Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Quake Editing Digest Volume 1 : Number 13
1
quake-editing-digest Wednesday, 20 March 1996 Volume 01 : Number 013
One EXE for all? (was Re: Legal stuff)
Howdy Dudey Time. [RANDOM TITLE]
Re: Legal issues (was: WAD conversion sketch)
WinTex 4.3 and Quake specs
Re: Legal issues (was: WAD conversion sketch)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim Lowell <jlowell@winternet.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 20:20:15 -0600
Subject: One EXE for all? (was Re: Legal stuff)
At 03:32 PM 3/18/96 +0100, you wrote:
(snip)
>
>I'm not sure if it is a bad thing. Maintaining two different EXE's
>would mean more work for id Software (creating the two versions,
>supporting them, etc.). They cannot simply create a shareware EXE
>which differs only by a few bytes (i.e. a hard-coded flag), because
>some cracker would certainly post a patch to enable all the disabled
>features. Also, it is easier to pirate and distribute a single EXE
>file than to copy the whole CD-ROM, so a different EXE wouldn't
>protect id Software for a long time.
>
(snip)
Is there some reason that something couldn't be buried in the shareware
WAD that isn't in the registered WAD that the EXE could look for? Then
the EXE could look for it and refuse to load levels if it finds it.
It could be made sufficently hard to remove if it was a key that was
spread throughout the WAD and was used to construct some weird
checkdigit at the end. It could remain undocumented, so nobody could
remove it and the EXE would be the only thing that had to know how to
look for it.
That way everyone could make whatever editor they wanted, and if you
didn't have the registered WAD, then you would not be able to play
the add-on levels. In fact, the editor-designers wouldn't have to worry
about checking for registered versions of the game at all, because the
EXE would handle it.
Any reason this won't work?
- -= Jim Lowell =-
------------------------------
From: "Muad'Dib" <root@sietch.bloomington.in.us>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 04:42:12 -0700
Subject: Howdy Dudey Time. [RANDOM TITLE]
Responding :* Re: WAD Conversion sketch
************
> Maybe iD's licence doesn't explicitly forbid the creation/distribution
> of
> add-on levels for Quake, but personally I feel that we should respect
> iD's work and not bring out any fully-fledged editor before the
> registered version becomes available. But perhaps I'm alone in this?
Way back when ID was telling us all this hype, one of the things they bragged
about was that someone independant would probably release a level editor in no
time. I suspect they don't care. 'sides, on IRC someone asked Barrett
Alexander and he said he didn't know of any policy, so I believe tehy probably
haven't given it too much thought.
Muad'Dib <root@sietch.bloomington.in.us>
The Mouse a.k.a. Greg Alexander
------------------------------
From: jelson@l1.conline.com (Jim Elson)
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 07:45:30 -0600
Subject: Re: Legal issues (was: WAD conversion sketch)
Uffe Friis Lichtenberg <uffefl@diku.dk> wrote:
>I can't see any harm in the discussion or release of viewers/small
>editors/file format converters/etc. as long as they are not "marketed" as
>Quake-editors.
>
>BTW: until a Quake non-test version comes out this is all we have to play
>around with anyway, so there's no need trying to stop us now :)
Quite.
However, there is another factor in this equation: Exactly WHY did id release
the test in the form they did? (monsters, etc.) It's not as if they are
stupid enough to believe that no one would try to implement them or that
they could care less what we could do with it. Of course, I don't explain
a candid answer to this from them, but it is an interesting question and
the possibilities might shed some light on id's plans concerning editors,
utilities, etc.
- --H2H
============================================================================
H2HMud NorthAmerican DeathMatch Tourney
Promo/Marketing Coordinator for "The New Technology: Evilution"
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
jelson@conline.com; WEB page ==> http://www.conline.com/~jelson/index.html
------------------------------
From: Olivier <montanuy@lsun80.lannion.cnet.fr>
Date: 19 Mar 96 09:34:10+0100
Subject: WinTex 4.3 and Quake specs
About WinTex:
I am currently addapting WinTex 4.2 to Quake, and that gives WinTex 4.3.
This tool is intended as an HELP for nodebuilder and level builder
programmers. It is not an editor (I don't have enough time).
It will display and let you check all the structures in the Quake BSP levels.
Texture display, wireframe view of the levels, (surfaces, BSP tree, BSP leaves)
already work, but the planes and visilists are missing.
I get 3 FPS with my wireframe viewer under windoze 3.1. Slower than Quake! :-)
About Specs:
The Quake specs 3.1 should be released in a few days, they will include
more info about the BSP levels and the MDL. All the MDL is clarified now,
including the lightnormalindexes.
------------------------------
From: Shawn Green <shawng@idsoftware.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 18:03:13 -0600
Subject: Re: Legal issues (was: WAD conversion sketch)
At 07:45 AM 3/19/96 -0600, you wrote:
>However, there is another factor in this equation: Exactly WHY did id release
>the test in the form they did? (monsters, etc.) It's not as if they are
>stupid enough to believe that no one would try to implement them or that
>they could care less what we could do with it. Of course, I don't explain
>a candid answer to this from them, but it is an interesting question and
>the possibilities might shed some light on id's plans concerning editors,
>utilities, etc.
We didn't release it for any other reason than testing the technology. Had
we thought about it, we would have removed the models and other items that
were not in the game from the pak file.
- -Shawn Green
Project Manager
id Software
Official release date for everything - "When it's done!"
That's the only one you'll ever get.
------------------------------
End of quake-editing-digest V1 #13
**********************************
Comments