Wednesday, April 20, 2011

DirectQ Update - 19th April 2011 (Part 2)

A fix for the eyes model has just gone in. This resolves a problem where DirectQ incorrectly positioned the eyes when their size was doubled. More about that one here.

The difficulties some people had with vsync should now be definitively resolved. I've identified a case where the value of your vid_vsync cvar was not being respected during video startup and have reworked the code that handled that. I've also taken the opportunity to clean up a lot of the video state change functions.

All of this work is heading towards being able to bring back variable refresh rate settings and introduce multisampling. It also cleans out more legacy crap from the first few versions of DirectQ (where I had really made a botch of the video code).

4 comments:

=peg= said...

I have another little feature request, or rather, a small adjustment to an existing one..

You know, the response to a "q_version" message, while connected to a proquake server, is not very useful a.t.m.:
"proquake 3.50 (directq emulated)"

It would be much more useful if it responded with:
"DirectQ 1.8.7 (release date: 2011-14-04)"
or something along those lines..

The point being that it is often required to know exactly what client a player is using, in order to help him/her out with certain settings etc. etc..

Anonymous said...

q_version is now disabled on most public servers.

mhquake said...

My q_version stuff was just plain copy and paste from ProQuake because it was completely unclear from the code exactly what the fuck it's purpose was. In cases like that the best thing is to change as little as possible. Now that I know, yeah, that makes sense to do.

While it might be disabled on most public servers I see no harm at all in adding this request. Someone might want to use it on a private server, and it breaks nothing, so why not?

mhquake said...

@Coranth: sorry for deleting your comment. Not something I do lightly as I prefer to be open about what it was in reference to (and give people freedom to speak their mind about it too, even if negative), but with hindsight the way I originally outlined this matter was not good.

I'm going to add an update shortly explaining what's happened here better.