Merged QuakeWorld qc Code into codebase.

[Zungrysoft]

Merged the NetQuake and QuakeWorld codebases into a single codebase so any changes we make will support both engine types. We will now be able to distribute a qwprogs.dat for QW deathmatch play.

You can compile the codebase for either NetQuake (creating progs.dat) or QuakeWorld (creating qwprogs.dat). You can compile for QuakeWorld by passing the argument -D__QW__ into fteqcc. Otherwise, it will compile for NetQuake.

Wherever there is a discrepancy between the NQ and QW implementations, here is how I resolved it:

• If it only affects singleplayer/coop, use the NQ implementation.
• If it only affects deathmatch, use the QW implementation.
• If it affects both:
  • If the difference is required due to differences in communication with the engine or available engine features, branch the code using preprocessor directives.
  • Otherwise, branch the code based on whether deathmatch is currently enabled.

Or in short, singleplayer behaves the same as it did before, but deathmatch now always behaves like QuakeWorld, regardless of which engine type is being used.

QW Source used for this merge: https://github.com/id-Software/Quake/tree/master/qw-qc

I'm still working on testing this, though it's ready for review.

[MotoLegacy]

Thanks for your work on this, left you some feedback and questions.

[lavenderdotpet]

what changes are currently holding this back

[Zungrysoft]

@lavenderdotpet

The only things I have left to do is determine whether qwprogs.dat should end up in pak0.pak or be unpacked and test a few more things related to deathmatch. Then @MotoLegacy needs to re-review it and answer my followup questions.

[MotoLegacy]

Hi @Zungrysoft, I don't see any follow up questions that you asked for me to answer.

[Zungrysoft]

@MotoLegacy Actually, I think that's it. Just need your re-review. Thanks!

[MotoLegacy]

Thanks for your work on this! Looks good to me.

[Zungrysoft]

@MotoLegacy Great! Thanks! Do I need a second review? Who else in the community has touched the progs.dat code?

[lavenderdotpet]

Thanks for your work on this! Looks good to me.

should i aprove this i dont really know what im looking at when it comes to code but between u and zungry yall are like the main 2 active people who work in code maybe random brushes should review this and not me?

edit: not to imply randombrushes is inactive i just remembered he worked on the code mid typing the sentence

[MotoLegacy]

Yes, I will request a review from @RandomBrushes

[RandomBrushes]

Only have one minor comment for client.qc, but that's a stylistic thing regarding nesting if/elseif/else and shall not block merging.

[RandomBrushes]

It appears that the if-body and the else-if-body are doing the same (SetNewParms()). This most likely can be rephrased, but that not functionally important (doesn't block merge, IMO).