Search the Community

I got rid of the demo and installed the .pk4 files from the retail version of Doom 3 (updated to the point release) into the "base" folder. The game works fine, and I'm not getting the error anymore, and now the (textureless) level gets saved, but DarkRadiant still doesn't see the textures.

There are other complications though. How much fall damage should player take, if they decide to jump off a rope with the body? Should the player let go of the body or not? Also, right now it's much harder to jump off the rope with the body than without it. Why? And last but not least, how would you teach players these things, possibly without much hand-holding and text prompts explaining the rules? I guess I'm with @STiFUon this one, if you restrict dropping the body, you'll save yourself (and mappers) a lot of headaches. But even that doesn't solve all the problems, I know I'm in the minority in these forums, but as a player, I really appreciate the beauty and efficiency in simplicity of the design. Not overthinking everything and adding more and more rules for the sake of realism (or anything else).

It's possible that the Demo game definition is out of date and needs some looking into (it might lack the "type" attribute in its <game> tag). Have you tried to select the Doom 3 type instead of the demo?

I have recently installed Dhewm3 (with the Doom 3 demo) and DarkRadiant. I know my way around GTK Radiant and Preditor, so I assumed DarkRadiant would be a walk in the park. However, I'm getting these two problems I never got with the other editors. 1) I have installed DarkRadiant from the package darkradiant-3.7.0-x64.portable.7z. I launched it, configured it to use the Doom 3 demo (Game Type: Doom 3 Demo), selected the folder where the Dhewm3.exe file is located, but it cannot find any textures. 2) If I try to make a test map (a square room with no textures, a player start) and save it, I get an error message that says: "Failed to locate map format module". Subsequently, nothing gets saved. I have pasted the DarkRadiant log at https://pastebin.com/YAGv2u5h . You can see a screenshot showing the problems (error, no textures) at https://imgur.com/a/qVhx4dv. How do I solve these problems?

I think the reason the dev forums exist is to provide a place where the implementation of features can be discussed without getting mixed up with other debates when someone believes what the devs are doing is wrong. We often post public discussion threads for features with subjective elements like the frob outline, because community feedback is very important. But there will always be vocal defenders with strong views for or against certain features, or how exactly it should be implemented in their opinion. At some point a decision has to be made and be carried through, which is what the dev forums are for. Almost all of the threads are very technical, basically explaining and discussing recent or potential code changes with other devs. Its hard to say. Its a hobby the devs do in their spare time, so people come and go when they're in the mood and when they have the time. The team page is mostly accurate except for some relatively newer additions like myself.

This is basically "do include my work ASAP because I worked so hard, or else *sulk*". This is similar case: https://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?/topic/21679-beta-testing-211/page/10/#comment-482352 This is neither a commercial product, nor a phishing email. That sense of rush and pressure is artificial. These releases typically do take long, and even then, there are often many things broken by mistake or omission. Often there aren't enough people to test stuff, or they're not competent enough, etc, etc. There's little point in hurry.

What?! That is news to me, I use .lwo for all my static models and smoothing imports to idtech4 just fine! Thou I most say, I don't use Blender for anything but MD5 models and still use old Modo 601, the same tool Seneca Menard a idSoftware artist uses, and also use his custom Modo plugging's, that he made public, exactly to streamline making static models for Doom 3 and Rage. In modo you can set smoothing angle or edge smoothing (hard or soft edge) and it works in idTech 4, perhaps blender and other tools handle .lwo differently? After all modo was made by the same people that created lightwave 3D, so they literally created the .lwo file system.

I was able to install, launch, and watch the opening videos of TDM 2.10 on a Pi 4b via Box86 by setting the environment variable MESA_GL_VERSION_OVERRIDE=3.3 first. However, it froze after a frame or two of gameplay. I haven't tried to debug that yet. Note that TDM 2.08 and earlier use GL3.1+extensions (but still probably require 3.3-compliant hardware unless you're up for some hacking) and 1.08 and earlier are judt Doom 3 mods (but incompatible with Dhewm3).

As far as I remember, the engine drops smoothing information from LWO file and applies automatic determination of smooth groups depending on some hardcoded angle. So I'm not sure these smoothing settings will help in TDM or Doom 3.

