-5
\$\begingroup\$

My eSport mod needs the Quake 3 physics -- as well as some modern engine features.

Options are either:

  1. Quake Engine: Upgrade/develop new rendering,etc component(s)
  2. Unreal Engine: Port physics.

Going with the latest Unreal Engine 4 is clearly superior and logical. It seems adapting basic functions would be simple, like what has been done with maps. So, has it been done?

If not, is there any technical reason? Ideally, it's a matter of importing functions, coalescing to paradigm, scaling geometry, and that's about it. I cannot imagine the physics component of a modifiable engine not to be robust enough to extend its base set. Welcoming any wisdom before I need to take it on myself. :)

\$\endgroup\$

closed as too broad by Maximus Minimus, Gnemlock, Josh May 17 '17 at 0:40

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • \$\begingroup\$ Overall, my question was effectively ignored by receiving down-votes and no technical details, which is not how SE operates. I'm sorry, but this includes Almo's input as well. It's a very valid question which has not been answered. Q3 physics have been implemented in successive engines by Id, so whatever its origins may be, that does not prevent it from being a consistent rule-set. \$\endgroup\$ – HTDE May 16 '17 at 23:10
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Basically, you're asking if there is someone, out there, that ported the Q3 physics engine to UE4? \$\endgroup\$ – Alexandre Vaillancourt May 17 '17 at 0:12
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Perhaps you have an inconsistent understanding of how this or other Stack Exchanges operate. You do not have the reputation of a user who has spent much time interacting with any exchange, but each exchange does have its own sub set of rules - what that site considers on topic and off topic. For instance, in this case your asking if someone has ported the software you want to use to the software you find more superior. This has the danger of being a "getting started" question (it certainly sounds like one); these questions, themselves, are off topic. I also have to question the usefulness. \$\endgroup\$ – Gnemlock May 17 '17 at 0:21
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Unreal uses PhysX for its physics simulation. It is very tightly wired into the core guts of the engine and would be extremely time consuming to replace. PhysX aims primarily to simulate "realistic" physics, and not the more arcade-like physics of earlier shooters. It's possible to tweak physical parameters and character controllers in an engine like Unreal to emulate those kinds of physics, but it's also a lot of work. Still less work than replacing the whole physics engine, though, in all likelihood. The scope of the task is likely why you won't find many who've done it, if any. \$\endgroup\$ – Josh May 17 '17 at 1:32
3
\$\begingroup\$

This was a comment, but it's really an answer.

You're not going to get Quake 3's peculiarities in Unreal. Strafe jumping, grenade jumps, rocket jumps, etc. Here's me doing a combination grenade/rocket jump in Quake 3. That's not going to happen in Unreal unless you really mess around with how it works. https://youtube.com/watch?v=i6rqumD-9Hk

It totally does not make sense to use Unreal if Q3 physics is a core requirement. Much of Q3 physics either is, or arises from, bugs in the physics over the course of the series. If you must have Q3 physics, the only thing that makes sense is to use the Q3 engine.

Here are some more references on Q3 strafe jumping. You really, really don't want to have to set this system up yourself; it's pretty complex, and if you don't get it just right, your players will know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g24fe4bwu0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAxPgIv4Q8s

The green zones in the latter video get narrower and wider apart as your speed increases. This is why in the first video the guy keeps looking further left and right from the trajectory as he goes.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I appreciate you giving me something, but I don't understand the qualification for the answer in this context, seeing as nobody has given any supporting details as far as UE not being a good fit. As far as my points, it's still a modern engine with modern features, it is OSS with SDK, and has a good physics component. \$\endgroup\$ – HTDE May 16 '17 at 22:56
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ You will not be able to recreate Q3 physics in UE. Q3 physics is not only idiosyncratic, it is frame-rate dependent. Have some more discussion of the vagaries of Q3 physics: quake3world.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2170 \$\endgroup\$ – Almo May 17 '17 at 6:44
  • \$\begingroup\$ I should note that all physics engines are framerate dependent to an extent, but Q3 was pretty obvious about it. I played at 125 to make certain jumps on certain maps, a friend played at... 250 I think for some benfit to his rocket-jumps. \$\endgroup\$ – Almo May 17 '17 at 8:08

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.