|
Posted by metlslime on 2002/12/23 18:24:21 |
Talk about anything in here. If you've got something newsworthy, please submit it as news. If it seems borderline, submit it anyway and a mod will either approve it or move the post back to this thread.
News submissions: https://celephais.net/board/submit_news.php |
|
|
#23000 posted by mwh on 2013/06/18 00:15:05
Run the demo through lmpc and it'll be in there somewhere... (or run "strings $demo_file | grep bsp" or equivalent).
Mwh A Winner!!!
#23001 posted by mechtech on 2013/06/18 01:29:38
The 23,000 post award. holy shit that allot of bs for 1 thread
Blender BSP Importer
#23002 posted by than on 2013/06/21 16:03:06
Sorry to keep spamming about this. I've created a thread over at Blender Artists about the importer, with a link to the latest version etc.
http://www.blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?297143-Quake-(1996-game)-bsp-import-script
I doubt I will work on it anymore unless more bugs are found, but there is a list of possible improvements in the readme. This includes filtering models by entity type, importing lightmaps and welding vertices on import.
Also, as a side note, the best path I found for getting it into Maya seemed to be via dae if I remember correctly. If you want to do that, there are a bunch of export options, so if dae doesn't work well, just try dxf etc. until something works. I definitely had dm7rmx in maya though.
Proof Reading Before Posting Is A Virtue
#23003 posted by than on 2013/06/21 16:04:09
getting it into maya -> getting imported bsps from Blender into Maya.
Double Tool
#23004 posted by Preach on 2013/06/22 04:10:25
Two tool posts in a row. Well, this is more of a micro-tool...it's a little bit of python code which lets you turn a directory of files into a pak file on the command line:
http://tomeofpreach.wordpress.com/2013/06/22/makepak-py
In case the usage isn't obvious from the code: save the text to "makepak.py" then call it like so:
makepak.py mydir pak1.pak
There's no error checking or anything, it's a 40 line program, but it's kinda neat.
Preach
#23005 posted by than on 2013/06/22 06:01:42
cool stuff. Whilst I do all my Quake stuff in Windows at the moment (not that I've been particularly active over the last few months), I am gradually trying to switch my pc use over to linux. I realised that although there are a couple of Linux editors (notably Trenchbroom, YAY!), there aren't m/any tools for working with pak files, wads, mdls etc.
Given how easy writing these kind of tools is, I thought it might be worth making a few simple applications to do so. Good to see you made a pak creator. Can it extract files and list pak contents too?
Afraid Not
#23006 posted by Preach on 2013/06/22 10:02:36
It's a very one-time bit of code, written to do a single task cheaply. It's probably not too hard to adapt it though, if you understand the "struct" module in python.
The quakewiki entry on .pak files is also very good:
http://quakewiki.org/wiki/.pak
It has some sample c code for accessing pak files and extracting a particular file, which would be very pretty easy to adapt.
Also
#23007 posted by than on 2013/06/22 11:33:44
http://www.gamers.org/dEngine/quake/spec/quake-spec34/qkspec_3.htm#CPAK0
I normally use this page for quake stuff, even though it's out of date and contains a few errors since it was made before the final version of Quake was released.
To extract pak files, this works: http://pastebin.com/8hxV0vvk
I Suck
#23008 posted by than on 2013/06/22 11:53:37
#23009 posted by Spirit on 2013/06/22 12:31:05
http://www.quakeforge.net/ has nice commandline tools. I added some more to http://quakewiki.org/wiki/Quake_tools#PAK_Editors
I can recommend both QF's pak and par.
I've Been Away From Quake For Too Long!
#23010 posted by jt_ on 2013/06/22 16:26:05
HBDQ!
#23011 posted by generic on 2013/06/23 01:41:01
OSes And Macs
#23012 posted by Jago on 2013/06/23 11:42:03
Referring to the conversation about Macs and operating systems above:
I sincerely hope your boss wasn't really offering to buy you a Powermac, because the last model came out in 2006. He probably ment Mac Pro, but that too is a silly choice: the current model is vastly outdated - a new Mac Pro is coming out later this year and if you need/want a powerful Mac workstation right now, a fully decked out iMac is a much better choice.
As for operating systems, as long as it runs the software you need it to run, it's just a matter of taste. Windows 7 and MacOS X are both great.
