[Gtkradiant] [Bug ???] Textures menu a bit too long

EvilTypeGuy gtkradiant@zerowing.idsoftware.com
Thu, 14 Mar 2002 10:37:56 -0600

On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 09:56:57AM -0600, jeremiah sypult wrote:
> I'm not trying to start a flamewar about how the editor works with shaders
> or anything... Maybe I just see things as being simpler in the long run if
> the editor handles it EXACTLY THE SAME as the engine.

Maybe this is ok for you, but I think the way the engine handles them is 
confusing. I much prefer the more organized way that the editor/map tool handles 

> Why clean up the developers shaders for file consistency when they obviously
> compiled AND work fine in the engine?

Because one *SHOULD* do these things. Laziness is the only excuse for not doing 
it IMO.

> Why complicate the BASE development environment by having shaders in both
> the game pk3 files and an entirely different set of shader filenames. By
> changing the shipping version of the shaders, you put the entire games
> rendering content at risk of error. Activisions quality control has already
> done their job in making sure every shader renders.

It's only complicated because you didn't do it right in the first place ;) 
Honestly, the rules that have been setup and are enforced are to ensure 
consistency and better shader files, etc. The real issue here is that you're 
unwilling to take the time to cleanup your work and make things proper from the 
sound of it.

I've never really heard anyone complain about the handling of the shaderlist.txt 
file except for you...

> If the code loaded shaders the way the engine does, you save work in the
> long run in ALL QUAKE3 ENGINE titles. /THAT/ is my only point. No need to
> overhaul a shipping products scripts when they work fine in the first place.
> As it stands, Radiant as an editor requires the BASE content to be modified
> to edit it approriately, and I feel that is a bad decision for many reasons.

You can feel what you like. But that *is* the way it should be done. Just 
because the engine does something a certain way *DOES NOT MEAN* it is the right 
way. Look at how many of the ID maps needed adjustments, they were pretty messy 
and needed a lot of cleanup when they were ported to consoles. Should the tools 
and everything make up for buggy content? I don't think so...

> Again, this is just my perspective of how it could simplify editing,
> managing, configuring, supporting new games and help keep original game
> shaders from getting changed. Is that such a bad suggestion?

Yes, it is IMO.

> Regardless of my point of view, the editor is still great and I sincerely
> appreciate that it is still being maintained. This is the only thing I can
> think of that would make it 'better'.

'better' to you, worse to me.

I may not be a game developer, but I am in software development for a living.