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

Do you see much potential in the Quake II Engine? Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

| Inside3d Forums Forum Index -> General Discussion

View previous topic :: View next topic

Do you see much potencial in the Quake II Engine?

Yes |

47%
[ 8 ]
No |

52%
[ 9 ]

Total Votes : 17

Author | Message
--- | ---
Swift Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 44 |

Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 7:18 pm Post subject: |

You are asking the wrong question. It's not Quake vs Quake II. It's Darkplaces vs Quake II. DP is the defacto engine for quake modding. Theoretical question from here is: What features do you feel are missing from Darkplaces - that are present in Q2, that you need?

Ranger366 wrote:
Like i said, Quake 2 gives us the perfect base, for a good AI as example.

Back to top |

mh Joined: 12 Jan 2008 Posts: 910 |

Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 7:26 pm Post subject: |

Ranger366 wrote:
Like i said, Quake 2 gives us the perfect base, for a good AI as example.

Nothing to do with the engine either I'm afraid. That's game logic, which is separate from the engine, and in the case of Quake II is actually a quick and dirty port from the original Quake 1 (QC) code:

John Carmack wrote:
We basically just ported the QC code to regular C for Q2 (it shows in the code) and fixed crash bugs as they popped up.

(source: http://www.team5150.com/~andrew/carmack/johnc_plan_1998.html#d19980222)
_________________
DirectQ Engine - New release 1.8.666a, 9th August 2010
MHQuake Blog (General)
Direct3D 8 Quake Engines
Last edited by mh on Sun Jul 11, 2010 7:43 pm; edited 1 time in total

Back to top |

Spike Joined: 05 Nov 2004 Posts: 944 Location: UK |

Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 7:34 pm Post subject: |

If you want to make an engine mod based on either Quake or QuakeII that has no link what so ever to any version of quake, starting with QuakeII is preferabe as it's code is cleaner, even though it doesn't have too many other changes. But Q3 is cleaner still.
If you're not going to replace BSP formats, using Q2's map formats means you don't end up with low-res images built in to every single bsp. You also get surface flags, content types, and no hull restrictions.
While Q3 gets pretty shader effects, and portals.
Q2's renderer improves:
sw model texturing. Texture coords don't swim buggily in Q2's software renderer.
Surface flags permit setting additional properties like transparency. QuakeII supports dithering in software for said transparency, but who cares about software rendering? (calm down leileilol!)
Q3 includes all that plus more.
Q2 supports cinematics.
But then so does Q3.
So yeah, unmodified Q2 is better than unmodified Q1. But unmodified Q3 is even better. While custom engines, be they q1, q2, or q3, are even easier to make funky mods for - if only because you might be able to encourage the engine modder in question to add features to fit your mod so that you don't have to figure out how. :)
Personally, I find Q1 or Q2 bsp to be easier for stencil shadows than Q3 bsp, but then I'm too lazy to write a proper edge detection routine. Although if you use shadowmapping then it makes no real difference, and q3's curves/tri-meshes will likely let you have higher poly throughput.
_________________
What's a signature?

Back to top |

mh Joined: 12 Jan 2008 Posts: 910 |

Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 7:45 pm Post subject: |

...although you can get the same kind of poly throughput in Q1/Q2 if you convert everything to indexed triangle lists, sort them properly, and batch them up... all a lot easier than it sounds too. _________________ DirectQ Engine - New release 1.8.666a, 9th August 2010
MHQuake Blog (General)
Direct3D 8 Quake Engines

Back to top |

Spike Joined: 05 Nov 2004 Posts: 944 Location: UK |

Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 9:30 pm Post subject: |

you still have to play with lightmaps and thier differing planes. and sorting. when is it better to emit an extra invisible surface than splitting a vbo? :s _________________ What's a signature?

