CSQC
Moderator: InsideQC Admins
6 posts
• Page 1 of 1
CSQC
Once I got off my ass, and started working on some csqc, I was surprised to see how intuitive it all was, to a great extent thanks to Dresks codebase and LordHavocs explanations to certain things (also thanks to KrimZon and Spike). But still, it was mostly about code-design, not the inner workings of csqc. I'm not quite sure what it is that makes people complain so heavily about lack of documentation and whatnot, seeing as most of it seemed to just come to me, and certain specifics I could just go and ask someone about. Sure, the wiki could be expanded with info about shared entities, but it's not that hard once you get started...
I was once a Quake modder
-

Urre - Posts: 1109
- Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 2:36 am
- Location: Moon
There is no fully implemented readily available and relativly bug free csqc mod to use as a base. Thus any use of csqc is a major undertaking for the moment.
The major complication is that many things depend upon server changes, and making those server changes require large swathes of csqc code all at once, that is, incremental development, feature at a time, is not feasable when you first utilise csqc. This is my personal complaint about csqc as it currently stands.
It doesn't help that the 'preliminary' specifications that I put up on quakesrc didn't fully match the implementation in FTE (and thus definitly doesn't match DP). In fact, that 'specification' caries a big warning at the top saying that engines shouldn't advertise EXT_CSQC even if they fully comply with the documented behaviour. :P
I wish I had more motivation to work on csqc 1.0
I fear the longer I leave it, the harder it will be to make it 'official'.
The major complication is that many things depend upon server changes, and making those server changes require large swathes of csqc code all at once, that is, incremental development, feature at a time, is not feasable when you first utilise csqc. This is my personal complaint about csqc as it currently stands.
It doesn't help that the 'preliminary' specifications that I put up on quakesrc didn't fully match the implementation in FTE (and thus definitly doesn't match DP). In fact, that 'specification' caries a big warning at the top saying that engines shouldn't advertise EXT_CSQC even if they fully comply with the documented behaviour. :P
I wish I had more motivation to work on csqc 1.0
I fear the longer I leave it, the harder it will be to make it 'official'.
- Spike
- Posts: 2892
- Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 3:12 am
- Location: UK
Spike wrote:The major complication is that many things depend upon server changes, and making those server changes require large swathes of csqc code all at once, that is, incremental development, feature at a time, is not feasable when you first utilise csqc. This is my personal complaint about csqc as it currently stands.
By that, you mean the fact that simple changes require lots of code? Cause that's my main gripe. Spawning shared entities and maintaining them is a total pain, and I haven't even started debugging them yet...
I was once a Quake modder
-

Urre - Posts: 1109
- Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 2:36 am
- Location: Moon
does CSQC_Ent_Remove work correctly? seems like it only works sometimes...
-daemon [ daemonforge.org ]
-

daemon - Posts: 63
- Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 11:10 pm
Darkplaces... it works, but it seems like if I don't call it first thing in the ent's SendEntity function, then return before sending anything, it won't actually remove from the client until another shared ent is created.
-daemon [ daemonforge.org ]
-

daemon - Posts: 63
- Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 11:10 pm
6 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest