![shaftwhores only by [EXE]dann](/files/avatars/2007/51852-shaftwhore.gif "shaftwhores only by [EXE]dann"){kind=small}
What do you think about CPL choosing VQ3 over CPM and CPMA over OSP?
I think VQ3 over CPM was a shame, but inevitable. CPMA over OSP is a no-brainer (despite the no-brain minority who cry about it on ESR :P) - we don't maintain or support OSP any more, and CPMA superceded it years ago.
Could you tell us why baseq3 player movement was bugged, why was players FPS important?
"Players' FPS being important" sums up why it was bugged pretty nicely. The funny part is, the whole mess came about because of ONE stupid line of code in Q3, and then Strider spent weeks jumping through hoops to create the original "125 FPS" hack that later morphed into "pmove_fixed" (which is about as accurate a name as "dry_water" :P) and he, Rhea, Papa, id and I *all* managed to miss the real problem. :(
What exactly have you done to fix these bugs and what does it have to do with so called "76fps jump height" ?
The "so called 76fps jump height" is just a slogan thrown around by muppets who have no clue what they're talking about, and need something simple enough for their minds to cope with. As I mentioned above, the bug was just some broken math that, once found, actually took far less time and effort to simply fix than the hacks created to work around it did.
Do you claim you've recreated VQ3, considering id Software efforts with pmove that include use 125 ?
I don't "claim" anything of the sort: I state it as the fact that it is. The pmove_fixed implementation is blatantly and provably incorrect. That id attempted to address it is laudable, but replacing one set of bugs with a different set isn't the same thing as actually fixing them.
Do you consider CPMA VQ3 physics still an open question in light of the recent vows from some members of the OSP community?
No, and I never have. Do you really think I should make decisions based on the mewling of a handful of clueless halfwits just because they spam ESR with the same post a hundred times? If I did, what would happen when the next two handfuls both wanted something that conflicted with each other?
How have you managed to improve on Q3 netcode so much, do you utilize any special techniques similar to those in "Unlagged"?
The basic concept of "Unlagged"/ZPM/etc is utterly trivial (the definitive guide for newbies is Yahn Bernier's explanation of CS's lag compensation, for anyone who wants to read it). Some schemes are better than others (ZPM's is sheer idiocy, CS and IU are done competently) but none of them are really suitable for Q3. The bottom line is that CS-like schemes work *for CS-like game*, but not anything else.
Haste and I did talk about some of the more interesting aspects (such as player prediction and adaptive timenudging) back when he was working on IU, but what people tend to refer to as the CPMA "netcode" is actually a whole bunch of different little things (including, amusingly, physics that Actually F**king Work Properly :P) that COMBINED make the whole online experience so much better.
Who do you create your modifications for, yourself, 'communities', friends, organizations?
All of those. :)
Could you explain how CPMA development process works at this moment;
It used to be:
a) the design team/top players play the game and spot something that
can be improved
b) the design team talks about it
c) arQon releases a test build
d) the top players test it
e) if successful it goes into the official build
Is that still how it works?
Yep, Pretty much.
Even when 90% of the design team is not active players anymore?
Yes, for several reasons:
When CPM started, gameplay wasn't treated as a concept in its own right, or as something mutable. Nobody had studied it or experimented with it at all: you got whatever the game shipped with (which was basically "copy Doom and add a gun that someone thought would be a cool idea") and that was it. "DM" maps were, with a few exceptions, just "parts of SP levels that didn't make it into the final game" with items scattered about almost at random. Now, there's a wealth of actual gameplay design *knowledge* kicking around, most of it thanks to CPM itself, and it's a lot easier to sort the wheat from the chaff as far as ideas go.
The CPM gameplay itself is very highly evolved, and while it still gets fine-tuned every year or so it's very unlikely that it will undergo any radical changes at this point, because it wouldn't be CPM any more: it would be "some other PM". We've done all the heavy lifting already.
