GZDoom discussion (Version 2.3.1 released 2016/jan/7)

Projects that have specifically been abandoned or considered "dead" get moved here, so people will quit bumping them. If your project has wound up here and it should not be, contact a moderator to have it moved back to the land of the living.

Re: GZDoom discussion (Version 2.3.1 released 2016/jan/7)

Postby Alekv » Mon May 08, 2017 10:41 am

Graf Zahl wrote:Post something that can be tested, that goes for both the RenderStyle/Alpha issue and the crash. Screenshots cannot be debugged, but the crash looks like data corruption.

Unfortunately, I do not know how to test a crash, because it appears if you go through the game from the 1st level to 6-9 with this at each level you need to touch the auto-save object

Again, the bug does not appear every time, so it's hard for me to show it to you :(


But if you are ready to go through the game about two times (ie, only 9-10 levels) to see a bug
Then I can throw you this version of the game.
User avatar
Alekv
 
Joined: 08 Jun 2015
Location: My world :)

Re: GZDoom discussion (Version 2.3.1 released 2016/jan/7)

Postby D2JK » Wed Jun 07, 2017 9:34 am

Would it be possible to implement a particle generating function supporting custom sprites? I understand they would perform worse than simple particles, but I suppose better than (non-interactive) actors?

Also, a small observation about for - loops: when using multiple counter variables, declaring the type of additional counter variables (in the initialization field), will cause a startup error: Unexpected identifier, expecting ";".

For example, this works:
Code: Select allExpand view
int b;
for (int a=0 , b=0 ; a < 100 ; a++, b++)

This does not:
Code: Select allExpand view
for (int a=0 , int b=0 ; a < 100 ; a++, b++)


Are the additional counter variables automatically considered to be of the same type as the first one?
D2JK
 
Joined: 30 Aug 2014

Re: GZDoom discussion (Version 2.3.1 released 2016/jan/7)

Postby Nash » Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:20 pm

Should the zcajun Bots.cfg be packaged with future official GZDoom builds? As broken as they are, they're still an engine feature and currently the only way to get the CFG file is to download some old version of ZDoom...
User avatar
Nash
Nash Muhandes
 
 
 
Joined: 27 Oct 2003
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Re: GZDoom discussion (Version 2.3.1 released 2016/jan/7)

Postby Gez » Wed Jun 14, 2017 4:19 am

It'd be better if instead of a file it could be loaded from a lump, say, CAJUNBOT or ZBOTCONF. Then it could be squirreled away in gzdoom.pk3 instead of being a loose file.
Gez
 
 
 
Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Re: GZDoom discussion (Version 2.3.1 released 2016/jan/7)

Postby Nash » Wed Jun 14, 2017 4:48 am

That's actually a brilliant idea, how come Randi didn't do that back in the day. :D
User avatar
Nash
Nash Muhandes
 
 
 
Joined: 27 Oct 2003
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Re: GZDoom discussion (Version 2.3.1 released 2016/jan/7)

Postby Caligari87 » Wed Jun 14, 2017 9:56 am

ZBOTCONF would be great for any future expandability. The current Cajun bots could be one section, other bots (if ever added) could use a different syntax.

8-)
User avatar
Caligari87
I'm just here for the community
User Accounts Assistant
 
Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
Discord: Caligari87#3089

Re: GZDoom discussion (Version 2.3.1 released 2016/jan/7)

Postby Rachael » Wed Jun 14, 2017 10:30 am

This really needs to go in the Feature Suggestions forum - or it will get lost and probably never be done simply because it'll be forgotten about by the time anyone has the chance to make a decision on it.
User avatar
Rachael
QZDoom + Webmaster
 
Joined: 13 Jan 2004

Re: GZDoom discussion (Version 2.3.1 released 2016/jan/7)

Postby Arch-vile90 » Sat Jul 22, 2017 10:02 am

Never used a version of gzdoom lower than v 2.0 but today i tried the v 1.8 and i saw weapons are less bright than the latest versions of gzdoom, they tend to disappear in the darkness sectors.
I have a question about this: It's possible add a mode to switch the weapon light like the v1.8?
User avatar
Arch-vile90
Do you poba? if yes, you're welcome!
 
Joined: 01 Jul 2014
Location: Italy, the place of pizza

Re: GZDoom discussion (Version 2.3.1 released 2016/jan/7)

Postby Graf Zahl » Mon Jul 24, 2017 7:46 am

No, not really. That old code did some bad stuff with bright weapon frames which cannot be reinstated without causing broader problems. It also was not correct.
User avatar
Graf Zahl
Lead GZDoom Developer
 
Joined: 19 Jul 2003
Location: Germany

Re: GZDoom discussion (Version 2.3.1 released 2016/jan/7)

Postby ibm5155 » Wed Jul 26, 2017 2:56 pm

Why the shadow on the map feels slower while the shadows on objects feels faster?
example vídeo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-YHYDZgP7g
User avatar
ibm5155
Just Spooky
 
Joined: 20 Jul 2011

Re: GZDoom discussion (Version 2.3.1 released 2016/jan/7)

Postby NightFright » Fri Oct 06, 2017 3:21 am

I see GZD v3.2 has just been released. Does anyone have a quick overview of the changes compared to v3.1?
User avatar
NightFright
 
Joined: 02 May 2008
Location: Germany

Re: GZDoom discussion (Version 2.3.1 released 2016/jan/7)

Postby Rachael » Fri Oct 06, 2017 5:07 am

There's a 6-points highlights list right at the top of the release post in enlarged letters right under the downloads.
User avatar
Rachael
QZDoom + Webmaster
 
Joined: 13 Jan 2004

Re: GZDoom discussion (Version 2.3.1 released 2016/jan/7)

Postby NightFright » Fri Oct 06, 2017 6:10 am

Ah right, that eluded me since I was expecting that in the "changelog" section. ^^ Thanks a lot!
User avatar
NightFright
 
Joined: 02 May 2008
Location: Germany

Re: GZDoom discussion (Version 2.3.1 released 2016/jan/7)

Postby Cromunism » Sat Jun 09, 2018 2:20 am

I have a couple questions about the changelog for the latest version of GZDoom. I would have posted this in the release thread in news, but it got locked before I got a chance, so I assume this is the right thread for it.

My main question is about the changelog entry "Add support for Unreal Engine 1 vertex mesh format." If I understand it right, this allows map and mod makers to use unreal engine 1 models in addition to the currently supported MD2 and MD3 format. I know pretty much nothing about this subject, so my questions are: why was specifically unreal engine 1 model support chosen, and what benefits does supporting this have over the already supported formats? I don't make maps or mods so this feature doesn't directly affect me, I was just curious about the purpose of the feature and how people might use it. It just seemed strange to me since unreal engine 1 is so old, but there's probably a good reason for it.

Second, the changelog mentions a rendering optimization that in highly detailed maps "may give a +20% performance improvement on Intel and AMD hardware" and benefits nvidia hardware also, but not as much. In this case, how detailed does a map need to be before this change would affect them? Would something like some of the larger doom 2 or TNT evilution maps count, or is it referring to higher detail than that?
Cromunism
 
Joined: 26 Nov 2017

Re: GZDoom discussion (Version 2.3.1 released 2016/jan/7)

Postby Gez » Sat Jun 09, 2018 11:18 am

Cromunism wrote:I have a couple questions about the changelog for the latest version of GZDoom. I would have posted this in the release thread in news, but it got locked before I got a chance, so I assume this is the right thread for it.

The GZDoom 3.4 thread has been unlocked in the meantime.

Cromunism wrote:My main question is about the changelog entry "Add support for Unreal Engine 1 vertex mesh format." If I understand it right, this allows map and mod makers to use unreal engine 1 models in addition to the currently supported MD2 and MD3 format. I know pretty much nothing about this subject, so my questions are: why was specifically unreal engine 1 model support chosen, and what benefits does supporting this have over the already supported formats? I don't make maps or mods so this feature doesn't directly affect me, I was just curious about the purpose of the feature and how people might use it. It just seemed strange to me since unreal engine 1 is so old, but there's probably a good reason for it.

It was an external contribution, made by someone who made a mod putting the Unreal Tournament '99 weapons in Doom. So here you have the motivation.

Cromunism wrote:Second, the changelog mentions a rendering optimization that in highly detailed maps "may give a +20% performance improvement on Intel and AMD hardware" and benefits nvidia hardware also, but not as much. In this case, how detailed does a map need to be before this change would affect them? Would something like some of the larger doom 2 or TNT evilution maps count, or is it referring to higher detail than that?

The map in particular that was used as a benchmark was Frozen Time. You shouldn't really notice changes on the vanilla IWAD maps as presumably you were already getting max FPS on them.
Gez
 
 
 
Joined: 06 Jul 2007

PreviousNext

Return to Abandoned/Dead Projects

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest