proquake *optional* replacement textures support

[killingtime187]

Spike -

The locs work on pub servers. Just need to figure out "need" option for loc. Also ... It seems I need to load the loc "after" the map loads, when I load before - eg. In autoexec.cfg - it doesn't pick up when I test locally with a map spawn - eg. Map dm3, test, instead I have to do map dm3, loadloc again, then it works.

[talisa]

@killing i was dead serious about spike being so quick to reply and to help and such

just look how fast he replied here

[Spike]

64bit builds should run fine (driver-willing), and I'm not aware of any 64bit bugs, not even with qc+pointers.
You might have issues with finding usable dlls for the features that need those (ie: q2, ode, freetype2, ogg support, but these are extraneous features that won't affect faithful quake).
It worries me that your drivers crash on alt tab.

also, I committed a tweak to support proquake-style loc files, and to automatically load your locs in anything but single player, but I'm not sure when Moodles' public builds will pick that up. If you're compiling your own you can just update + recompile yourself.

[killingtime187]

Splitter - you're dead right about that it seems

Spike - sounds great. I'll grab and build it myself. I'll also re-test the 32bit alt-tab with this updated source. Thanks a lot.

[killingtime187]

spike -

checked out and built latest source code from trunk. 64-bit exe - no problems again. pq loc file support -- confirmed working! still need to figure out how to show whether i need rl or not -- an important status for tdm play i can always create another bind for that of course ... no problem, but it's a nice to have. i replaced %r with %b for now.

good job!

[killingtime187]

well, getting back on topic here ... i just connected to a full tdm server and i noticed that the clients being used (those that show up with q_version) were split between pq and qrack -- 4 pq vs 3 qrack, from what i saw. so, we can conclude -- for tdm, half the players either like or don't mind the original textures or ... don't have a choice. for me, i fall into the "don't have a choice" category and hence this forum topic.

anyway ...

baker -

do you think this request is unreasonable ? note that i'm not asking for really extensive and advanced changes as one would find in qrack or dp, but just simple texture replacement -- essentially the same thing dq has ... everything else remaining the same.

[Mindf!3ldzX]

In my opinion, its not 1996 and everyone should stop acting like it is.
a VERY small select few players actually want their quake to look like the original

The only 1 player I can think of,is Concept/Giroux/Tool, and he DEFINATELY plays like its 1996 (320x200 resolution lol)

my 2cents once upon a time woulda bought me two gumballs

[killingtime187]

lol mindz. but yea, i'm not saying that engines that are geared toward 100% original netquake gameplay should be changing anything that would affect how the game "feels" -- input, networking, etc ... all stay the same. but i'm sure concept and those others have gtx 670's or so and are not willing to move away from a feel that have taken them ages to get used to, but ... wouldn't mind and can definitely run with some 24bit textures on their hd card + monitor

[Mindf!3ldzX]

I wont lie to you,in 2012 its about "Games looking pretty to me" , and Quake1 shouldn't be any exception !!!!

Darkplaces HD unfortunately isn't a logical choice in "Competitive Gameplay", atleast it isnt for me I don't maintain enough constant FPS to vs a human opponent. But for COOP its beast, and I'm about to load it now...

[killingtime187]

that's right mindzy! i'm going to give dq 1.8.8p2 a try for a bit for tdm match play (have hd texture pak issues with 1.9.0). also, got word from mh that he'll be releasing raw input support shortly -- sweet. here is a pic of dq 1.8.8p2 on my laptop from just a moment ago running qrp texture set + hd font:

[R00k]

DirectQ is a very fast, stable, feature rich client.
I thought it already had raw_input?

[Baker]

well, getting back on topic here ... i just connected to a full tdm server and i noticed that the clients being used (those that show up with q_version) were split between pq and qrack -- 4 pq vs 3 qrack, from what i saw. so, we can conclude -- for tdm, half the players either like or don't mind the original textures or ... don't have a choice. for me, i fall into the "don't have a choice" category and hence this forum topic.

Most players find one client to use and stick with it forever or until there is a reason to change.

It is usually newer players that try out of different ones, existing players just boot up what they like, connect to a server and play.

do you think this request is unreasonable ? note that i'm not asking for really extensive and advanced changes as one would find in qrack or dp, but just simple texture replacement -- essentially the same thing dq has ... everything else remaining the same.

The request itself is reasonable and I understand it.

But my goal with ProQuake, like JP Grossman, was strictly GLQuake level of functionality.

The request is understandable, but ProQuake means something. Some of us have used ProQuake for 10+ years. It means someone is playing real out-of-the-box Quake style for those of us who consider the game as it originally came to be pretty damn good.

Call it what you will:
1) An oldschooler engine
2) A Klassics engine (as Mindzy might spell it)
3) A "Real Quake" engine

But that is what ProQuake is. For people who appreciate the game as it shipped.

[Mindf!3ldzX]

You're catering to a dying breed Baker. DAVE represents the last of the Quakers who desires 1996 Quake @ 320x200 w/ that in mind, time to blow you up @ arenax.

[Syluxguy28O3]

I would like texture support, but hey, its your ship, so sail it how you want.

[Baker]

You're catering to a dying breed Baker.

If you start ProQuake and it looks like Quake, I'm fine with that.

24/7/365