Afaik yes .cm files (means collision model) can be used as a separate collison model, for a ingame entity, I think that there's even a special func entity for that but the fact is, it was hardly used by idsoftware for that purpose, majority of Doom 3 models have the collision surface incorporated in the model itself (like the shadow model) they did it on Maya, 3DS Max and Modo. So motorsep I ask, why would you want to make a separate collision model in DR? Can't you edit the model in Blender for example?

https://wiki.thedarkmod.com/index.php?title=Collision_Models https://wiki.thedarkmod.com/index.php?title=Clipmodel and what is an example of a TDM CM? That is what DMAP produces. It is a map-wide representation of collision. It is not a "model". ( hence all the brush references in the text ) Look again: barrel01_cm.lwo is a typical collision model in TDM. It is a Lightwave object. ( LWO ). If you know of a single editor program that manipulates Doom 3 DMAP collision products ( cm files ) I would be happy to hear of it.

Looking at the source code and the core pk4 asset files, I don't see any changes that would make a difference. Does this happen with a single FM? Does the FM pk4 file include an "autoexec.cfg" file? From the source code, here's the load order of config files. exec default.cfg exec Darkmod.cfg exec DarkmodKeyboard.cfg exec DarkmodPadbinds.cfg ==> exec autoexec.cfg <load language> <exec command-line arguments> <init input> <init sound> <init OpenGL> <init ui> <load DLL> <init session> ==> exec autocommands.cfg Details about the addition of "autocommands.cfg" are at https://bugs.thedarkmod.com/view.php?id=3199 I thought "autocommands.cfg" was the right way to do it, because that is what I've read on the forums. It seems that "autocommands.cfg" was originally designed for one use case: running "dmap". However, maybe over time "autocommands.cfg" became the de facto config file for user commands and "autoexec.cfg" became the config file for FM authors to use. I don't know. Does anyone know for a fact whether or not this is the case?

This game started has a Doom 3 mod and even thou I'm not on the team, I bet idTech 4 was chosen at the time, because it's real time per-pixel lighting and shadows, strongly resembled the look of Thief 3 and also the engine itself was very mod friendly, afaik more so than the heavily modified Unreal 2 engine used in Thief 3. IMO this game will be active for years to come, at lest while there's people willing to work on it and making new missions, players will come. And also the current TDM engine, is not the original Doom 3 engine, it got updated by the team through the years and as surpassed the original in many ways and will keep on evolving, while there's good c++ coders in the team, like currently they have.

I am pretty sure there is a good reason for using the DOOM 3 engine, but it does make me wonder for how long this project can remain active if it doesn't get transferred onto a modern game engine eventually. Although I am afraid that if it gets transferred to a modern engine, the temptation to make everything look photo realistic, will take away its retro-aesthetics-charm.

Several team members have expressed interest into evaluating PBR but there is no hard target for any progress because it would be a lot of work. If someone wanted to take some existing TDM assets and convert them for use in Doom 3 BFG ( RBDoom3BFG ) so that they can be evaluated, it might speed up the initial phase work. ( Eg, make a small test map with all the basic visual components; AI models, wood, metal, water, glass (textures), and lighting ) We won't even ask for anyone to start this work until we have more commitment on the time-tables but we won't say no to any submission like this if someone is really motivated to get things going. Going back to my previous post, it seems there is a workflow to convert PBR to Specular: https://marmoset.co/posts/pbr-texture-conversion/ but I can't find any automation that does it.

Not sure what the license is but if the Nvidia Remix tool has textures with a creative commons license then someone could extract them and use the texture replace tool in Dark Radiant to update a mission with them. The textures are most likely using a modern PBR format with metalness and roughness, so without PBR support in TDM they would need to be converted to a diffuse \ specular design ( I believe there are tools that automate going from legacy to PBR but I am not sure whether any texture author tool can do the reverse? ) There is a long term plan to evaluate whether allowing mixed legacy and PBR content the way that the "RBDoom3BFG" Doom 3 port does might be viable in TDM. If it turns out to be viable, then TDM would be able to use these "remix" textures natively without conversion ( again, as long as they are open CC assets and can be exported ). As far as I can tell, Nvidia are locking down all remix aspects so that modders can only use it for Nvidia's intended purpose of upgrading old fixed-function games to RTX. They aren't interested in shader based games or DX9+ because the change to Ray Tracing won't be as dramatic. Anything using light-mapping with probes is going to get a negligible upgrade from changing the lighting model since lightmaps are already raytraced. They want really impressive before \ after pictures to sell the technology. Even TDM probably looks too good in the "before" state to be of interest to Nvidia. ( That said, I would gladly accept a ray tracing patch for TDM if Nvidia ever decided to create one for us... )

So I think we can count 12 or 14 missions depending on our opinion of La Banque Bienveillante and Sneak and Destroy. If these two reissues are counted as new missions (as JarlFrank did here: https://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=152035), then we have 14 missions. If not, then 12. Personally, I don't consider them new missions, so 12 in my opinion. Have no problem with other opinion. In any case, last year was productive!

How many arrows were there in total? We have numbers 0 to 9 so 10 in total. 1 is Blackjack 2 is Sword and the other 8 would be arrows: We have the standard arrow, water, fire, moss, gas, noisemaker, rope, vine... yeah that would be all 8 then, I thought there would be 6 or 7. I guess it could go on another keybind like - or = or not have a specific bind at all. I was thinking about it, haven't released new FM's but would like to include this arrow when I do. Problem is I'd need to add it as a mod, and this requires a custom player def that might get broken later due to how weapon slots are defined since the Doom 3 days (also why we have a 16 weapon limit though that we're far from breaching). Like I said it can work alongside the flashbomb but is rather different in its latest form so I don't think there's a conflict. Mappers can either place only the bomb, only the arrow, or both as they don't really obsolete each other.

My dream is for forums.thedarkmod.com to link to thedarkmod.com

Purah also worked on Dishonored: https://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136214 One of my neurons knew it started with a 'P'

Nah, it works fine (at least in Storm Engine 2, based off Doom 3 BFG). We did have to fix a bug where player would get stuck in the mesh terrain, but as far as physics go (vehicles for example) - never had any bugs. Because my playable area is massive, probably 100k x 100k units. So naturally I want skybox geo (kinda like what they did in RAGE 1) to be outside and away from that area.

Works in Doom 3 and Doom 3 BFG.

Regarding switching fog in northdale1 at "400 -1220 286". This issue happens in 2.10 too. It seems to be caused by a conflict between two fog lights: "light_116" script-powered fog system of "atdm_location_settings_1" When I "remove" the individual light, or comment out script-based fog, then fog looks the same regardless of camera direction. Doom 3 fog is rather hacky by itself, I doubt two overlapping fogs are supported @Goldwell

Got a used RTX 2060 6GB for Christmas! It's pretty strange being able to run TDM at full renderscale 1080p, shadow maps at 1440 size, soft shadows quality 25, 4xMSAA, 16xAF (SSAO, Bloom, and Fresnel mod) and still have gas in the tank for 100FPS or more. I found that Penny Dreadful 3 courtyard performance can be conquered by a better GPU and so can the opening area of Briarwoord Manor ( notorious outliers ) and the finale area of Written in Stone. However, the tavern in BCD is still stubbornly stuck at 40FPS and Scroll of Remembrance is stuck at 37 FPS. I went back to do a performance comparison between 1.07 vs 2.11 beta and found that even with my new GPU 1.07 runs the original Return to the City at sub 30FPS in the opening area. In 2.11 with equivalent settings I get 95FPS with the same map. I was also saddened to see the Serengrove map running under Doom 3 Sikkmod still runs sub-20 FPS. On a lark I tried extracting it to RBDoom3BFG and it was locked at 60FPS with all fancy features enabled. There has been a longstanding stance that Doom 3's CPU usage was a bit heavy but the biggest consumer was GPU fillrate. Based on my testing, throwing fillrate at the problem doesn't seem to be the magic bullet. Given how much better CPU optimization is for both TDM 2.11 and RBDoom3BFG I would guess that a smaller GPU upgrade and a better CPU would have been a better choice. I'm still overall happy with my upgrade and the i7-3770S is still holding it's own pretty well too.