That being said, unless Microsoft comes to their senses sometime soon, it might now make more sense than ever to consider switching to a Mac. Win8 is shit and in the coming 8.1 update instead of listening to the userbase, they are actually doubling down on the things people hate.
And To Expand On The Above
#23013 posted by Jago on 2013/06/23 16:13:25
I believe we are reaching the point (and in many cases way past it) where operating systems are irrelevant as both Windows and Mac can easily do what 99% of computer users need and more and more things traditionally handled locally on a computer are moved to cloud services.
An example: why on Earth would I want to manage photos locally using some application, when I can instead use Flickr and automatically back them up to Dropbox for good measure?
Hardware is also becoming similar (as long as you don't do something monumentally stupid such as buying a computer without an SSD in the year 2013). For most users, questions such as "what CPU does this have" are replaced with "is the battery life good enough?" and "do I like how it looks?".
If you are not a gamer, a mid-to-highend range computer from 4-5 years ago is absolutely perfectly suitable for most tasks of today.
�hm
#23014 posted by mfx on 2013/06/23 16:28:31
An example: why on Earth would I want to manage photos locally using some application, when I can instead use Flickr and automatically back them up to Dropbox for good measure?
Privacy would be a good argument....
RE: �hm
#23015 posted by Jago on 2013/06/23 17:07:51
Privacy would be a good argument....
Privacy concerns are becoming more and more of a fringe case. I do understand your worries if your name is Brad Pitt, however:
If you routinely work with images and photos that genuinely constitute monetary value and/or valuable intellectual property, chances are you are using "the cloud" anyway, except you are using your employers private/internal CMS instead of a public service like Flickr.
Flickr does offer privacy settings.
Are you REALLY that concerned that some Flickr employee would be browing pics of your naked girlfriend that you set to "Private"? Using the vast amounts of free porn on the web makes a ton more sense than committing a felony and risk getting caught.
Who Told You My Realname?
#23016 posted by mfx on 2013/06/23 17:44:42
guantanamo now!
Tbh
#23017 posted by mfx on 2013/06/23 17:54:08
i' m talking about some bored nsa analyst...
just the possibility makes me really concerned...
what if they tapped the sexcalls of their gis?
oh wait, they did that..!
for national security of course.
Oh Jago
#23018 posted by Spirit on 2013/06/23 18:43:19
Red Nicks Represent!
#23019 posted by Spirit on 2013/06/23 18:43:40
The Marcher Fortress Reviewed @ TAW
#23020 posted by quakis on 2013/06/23 19:03:47
Four years overdue. Had been planning to do this right after my review of Bastion of the Underworld back in 2009. Things got in the way and it never got done.
Finally got around to replaying the map and posted up a review just now: http://taw.duke4.net/2013/06/quake/the-marcher-fortress/
Privacy / Photos
#23021 posted by SleepwalkR on 2013/06/23 20:12:28
I would not upload pictures of my kids anywhere on the internet. You simply do not know where they'll end up. That's why I'm never going to manage my photos online.
And there are plenty of other things which I would prefer not to do in the cloud either. But I'm not an average user, so the generality of these arguments is limited.
#23022 posted by Spiney on 2013/06/23 20:48:21
There's always file encryption...
Sw
#23023 posted by mfx on 2013/06/23 22:58:31
But I'm not an average user, so the generality of these arguments is limited.
So is me, concerned bout the possibilities i am.
This should be enough to make evrybody go wild..
...
#23024 posted by Cocerello on 2013/06/24 11:57:17
An example: why on Earth would I want to manage photos locally using some application, when I can instead use Flickr and automatically back them up to Dropbox for good measure?
There is many, everything has always more than one con.
- Availability, if i put them in flick i need Internet, and it isn't always available everywhere, or the servers go down, or many other problems more than to the ones on having them on your computer.
- You depend only on yourself: if they are lost in the cloud, you can't do as much as if they are lost in your computer.
- There is no need to wait for them to uploador download to use them.
- You depend on a single application, if that fails, you have no other way to see them.
- And i can remember at least 5 more reasons, but there is many more. It all depends on what each person values the most.
|
|
You must be logged in to post in this thread.
|
Website copyright © 2002-2024 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors.
|
|