Doomsday and ZIPs

Deathsong12 · Post by **Deathsong12** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 12:55 am

As an end user and an editor, I'd like to contribute my two pence to this debate. I've used both ports as my primary port for some time. To be honest, matters like how model support and ZIP's in place of WAD's work were very low on my list of concerns when I decided which port to use. When I looked at (G)ZDoom, I saw a bunch of solid and powerful editing features (and the ability to use WAD's that utilized those features), namely: DECORATE, Strife support, ACS, Hexen map format, and (later) logical 3D floors. As a Doom editor with no knowledge of modeling, jDoom looked a lot like pretty Boom, and I was no longer interested in playing Boom. I think that both ports would be better off If they focused on providing the means to create and consume more innovative and fresh maps and modifactions, instead of just put a new coat of paint on the same old Boom. Since GZDoom seems to be doing this better, I'll continue to use GZDoom. In my humble opinion, the port that is better able to counter the "I'm sick of Doom, I've been playing it for ten years" syndrome will last longer and be more popular.

DaniJ · Post by **DaniJ** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:46 am

The comments you made regarding editing features are off topic but I'll offer a rebuttal anyway.

As you pointed out - there is a clear difference in the two projects' goals, ideals and the intended user base.

Doomsday is, first and foremost - all about providing a common platform to play ANY 2.5d FPS in a modern environment, on any OS with the option of improving the experience both graphicaly and sonicaly. Thus it is aimed at users who enjoy playing the original games but want to do so with better graphics, sounds, usability features etc.

ZDoom is all about adding new editing features so that mod authors can create new mods that offer different gameplay than the stock games. Thus it will appeal most to players who are "sick of Doom" (but why the hell are you still playing Doom if you're bored of it?).

Sure, editing features are "in the pipeline" as far as Doomsday is concerned but currently they are not the port's primary concern.

The ultimate goal is to provide a platform for which ANY 2.5d FPS can be ported to run under with so little effort that it becomes almost trivial. In 1.9.0 we will have reached a point where pretty much the ONLY code in the game dll's is game-specific (ie game logic and AI routines). At which point we'll then look at adding a full scripting system.

In the process of reaching these goals we constantly improve existing subsystems to a point where they become highly customiseable - these then become editing features.

The two ports are pretty much headed towards the same end but they are taking VERY different routes to get there.

Jim · Post by **Jim** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 12:49 pm

DaniJ wrote: Doomsday is, first and foremost - all about providing a common platform to play ANY 2.5d FPS in a modern environment, on any OS with the option of improving the experience both graphicaly and sonicaly.

Doomsday could not correctly render the dynamic aspects of Build engine games without rewriting the engine.

DaniJ · Post by **DaniJ** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 1:20 pm

Doomsday could not correctly render the dynamic aspects of Build engine games without rewriting the engine.

Not completely true but obviously changes WILL have to be made.

As I said - that is the port's goal. I didn't say we had gotten there yet. The first stage is to get all non-game-specific code into the engine so that the games can then be reduced to little more than a collection of scripts and defintions

Post by **Nash** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 1:51 pm

Thus it will appeal most to players who are "sick of Doom" (but why the hell are you still playing Doom if you're bored of it?).

Because Doom is easy to edit. ZDoom makes it more interesting because it provides features that aren't available in Vanilla Doom, but at the same time maintaining ease of editing.

I've tried Quake and Half-Life but wasn't able to make whatever I wanted to because the learning curve was quite high for me.

Plus, Doom's engine is very fast. You don't really see any more FPS games that put the player against hundreds of monsters in a single room, whle still maintaining a high speed.

Post by **Nash** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:03 pm

Regarding your argument... I'm sorry Dani, but speaking as a Doom modder, I think your way of doings things seem a little bit over complicated, as Enjay has stated a few posts back.

I've tried several versions of Doomsday, and I wasn't attracted by any of them at all (as far as editing and custom content creation goes). I find myself crawling back to ZDoom, and now, GZDoom.

And now that Graf says he is going to implement working with files and folders directly, I believe that I already have the ultimate Doom source port to make my little Doom mods in. Workflow will be a million times faster once that's in.

Doomsday probably already supports that so it may not sound like a big deal to you, but then again, as I said above, I wasn't impressed with what I can do with Doomsday.

