News | Forum | People | FAQ | Links | Search | Register | Log in
Quakespasm Engine
This engine needs its own thread.

Feedback: I like the OS X version, but I have to start it from the terminal for it to work and can't just double-click it like a traditional OS X app. I'm sure you guys already know this, either way great engine.

http://quakespasm.sourceforge.net/
First | Previous | Next | Last
 
onetruepurple: oh fucking what
onetruepurple: Host_Error: Mod_LoadLeafs: 34523 leafs exceeds limit of 32767.
ijed: yeah
ijed: thats the crash, if I remember rightly
ijed: it's not enough to just add the format
ijed: all limits need to be raised
ijed: didn't mention it on func
ijed: because wasnt sure
 
So What 
the patch doesn't work? 
Not For My Level 
Although the fix should be relatively simple.

All this engine strife should go away soon, there are a number of engines in the works now. 
And Then The Engine Wars Can Truly Begin... 
 
Updated The Patch 
ijed, your level works now :-)
I had to raise MAX_MAP_LEAFS (now 65535), and change the surface indices from unsigned shorts to unsigned ints in mnode_t.

https://sourceforge.net/p/quakespasm/patches/11/ 
 
nice. 
BSP2 Support Is In 
The patch is applied in teh svn repo as of rev.881. 
 
Cheers for this. Half-way through Something Wicked and it's going fine.

If no-one else puts up a windows binary, i will when i sort out my build environ. 
 
Dont think you beat me Oz... I was just doing some 'testing'. 
 
Now merge ericw's sound resampling! 
I Really 
like the vertex lighting code from reQuiem. And the light source code for rockets and grenades etc. Couple that with the nice corona effects from DirectQ and we're cooking with gas! Actually DQ has the best menu out of all the engines IMO, get that in there too x 
BSP2 Builds For Win32/64 And OSX 
Freshly built Win32, Win64 and OSX versions from svn r881:
http://quakespasm.sf.net/devel/ 
Nice One 
Thanks, guys.

A question: now that bsp2 support is in, would it be feasible and/or desirable to add support for protocol 999 (RMQ), however rudimentary? And how about 10002 and 10005, the ones from BJP's enhanced GLQuake. Perhaps there are even some others that only slightly derivate from the common standards. I presume DP protocol would be out of the question, though.

The reason is having an engine port that supports a wide(r) range of existing protocols would make demo playback (among other things) a lot more convenient for the general user. As it stands, the several different protocols create quite a bit of a mess, and only relatively few people know their way around it. You could say, another step towards a general purpose engine.

Not necessarily an actual feature request, more wishful thinking really. 
 
If you already have 666, 999 is a superset that gives support for .scale and extensions for coord+angle precision, so its likely going to be needed at some point in the future even if its not used by default.
DPP7 support has a lot of merit, but full compatibility with DP is a major undertaking, but then you don't need full compat for it to be useful.
Also needs mvd+qwd playback! :P

999 would be a good idea though, its the simplest way to get larger coords. 
 
Correction: BJP protocols are 10000-10002. 
Good Work! 
How about adding the dynamic lights fix from Mark V? 
Great Work 
 
Awesome 
Thanks szo & stevenaaus! 
Now THAT'S A REAL CHRISTMASS ! 
Thanks a lot guys !

The OSX version works perfectly on my system. I'm finally able to play that freaking Wicked Mod ! 
Grrr 
you are supposed to checkout reQuiem, everyone! 
We'll Check Out ReQuiem 
when you fix the bloody widescreen! 
Fifth 
It's open source, and Spirit is not the author. 
 
Checked it. It's awesome. :) 
Re Protocols 
Protocol 999 sounds useful, but the others are deprecated and in my opinion should not be added. Maybe only for playback but recording in them should not be possible. Focusing/Forcing less is better!

Is there any reason to use aguirRe's engines anymore?

Could maps/mods hint to the engines about their needed capatibilities? I don't know how reQuiem detects what protocol to use but I am sure it is not flawless. It would be kinda bad if 666 or 999 are used when they are not actually needed. Backwards compatibility is nice! 
 
reQuiem does it the easy way, but in doing so can become desynced with respect to reliables vs unreliables. really it'll only work reliably where there's no packetloss.
and even then it only selects on a few features.
and even then, there's no guarentee that the client will support svc_version (which is not normally ever used)... 
First | Previous | Next | Last
You must be logged in to post in this thread.
Website copyright © 2002-2024 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors.