Quake3World

This has been brought to the attention of the board, and seriously.. it is a VERY Interesting thing..

Allot of us are having a hard time getting the gamma settings in the game on Par to be able to see the other players ( friend or foe ) Easily, its rather difficult, and i have spent endless amounts of time trying to fix this issue ( although how ever small it actually is )

As posted in this thread: http://quake3world.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12692

with a combo of the following commands:
r_singlelight
r_lightscale
and the usual Gamma controls

it is able to achieve a good balance of Gamma and lighting that would make the visual's a little washed out, but the player model's would be easy(er) to distinguish.

please refer to the following Screenshot:
http://thisisalex.free.fr/images/shot00007.jpg


The issue is simple, the Cvar's are in fact Cheat protected, i see the reasoning behind this, But I fail to see why it is in fact important enough to Cheat protect.

what I would be looking for in an IDEAL situation, is a CVR that would enable these modes ( able to adapt the Number Value due to the map ) that would be an option that plays could enable, Also, if need be, have it Server side Selectable

Anyway, Anything in the way of action in this matter would be GREATLY, I repeat GREATLY appreciated. Even if its an explanation why it is cheat protected.

Note: Thanks to Ronnie_t, and sch1 for the info/picture. Also, I hope some raven soft people actually read this.

Well, since this is a forum.....

After looking at that picture, I can see why it's cheat protected! :icon25: Unless it's possilbe to discern from the browser which games are running this "option", I would prefer it not be allowed. I bought a great looking game in order to play a great looking game, even in MP. And before someone says "you don't have to use those settings yourself", it's obvious how uneven it would make the playing field if you didn't.

Not saying it applies in this exact case, but for the life of me, I can't understand why people are complaining about how it's not exactly like QW or Q3 in this way or that. If you want to play QW or Q3, play them. For those of us who bought an up-to-date game with cutting edge graphics, let us be able to play that game.

I don't understand why all the l33t H4><oR competetive "pros" are after games without shadows and with neon sign-like skins that say "shoot me" on them? I've heard the spiel about "it removes the random element and puts it all on skill", but I disagree. Real pros should be able to account for all aspects, including shadows and lighting....especially since everyone else there is on the same playing field.

Anyway, lest there be confusion of something like this having unanimous community support, I thought I'd chime in. :icon25:

Justin Thyme wrote:Well, since this is a forum.....

After looking at that picture, I can see why it's cheat protected! :icon25: Unless it's possilbe to discern from the browser which games are running this "option", I would prefer it not be allowed. I bought a great looking game in order to play a great looking game, even in MP. And before someone says "you don't have to use those settings yourself", it's obvious how uneven it would make the playing field if you didn't.

Playing field or no playing field, these commands are the difference between spending an additional £200-300 (in my case to upgrade my aging computer) or saving the money for more important things and still being able to play this game i bought. As far as i am concerned, saving money as a uni student is priority, couldn't care less about this "Playing Field", i just want to play my game and be able to enjoy it without the -30fps/stuttering and my only choice at the moment is forking out alot of extra cash to play a £40 game.

imo this engine is years behind the Source(HL2) engine in terms of scalability, that game looks prettier and my computer is still able to sustain a smooth frame rate thanks to the options the game provides me with, for example changing the DX version from 9 to 7 removes all the effects which stop my computer in its tracks and gives me smooth frame rates even in a crowded CS:S server. All that for a very small loss of prettiness.

Amidyfreak try posting this message at http://forums.ravensoft.com/ib/ikonboard.pl these are the official Raven Forums.

(Edit: Thanks for that foo :>)

I think you mean 'couldn't care less'

Which means 'I care as little as possible'

Good job amidy. I have taken the liberty to correct a few things ( mostly capital letters) to give it a more professional look if you post at ravens site




This has been brought to the attention of the board, and seriously.. it is a VERY interesting thing..

A lot of us are having a hard time getting the gamma settings in the game on par to be able to see the other players easily, friend or foe. It's rather difficult, and I have spent endless amounts of time trying to fix this issue ( albeit however small it actually is).

As posted in this thread: http://quake3world.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12692 ,..

with a combo of the following commands:
r_singlelight
r_lightscale
and the usual gamma controls

..it is able to achieve a good balance of gamma and lighting that would make the visuals a little washed out, but the player models would be easy ( or easier) to distinguish.

Please refer to the following screenshot:
http://thisisalex.free.fr/images/shot00007.jpg


The issue is simple. The cvars are in fact cheat protected. I see the reasoning behind this, but I fail to see why it is in fact important enough to cheat protect.

What I would be looking for in an IDEAL situation, is a CVAR that would enable these modes ( able to adapt the number value due to the map ) that would be an option that players could enable. Also, if need be, have it server side selectable.

Anyway, anything in the way of action in this matter would be GREATLY, I repeat GREATLY appreciated. Even if it's an explanation why it is cheat protected.

sincerely,
AmidyFreak.

You bring up a couple of good points, sch1. Now in terms of adjustments for playability, that's a different matter. And you can certainly make these changes to make playing the single player game more tollerable.

The comparisons with the Source engine, however, are tough. In the big scheme of things, the reason why you can get better framerates out of the Source engine is because it doesn't have the power of the D3/Q4 engine. You are sort of comparing apples and oranges. Although, I grant you, Valve did a better job of making it easier to scale performance. With id technology, rather than having some easy to set parameters in the menu's, they leave most of the heavy tweaking to console commands and the use of autoexec.cfgs.

I empathize with your wanting to get the best performance on lower hardware. I've been in the same position. But conversely, for those who do have appropriate hardware to run the game as designed, we don't want to penalize them either. That's why my suggestion was that if you incorporate this feature, make sure you can identify via the server browser who has it activated.

Just as you want to be able to accomodate people with lower end hardware, you don't want to penalize those with contemporary hardware who wish to play the game as it was intended.

I dont fully understand why it unevens the playing field or penalizes the users with newer hardware but im sure that if the commands are allowed in the way that your saying, the only servers that will even want them are the ones with the competitive mods (e.g. osp, cpma etc) so i guess the servers are already differentiated.
On the subject of this penalizing users with better hardware, how? I just dont know how it could possibly be detrimental to the player's experience, bare in mind that these commands are client side.

The thing is with the commands ID allow us to use to tweak this game to make it more playable, well their useless. Take image_lodbias for example, you can use this game to seriously make the game look bloody dreadful, worse than Q3 and yet it does nothing.
Iits kind of frustrating when your spoilt with other games which scale down well (ut, hl2 etc).

sch1 wrote:On the subject of this penalizing users with better hardware, how? I just dont know how it could possibly be detrimental to the player's experience, bare in mind that these commands are client side.

With the command available, the visibility in the level becomes total. There are no dark corners anymore, it removes the gameplay elements introduced by light and dark in the level.

Becuase this happens client side, it means someone running it has an immediate gameplay advantage over someone who chooses to run the game the way the creators intended.

This argument has been done to death a thousand times with Q3/UT though, my position is that if it's allowed, I'll do it.. but I think anyone who does should think about why they're bothering with the latest games in the first place, go play Q1.

Well Foo, commands that aid visibility are already allowed.
Take image_lodbias command for example, it makes all the wall textures go blurry and makes it alot easier to see the enemy as the model no longer blends in with the environment, couple this with brightness and gamma tweaks and you have an "advantage".
These commands are allowed, online ! I could show you a screenshot (if i could be arsed to find one ) which makes the game look absolutely ridiculous with walls which look like they are just one colour, this makes the player models stick out like sore thumbs.

The difference between these and the commands i want allowing though, are that these commands do nothing in the way of providing a smooth game experience.

yes they do.

Foo wrote:
Becuase this happens client side, it means someone running it has an immediate gameplay advantage over someone who chooses to run the game the way the creators intended.

All players can do picmip and vertex lighting in Q3 but a lot chose to stay with full graphics. Same thing, no?

DRuM wrote:

Foo wrote:
Becuase this happens client side, it means someone running it has an immediate gameplay advantage over someone who chooses to run the game the way the creators intended.

All players can do picmip and vertex lighting in Q3 but a lot chose to stay with full graphics. Same thing, no?

Yes, same thing.

Yes, and the people who upgraded hardware to keep up with the latest games find themselves having to revert back to 1ghz CPU visual settings just to stay competitive.

I have a question for you guys on this issue though, to get your opinion.

Do you think that, if some higher contrast player models/skins are released that make enemies more clearly visible, along with a few other mod options, that the shadows and visual effects could be kept in a way that they might be allowed to add to the gameplay?

It's just that I see all these discussions about brightness, but what all of them seem to come down to is being able to see your enemy clearly. I can't help but think it may be better to wait until some new skins/mods are released, and then if the brightness causes a problem with the gameplay, then we could look at changing base elements of the game like lighting.

I don't really have any problems seeing areas of the map or anything like that - it's just that the enemies blend in too much, and some of the weapon effects cloud your view, etc. And those things could be fixed in mods without having to change the game itself.

