ZDoom

by **Graf Zahl** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 2:46 am

Note:

Deleting the link only ensures that this gets closed.

I would have moved it to 'code submissions' to be revisited when I have more time but as it is this will be dumped.

by **AFADoomer** » Mon Oct 06, 2008 4:20 pm

HotWax wrote:
AFADoomer wrote:Right now I need to figure out a way affect either the activator or all players
First, why are you limiting yourself to 5 arguments? Is there a particular reason you can't implement this as an ACS function rather than a line special?

Mostly because I know how to implement line specials, and don't know (yet?) how to implement separate ACS functions... Mostly because I haven't looked into it yet, but I'll be working on trying to figure that out...

I've come up with a solution where scripts activated by a player affect only that player, and map-executed scripts affect all players
I don't think that's a good idea. It's too specific to this situation and would change the way people expect ACS to behave. It also means that you couldn't trigger an activation for all players from a line, which would seem to diminish the usefulness of it being a line special instead of an ACS function.

Yeah, I don't like it either... I'd rather stick to the standard first-argument-sets-who-it-affects pattern.

by **HotWax** » Mon Oct 06, 2008 9:33 am

AFADoomer wrote:Right now I need to figure out a way affect either the activator or all players

First, why are you limiting yourself to 5 arguments? Is there a particular reason you can't implement this as an ACS function rather than a line special?

If you have to keep it a line special, you could make two versions -- One to affect everyone and one for just the activator.

Or you could turn the 5th argument (Transparency) into a flags argument and implement flag bits that provide different amounts of translucency (3: 100, 2: 50, 1: 25, 0: 0 for example). This would sacrifice some granularity in exchange for adding room for additional flags.

Finally, as a last resort, you could just leave it as a single special affecting only the activator. It could always be placed in ENTER scripts and triggered for everyone by the setting of a global variable. Any competant ACS coder should know how to do this by now, and it wouldn't be the [wiki=FadeTo]first function[/wiki] to be available only in activator form.

I've come up with a solution where scripts activated by a player affect only that player, and map-executed scripts affect all players

I don't think that's a good idea. It's too specific to this situation and would change the way people expect ACS to behave. It also means that you couldn't trigger an activation for all players from a line, which would seem to diminish the usefulness of it being a line special instead of an ACS function.

by **zwouth** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:35 pm

This seems too obvious, I must be missing the boat...

The addition of a "modification definable map mode" that is in the normal map rotation (TAB default).
Classic, Overlay, AFAHUDOverlay, User Defined, Modification Defined

User Defined being any combination of settings a user wants for general use. Map color, background, overlay type, gametype, etc. In user cfg file.
Modification Defined is optional lump in a wad that a pwad can define as recommended. If you don't want this at all you simply disable MOD mapmodes in zdoom options.

Am I way off?

by **AFADoomer** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 3:44 pm

Right now it "replaces" neither map... It shows up when the normal player view would be on the screen, and +togglemap (Tab) allows you to toggle between that and whatever your normal map settings include, be it overlay or the normal map, or both...

@Graf - What do I need to change about this implementation to get it seriously considered for inclusion in ZDoom?

Right now I need to figure out a way affect either the activator or all players (not that easy, since all 5 arguments are filled with x, y, w, h, and transp... But I've come up with a solution where scripts activated by a player affect only that player, and map-executed scripts affect all players (still testing)), and (possibly) rewrite the toggle function to affect only the custom map, and ignore the normal map.

I was also thinking of adding a CVAR ("am_allowcustom" - default "1") to allow the user to disable custom maps altogether. This could also possibly tie in with the suggested 'temporary, per-mod, KEYCONF' map colors idea...

by **HotWax** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 8:49 am

I'm not saying I'm "worried" and could care less what mapping settings the user chooses to display. It just seemed redundant to me to have a full-screen overlay while at the same time offering a smaller one in a corner of the screen.

But if that's not desirable, that's fine.

by **Project Shadowcat** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 6:40 am

SoulPriestess wrote:Besides, if you're really that worried, most users have the overlay map turned off, mainly because they don't use it.

I'm in the minority of that one.

by **Rachael** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 6:13 am

I believe that all TC's can survive without imposing user restrictions. That being said, I still support the idea of having an extra automap on the screen that is exclusively ACS or SBARINFO controlled, does NOT interfere with the overlay map, and does NOT interfere with the actual regular automap.

Besides, if you're really that worried, most users have the overlay map turned off, mainly because they don't use it.

by **NiGHTMARE** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 6:12 am

Graf Zahl wrote:Besides, how many true TC's are there? By true TC's I mean something that goes out of its way not to resemble the game it was made for. Answer: None!

Erm... Foreverhood? Several of LWM's projects?

by **Graf Zahl** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 6:05 am

I don't think anyone has the right to restrict user settings at his will. If a modder can't live with that it's not my problem.

Besides, how many true TC's are there? By true TC's I mean something that goes out of its way not to resemble the game it was made for. Answer: None! These things are so much work that they fail almost certainly every time. And considering the rarity where such limitations might be useful against the potential abuse my clear opinion is that it's not worth it.

by **NiGHTMARE** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 5:34 am

Graf Zahl wrote:To make one thing clear: The automap is a USER setting, not a mapper setting. As that, I am strictly against anything that takes away control. What is this obsession with forcing the user to have to deal with map-imposed restrictions? That is not what Doom is about! If you want to do such mods make them for another game!

So you're saying that for anyone interested in making a true total conversion, Doom/ZDoom is not the game to mod? (By "true" total conversion, I mean something with fundamentally different gameplay, as well as replaced graphics, sound, etc.)

Considering Doom is one of (if not THE) easiest first person perspective game engines to mod for, I would have to strongly disagree with that.

by **Graf Zahl** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 5:22 am

To make one thing clear: The automap is a USER setting, not a mapper setting. As that, I am strictly against anything that takes away control. What is this obsession with forcing the user to have to deal with map-imposed restrictions? That is not what Doom is about! If you want to do such mods make them for another game!

by **Enjay** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 2:18 am

I dunno, for the people who use the overlay map (of which, I am not one) it might be annoying. Presumably they use it because they like it and they may want a full-size map overlay on top of the game screen even if a small one is present in the corner of the screen.

by **HotWax** » Thu Oct 02, 2008 4:25 pm

How about being able to replace the overlay automap, but not the fullscreen one?

by **Graf Zahl** » Thu Oct 02, 2008 4:10 pm

Agreed.

ZDoom

ACS-controlled "mini-map"

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: ACS-controlled "mini-map"

Re: ACS-controlled "mini-map"

Re: ACS-controlled "mini-map"

Re: ACS-controlled "mini-map"

Re: ACS-controlled "mini-map"

Re: ACS-controlled "mini-map"

Re: ACS-controlled "mini-map"

Re: ACS-controlled "mini-map"

Re: ACS-controlled "mini-map"

Re: ACS-controlled "mini-map"

Re: ACS-controlled "mini-map"

Re: ACS-controlled "mini-map"

Re: ACS-controlled "mini-map"

Re: ACS-controlled "mini-map"

Re: ACS-controlled "mini-map"

Re: ACS-controlled "mini-map"