Seriously, are there any maps/mods on Quaddicted that say, "this will not work with Darkplaces or FTE for some reason"?

https://www.quaddicted.com/engines/darkplaces 

Remove: "single players"
Substitute: "a couple of (rare) single player mods"

/Premature submit strikes again! 

Now, was any this necessary, mh? Nope. [...] And like FifthElephant, you just didn't want to see me get what I want.

I wish someone wanted my naked body that hard. Now I'll feel jealous of Baker too. 

@Baker "He is not referring to you at all."

Ah, well, then I must have misunderstood when he used my name ;)

But it's no big deal for me, really. I approach internet arguments like a Quake Deathmatch: whether you win or lose, it's all for fun, and it's not worth getting legitimately upset over. :D


@mankrip Yeah, I guess I really should have specified I was talking specifically about compatibility with Darkpalaces due to the unpacked file preference is has. I have no idea about all the many other differences in Darkplaces, and what compatibility issues they may cause.

Actually (side story), I remember several years back I tried using Darkplaces for the FvF server, but I encountered compatibility issues.... I think I emailed LordHavoc about it, and it was something about either checkbottom or some other way to see if something was on the ground, and what I was doing in FvF wasn't working in DP. LH said that code never really worked right in standard Quake or something.... In any case, I went back to proquake server, and I don't know if the problem would have been fixed by now or not.

So yeah, I understand compatibility issues are indeed important, but "compatibility problems have been caused by other things" isn't a valid argument in this specific case. Do we never try to change/improve anything due to fear of incompatibility? No, but of course, we do tread carefully. 

"I wish someone wanted my naked body that hard."

Well, just make a quake player.mdl with a skin of your naked body, and it will be REALLY EASY for people to drop it into their game once Baker makes the setting available!


(And NOW I see the downside!! What have I done!??) 

Ok, now that this is all settled ...

It's June. It's great weather and sunny ... 

It may be sunny now, but not for long!

Anyone else going to catch that full eclipse in August?

It is passing DIRECTLY overhead for me -- I am right in the center of its path.

I guess all those sacrifices to Shub-Niggurath are having an effect! 

I'm in the southern hemisphere, and it's winter now; no snow, though. 

"But it's no big deal for me" - Gunter after 3 scroll pages of bitching.

Please don't include me in your diatribes either, I was poking fun at you light-heartedly. Baker clearly got this. 

Ok, got it. You are allowed to "poke fun" at me, but I'm not allowed to mention what you said. That's a reasonable expectation. 

Might be time to move this to the beef thread as Pritchard has suggested. 

It's not an "internet argument" though. You don't seem to understand that, but it's not. This isn't an argument where somebody wins and somebody else loses. 

Then I'm not sure what it's about for you, mh.

From your first post on the matter ( #1574 ) you decided to assault my intentions and motivations and mis-characterize me in a poor light.

Even on a side issue you felt the need to make it about ME rather than what I was saying ( #1595 ), but I continued to address the argument rather than the arguer.

Then after the issue was settled (Baker decided to leave the default as-is, but to add a setting to change it -- a win/win situation) you again decided to post and complain and VICIOUSLY assault my character and motivations.

THAT is the point it became an "internet argument."

Now, I want to clarify: only my last post was what I was referring to as "an internet argument" in regard to having fun winning or losing -- normally when I say "argument" I am using the formal sense of the word: arguments and counter-arguments and making points in a discussion. But an "internet argument" (I probably should have said "internet squabble" or something) is more like a flame war.

Yeah, at that point it's more about "winning," but if you look back up to my post #1598 you will see I said just what are you saying now -- the point of me posting here is not about winning or losing, it's about helping to improve Mark V (and this feature will be an improvement to Mark V). I even said in that post that it wasn't personal with you.

If you believe in your position, you make good, valid arguments for your position. You don't start questioning the character of the person who is not for your position.


Now, I am a Quake player, after all, so when you fire enough rockets at me, I will fire a BFG at you ;)

This was the FIRST time I have assaulted your character in all of these Mark V discussions, but it is certainly not the first time you have questioned mine and cast me in a negative light.

If you want to avoid this again in the future... just stop doing that. Let your (formal) arguments stand on their own without making it personal. If your arguments are sound, then they are sound and they should hold up on their own no matter who you are arguing against. So how about you stop casting aspersions on my character?

Anyway, it STILL isn't really personal for me, despite me firing a BFG at you.

So let's be friends! 

 

Hi, I'm using the Mark V 1.36 source port and when I enter the exit portal of Gloom Keep, the game often (about 5 out of 10 times) crashes back to desktop with the "Mark V has stopped working" notication. This happens both with the regular gl version as well as with Dx 9. Is this a known issue? 

I can't remember if I have it fixed in the unreleased version or not. I'm thinking it is fixed whenever the next update will be released (date unknown).

That was a fun mystery, engine coding-wise.

When you go through the exit teleporter on Gloom Keep, there is a world brush model that has never been seen before and isn't visible in that frame either, but due a mirror surface in the area, the model comes into visibility but hasn't been precached.

I have to assume that since I know so many details about the circumstance that I have rectified the situation in the in-progress version. 

Thanks for the answer. I deactivated the mirrors via the console command mentioned above and now it works fine. 