DRuM wrote:Good job amidy. I have taken the liberty to correct a few things ( mostly capital letters) to give it a more professional look if you post at ravens site

Thanks Drum, good call

i will find a Ravensoft e-mail that i can send this to, and i will make sure to leave you guys in the loop.

rook, this is more about a command that gives everyone framerates at a stable 63 rather than just brightness. I already have enough brightness with my tweaked config and brightskins would make things even clearer. But my framerate for the most part sucks. If I were to upgrade to a 6800GT, athlon 64 3500 and 2gb ram, I'd only be doing it to get a steady very playable 50 to 60 fps on any map with any amount of players. I still wouldn't have full graphics. So changing a command that does the same thing is the cheaper option.

DRuM wrote:rook, this is more about a command that gives everyone framerates at a stable 63 rather than just brightness.

Well, that's what it's about to you, but that's not what the post was about.

R00k wrote:Yes, and the people who upgraded hardware to keep up with the latest games find themselves having to revert back to 1ghz CPU visual settings just to stay competitive.

I have a question for you guys on this issue though, to get your opinion.

Yes, even if brightskins are released it is your decision to keep all the hi-res textures, bump maps, detailed lighting and what not.

Just to clarify, for me this isnt about brightness nor is it about reverting to settings which make the game look like as if it could be ran on a game boy, it is for performance and a smoother game experience without having to spend an additional £200+ on computer upgrades. Infact if this command is enabled via patch or mod, i intend to keep my textures hi res, i cant say i like having the game look dull but it certainly beats spending more money !

as sch1 PM'd me a link to the quake 4/ravensoft forums, i regged and posted it there in there " quake 4 with list"

Again, thanks everyone for the help, and take a look and see how the post is doing

http://forums.ravensoft.com/ib/ikonboar ... ntry418007

if i hear anything, i will post back.

sch1 wrote: Just to clarify, for me this isnt about brightness nor is it about reverting to settings which make the game look like as if it could be ran on a game boy, it is for performance and a smoother game experience without having to spend an additional £200+ on computer upgrades. Infact if this command is enabled via patch or mod, i intend to keep my textures hi res, i cant say i like having the game look dull but it certainly beats spending more money !

I understand your point. Unfortunately, those two issues are closely related. The same "fix" that allows you to run at acceptable framerates also creates a condition whereby those desiring to play the game as the designers intend it are at a competitive disadvantage, unless they use the same settings you do. Otherwise, you would have better visibility than they would. It's a catch 22.

Once they open that door, there is no going back. It means that if Q4 has the longevity that Q1 still has, that in 8 years from now, the people still playing Q4 online are going to be using Q3 quality graphics, even when hardware is no longer an issue.

For the record, sch1, I'm generally in a similar situation to you. For MP games, I generally get in the 35-40FPS range average. I just don't think this is a good solution.

Justin Thyme wrote: Once they open that door, there is no going back.

The door is already open, try image_lodbias 5 = blurry walls, easy to distinguish person from environment, couple this with a few changes in brightness and gamma and walah! the game is no longer as the developer intended it to be and you have that "advantage".
My point is that things like these are already available/allowed for online use, why not r_singlelight ? r_singlelight actually does something useful in terms of performance AND its still possible to keep the game looking alright with hi quality textures, and special effects(bumps etc) unlike the image_lodbias cmd.

Maybe this isnt a good solution, but it is the only feasible solution bar spending more money, as far as i know there is no other "tweak" which helps the game's performance as much as this one. I mean how likely is it going to be to ask id to make drastic changes to their engine, to make it more scalable and get results?

sch1 wrote: I mean how likely is it going to be to ask id to make drastic changes to their engine, to make it more scalable and get results?

Probably not very likely. Part of the point for id is pushing the envelope. Truth be told, I doubt they are building the engine or game for people like you or me who don't have upper end hardware.

I know those other tweaks are there, and that is largely why I would say that the proposed change is largely unnecessary. Granted, they don't give the same performance boost, but I would prefer to have this be a game to be enjoyed a few years from now, rather than pulling it back a couple of years.

But I know that my discussion is largely moot to a great portion of the community. You have a sizeable part of the community which want the mod for competitive reasons, and you have another part of the community wanting it for playability reasons. And those two groups apparently outnumber my segment of the community that says if you don't have the hardware to play it...don't play it (and yes, with Doom3 I took my own advise on that!). Any given game can't be all things to all people. The downside to creating a cutting edge game is that there will be members of your prospective audience which doesn't have the hardware to run it. Developers understand that.

Understand, sch1, I'm like you and would get better performance with this change! But for the good of what the game was supposed to be, I'd prefer them not to make the change.

Anyway, I'm gonna drop it.

Cheers!
:icon25: