Page 6 of 34

Re: Ultimate Doom Builder

PostPosted: Fri Dec 27, 2019 1:58 pm
by AFADoomer
dpJudas wrote:You guys don't have to worry about DevIL's PNG support - I sacked it about one hour ago. :)


Awesome! Just confirmed - my issue that I posted about above is no longer present.

Re: Ultimate Doom Builder

PostPosted: Fri Dec 27, 2019 4:12 pm
by Mav3r1ck
Rachael wrote:
Mav3r1ck wrote:Is the Doom 64 coloring intended to be a permanent feature?

Well, considering it's a GZDoom feature...

Mav3r1ck wrote:And if some will it be usable in ACS?

No. GZDoom doesn't have it in ACS so it will not be in ACS for UDB either, unless GZDoom adopts it as an ACS feature.



You've gotta understand that UDB and GZDoom are separate programs and that UDB is (for the most part, anyway) designed to be an editor to support GZDoom's features. That's how it works. UDB will not get any features that GZDoom doesn't already somehow support, except specifically on the editing front.


I wasn't sure whether or not it was an experimental feature since it is currently lacking in ACS. So that's why I asked that.

Re: Ultimate Doom Builder

PostPosted: Fri Dec 27, 2019 5:27 pm
by boris
New Discord link (that doesn't expire): https://discord.gg/wMtpbGw

Re: Ultimate Doom Builder

PostPosted: Fri Dec 27, 2019 10:24 pm
by guitardz
ZZYZX wrote:
guitardz wrote:I found a video of some old DB2 turorial that has an example of what I'm talking about, here is a screenshot from it:

Please make a GitHub issue: https://github.com/jewalky/UltimateDoomBuilder/issues
Likely it will be forgotten/dropped if only voiced in this thread. This thread is more for urgent/one-time help or editing questions.


Done. I made an account for a site I will probably almost never use for this request, that means it's important to me ;)

Re: Ultimate Doom Builder

PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 2:49 am
by ZZYZX
@dpJ any chance UDB could work with OpenGL 2.1 using ARB_ and EXT_ for framebuffers and other stuff not existent in the core 2.1?
keep getting "I won't update because my potato does not run it"

I tried to make a test build for myself but it looked like something did not load or initialize (no errors, black screen). I guess gl_load needs to be regenerated for that, with different extension list, so for now easier to ask you if it's worth that at all ;)

Re: Ultimate Doom Builder

PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:37 am
by dpJudas
The framebuffer stuff in OpenGL 2 was absolutely horrible. I would stay clear of it. :)

If you really want to support the potato computers, the better solution would be to use glslang + spirv-cross + direct3d 11. Those potato machines generally had much better Direct3D support than OpenGL, due to the fact that if they didn't then no game would run at all. That should effectively make it run on any hardware that also can run Windows 7.

I already added the support for having multiple backends in BuilderNative. Theoretically it shouldn't be too much work hooking this up, although the joker here is how well spirv-cross works. Worst case scenario you would have to maintain HLSL shader files as well.

Re: Ultimate Doom Builder

PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:59 am
by Graf Zahl
ZZYZX wrote:@dpJ any chance UDB could work with OpenGL 2.1 using ARB_ and EXT_ for framebuffers and other stuff not existent in the core 2.1?
keep getting "I won't update because my potato does not run it"


Sorry to be blunt - but let 'em suffer!
I am really dead tired of these cheapskates who insist on running obsolete hardware but then expecting others to do double work to support their outdated systems.
My standard response would be: "Are you willing to pay for the extra work? A new computer costs less!"

That said, I agree with dpJudas - the OpenGL support on these systems is so poor that it's not worth thinking about, and any work you invest here is wasted on the much larger group of people running an adequate system.

Re: Ultimate Doom Builder

PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 4:26 am
by ZZYZX
Graf Zahl wrote:Sorry to be blunt - but let 'em suffer!
I am really dead tired of these cheapskates who insist on running obsolete hardware but then expecting others to do double work to support their outdated systems.
My standard response would be: "Are you willing to pay for the extra work? A new computer costs less!"

Sadly, UDB is not just for GZDoom, but also for Boom and other ports which have less strict requirements. So I just have to account for that.
Also, from my experience this is not about being cheap, but more about various mobile chipsets. Of like 6 cases of UDB not working, all of them were trying to run it on a laptop.

dpJudas wrote:The framebuffer stuff in OpenGL 2 was absolutely horrible. I would stay clear of it. :)

Ok, thanks, noted. Will try to experiment on writing a D3D renderer at some point then ;) Not a priority for me anyway...

Re: Ultimate Doom Builder

PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 4:42 am
by Graf Zahl
ZZYZX wrote:
Graf Zahl wrote:Sorry to be blunt - but let 'em suffer!
I am really dead tired of these cheapskates who insist on running obsolete hardware but then expecting others to do double work to support their outdated systems.
My standard response would be: "Are you willing to pay for the extra work? A new computer costs less!"

Sadly, UDB is not just for GZDoom, but also for Boom and other ports which have less strict requirements. So I just have to account for that.


Why? It is the general norm that the requirements for production tools are allowed to be higher than the target requirements for the produced material.
Does Boom even need an editor update? There's no advances there, GZDBBF should do fine for those people.

Re: Ultimate Doom Builder

PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 4:49 am
by ZZYZX
The problem is that GZDB-BF/UDB may/will also get various fixes like sector splitting algorithms being totally broken, or general optimizations which are very important for overdetailed Boom maps (see FrozenT)
Not all changes are related to GZDoom here.

Re: Ultimate Doom Builder

PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 4:49 am
by Enjay
Your choice, of course, but if people are running computers that cannot run newer software, then their computer doesn't run newer software, and that's that. If you can't/won't upgrade your hardware, then you are stuck using the software that runs on your machine. That's how it works for everything else.

This community seems to have a strange obsession with accommodating every single last user with a stone-age computer (and, yes, I get that the core game is quarter of a century old). It seems that if even one person was the only one left running a 486 (and if they were enough of a squeaky wheel), someone somewhere would be trying to make a port/tool/whatever backwards compatible with it. Such effort, IMO, is ultimately wasted: usually it takes a lot of work, it can hold back developments that the vast majority of users could gain the benefit of and, sooner or later, the potato is going to die anyway. Accommodating those potatoes is pandering to a shrinking market.

As for the people running BOOM (etc), most of them are running it on a computer way above the specs needed to run BOOM. Those that are running it because it's all they can run (very few people I suspect) are already restricted by their hardware and are compelled to use older software.

So, I really do wonder if it's worth the effort, whether it will take up a disproportionate amount of time, whether other users will suffer because of these efforts and (experience and numbers have shown) that many of the objectors are a tiny minority with a loud voice.

Re: Ultimate Doom Builder

PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 4:52 am
by ZZYZX
idk, I just kind of feel bad for locking people out of the latest version. Like I said, this is not a priority, and things that are not a priority for me typically are postponed for years ;)
The question I asked to dpJ was mainly to know if there are any fast/easy ways to fix it. It was not a request to implement anything nor specific planning.

Separately on compatibility: things I create from scratch (like totally new) I usually don't care about making compatible with 2005's hardware. Wouldn't even bring this topic up in that case.
Here, we have something that has already worked for decades but suddenly stopped, which is what makes me feel sorry in front of people who can't run it anymore.

Re: Ultimate Doom Builder

PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 4:54 am
by Enjay
By which time the potatoes will (probably) have died. ;)

You're not locking them out BTW, they are locking themselves out (either by choice or because of circumstances beyond their control - finances etc).

The latest version has higher hardware requirements for good reasons.

Re: Ultimate Doom Builder

PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 4:55 am
by Kappes Buur
Well, here are my two cents on this.

From what I take away from reading various responses on Doomworld and some from ZDoom forum, those mapping for DOOM/2 or BOOM are mostly using Doombuilder2 or, if they are at least a bit interested, DoombuilderX. And when pointing out to them that GZDoom Builder and GZDoom Builder - Bugfix exist, they come back with that those editors are either too much for them to handle or that they are power hogs or whatever excuse they come up with. Therefore, I doubt very much that they will jump at the opportunity to even try Ultimate Doom Builder. Personally, I am with Graf and dpJ an that.

I made a post about UDB over at Doomworld, and while there were 269 views so far only 14 deemed it to be newsworthy and only 5 left a comment.

But, heck, I you feel that you must support every possible mapping format, then who am I to stand in your way. After all, it is your time spent.

Re: Ultimate Doom Builder

PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 4:58 am
by Enjay
Kappes Buur wrote:From what I take away from reading various responses on Doomworld and some from ZDoom forum, those mapping for DOOM/2 or BOOM are mostly using Doombuilder2 or, if they are at least I bit interested, DoombuilderX.

That's my impression too. Most of them aren't even that interested in a newer editor; they already have one that they know, like and which does what they want. They didn't adopt GZDB and the majority probably won't adopt UDB even if they could run it.