3 ms·

It's really ironic that this appeared on the front page when it did, because I've spent the last couple days replacing the ZQuake sound system with FMOD and Atm

by ethin 8mo ago

It's really ironic that this appeared on the front page when it did, because I've spent the last couple days replacing the ZQuake sound system with FMOD and Atmoky TrueSpatial for HRTF and such. This was my first time ever working on a code base from 1996-2000. And in pure C no less. C feels so foreign to me since I'm so used to writing in C++ and Zig and such. But it was still really fun! And I mean it doesn't seem super impressive, but it's something. Lol

reactordev 8mo ago
you could have chosen a far worse codebase than Quake from the 90s. Quake was pretty clean in comparison. Sensible use of macros for doing things. A type system that made sense. Descent on the other hand...
- ethin 8mo ago
  I mean... It's ugly from a modern standpoint. Zero encapsulation to speak of. Global state everywhere. But doing the modifications I did were pretty easy all things considered. So yeah, the code is clean, if "ugly" when viewed from a modern standpoint. It was definitely fun to do either way! Idk what other changes I'll make, we'll see. Especially since I don't know the architecture very well yet
  - reactordev 8mo ago
    Of course! Global state IS game state! It definitely was an amazing codebase for the time. You didn’t need to get hung up on architecture because it is very singular… it’s just a level, you, and the entities that were created when the level loaded. There’s no pre-caching, no virtual textures, no shaders (there are materials for later quake 3), it’s just pure load -> set -> loop. The “client” renders, the “server” has the state.
    - ethin 8mo ago
      Honestly I've been wondering if I could do this with Ezquake or similar (and how hard it would be). Problem is that Ezquake has VoIP too and a bunch of other things (and is for whatever reason stuck on SDL2 (?)), so that might be quite annoying to do. And I don't know if they'd accept my contributions. Worth a try though I suppose?

by ethin 8mo ago

reactordev 8mo ago

you could have chosen a far worse codebase than Quake from the 90s. Quake was pretty clean in comparison. Sensible use of macros for doing things. A type system that made sense. Descent on the other hand...

ethin 8mo ago
I mean... It's ugly from a modern standpoint. Zero encapsulation to speak of. Global state everywhere. But doing the modifications I did were pretty easy all things considered. So yeah, the code is clean, if "ugly" when viewed from a modern standpoint. It was definitely fun to do either way! Idk what other changes I'll make, we'll see. Especially since I don't know the architecture very well yet
- reactordev 8mo ago
  Of course! Global state IS game state! It definitely was an amazing codebase for the time. You didn’t need to get hung up on architecture because it is very singular… it’s just a level, you, and the entities that were created when the level loaded. There’s no pre-caching, no virtual textures, no shaders (there are materials for later quake 3), it’s just pure load -> set -> loop. The “client” renders, the “server” has the state.
  - ethin 8mo ago
    Honestly I've been wondering if I could do this with Ezquake or similar (and how hard it would be). Problem is that Ezquake has VoIP too and a bunch of other things (and is for whatever reason stuck on SDL2 (?)), so that might be quite annoying to do. And I don't know if they'd accept my contributions. Worth a try though I suppose?