From bogus@does.not.exist.com Sat Mar 14 01:10:50 2009 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 05:10:50 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: # # feature requests, bug reports, and preferably patches go to the # bugzilla AND give the bugzilla url or bug # for your bug in the # mailing list # Subscribe to the mailing list: quake3-subscribe at icculus.org # patches go to zakk at icculus.org if you're not interested in bugzilla. # Please do not send patches that aren't yours without the approval of # the actual author. So basically, I'd rather they go to bugzilla, then you give the url/bug # to the ML. If you're unwilling to do that, then I'd prefer they get sent to me than you giving up. -- -Zachary J. Slater zakk at timedoctor.org zacharyslater at gmail.com From bogus@does.not.exist.com Sat Mar 14 01:10:50 2009 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 05:10:50 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: a few of the spots that need "finishing" and I was able to get the latest version of the renderer code from 'im. I am not a skilled coder which is why I am trying to gauge interest in this. I do admit that part of my motivation is to use MD4 support in an existing Q3 project/mod, but I'd rather see something that can be easily integrated in ioq3 for everyone to use. Most of the artists I've talked to have ragged on Q3 and MD3 for lack of skeletal animation support. Since everyone and their mother seems to be using ioq3 as the basis for turning Q3 mods into standalone projects, it seems only logical that any type of skeletal animation support be provided to work seamlessly with ioq3 as a patch. The best part of MD4 as far as I can tell is the extra support for the artists' tools. The 3dmax exporters and apparently the MD4 importer also has preliminary support for HL and HL2 animation files. Yes, I know that Xreal has support for MD5 and that kind of fun stuff. I haven't really pursued that avenue, yet. I figured if there were no interest whatsoever in MD4, I could pursue that route instead. If anyone is interested, I will provide what help I can, copies of my correspondence with Gongo, the latest code I have access to, someone able to create HL art assets to test the MD4 importer, etc. Thanks for your time! Monk www.rq3.com From bogus@does.not.exist.com Sat Mar 14 01:10:50 2009 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 05:10:50 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: be handy to have some type of demo controls. But when I did this with Q2, all I ever did was in-eyes of the person in question. I had to use a wallhack as well to determine if the player was moving in response to knowledge of the location of someone he shouldn't have been able to see. Or hear. Didn't need any serverrecord demos for that, just the regular one. I'm assuming if someone's close enough to be seen with a wallhack on a public server, the recorded demo will also have those entities present in Q3? I thought the recorded demo was a simple dump of the network data that got played back at a later date. If that's the case, you can probably recam well enough with a single person demo and certainly check for possible cheating by only seeing what that person could only have seen. While this discussion is neat, before anyone runs out to implement MVD as an ioq3 patch, you should figure out if there are still any tools out there that can use this kind of format. And see if it's useful. For machinima, for looking for cheaters, etc. The leagues I dealt with in the past required all players to submit their demos directly after a match so if there were any disputes, an administrator could review them. Having a "complete" demo in that regard wouldn't do much besides force the admin to make sure he stayed on the correct player all the time. What'd be cooler would be an integration of Q3TV or whatever it's called now. QuakeTV? That was great during QuakeCon and "televising" some of the RtCW matches (which I also helped referee and administer, waaay back in the day). While I'm dreaming, I'd also like a pony! Monk. > These are called "Multi-View Demos" and (IIRC) OSP mod was the first to > do them. (CPMA and Ultra Freeze Tag (mine) did it, along with probably a > few more.) It consists of three parts: > > 1) Send *every* entity to the player taking the MVD, not just those in > the PVS (potentially visible set) > 2) Mark the demo as an MVD by setting a configstring > 3) Enable the cgame keycatcher when playing demos back if playing an > MVD, interpret keystrokes > > This can be as easily done in a mod as in the engine. If the engine did > it, it would do basically the same thing. One good argument for doing it > in a mod is that the mod can better control who is allowed to make an > MVD. Recording an MVD is a great way to maximize the effectiveness of a > wall