Back to top |

mh Joined: 12 Jan 2008 Posts: 910 |

Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 10:17 pm Post subject: |

It's academic anyway because it's already been done and proven to work. At least twice that I'm aware of. _________________ DirectQ Engine - New release 1.8.666a, 9th August 2010 MHQuake Blog (General) Direct3D 8 Quake Engines

Back to top |

mk Joined: 04 Jul 2008 Posts: 94 |

Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:16 am Post subject: |

Ranger366 wrote:
I never, wanted to start a discussion wich contains something from Quake One

This is pretty evident now.
At this point, this discussion is just funny. You got your point of view, and refuses to experiment with anything that may change it. It doesn't matter how many times people try to help you find a better way to do what you want, because you don't want to learn anything; you just want to do what you want in the way that you want it.
Which, in the end, makes this thread pointless.

Ranger366 wrote:
i know all those awesome features

You've proven that you didn't.

Ranger366 wrote:
Quake 2 gives us the perfect base

No, it only gives a perfect base for people who refuses to learn about anything else.
_________________
Makaqu engine blog / website.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

Back to top |

mh Joined: 12 Jan 2008 Posts: 910 |

Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 3:50 am Post subject: |

Exactly: if you're absolutely hell-bent on using Quake II and have no interest in even discussing why it might not be ideal (or might not be as ideal as you seem to have already made your mind up that it is) then why bother starting the thread or asking the question at all?
_________________
DirectQ Engine - New release 1.8.666a, 9th August 2010
MHQuake Blog (General)
Direct3D 8 Quake Engines

Back to top |

r00k Joined: 13 Nov 2004 Posts: 483 |

Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 4:44 am Post subject: |

I think with any modification of any type of game, one should knock out a solid plan. The words come to mind, "If you plan to succeed, succeed to plan, first." With all your game rules, media, storyline etc all worked out, then you can port it to any platform. I see far to often games come and go simply because they had this new technology to implement. With little substance backing it up.

Back to top |

Ranger366 Joined: 18 Mar 2010 Posts: 72 Location: Berlin (Germany) |

Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 7:36 am Post subject: |

mh wrote:
Exactly: if you're absolutely hell-bent on using Quake II and have no interest in even discussing why it might not be ideal (or might not be as ideal as you seem to have already made your mind up that it is) then why bother starting the thread or asking the question at all?

i said that to stop this "Quake has nearly same technology" thing, wich isnt true.
Topic: Do ya see potential in id tech 2.
This means: Modding of the engine and optimizing, adding physics as example.
Then: I told you about my plan to make a game on this engine
Then: It was said that between Quake One and Quake Two is not many difference in the Engine (there is alot difference)
Then: it began to compare the pros and contras of all.
Half-Life (O_o) came to word with RAD lightning when i said that the HL lightning isnt better than the Quake 2 lightning (in OpenGL Q2)
ah yes, the OpenGL lightning is alot different from Software lightning (can i call it "lightning"?) in Quake 2, wich is "dynamic",
and with some in code fixes it looks much better (there are some short tuts at quake.src archive i think, never used)
but this dont means that its completely different. and when ( never saw this, in no original or custom q2 map)
you see brush ends in Quake 2, send me a pic of it and call me strogg.
i really love half-Life, i love the model format and the WAD3 system, but lightning is abit poop.
(flashlight on a 0.20, 0.20 scaled brush texture, amazing shrink)
wich is powered by the bsp brush system too. im trying now if same happens in Quake 2 with one map and down (if i can find the compiling tools :S (no i dont use Qradiant, and i will not install it) )
because i never worked with GL and searching for the answer in the code will fail.
im specialized in modelling, mapping and game coding, in the engine i made menu modifications before.
now i haveto work with Quake 2, because im sitting on a notebook with low sys specs, wich is linked with my widescreen, and both usb orts are linked with sidewinder mouse and logitech keyboard,
so that i must pull something out to get on usb device, wich isnt very comfortable, to get on my extern HDD. and with 5gb discspace
i only have Daikatana, quake 2, Quake 1, Steam with AvP Gold (now classic 2000) Duke Nukem 3D and Doom.
Wich means i can make mods for Quake 1 too, but implenting a dynamical feature (like the gunangle rolling in quake 2 )
in glquake is not my favourite beer. just implented some bobbing of the cam (looks abit like GTA IV) when you walk and more when you jump.
i played alot games, and know what is a cool and rare seen feature. but i stop now.
i must say that im new in the case engine coding, so dont be an ass and give me a chance to learn abit from you, the quake masters.
i already see that some people seem to dont wanna have me here, i understand why, because im sometimes writing alot crap
because of language differences, and understanding wrong.
14 years old (15 in 17 days), other kids in my age doing drugs or smoke or have something else
todo wich is not relevant here. just wanna say that im still learning the language, and in schoollessons we dont speak about videogames.
so the point of the thread was to see if someone is interested in the technology and thinks that the engine should come up and shine, if you understand what i mean.
_________________

