A Netcode Discussion [Actor Collision Exclusion split]

[D2JK]

I would be also interested in a functionality equivalent to this:

---

Code: Select all

Actor Projectile1
 {
  +HITTRACER
  States
   {
    Death:
     TNT1 A 0 A_SpawnItemEx("Projectile2", ... , SXF_TRANSFERPOINTERS)
     Stop
   }
 }


Actor Projectile2
 {
  +THRUTRACER
 }

[Graf Zahl]

Ok, seriously people. My post was not 100% serious but we are talking about adding more checks to one of the most frequently called and most performance critical functions in the entire engine - one that already causes performance issues on maps like NUTS. I am very hesistant to add more here that isn't absolutely necessary.

[Major Cooke]

I would be also interested in a functionality equivalent to this:

---

Code: Select all

Actor Projectile1
 {
  +HITTRACER
  States
   {
    Death:
     TNT1 A 0 A_SpawnItemEx("Projectile2", ... , SXF_TRANSFERPOINTERS)
     Stop
   }
 }


Actor Projectile2
 {
  +THRUTRACER
 }

Note the tag [ZScript], not DECORATE. Decorate is about to become deprecated so I say no to that.

Ok, seriously people. My post was not 100% serious but we are talking about adding more checks to one of the most frequently called and most performance critical functions in the entire engine - one that already causes performance issues on maps like NUTS. I am very hesistant to add more here that isn't absolutely necessary.

Agreed, specifics are a lot better. If it can be dynamic then we can just continuously update the name of the actor list to pass through like the tracer pointers as needed.

So what do you propose, just my original suggestion without anything else? If THRUACTORS is specified it can serve as an inverted version, given a boolean to allow that to happen.

Code: Select all

if (thruactors)
{
	if (useinversethrulist)
	{
		CheckListInvert
	}
	else return true;
}

[D2JK]

Note the tag [ZScript], not DECORATE.

I did say "a functionality equivalent to".

[ibm5155]

Note the tag [ZScript], not DECORATE. Decorate is about to become deprecated so I say no to that.

This will take a long time since there are still alot of source ports that uses decorate, using zscript will for now just limit your mod to G/Zdoom

[Major Cooke]

Like I care? I'm pretty much a (G)ZDoom die hard. I use no other source ports.

[Arctangent]

I'm baffled at what ports he's even talking about. Zandronum? A single port is not what I'd consider "a lot." Or "alot," as it happens.

[Major Cooke]

Yeah. I don't play multiplayer mods. I just do single player, and for that, ZDoom is my go-to for it.

[Gez]

Ports that use DECORATE:
ZDoom
GZDoom
QZDoom, GZDoom-GPL, GLOOME and so on.
Skulltag
Zandronum
Vavoom

Basically either you get stuff that stays in sync with ZDoom within the week usually (like GZDoom) or you get stuff that is long-dead (like Skulltag). The only choice that is in-between these extremes is Zandronum.

[Edward-san]

Yeah. I don't play multiplayer mods. I just do single player, and for that, ZDoom is my go-to for it.

Considering ZDoom can run multiplayer (it's simple, really), modding to only single player is, well, bad and old.

[Arctangent]

Is this a sign that the Edwards are becoming one once more!?

[Major Cooke]

Considering ZDoom can run multiplayer (it's simple, really), modding to only single player is, well, bad and old.

Then you probably won't enjoy D4D. It's single player only.

Also the netcode, according to Blzut3, is broken in ZDoom currently it appears.

[Rachael]

Considering the amount of rewrites that have happened in the past year, I am not surprised.

But I don't think it's that broken. Since Demos use netcode logic and they run just fine for me, I'd say for the most part it's working pretty good. If there are problems I doubt they'd be that hard to fix.

[Edward-san]

Then you probably won't enjoy D4D. It's single player only.

Say, why?

[Major Cooke]

Just look at the CVARINFO. LOTS of user customizability stuffs. Effects controls, gore amount, configurable monster behavior/spawning, etc. Those have to be server side only.