We have a healthy, active community to draw on. Although they're not officially part of the design team, players like rat and Apheleon have had significant impact on CPM's gameplay decisions for years now.
I think VQ3 over CPM was a shame, but inevitable. CPMA over OSP is a no-brainer (despite the no-brain minority who cry about it on ESR :P) - we don't maintain or support OSP any more, and CPMA superceded it years ago.
Could you tell us why baseq3 player movement was bugged, why was players FPS important?
"Players' FPS being important" sums up why it was bugged pretty nicely. The funny part is, the whole mess came about because of ONE stupid line of code in Q3, and then Strider spent weeks jumping through hoops to create the original "125 FPS" hack that later morphed into "pmove_fixed" (which is about as accurate a name as "dry_water" :P) and he, Rhea, Papa, id and I *all* managed to miss the real problem. :(
What exactly have you done to fix these bugs and what does it have to do with so called "76fps jump height" ?
The "so called 76fps jump height" is just a slogan thrown around by muppets who have no clue what they're talking about, and need something simple enough for their minds to cope with. As I mentioned above, the bug was just some broken math that, once found, actually took far less time and effort to simply fix than the hacks created to work around it did.
Do you claim you've recreated VQ3, considering id Software efforts with pmove that include use 125 ?
I don't "claim" anything of the sort: I state it as the fact that it is. The pmove_fixed implementation is blatantly and provably incorrect. That id attempted to address it is laudable, but replacing one set of bugs with a different set isn't the same thing as actually fixing them.
Do you consider CPMA VQ3 physics still an open question in light of the recent vows from some members of the OSP community?
No, and I never have. Do you really think I should make decisions based on the mewling of a handful of clueless halfwits just because they spam ESR with the same post a hundred times? If I did, what would happen when the next two handfuls both wanted something that conflicted with each other?
How have you managed to improve on Q3 netcode so much, do you utilize any special techniques similar to those in "Unlagged"?
The basic concept of "Unlagged"/ZPM/etc is utterly trivial (the definitive guide for newbies is Yahn Bernier's explanation of CS's lag compensation, for anyone who wants to read it). Some schemes are better than others (ZPM's is sheer idiocy, CS and IU are done competently) but none of them are really suitable for Q3. The bottom line is that CS-like schemes work *for CS-like game*, but not anything else.
Haste and I did talk about some of the more interesting aspects (such as player prediction and adaptive timenudging) back when he was working on IU, but what people tend to refer to as the CPMA "netcode" is actually a whole bunch of different little things (including, amusingly, physics that Actually F**king Work Properly :P) that COMBINED make the whole online experience so much better.
Who do you create your modifications for, yourself, 'communities', friends, organizations?
All of those. :)
Could you explain how CPMA development process works at this moment;
It used to be:
a) the design team/top players play the game and spot something that
can be improved
b) the design team talks about it
c) arQon releases a test build
d) the top players test it
e) if successful it goes into the official build
Is that still how it works?
Yep, Pretty much.
Even when 90% of the design team is not active players anymore?
Yes, for several reasons:
When CPM started, gameplay wasn't treated as a concept in its own right, or as something mutable. Nobody had studied it or experimented with it at all: you got whatever the game shipped with (which was basically "copy Doom and add a gun that someone thought would be a cool idea") and that was it. "DM" maps were, with a few exceptions, just "parts of SP levels that didn't make it into the final game" with items scattered about almost at random. Now, there's a wealth of actual gameplay design *knowledge* kicking around, most of it thanks to CPM itself, and it's a lot easier to sort the wheat from the chaff as far as ideas go.
The CPM gameplay itself is very highly evolved, and while it still gets fine-tuned every year or so it's very unlikely that it will undergo any radical changes at this point, because it wouldn't be CPM any more: it would be "some other PM". We've done all the heavy lifting already.
We have a healthy, active community to draw on. Although they're not officially part of the design team, players like rat and Apheleon have had significant impact on CPM's gameplay decisions for years now.