by Enjay » Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:01 am
I'd just second what Graf said. Randy put a great deal of effort into ironing out problems with dehacked support during the 1.23 beta development stages and that support is still there in the current versions. During that phase, a whole load of difficult WADs and patches were submitted to Randy and he made everything that I am aware of from that time work, and even added a whole slew of additional features. So, I'd say that dehacked support in Zdoom is very good and what's more Zdoom has far more added features in its dehacked support than any other port that I am aware of. (Transluceny types and methods, scaling, direct SNDINFO name support, ammo use and min-fire values, many additional code-pointer mnemonics, string support for all Zdoom additional strings to name but a few.)
I'd just second what Graf said. Randy put a great deal of effort into ironing out problems with dehacked support during the 1.23 beta development stages and that support is still there in the current versions. During that phase, a whole load of difficult WADs and patches were submitted to Randy and he made everything that I am aware of from that time work, and even added a whole slew of additional features. So, I'd say that dehacked support in Zdoom is very good and what's more Zdoom has far more added features in its dehacked support than any other port that I am aware of. (Transluceny types and methods, scaling, direct SNDINFO name support, ammo use and min-fire values, many additional code-pointer mnemonics, string support for all Zdoom additional strings to name but a few.)