Jump to content
Posted 27 January 2013 - 11:31 AM
Posted 28 January 2013 - 02:40 AM
Edited by Krohm, 28 January 2013 - 11:55 AM.
Posted 28 January 2013 - 09:19 AM
if you write your own tools, you will spend a lot of time re-implementing basic functionality that QuArK already has, you will fix bugs that consume a lot of time.
I suggest you take instead the QuArK source and modify the code to your needs, why writing 99% of what is 'ok' again? that's the best reason software is open source!
so, profile the binary with e.g. AMD CodeAnalyst (it's free) and find the 1% of problematic code, now you can focus on what costs so much time, sometimes adding a few openMP lines can make such code 4x faster.
otherwise, you might ave all those 4min, but you'll spend half a year writing the editor+compiler, if you are very skilled.
Posted 31 January 2013 - 04:36 PM
Particularly, q3map2 was developed by some very clever and knowledgeable people (John Carmack of id, and Randy Reddig of Splash Damage). If q3map2 is taking a long time to compile your maps you are very, very unlikely to improve on that with your own code. Four minutes is a long time for a map - which stage is it slow in? BSP, VIS, or lighting?
Posted 05 February 2013 - 02:48 AM
Posted 05 February 2013 - 02:50 AM
Here is what I'm basing the map on:
You can check out the detail here:
Posted 05 February 2013 - 04:19 AM
you're modeling the whole place inside the square? in all details? (rooms, windows etc?)
that's impressive and cool.
I just think the old school BSP tech might not be the best, it's not that well suited to render big amounts of polys (in case you're going outdoor).
will check out your zip when I'm at home