hack. > > Neil > > Jorge Pena wrote: >> Sweet. I don't know if this is possible, or realistic, but what Monk >> said about being able to view a demo and move the camera around in the >> world (Is this what you meant?) would be extremely crazy ( As in, >> cool). Or is this already possible? Heh. I mean like, instead of >> having to stage the cameras at record time, make it so that the camera >> could be moved around in view-time, this way I think it'd make for >> some really neat videos and it'd be really useful. Imagine moving the >> camera around to see if someone's around the corner, etc., instead of >> just being stuck to the recorder's perspective. Again, I don't know if >> this is possible or realistic ( Or already implemented, haha), just >> thought it'd be cool. > > From bogus@does.not.exist.com Sat Mar 14 01:10:50 2009 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 05:10:50 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: security perspective, total nightmare. I don't know that a case-by-case basis is any better, from a security perspective. All it will do is train users to rapidly press F1 until the annoying messages go away and they can play on the server. Usability-wise, better for people trying to spread content because it's as though autodownload was enabled by default. Security-wise, it's got the same risk as though autodownload was enabled by default. Maybe I'm extrapolating too much, but in general, end users are stupid. You have to try and out-think their stupidity. People who play Q3 and Urban Terror and Patman aren't all RH-certified linux admins, they are the same people who get spyware-infested windows boxes because they click on every link in spam emails. Have there been any known security exploits relating to Q3-based game engines? ET, Q3, etc? I haven't heard of any, offhand. Probably the installed userbase is far too low to be an attractive target for people trying to create botnets. It's like, Q3 players, or... everyone running Windows XP. Mmm which one is more worth the time to try and exploit. Which one nets a larger botnet with a higher resell value on the black market? What's the risk of the Q3 security hole? Everyone who logs into a certain compromised server can then themselves be compromised? I figure if a gameserver or unix box gets compromised, the last thing a typical hacker would care about is specifically targeting Q3 gamers (or gamers in general, really). That'd draw attention if it gets found out and the compromised server is probably more useful when no one knows its been compromised. Anyway, I am sorry for being so off-topic and verbose. I find the whole programmer versus end user mindset thing interesting as it crops up in UI design, program implementation, technical documentation, etc. I'll stop yammering on the subject so the list can get back to more down-to-earth business! Monk. From bogus@does.not.exist.com Sat Mar 14 01:10:50 2009 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 05:10:50 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: these newer GPUs, since nvidia and ATI want to break into the HPC realm, I wonder if the communication issues you saw in the GF7 are less of an issue now. The GPU as a processing aid seemed kind of tacked on to the GF7 and ATI 1xxx series of video cards so it might be much more potent now. Though wouldn't that be odd. You still could end up using your video card to render raytraced graphics but only because it could be used as a floating point processing add-on. I know you know of CUDA: http://www.nvidia.com/object/cuda_home.html But ATI has a somewhat similar thing as well: http://sourceforge.net/projects/amdctm/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_to_Metal http://ati.amd.com/technology/streamcomputing/resources.html http://ati.amd.com/technology/streamcomputing/faq.html#10 Though ATI's stuff seems harder to find for this, not as nicely marketed as CUDA. Anyway, I know you're probably pressed for time with your thesis, but if you get a chance and have access to the newer hardware, I'd be curious if there's an actual speedup rather than a slowdown due to the PCIe communication. It would be somewhat ironic, I think, if that proves to speed things up. Intel's been pushing pretty hard for RT on multiple CPUs and it'd be funny if the existing graphics cards can handle things without the need for 8-core CPUs or an intel-based multi-core video card. Monk. From bogus@does.not.exist.com Sat Mar 14 01:10:50 2009 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 05:10:50 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: "If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program." Once loaded, the mod becomes part of the q3 executable. Some will argue that the Quake virtual machine is somehow not "true" linking and thus doesn't qualify, but I disagree with that.