Since this problem appears in a bunch of modern ports I will repeat my post of half-a-year ago

Quake is originally designed for 320x200 resolution to be run on 4x3 displays (just like Doom). This means, that whole screen should be stretched vertically. The original game nicely adjusts viewport so that actual gameplay window is always at true aspect no matter what resolution is set - 320x200 will look exactly like 320x240. But the UI is not. It is designed to be stetched, so it only looks right on 320x200 and 640x400 resolutions and is "squished" on every other.

So what's the problem? Mark V removed id's aspect corrcection and treat every resolution identically. Setting up 640x400 and 320x200 result in stretched in height gameplay window.

The ideal solution would be to add an option to make correct UI scaling. Here's some example shots of original winquake and Mark V scaled to 4x3 and upscaled

http://i.imgur.com/ZnPksXb.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/mJLsJH5.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/dWRoC5M.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/fj0f4aI.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/n8lznjF.png
http://i.imgur.com/tmH5eHL.png

http://imgur.com/a/jAW3U 

Nice to mention this, it's one of the most overlooked things in custom engines.

But I'd like to add that Quake is actually inconsistent when it comes to video aspect, because the 3D renderer was coded for a 320x240 4:3 screen (square pixels), while the 2D renderer (and artwork) was made for a 320x200 4:3 screen (non-square pixels).

Doom's "3D" renderer was indeed coded for non-square 320x200 4:3 pixels, IIRC, because it didn't support other resolutions (before WinDoom). Quake was the first id engine with multiple resolution support, so it's quite poorly coded for it in some areas. 

I'd be cautious about how this change would look in a hardware accelerated engine. On the surface it seems easily achievable by just rescaling your ortho projection and 3D viewport by the appropriate amount, but there's gonna be a whole lot of edge cases with texture filtering that will need to be worked over. 

But I'd like to add that Quake is actually inconsistent when it comes to video aspect, because the 3D renderer was coded for a 320x240 4:3 screen (square pixels), while the 2D renderer (and artwork) was made for a 320x200 4:3 screen (non-square pixels).
the only thing is that it wasn't. original software renderer actually could do a valid 3D picture with virtually any resolution and pixel aspect, and if you choose 320x200 (640x400) you will get just right picture in every aspect (no pun intended) 

The particle renderer, which is part of the 3D renderer, was explicitly coded for 320x240, with double height scaling for 320x480.

The underwater warp is also inconsistent across screen resolutions and was coded for a 320x240 video buffer, as explained in this standardized test. It also means that it's impossible to always get a fully aspect-correct image in ANY resolution in the original renderer, because while the HUD only displays properly in 320x200, the underwater warp's waves only displays properly at square-pixel screen aspects (320x240, 512x384, etc).

The original software renderer is not consistent even across multiple HUD sizes.

The software renderer also screws up skies and particles when the FOV changes.

But most people never pay enough attention to notice all the problems in the renderer. 

I... uh... um.. er.... :u

Ok, yeah, I'm bringing up the contentious topic that we just put to rest, but bear with me... you will NOT see the ending coming!

Ok... So, I was considering what mh was saying about "expectations" that people supposedly have about the loading order for content like models, in regard to the pak files vs unpacked files having preference (default from original Quake is pak).

Previously I pointed out why this isn't just for mods (mine or anyone else's) -- it's also for standard Quake if you want to use the player.mdl from this pack: http://quakeone.com/forums/quake-mod-releases/works-progress/9573-authentic-model-improvement.html

I looked at the readme file included with that, and it just says, "To use these new models place the 'progs' folder inside the 'Id1' folder in your Quake directory."

Ok, so it's apparently not the model creator's expectation that pak files should take precedence, so he must have been using one of the modern engines that changed the behavior.

So then I did a web search to see how other people might answer the question, "how to replace player.mdl in quake." The first link that pops up is a Quakeone forum post (naturally) where someone was asking just that: "Easiest way to replace player model?"

On page 1 of that topic, someone mentions creating a mod folder and dropping the file in the progs folder of the mod, and another person mentions something about looking in the pak file.

Then at the top of page 2 of that thread: http://quakeone.com/160346-post11.html

the guy is told, "Yes. You can just create a "progs" folder into id1, drop the model into and you're done."

Ok, so again, expectation seems to be that just dropping in the unpacked model should work, and the final post in the thread has the guy saying he did just that and it works... with DirectQ....

Yes, that's the kicker. The guy asking the question said he was using DirectQuake (he said that on page 1 as well).

DirectQuake is mh's own Quake engine, and IT HAS UNPACKED FILE PREFERENCE. :u

I decided I'd better test this for myself, so I found and downloaded DirectQ (for some reason it's not that easy to find), version 1.8.8 (because 1.9 crashed for me), and sure enough, it's just as simple as dropping the unpacked player.mdl into id1/progs/ and it works in DirectQ!

So... like... um.... Do I need to repeat that? mh has been BLASTING me for daring to ask for a feature THAT HE ALREADY PUT IN HIS OWN ENGINE :u


So yeah, Baker, please import this wonderful feature that mh was wise enough to implement in DirectQ :D

;) 

I have admitted that I've been wrong about things in the past. DirectQ was riddled with mistakes, I freely admit it, and that's one reason why it's no longer developed. You don't get to score points that way I'm afraid. 

I'm more inclined to believe that the 2D GUI gfx were actually designed with a 1:1 mapping of texels to pixels in mind, rather than any specific resolution. 320x200 is just an accident of history.

I did code up aspect adjustment just to see how it looks and as expected it's pretty crap when texture filtering kicks in.

It might be OK as an option but otherwise I'd leave the default alone.