 News | Forum | People | FAQ | Links | Search | Register |
Log in |
|
|
Yes - thats a classic. But a womyn !?
...some would say that's not a bug i.e. more favourable than actually playing dis_sp6 :)
"Got it to work (dunno how long for), using driver version 9.17.10.2867 from 05/12/2012.
This was from going to settings and "refreshing" the system, not a complete reformat. There's definitely some driver issues with the surface pro. " Again, this does work on certain driver versions. Redownload:
http://quake-1.com/docs/utils/fitzquake_mark_v_final.zip @Others: ragequitting + jokes Well, I never thought of it like that. I'm just tired and worn out and at times I wonder if I have anything positive to contribute or have been some sort of Quake villain -- which was never my intent. SA: So all we have to do to keep this project ticking is find bug reports for Baker :) Haha, maybe first good laugh I've had in a while. Either way, I guess I'll keep the door ajar a bit the MarkV engine would support 'sv_freezeonclients' from the DarkPlaces engine. It is perfect for taking screenshots and checking out what AI are doing without affecting the player or console speed.
it would've been a total cheating?
you should also ban god, notarget, noclip and impulse commmands! ;) krimzon_sv_parseclientcommand can be used to block them if you really want that. they're already blocked in deathmatch.
"freezeall" command is what you seek.
I made it a command rather than a cvar for some technical reasons that are rather tedious to explain. freezeall is a toggle and is supported in Mark V in the server too as a recognized command. "sv_cheats 0" will stop god, noclip, freezeall, fly in Mark V.
A Mark V server will also tell Mark V clients what gamedir is running and automatically switch them. For instance, if the Mark V server is running "-game warp -quoth" it will instruct Mark V clients to do the same upon connecting. [Which is a Spikeism Mark V has almost no features that anyone ever asked for. Ever.
And yet people like the hell out of it? I guess what I saying here, why should anyone use this over Quakespasm, Fitz 0.85 or DarkPlaces? Yet, serious single player or coop people love this engine. Despite the fact it doesn't implement ANY features that anyone ever actually wanted or asked for? I implemented stuff that I thought the average player would really like to make things fun, user-friendly and easy. I guess I'm saying, bsp2 is just going to ruin single player entirely. You probably can't even properly coop any of those maps. Is the master plan here to create impossibly large levels that can never be cooped and bust all sanity in even things like recording demos? Of what use are maps that cannot be cooped in the bigger picture? I personally don't see super-giant for the sake of super-giant as a positive direction --- many Fitz 666 maps are only barely coopable over LAN. What makes Quake isn't multiplayer --- QuakeLive or other things can do that --- and it isn't literal single player because you can find this in other games. But coop is where Quake reigns supreme -- how does BSP2 further this great strength of Quake? Or are we just breaking engine limits these days without considering the consequences of where the path is leading? Let's just break every limit --- creating a cascade that challenges rendering and the network protocols and even advanced predictive protocols is just "wrong" to me. If you think about it, almost everything in Mark V has been done to support coop and demo sharing. BSP2 teaches map authors to not really consider map design constraints for maximum "utility" and just be lazy. There are many incredibly big protocol 15 maps --- Fitz 666 raises that to beyond absurdity --- and now lazy map design isn't satisfied by that? Sheesh --- some of the Travail levels --- like the one with the lift that teleported --- worked around that. Just as a base example. The short version: bsp2 end result maps aren't usually coopable --- coop is a design strength of Quake --- perhaps maps that don't fit in the design strengths of Quake should only be playable by outside the mainstream engines. /Good judgment almost kept my from clicking submit --- then again, I don't have much of that. Submit it is! Baker, If you're actually serious about coop, you'd go implement support for RFC 5245 somehow. :P
Also, its probably worth rewriting the network protocol anyway, *especially* for coop. Coop can easily get more spammy than deathmatch. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/21356102/mark%205%20bug.jpg
It's on an ATI 3670 with 11.12 drivers. And big maps are lazily made?
Each to their own then. I get the point of wanting a simple engine though. I've played coop quake maybe once or twice in my entire life.
I thought the whole point of these huge super giant bsp2 maps was to make an epic singleplayer romp? And these super maps are very few and far between. I really don't see the reason for this rant, most people like Fitz for its stability, simplicity and faithfulness as a quake engine. I personally prefer DirectQ because it is slightly more feature-rich, but it's mostly unsupported these days. I take exception to the comment about lazy maps too.
The features I like about FitzV: Runs fast Supports loads of demos Cool demo features Perspective correction on weapon models in widescreen Though I would like it if I could play my big map on your engine. As we move forwards in time, some people are going to want to make huge maps. TBH it's been a fantasy of mine since I started mapping, the only reason for not doing it was the engine limits. 9 out of 10 people have hardware that can run huge maps. r_speeds is not really an issue any more (though I still full-vis my maps). I mean it would be nice if there was an active Fitz branch engine that supported BSP2. Tyrann's new compiler is quite possibly the best qbsp compiler we have ever had, AguirReMHLight is IMO the best light tool. Everything is in place, we even have engines, but it would be nice if an active (and very cool) engine supported everything. Then I would ONLY use FitzV for EVERYTHING. And more than likely, the majority of other folks would too... Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasssssssssssseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee? Supported Coop but my new one won't at all. In theory I could try and include it, but there's a tonne of dependencies in the AI and core game mechanics that mean it wouldn't make sense to try it coop unless I completely changed the game mode...
Which could be valid I suppose, will give it some thought. It's also a very big map.
|
|
| This thread has been closed by a moderator. |
|
| Website copyright © 2002-2024 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors. |