Why Not Use Q3 Bsp For Q1 Sp
Speeds, a better question would be: why do you feel its necessary for this to be a wide adoption in quake mappers if using q3 technology for q1 is something you obviously want to do yourself? (seems that way from your posts at least)

Are you trying to make sure people will play your maps if you do so? Theres alot of opportunity here for you to prove some people wrong; that it can be done and done well. Go map. 

that too
and just cheking if things have changed much :)
Go map yourself.

btw Still, no one said about 'industry'... 

I would like to use q3 bsp purely for the curved surfaces, detail brushes etc side, not for tga textures etc. It would certainly offer more flexibility to the mapper. I'm not sure if you can use standard quake textures in a q3 bsp though. 

What's to prevent you from exporting your existing Quake WAD's into 24bit tga format? They would look exactly the same. 

i've experimented a bit with this, but if you're using tga textures, you can shrink the oversized textures to match up with quake's texture scale, that way, you still get all the nice colours from the original textures, but don't have the inconsistency you would normally get with 1x scaled skins against 0.5x scaled textures. 

http://www.quakesrc.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5722

yeah, fitzquake is their god

All Hail, Fitzquake. Ye Lord and Majesty Metlslime!

I reread the previous 59 posts of the thread. The discussion contained just about every point of view that is relevant to the topic, with pro adding Q3bsp format actually dominating in terms of agreement among the discusees, FitzQuake doesn't really get mentioned until post #34, yet, once again, we are being made out to be a little enclave of purist and elitist. 

Wow. Some people are far too concerned about what other people are doing. I mean, who really gives a shit? 

I'm really a font of self-consciousness . . . 

Those guys are engine coders, right? So they hate the idea that no-one will use their engines they spend so much time on. The thing is, if they actually had a decent sense of aestheics between them, more mappers - and players - would use their engines.
metlslime is undoubtedly extremely fucking good at what he does. It's not because FitzQuake is 'pure' that people use it - it isn't that pure and it certainly isn't pixelated 8bit or whatever drivelsome excuse those coders use to cover their lack of ability.
It's because metl sets out with the right intention and sticks with it, producing an engine that does as much of what people actually want as possible, as accessibly as possible.

Here's what metl wrote previously:

my job is to render the content accurately. If you play stock id, it'll always look like stock id. But if you play a new map with new features, such as fog or skyboxes, those features will appear as the mapper intended.

FitzQuake owns as an engine because metlslime has a mature sense of design. If the other engine coders don't, that's their problem, not mine.

The root misconception is that engine coders see their personal project as an end in itself, which for their own satisfaction as coders is fine. But in terms of other people using their work, an engine is not an end in itself, it is only a means to an end - an engine is there to render someone else's content, for someone else's entertainment. If you're not comfortable with that, maybe engine coding isn't for you. 

Well said, even if you are a q3dm10 thief :D 

I repeat my belief that it really helps if the coder is a mapper too... or if the developers are a close-knit small real-world communicating team of coders, mappers, texture artists, modellers, game designers and whatever.

People often seem to rail against things they don't understand. Someone mentioned the nice blue highlights in the metal textures and how colored lighting fucks those up. I had not thought of it, but now, it makes some sense.

If some technology A is replaced with some other technology B with a different way of doing things, sometimes all the features don't work as well as they were supposed to. The old technology's A's hacks for realism don't work as intended in the new tech B... Until then a third wave, tech C (like doom3 with again different approach) where it's possible to do those things "properly", entirely disposing of the hacks. That though most certainly feels totally different and requires new artwork from scratch, and maybe even gameplay.

I remember John Carmack telling in a .plan in the nineties that 16bit quake actually looked worse than the 8-bit one (so they didn't release it). This seems also counterintuitive at first, but if it's revealed that the "8-bit" colors are actually a carefully selected 256-color palette of 16 million colors (3x8=24 bits), it starts making sense - after all, all the art was created with this palette too - pixel by pixel by hand!
(Anyone who's done stuff with deluxe paint should be familiar with this, how, although there are not that many colors available at one time, they can pretty precisely be tuned and more colors be allocated to different shades of the most important colors)

All this means that it's not obvious adding features improves the artistic impression of the game or fits in. 

I use different engines, and change up frequently depending on what type of feel I'm exploring at a given time. It isn't a matter of being more Neoleothic than the next guy, it is what in terms of aesthetics and gameplay fits the game that is in front of you.
I was frankly shocked at the acceptance of the Areowalk replacement textures that pervaded Quakeworld.nu (before the site went down) by players and coders. Those were truly bad, and it may be the roll of mappers have to be a bit more 'elitist; than others to maintain a high standard. 

Freudian slip 

if they care so much about our opinions, they should change their engines to suit our wishes. XD 

no need, dude, you've already demonstrated you're a second-rate moron. 

to talk about each other instead of between groups! 

I concur with Kell & Post 63 

Kell: Well said. Agree 110%.