Back to top |

leileilol Joined: 15 Oct 2004 Posts: 1321 |

Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 9:44 am Post subject: |

Ranger366 wrote:
i said that to stop this "Quake has nearly same technology" thing, wich isnt true.

Explain why id software denotes id tech 1 for Doom and id tech 2 for Quake2 then?
_________________

Back to top |

gnounc Joined: 06 Apr 2009 Posts: 120 |

Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 9:52 am Post subject: |

lmfao ^^ I think I'm done reading this thread. Pat him on his head and tell him the quake II engine is far superior and it will magically pull beautiful art assets directly from the ether; apologize and move on.

Back to top |

Ranger366 Joined: 18 Mar 2010 Posts: 72 Location: Berlin (Germany) |

Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 10:09 am Post subject: |

leileilol wrote:

Ranger366 wrote:
i said that to stop this "Quake has nearly same technology" thing, wich isnt true.

Explain why id software denotes id tech 1 for Doom and id tech 2 for Quake2 then?

What the hell?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id_Tech_2
i said something wrong?
maybe this sentence is better:
"Quake uses nearly same engine technology"
_________________

Back to top |

Baker Joined: 14 Mar 2006 Posts: 1538 |

Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 11:25 am Post subject: |

Ranger366 wrote:

leileilol wrote:

Ranger366 wrote:
i said that to stop this "Quake has nearly same technology" thing, wich isnt true.

Explain why id software denotes id tech 1 for Doom and id tech 2 for Quake2 then?

What the hell?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id_Tech_2
i said something wrong?
maybe this sentence is better:
"Quake uses nearly same engine technology"

When you have the who made Open Arena, a guy who made engine which runs Quakeworld+NetQuake+Hexen+Quake II+Quake III, a guy who wrote a Direct3D rendering Quake engine from scratch for fun and a guy who wrote a software renderer with GLQuake features arguing against you (I don't know where the guy who wrote Alien Arena stands on this issue) you know 2 things:
1. You've lost the argument badly On facts, on history, on the technology.
2. Isn't it nice to have a place where such people converse?
(Oh yeah, the guy with the Quake II based free game isn't agreeing with you. That's not good. But ... hey! Being wrong is just part of learning ...)
_________________
Tomorrow Never Dies. I feel this Tomorrow knocking on the door ...

Back to top |

Ranger366 Joined: 18 Mar 2010 Posts: 72 Location: Berlin (Germany) |

Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 11:36 am Post subject: |

omg! baker called me guy awesome! [irony]who said the game will be FREE?[/irony] *Notice that this sentence was written before i understood Baker completely, just ignore that. ok, i hope thats all for now...
thanks baker...
but you see, the peple here started discussion about that, i simply asked for something over an poll.
and leileilol, sorry, i never played your game, because i have Quake 3, so i dont know if parts of your unlimited Quake knowledge went into the game and gave me a touch of it (lol)
_________________
Last edited by Ranger366 on Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:02 pm; edited 1 time in total

Back to top |

Display posts from previous:

| Inside3d Forums Forum Index -> General Discussion | All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Page 4 of 7

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