Index | FAQ | Search | Memberlist | Usergroups | Profile | Log in to check your private messages | Log in | Register

Modeling Forum Goto page Previous 1, 2

| Inside3d Forums Forum Index -> General Discussion

View previous topic :: View next topic

Please state one of the stances on a modeling forum, or select Other and specify in a response

I would like a modeling forum |

56%
[ 13 ]
I would contribute significant posts to a modeling forum |

13%
[ 3 ]
I would contribute tutorials to a modeling forum |

4%
[ 1 ]
I am fine with a modeling forum, but am not interested |

17%
[ 4 ]
I am opposed to a modeling forum |

8%
[ 2 ]
Other |

0%
[ 0 ]

Total Votes : 23

Author | Message
--- | ---
r00k Joined: 13 Nov 2004 Posts: 483 |

Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 5:20 am Post subject: |

inside3d is the in depth knowledge of all for gameheads. codewise we are all pretty adept. I should also mention that the majority of the majority, are artistic-aly keen as well. I am eager to learn modeling. But a well rounded community is a happy one.

Back to top |

Baker Joined: 14 Mar 2006 Posts: 1538 |

Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 5:56 am Post subject: |

r00k wrote:
well rounded community is a happy one.

I really like your choice of words.
Well-roundedness seems to be missing in Quake.
+ side:
1. A good number of experienced mappers
2. A good number of experienced QuakeC veterans/engine people
3. Tons of great ideas and expertise
4. Tons of accumulated QuakeC and engine ideas reduced to code and real world tested
5. Some great open source tools.
- side:
1. Utter lack of documentation
2. Utter lack of documentation
3. Utter lack of documentation
4. No newbie level tutorials for in-demand new-age features like CSQC and cool stuff like vwep using applicable extensions, etc.
5. Reliance on many rotting non-Open Source tools
6. Reliance on shitty methods for making Q1 models (unless it is easy make models in Blender that compile right using leileilol's Blender tutorial).
7. 10 years later, progs 1.06 is STILL what is used as a base QuakeC source, despite being bug infested.
8. No basic GPL model/sound set to cleanly be used as experimentation base (i.e. modding is very much "Quake-locked" and therefore closed-ended despite very non-Quake capabilities in advanced engines).
So despite all the capability, maturity and "testedness" of all of the creations, modding is rather cumbersome for a newbie, requires way too much work and lacks a good solid starting point.
I believe the above can probably frustrates and deters new modder wannabees that find initial progress to be very difficult (sort of the opposite of mapping in Quake, which can be encouraging to start -- yet relies largely on closed-source and aging editors like Worldcraft -- hopefully this project can dethrone Worldcraft).
Personally, I think at least some of the above is going to be cracked a little in the near future (Quake Remake byproducts, byproducts of Avirox's work, Feral and other open source mods that use some of these things, maybe from things like leileilol's Blender tutorial, MauveBib's QuakeC starter intro and other such things, and maybe if I can find the time, some data mining of the gems of wisdom here in the forum.)

Back to top |

Urre Joined: 05 Nov 2004 Posts: 1073 Location: Sweden |

Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:25 pm Post subject: |

I can agree to most of the things you say, but...

Baker wrote:
1. Utter lack of documentation 2. Utter lack of documentation 3. Utter lack of documentation

Most of the documentation exists, but sadly it's all over the place.

Baker wrote:
4. No newbie level tutorials for in-demand new-age features like CSQC

I gave it a quick try, earlier. Even though it claims to expect prior knowledge, it goes rather easy on you, I just tried to steer clear from all the "this is a variable" stuff, as that's covered in many other places.

Baker wrote:
7. 10 years later, progs 1.06 is STILL what is used as a base QuakeC source, despite being bug infested.