It's also worth drawing attention to the fact that not only does FitzQuake render Quake much more accurately than GlQuake, but it actually does it considerably fucking faster than GlQuake.

Ok, I'm drunk and I'm horny at the moment, but I'm still prepared to suggest that maybe the guys on that forum should bear this in mind the next time they get their knickers in a twist because the latest bloom-wanking, lensflare-whoring, texture-raping BloatQuake-du-jour doesn't get the attention they expect from us mappers, especially from those amongst us that like to push the .bsp format that little bit further, where rendering efficiency actually becomes a factor to take into consideration, even on modern systems.

Word. ^_~ 

http://www.quakesrc.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5722 Inertia managed to actually find a discussion about *THIS* thread on a forum for engine coders. Hilarity ensues. 

I've observed that there are many people outside the mapping and modding communities that often judge engines by their particle effects and nothing else, they reject glquake for looking 'too old', and they reject fitzquake as well because it doesn't have particle effects like they want.

Personally I think it's extremely silly to choose an engine purely based on particle effects, but that is what these people do, and they seem to comprise a substantial portion of the userbase of each engine other than the few engines that kept glquake particle effects (fitzquake and others).

I have observed that these people often reject engines that don't have most of their effects on from the beginning (some even go as far as to say per pixel lighting should be on by default, a request that I ignore), so none of these people would choose darkplaces if I disabled these things by default.

I personally like the particle effects in darkplaces or else I would not have them that way, I can add back all the glquake particle effects as an option, but it can not be on by default.

Regarding documentation, yes I know the documentation is weak, the readme needs another update (for instance I have removed detail texturing entirely, so that part is no longer relevant), and ingame cvar and command documentation has been planned for a long time but I haven't been reminded of it very often by users.

However, I tried to make darkplaces' menu system self explanatory, and all options that people ask me about are quickly added to the options menu or its multiple submenus.

I do not personally see the reasoning for wanting the particle effects to stay the same, darkplaces mod was designed from the beginning to make quake look 'better', the engine has followed the same line of thinking. 

I do not personally see the reasoning for wanting the particle effects to stay the same, darkplaces mod was designed from the beginning to make quake look 'better', the engine has followed the same line of thinking.

I don't see any reason to keep the same original effects either - especially since they simply aren't that great (lets be serious here).

I would actually love to see a Quake engine with 'better' effects. Therein lies the problem.

It takes the careful eye of a talented artist to put together great art and effects in a cohesive style that ties everything together nicely.

From what I've seen of most modified Quake engines, I can guarantee you none of those engines do have a talented artist or anyone else even moderately competent looking after the effects.

What I do see is a bunch of fancy coloured wank effects, most of which are just plain bad, or overdone. Very occasionally you'll see a nice, well done effect, but it certainly won't work together well with the rest of the effects, and probably doesn't feel 'right' inside the Quake universe anyways. Every single 'enhanced' engine I've seen just has a mish-mash of (mostly bad) effects with no thought given to the overall art style of the game.

Its like the whole thing with 24 bit textures. Many people just seem to think 'its better because its 24 bits, so its better'. They can't understand why we don't jump for joy when they replace some fairly decent 8 bit textures with a bunch of arse flavoured 24 bit textures, which don't resemble the originals and (surprise surprise) don't work well together.

Again, it takes the careful eye of an artist to put together a coherent set of textures. And just because you aren't restricted to a particular palette does not mean that you shouldn't use one. 

You wouldn't see me complaining if my crappy original Quake effects were replaced by some truly great effects that were undeniably better.

Nothing I've seen comes even remotely close to satisfying that statement though, so until then I'd rather look at the dull old stock Quake effects. At least I'm used to them and don't even notice them anymore. That's far better than being pulled out of my game experience when I shoot a shotgun and notice 'omg my shotgun fires bright orange sparks which spread out in a 500m radius and bounce of all the walls and floors 7 times'.

Or for a real world example, I'd rather wear a tattered old brown shirt, worn thin with age, which is at least comfortable, than to wear a nice new flouro pink tye-dyed shirt which has "I'm a wanker" printed in 72 point font on the front, and has blinking lights and LEDs attached to it that light up when I move...

...if you see what I mean. 

I wholeheartedly agree with everything you have said and wish to subscribe to your newsletter. 

"I can add back all the glquake particle effects as an option, but it can not be on by default."

Why not ? It gives the user more flexibility and for those that dont agree with your view, at least it provides an option. 

"Why not ? It gives the user more flexibility and for those that dont agree with your view, at least it provides an option."

Because LordHavoc said:

I've observed that there are many people outside the mapping and modding communities that often judge engines by their particle effects and nothing else, they reject glquake for looking 'too old', and they reject fitzquake as well because it doesn't have particle effects like they want.

and

I have observed that these people often reject engines that don't have most of their effects on from the beginning (some even go as far as to say per pixel lighting should be on by default, a request that I ignore), so none of these people would choose darkplaces if I disabled these things by default.