Forgive me if this is more a general coding question but, is there a way to find a random number within a certain range? Like if I want a randomized x velocity from 150 to 300 for a gib 

-150 to 300, sorry for not editing, forgot i had a login 

(Random() * 450) - 150;

where Random() returns a random number from 0-1 - i assume QC has that? 

so yeah the general case for getting a random number between min and max is:

(random() * (max - min)) + min

where random() would be a builtin function returning a random number in the range 0-1 

How do i put a negative number in there? Like say i want a range from -250 to 250 

It's no different, "min" is -250, "max" is 250, so that would be

(random() * 500) - 250 

First time i did it with negatives i must've entered something wrong, now it's working thank you 

Hexen 2 has some extra model flags for trails that I can't set unless I merge models with QME, but I still can't get exactly what I want 

random:
random(-250, 400) will give you a random number between -250 and 400.
this will work with any HexenC compiler, as well as fteqcc even when not targetting hexen2.

model flags:
fte and dp both have some .float modelflags; field.
unfortunately the networking only supports the first 8 bits, and isn't supported by any (non-fte) hexen2 engines, so it won't get you anyhwere.
you may need to resort to a hex editor. you want the 32bit int at offset 0x4c.
although I'd like to think that later versions of qme allowed setting arbitrary flags... 

I've been using 30 because I couldn't find the download again for 31, but I think I might be able to grab it from my laptop and check 

i seem to have 3.1 ill look for a zip or i can make one i guess. I know i have it somewhere 

http://www.quaketastic.com/files/tools/windows/misc/qME_3.1.2.zip 

It's been about 5 months since the last time this was asked, that's a pretty good run I guess. Maybe six next time? :p 

 

void() foo =
{
entity e = spawn();
e.think = (void()){
dprint("I THOUGHT!\n");
remove(self);
};
e.nextthink = time + 1;
};

such functions may still have undefined behaviour when it comes to saved games, especially when the progs itself is changed. so while you should probably still avoid it, the above works in most cases.
note that there's no enclosures - so you can't access the locals of the parent (static locals should work though). 

 

Make the thread sticky on its 10 year anniversary. 

Ok, I was in the wrong thread last time...

Do you know how to make a blood splat on the walls in quake that will align with the wall? I've seen it done before, but I cannot cite my sources, unfortunately. I'd be happy to pay someone to make a .qc file for this.

Thanks. 

Ok, I was in the wrong thread last time...

Do you know how to make a blood splat on the walls in quake that will align with the wall? I've seen it done before, but I cannot cite my sources, unfortunately. I'd be happy to pay someone to make a .qc file for this.

Thanks. 

Try adding the following to SplatTouch above the line which changes self.velocity:

//fire a trace in the direction of movement to
//try and hit what we collided with
traceline(self.origin, self.origin + self.velocity, 0, world);

//if we hit a surface with the trace
//face the angle of the surface normal
if(trace_fraction < 1)
����self.angles = vectoangles(trace_plane_normal);

It's ever so slightly hacky, because we need to try and reconstruct the collision. So we have a bit of logic to guard against failure, and we don't change the angle if it fails.

This code will fix the angle relative to the facing of the wall, but you may need to add a constant angle if it's consistently turned 90 degrees from true. 

Preach, you brilliant bastard!

Can I compensate you for your help?

Thank you so much! 

I'd risk getting a bit mercantile if I accepted that! 

okay, I'm not a novice to QuakeC but, i have a question.

float FOO 64
float foo2 128
float foo3 256

so

is it incorrect to use:
value = value - FOO

vs

value = value - (value & FOO)

logically the first just subtracts 64.
I'm looking at OLD code and finding stuff like this.

I have always done it
value = value - (value & FOO);
to just turn off a value. 

is it incorrect to use:
value = value - FOO

I imagine you'll find instances of this in the old code only in places where they knew 100% that the bit was set, so just needed to subtract it.

Even so, it's still always better to use
value = value - (value & FOO)

because it shows the coder intent.