This is certainly sad, there are plenty of fixed codebases around, it's a wonder none of them have caught on. I guess there never was a community authority who endorsed them enough. There is a good reason for progs106 still being the base after all these years. It means that everyone knows what to expect from the structure of the code, whenever someone needs help with something, and all tutorials always work, and so forth. A better codebase would have needed to catch on very quickly in order for it to gain popularity, as new tutorials would use that instead, and whatnot. Having that said, I must say I really do despise the majority of that codebase, I always code my stuff from scratch.
Thing is, you can find most stuff as long as you actually look for it. I've seen this in other communities too, it's generally rare to find a "Start here" kind of introduction, and it usually doesn't cover everything you need to know to start anyway. That is, if you manage to find the introduction, you usually have to look for that too. I'm not saying document less, you can never document too much, unless ofcourse you go all Linux manpages on things, then you'll definitely not know where to start. Anyway...
Oh, and use BSP for mapping, if you're cool.
_________________
Look out for Twigboy

Back to top |

MauveBib Joined: 04 Nov 2004 Posts: 602 |

Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:47 pm Post subject: |

I linked to a bugfixed codebase for newbies to use in my newbie tutorials. _________________ Apathy Now!

Back to top |

Baker Joined: 14 Mar 2006 Posts: 1538 |

Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:57 pm Post subject: |

Urre wrote:
I can agree to most of the things you say, but...

Baker wrote:
1. Utter lack of documentation 2. Utter lack of documentation 3. Utter lack of documentation

Most of the documentation exists, but sadly it's all over the place.

After I finished posting that, I was thinking that maybe I should edit it saying a lot of the documentation exists, but it just can't be found. For the most part I think most experienced people know where most of it is.
Anyway, I'm going to try to see if I can help organize the info.

Urre wrote:
Oh, and use BSP for mapping, if you're cool.

Please don't hate me, how is using a more modern closed-source mapping editor cool?
My strong opposition to closed-source tools stems from the fact each and every one is subject to the author losing interest or vanishing and is just 1 bug or Microsoft operating system upgrade from being recycle bin material.
Case in point:

BSP Quake Editor Homepage wrote:
]So, things seem to be winding down over here. My life is at one of those crossroads again, and I don't know if I will have any more time to commit to BSP. In case I don't return to development, I want to make this final release for everyone. Although the code is incomplete, I am making this release because some cool features have been added. If there are any major bugs in this, just let me know and I will do my best to get them fixed.

I don't see how using a newer closed-source map editor where the author is at risk of abandoning the project as being anything except re-living the mistakes of Quake's past over and over again.
Haven't we seen this closed-sourced + abandoned thing enough times to know better?
(I understand some people really like the BSP editor, but it's going to age and have problems like every other closed-source editor).

Back to top |

MauveBib Joined: 04 Nov 2004 Posts: 602 |

Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 9:12 pm Post subject: |

Maybe, but it's the best option for Quake mapping right now. You can't seriously expect people to use worse tools just because somewhere down the line they may become better? Chris and I once talked about a project which would compile a whole bunch of tutorials on every aspect of modding with DarkPlaces and a set of levels, textures, maps and models etc into a sort of "3d game toolkit", but we never got anywhere with iit.
_________________
Apathy Now!

Back to top |

Baker Joined: 14 Mar 2006 Posts: 1538 |

Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 9:52 pm Post subject: |

MauveBib wrote:
Maybe, but it's the best option for Quake mapping right now. You can't seriously expect people to use worse tools just because somewhere down the line they may become better?

I definitely understand. That's why I use Worldcraft 3.3 with the well-working yet intrinsically hacky QuakeAdapter thing I made.

Quote:
Chris and I once talked about a project which would compile a whole bunch of tutorials on every aspect of modding with DarkPlaces and a set of levels, textures, maps and models etc into a sort of "3d game toolkit", but we never got anywhere with iit.

Sounds like a worthy idea. Maybe if things start getting straightened out, the motivation will return.
Regarding my growing dislike of closed-source tools, I have some cool open source replacments brewing.
Not "ok it exists but it sucks" replacements, but ones rivaling the replacement targets in features and likely surpassing them eventually (or not so eventually).

Back to top |

Display posts from previous:

| Inside3d Forums Forum Index -> General Discussion | All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2004 phpBB Group