personal for mh. I think he just dislikes me because I consistently out-argue him. Well, he's going to like me even less after this.

mh, you are just being a crybaby now, but let me address your actual "arguments."

"The way Quake has always loaded content"

Yes, that's been pointed out repeatedly. But as Pritchard said, that's like saying, "Quake for 20 years has done things the wrong way" Or, if not strictly "wrong," then certainly in-optimal.

"Change the content loading order and do you know what is going to break in those maps? Because I sure as hell don't."

I do know: Not a single damn thing. Nothing. Do you know what kind of contrived situation would have to exist for the loading order to break map packs? The mod would have to install both a pak file AND unpacked files with the same names, yet with the files in the pak being the only ones that are supposed to be used, because for some reason the unpacked files with the same name are not the same files....

Seriously, HOW ELSE could the file load order mess up a map pack? You probably can't even come up with a realistic situation where it would, without your user do really weird stuff (which could happen no matter the load order). Maybe if the map installs as a pak file in your id1 folder and you already, for some reason, have different maps with the exact same name unpacked in your id1/maps folder??

The fact that you don't see it wouldn't cause a problem except in an extremely contrived circumstances shows that YOU are the one who isn't thinking this through.

Your flimsy argument amounts to trying to whip up fear of a boogeyman which would never actually occur unless you intentionally tried to make it happen. "But something might break! You just don't know!! Think of the children!!!"

You're grasping at straws.

Seriously, are there any maps/mods on Quaddicted that say, "this will not work with Darkplaces or FTE for some reason"? No? I'm not surprised.


"What you have is one case, and it's not even a gameplay case ... One test case in FvF"

Uh, no. I said it could impact anyone playing any mod or standard Quake if they wanted to easily use replacement content. I've pointed that out repeatedly. Do you not comprehend?

"Not even a gameplay case?" What? This isn't some hypothetical thing I came up with out of nowhere -- I never would have brought up the issue if it had not IMPACTED MY ACTUAL GAMEPLAY. Do you not comprehend?

You characterize me as crying like a child, but it's you, mh, being the crybaby. You're just being ANGREH. You don't have actual good points to support your position -- just hypothetical boogeymen which it's clear you didn't even think through (or you would have realized how ridiculously improbable it would be to actually break any of the maps from Quaddicted).

"When in doubt do what ID Quake did"

See, that's rich, because in the past when I have argued for using Quake's Default Behavior instead of some change Baker has implemented (centerprint position, or start map guessing), you have thrown the same whiny bitchfit over it. So it seems it doesn't matter whether I'm advocating for Default or not -- you're just against whatever I suggest.

(Normally I like Default presentation to the user, but this is behind-the-scenes, to make replacements easier)

"Feature requests are always more likely to be listened to and taken seriously if the person making the request gives some indication that they've thought it through and that they understand the implications. I'm not seeing that from you."

I can only laugh at this :D

You're not seeing a LOT of things, mh.

So don't even worry about it. If some weird, obscure issue pops up because of this change, you can bet *I* will be the one to find it! I'm the one who has been finding the weird, obscure bugs that result from the changes Baker has made, because I have an extreme eye for detail and a meticulous mind for thinking on many different levels. So just because you "sure as hell" can't see what might beaffected, don't worry -- I can. ;)


Now, was any this necessary, mh? Nope. Baker already decided to leave the default behavior in place and add an option for the user to change tit. Yet you still felt the need to make a fuss and post at me with silly arguments and insults, because, apparently, you are a sore loser. And like FifthElephant, you just didn't want to see me get what I want.

Now, I normally do not post at people in such a demeaning manner as I have at you here, but this is certainly how I respond when someone insults me the way you decided to. So, if you don't like this, then refrain from making such petty characterizations of me in the future :p and then I will stick to addressing your actual arguments as I normally do.


Baker, don't let the "compatibility scare tactic" dissuade you from this -- you know if it produces any unexpected negative issues, I WILL find them! ;) 

mh is relating his experiences involving the development of DirectQ. He is not referring to you at all.

I watched some of the DirectQ users "carp" on mh with insisting DirectQ must do certain things.

Something unseen here is that very few engines end up surviving compatibility.

I could tell you things that crash qbism super8 hard. I could tell you things that don't work right in FitzQuake. I can tell you things that don't work in Quakespasm.

mh and I work well together because we view compatibility as #1.

/So please leave mh alone. I already said what I plan to do. 

Might add that I also know single players that have problems with Mark V's automatic impulse 12 support. If you are serious about compatibility, you know your own engine's weaknesses as well.