only run on Windows. I hacked my Proquake so I could at least run TPOF (static entitities) and warpa, but warpb/c still crash it. I don't know exactly which limits I'd have to raise and where to look in the code. I just raised max_static_entities in one of the header files. Seems to solve _that_ problem.

Anyway Ijed said from the start that it needed its own engines so that's OK. It's his good right.

warpa was very much like Doom 2. The shambler attack with the screenshake and breaking walls was cool. Good effects Ijed :-)

I hope that Baker's Proquake will have some limits raised because that will run on Unix at least, don't know about MacOS though. Mac Quakers are probably screwed from the start.

Running stuff in an emulator like Wine is obviously "suboptimal."

Don't take this as criticism Ijed, it's just general ranting. Your maps are cool. 

I realised from the start I'd be cutting down on those who would be able to play the maps, but decided to go ahead and really break the limits rather than just tip them.

Basicly for the big three you need all limits raised; marksurfaces, entities, static entities etc. Warpd runs a bit lighter, but not much. 

I hope that Baker's Proquake will have some limits raised

When I start playing around on my Linux machine to compile that engine project I will also see if I can create a Linux versions of aguirRe's engines.

That isn't going to be immediate, but I personally don't know of anything that should hold back a Linux build for aguirRe's engine. 

I'm able to do the required hacking I guess; I may try to screw around a bit more.

Baker, AguirRe's winquake failed to build last time I tried. You're doubtlessly more familiar with the code than I am, so if you can do that it would be so much appreciated.

I feel bad doing the lobbying, but I suspect there must be more people like me out there. :/ the silent ones. 

Your Proquake development is the best thing to hit Linux Netquake since I don't know when. Thank. you. 

I badly want aguirRe's engine for Linux! 

are there a few extra steps needed to build WinQuake in XP? With Windows 98/ME, you simply had to have Visual C++ and Masm installed, you then built the Masm2Gasm executable from the Quake source and things were fine, but it is not such an easy compilation in XP as I've recently discovered. 

this should be moved to another thread, but all my tools/engines are built in XP Home. There are no special problems, actually I'd expect it to be a lot more issues in Win9x. 

...the proximity mine launcher from SoA would've actually been a useful SP weapon in this pack. In fact these might be the only types of SP levels where the prox launcher is more than just a gimmick. 

With the Nehahra roaming monster AI - not just the teleporting, but the wandering about as well. 

(I installed Ubuntu on my MacBook and am playing with Wine, nicely obscure I think)

These maps are blowing my mind :-) It's mainly the size, I think, they're well constructed and creepy and all, but there have been well built creepy maps before -- just not ones where one of the maps of the pack took me 80 minutes of playing on skill 0... It feels like you could have fit all of the original id maps inside some of the rooms of warpb.

It's actually fairly easy on skill 0 if you're just a bit cautious. Masses of ammo, plenty of health. Maybe I should have played on skill 1, but it's ok with me so far.

Congratulation, ijed. If only you could travel back in time and show this to Carmack, Romero et al. as Quake was being released.

I'm not even finished yet... 

Hm, thought it was out of the question.

Glad you like the maps - I still get the odd email saying thanks, so its nice to know all that work went somewhere. 

Performance is a bit middling, but it's only a intel integrated gfx card, and it crashes every now and again, but it works pretty well. I was surprised! 

I closed off alot of people from playing the pack by not cutting the levels into chunks, but it wasn't the direction I wanted to go in. Baker's made an EZ installer available over on QuakeOne which makes it a bit simpler for those who haven't played the game for years.

I'm working on an episode 3 remake in Quoth atm, alot smaller in specific map size and much more fun to do now that I've stopped remapping the originals. I did have fun making warp, but the sheer size made it very unweildy for testing or trying out ideas on the fly. 

Yep, AguirRe's engines generally run in wine, but the price is the same as with other emulators. Maps run dog-slow, and there might be any number of issues (sound etc.)

Might be bearable for small maps, but we're talking big-ass maps here otherwise there would be no need for special engines. So the slowness adds up, part coming from using an emulator, and part just coming from very big maps.

I'd estimate that most Wine apps only perform at 70% native speed, plus the usual problems. And I'm not alone there.

*shrug*

And this is _not_ a complaint. Just the facts. (disclaimer ;-D) 

I played Warpspasm with wine&glquake too and the only issue were sudden random sound screw-ups. Speed is not an issue, actually some games are said to run faster with wine than in Windows. What you saying are no facts but FUD about wine. It's not an emulator by the way...
http://winehq.org/site/myths#slow 

Unsure if anyone already gave this as an option, but if you want to run Warpspasm under Linux, you can use the DarkPlaces engine, which somewhat recently got support for Warpspasm. 

...and running warp in DarkPlaces under Windows should work just as well, if you dig that flavor ;) (haven't tried yet, other than watching the startdemos, which run fine) 

Have to give it a look. 

It's not a myth. It's my experience, which is shared by a (rather large) number of other people. I have run quite a lot of popular Windows games under Wine, and they are all slower compared to Windows (I used to have Windows installed as a dual-boot option) and often have additional issues, the most prominent one being sound. And Wine is an emulator for all practical purposes (I know the story about why it's technically not an emulator etc.)

Of course the Wine website says it's a myth. That's because the speed issue has probably been the major negative remark about wine in the past. If my product had all kinds of issues, I would do exactly that (call it a myth.) There are massive commercial interests behind Wine (Codeweavers, Windows software vendors.)

You can go to any linux distro's user forum and search for "wine bugs/problem/slow/issue" and you'll find soon enough these are no myths. You can do the same in the Wine bugzilla and you'll find even more interesting things.

With faster hardware and more RAM becoming available, people don't notice it as much today. That's all.

Sure Wine has its place, but for FPS-critical or time-intensive applications, it doesn't seem very reasonable to rely on it when you can run the same app natively.

Can't we leave it at that? I already said I wasn't complaining... and that's true. I am beginning to think the whole discussion is better avoided here.

*shrug*

FUD is pretty nasty, I can't see why you used that. I was just relating my experience.

http://www.noslang.com/dictionary/f 

I don't want to totally derail this, but the Wine not-an-emulator speed question is interesting.

Given a program like glquake or another quake engine, there are relatively few windows API calls. Most of the code is internal algorithms made up of machine instructions which should run the same speed given the same CPU. However, what about the video drivers? Since I assume your glquake-on-wine has to link to linux video drivers, perhaps those drivers are not as good as the windows drivers for the same graphics card? 

fuhquake-sw precompiled binary with self compiled svgalib was perhaps up to 10% faster in old red hat linux back in 2002 than in windows.

But practically everything else like web browsing was slower in linux. :) 

because it just isn't.

I agree with metlslime, I bet for quake performance comes down to graphics card performance and so driver issues. My MacBook has integrated intel graphics which isn't the hottest performing setup ever but does have good linux drivers (one of the reasons I didn't get the Pro, in fact) and my nehwarp.exe performance is fine (~70 fps timedemo-ing the included warp demos). I don't have Windows installed to compare it with that. 

What hardware of the MacBook Pro isn't supported? Not that I would buy a powerbook again, anyway; just curious. 

used to play WOW with wine