backward compatibility is a real issue. the whole point of .md3 is to do stuff that would look terrible in .mdl, so there's not really a decent option to fall back on.

I'm inclined to start thinking about composite models as a way to workaround the mdl vertex butchery, but I imagine that's another big can of worms. 

 

 

I am all for textures with no filtering and even playing at 10fps for the models with or without interpolation... but integer precision is inexcusable in this day and age regardless. Its just unsightly jitters. We support colored lights for that reason. Sure some folks will make a disco map but these features allow for folks that know what their doing the little bit of extra flexibility.

Besides if folks want to keep the oldschool look for their monsters or create them to work with MDL then feel free. I would prefer to not see vertex swimming on my subtle idle animation that has spikes on the back or toothy maw. 

The biggest issue I have is with the vertex precision dropping indeed with bigger models or making animations that take up a bigger volume for limited frames in your models animation frames. Because MDL takes those ranges as the maximum and then scales up the volume of detail that everything else gets. So either you stick to small critters or big creatures with limited range of motion to avoid losing detail. 

When it's just certain animations use a large bounds (eg an attack animation) it can be worth outputting those anims as a separate mdl file and swapping as appropriate in qc. That way your model doesn't get totally trashed because of that one time where he swings his weapon around. 

That sounds like even more annoying hackery than simply supporting a better mesh format... :) 

"Simply" means getting all engine authors on board with the same standard. So, good luck with that. 

I think it would be nice to have the support for it but I really doubt it will be used by most modders. 

Yeah, there are ways to improve the situation a little in the absence of .md3 support, and I think QuakeC "hacks" - such as making a monster from two .mdls stuck to each other (e.g. Armagon), or switching to a different .mdl for certain problematic animation sequences - are less of an undertaking than getting coders to write .md3 support into the engines. 

It's not that difficult. Engine guys love making stuff, you just approach one and ask if he'd be interested in supporting the model you've made. Or even write in the change yourself to a QS fork.

Once it exists, it exists and will get adopted. Same as with any other feature - skyboxes, coloured lights, BSP2 etc. 

I find your optimism appealing and look forward to feasting on it's burnt husk in the future. 

I begged for higher res shadows and .lit2 came and seemingly passed with no real outcome. 

I thought with .lit2 everyone wanted it and then after looking at the actual results we all went "err can you make it blurrier? A bit blurrier still? Actually on second thoughts I'm happy with Quake's original look I guess". 

Not sure how interchangeable the render between quake 1 and 2 are... but I know KMquake engine supports MD3 as a mesh format to use. I for one would LOVE the support of the MD3 format or IQM whichever one is added to the engine builds.

On another note has anyone thought about portal skyboxes like in the original unreal engine? :) That would be fun to build skybox areas that become the levels distant views but with some parallax. 

I would love unreal style portal skyboxes. If that happens though I think alpha on masked textures needs fixing. Currently if you have an index 255 masked { texture it will only alpha as low as .7 I believe. This would need fixing in the main engines.

Also, will someone tell LordHavoc to added masked textures to DP? 

It was the RMQ that first got the ball rolling with fence textures and 2PSB (BSP2).

It's not so much optimism as - if you do it, it will happen, I know because this is how it has happened before when I was involved with feature XYZ.

Complaining that it won't happen because nobody will do it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

Bringing back the stencil style of the old quake sky but make it an actual skybox would be awesome. 

ijed - Sure. Awesome. I mean, I'm pessimistic on a new model format being adopted by all engines and people actually using it but I'm happy to be surprised. Go forth. 

 

I'm sure if someone started making a mod that uses .md3 content (I mean you can already use md3 in Darkplaces and a couple of other engines), then I can see Quakespasm following.

It's just nobody is currently making quake stuff with .md3 content so there isn't a demand for it.

People saying how much they'd like md3 is one thing.

But if you can say "I have a mod. It uses md3 and plays in Darkplaces but wouldn't it be great if it played in Quakespasm also?", then that's another thing entirely. 

Demonstrate a real, working example of a problem that the feature request solves. In the case of BSP2 it was created to solve a map that blew right through the clipnodes limit. The map existed, it was there, it could be loaded in an editor, but it wouldn't compile or load in an engine.

It's not good enough to say things like "has anyone thought about" or "it would be fun to build" or whatever. It's easy to forget that a feature requires work to implement, and that sometimes it may not be nicely compatible with other engine features. The feature may end up being cool or fun, but would anybody ever actually use it? To quote from john Carmack's .plan file from 1997:

Sure, any given feature list can be implemented, given enough coding time. But in addition to coming out late, you will usually wind up with a codebase that is so fragile that new ideas that should be dead-simple wind up taking longer and longer to work into the tangled existing web.

The trick is to pick the features that don't fight each other. The problem is that the feature that you pass on will allways be SOMEONE's pet feature, and they will think you are cruel and uncaring, and say nasty things about you.

That's as true today as it was back then.

A good rule of thumb is that if you're asking an engine coder to invest time and effort into implementing a feature, then you should be prepared to show that you've invested time and effort into thinking about the request to begin with. 

"wot Kinn said", in other words. 

I was asking because my shambler remake has nice teeth and Mdl makes it a gibbering mess. Not to mention more subtle muscle details and form that get all garbled by the MDL format as well. Its been driving me a little nuts. I like Quakespasm. Have not used Darkplaces yet so I guess I will test it there for now? No normalmaps though :P Don't care for normals on my retro art remakes.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1849053/Shambler_Wip_02.jpg

Starting to paint this guy up now finally :P 

Shamblers are furry!

Looks like you're off to a great start though!

I agree with Kinn/mh. I would say that there is already a fine case for having md3 models as the limits of mdl are plain and clear to anyone with eyes. The problem I think is that the standard mdl models are good enough as is and people still are making great quality mdl assets.

It's definitely a "would be nice" feature right now.