Though Doomsday does look better, and the model support is better, but I'm sure that will all change for GZDoom really soon since ZDoom 2.0 is nearing release...

DaniJ · Post by **DaniJ** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:21 pm

What makes me laugh is that all the features you say you are apparently "unimpressed" with in Doomsday - are the SAME ones you are waiting for so eagerly in GZDoom.

Your argument is not logical.

Regarding your argument... I'm sorry Dani, but speaking as a Doom modder, I think your way of doings things seem a little bit over complicated, as Enjay has stated a few posts back.

Which "way of doing things" are you refering to?

Post by **Nash** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:38 pm

Which "way of doing things" are you refering to?

The virtual file system thing you are arguing with Graf about.

What makes me laugh is that all the features you say you are apparently "unimpressed" with in Doomsday - are the SAME ones you are waiting for so eagerly in GZDoom.

Working directly with files? That's about it. Doomsday doesn't have slopes and ACS, which I use a lot.

DaniJ · Post by **DaniJ** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 3:11 pm

The virtual file system thing you are arguing with Graf about.

As I've pointed out through the course of this thread, it's something you don't really need to concern yourself with since the hard work is done by Doomsday.

All you need to do is to design the file structure to best suit your mod and how you intend to distribute it.

Post by **Bio Hazard** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 3:28 pm

Oh come on you guys. Stop arguing.

DiniJ: If you want to pimp your port, do it on your own forum. You can't expect fans of ZDoom to kiss your feet for a product less advanced. Go bother the Legacy people.

Post by **Caligari87** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 3:45 pm

My thoughts exactly; see other thread.

DaniJ · Post by **DaniJ** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 4:55 pm

DiniJ: If you want to pimp your port, do it on your own forum. You can't expect fans of ZDoom to kiss your feet for a product less advanced. Go bother the Legacy people

You guys are nuts. When have I been pimping Doomsday?

You'll notice that I haven't ONCE done so. Instead all I have done is to correct users' misconceptions about Doomsday. I'm only telling things like they are and if that makes another port look bad - I can't help that.

This thread was a good useful discussion between myself and Graf - covering the differences between the two port's implementation and design philosophies. At times, heated discussion but a discussion none the less.

That is why I came to this forum in the first place, since other port authors rarely frequent the Doomsday forums.

If it's going to start any trouble - I'll leave. Its the last thing I wanted to achieve by coming here.

Post by **Caligari87** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 5:04 pm

The problem lies in the fact that you pointed out where it made GZDoom look bad. Now, if I had read your posts and simply thought "GZDoom can't do that," it would have been my own decision. Instead, you made note of what GZDoom couldn't do, which equates to passive bashing, and by extension, pimping your own port.

Thank you for clearing up some things. However, this is the issue: You said:

"Doomsday can do [X]. GZDoom can't do [X]." That's bashing and pimping. You could have said:

"Doomsday can do [X]." Then maybe add... "And it does [X] well." Still pimping a bit, but you left someone else's work out of it.

Basically, just answer questions, don't try to slant the argument. End.

EDIT: I'm just talking about what I've seen. I haven't read the entire thread because they go over my head at times, but this is the impression I've gotten.

DaniJ · Post by **DaniJ** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 5:10 pm

The problem lies in the fact that you pointed out where it made GZDoom look bad. Now, if I had read your posts and simply thought "GZDoom can't do that," it would have been my own decision. Instead, you made note of what GZDoom couldn't do, which equates to passive bashing, and by extension, pimping your own port.

Pointing out the flaws in something isn't bashing, by definition, in my book. It depends on how the points are raised.

I think you are loosing sight of the context of this discussion. It was raised deliberately to compare the merits of the two ports in these areas. Therefore direct comparison is both inevitable and completely necessary.

Through the course of this thread, both Graf and myself "gave as good as we got" while still maintaining a useful, productive discussion. So I don't see an issue.

Post by **Enjay** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 5:12 pm

One thing I'm trying to work out from the discussion, is DaniJ saying that he wants to see maps split up into their component lumps in a zip/virtual file system, with separate files for things, lindefs, sidedefs, vertexes, segs, ssectors... in preference to keeping them together as a WAD? If so, why? When would people need those lumps as separate entities?