Randy: Texture/Flat preference ?

[randomlag]

Right, it's not that big a deal, however one can be easily solved and the other (my preference) can not be - just showing another POV

Try out LEGACY and see what you can instantly do with large FLATS. The key is it's easy to have this large contiguous custom floor with very little effort.

I've always wished that the 64x64 default scaling be undone for hi-res FLATs and have some way to control it via a control lump. ANIMDEFS will do. I never brought it up before because it entailed a lot of work. This is no longer true.

So far these extensions can't be just any ole patch though. They must be in the control sections Randy defined earlier. Technically, probably the only extra thing I would use is textures on floors which I think(?) will do what I want. The rest is already so easy to do I probably won't use because of the slowdown in editing when too many graphic resources are active - although the new restriction to external only resources helps a bit.

As far as backward compat, could add one more option, there's enough of those so why not 1 more, hehe.

There are lots of similar questions that crossed my mind that come up such as sprites tend to have odd widths.

[Mighty Duck X-treme]

Try out LEGACY and see what you can instantly do with large FLATS. The key is it's easy to have this large contiguous custom floor with very little effort.

But I 100% agree with pritch on what he said about Legacy, and he's correct

I swear I will never use Legacy again as long as I ever live

[Graf Zahl]

Try out LEGACY and see what you can instantly do with large FLATS. The key is it's easy to have this large contiguous custom floor with very little effort.

But I 100% agree with pritch on what he said about Legacy, and he's correct

I swear I will never use Legacy again as long as I ever live

Me too! I recently found that Legacy was repeatedly screwing up my computer's sound settings. This program is just unacceptable in its current form.

[Graf Zahl]

Try out LEGACY and see what you can instantly do with large FLATS. The key is it's easy to have this large contiguous custom floor with very little effort.

I've always wished that the 64x64 default scaling be undone for hi-res FLATs and have some way to control it via a control lump. ANIMDEFS will do. I never brought it up before because it entailed a lot of work. This is no longer true.

Have you ever tried the following specials:

// Sector_SetCeilingScale (tag, x-int, x-frac, y-int, y-frac)
// Sector_SetFloorScale (tag, x-int, x-frac, y-int, y-frac)

With them it should be easy to use a large flat in its original size.

Your suggestion with the ANIMDEFS lump is good, however. This way the user can control exactly how a flat is supposed to look.

[Kate]

Try out LEGACY and see what you can instantly do with large FLATS. The key is it's easy to have this large contiguous custom floor with very little effort.

But I 100% agree with pritch on what he said about Legacy, and he's correct

I swear I will never use Legacy again as long as I ever live

Destroyer gladly deletes Doom Legacy

She then wonders why she ever downloaded it in the first place...

INSERT BREAK HERE

Your suggestion with the ANIMDEFS lump is good, however. This way the user can control exactly how a flat is supposed to look.

I agree.

[randomlag]

lHave you ever tried the following specials:

// Sector_SetCeilingScale (tag, x-int, x-frac, y-int, y-frac)
// Sector_SetFloorScale (tag, x-int, x-frac, y-int, y-frac)

With them it should be easy to use a large flat in its original size.

Your suggestion with the ANIMDEFS lump is good, however. This way the user can control exactly how a flat is supposed to look.

Yup, been there done that (also in alternate forms) - but having to do that is my little gripe (to emphasize that it's just my own thing here). I have much better things to do for stuff that should just "be there". Hopefully I can pop a texture on a floor in the next release and be done with it - assuming it scales to the large size I want (implied by screen shot shown).

[Sphagne]

You know I have used this scaled down flats in some skyboxes and I find this feature quite useful, now my suggestion:

From now on use patches and textures for any wall texture you want to use and only add and use flat textures if and only if you want to use this scaling down featue.

This would end this arguments.

[randi]

Are you people all arguing about flats being scaled automatically if they are over 64x64? Randomlag, weren't you the one who asked for that in the first place? I would have left their scale alone if you hadn't asked for high-res flats (as opposed to big flats). Nobody objected when it came up on the old phorum, either. And since you can now use wall textures, where you can explicitly specify the scaling, on floors and ceilings, I don't see why this is suddenly a problem now.

[Chris]

Well, having read through this entire thread, I guess I can throw my 2c in.

At first, I never liked the idea that flats automatically resize to 64x64. I figured.. if you create a 128x128 or larger flat then that's the size you'll see it in game, keeping the automatic 1:1 ratio.

However, now that any graphic can be used anywhere(for all intents and purposes), I see it as a nice feature. You want a large flat on the wall and floor/ceiling without hassle? Make it a patch, and you can slap it anywhere you want, and it won't scale by default. You want a graphic to autosize to 64x64? Make it a flat, and put it where you want.

BTW, I think, if it can't be done already, that a flat can be any size, 1x1 and up, including 3x3, 18x18, 71x71,(just take the square root of the flat lump size) and it'll become 64x64. Of course, that's assuming flats can be scaled with decimal precision.

/me drops 2 pennies

[Xaser]

I completely agree with Chris. Flats should be svaled to 64x64, regardless if they're used on walls, floors, and ceilings, and textures should always stay the same, regardless of where it is placed, so if you want a large floor texture, make it a texture and put it wherever you want.

[randomlag]

Are you people all arguing about flats being scaled automatically if they are over 64x64? Randomlag, weren't you the one who asked for that in the first place? I would have left their scale alone if you hadn't asked for high-res flats (as opposed to big flats). Nobody objected when it came up on the old phorum, either. And since you can now use wall textures, where you can explicitly specify the scaling, on floors and ceilings, I don't see why this is suddenly a problem now.

Yes and No. This is roughly what I recall, but if somebody could find the old thread and prove me wrong (haha).

IIRC I wanted hires FLATS to match textures and of course in the absence of any scaling control, that implied it would have to be 64x64. I suggested they could be controlled in a lump (much like sprites using the flatname). The 2nd issue was the amount of work involved (inferred from your prior comments on the 64x64 render code) - so I took the path of least resistance.

But I see this as a point of change. It's pretty common for me to change my mind as new information develops (it's true that most people don't ). What you just did changes the rules quite a bit and made me readdress the issue back to my original thoughts.

It really doesn't matter that much (assuming a large texture will do what I want). The FLAT size will be a point of confusion for Legacy (and maybe some other ports) users.

They'll adjust, but it does make for one more point where levels made for 1 port can't easily be made to work on another port. This incompatibility is something that should be avoided by somebody. If nobody takes the time, then we get further and futher apart in level design methods - which is not a good long term thing for DOOM editing.

[randomlag]

I swear I will never use Legacy again as long as I ever live

All of the port authors put in a huge amount of time for YOU. To fault them on some issue (that may or may not have been their fault), is being short sighted. Report it to the author(s) and see what happens.

I couldn't run ZDOOM 1.22 for over a year because that release totally funked my system in Win98. Everything ran like molasses after running ZDOOM 1.22.

I reported it privately but it wasn't until a public post/thread much later came up reporting the exact same thing that Randy fixed it. Assumedly it was a priority issue in the main code, although I tend to think there that FMOD for sure also contributed since it really messed up my system even after exiting. (Seems most people did not see this problem or didn't realize it?)

That explanation is to to show only it did not discourage me from trying new versions of ZDOOM. Plus it's the nature of coding that ALL ports get into issues at some time or another. That is no reason to slam the door and not keep trying them out.

[Mighty Duck X-treme]

Dude, why don't you get a clue or something... this isn't the Legacy forums -_-

pritch strongly dislikes Legacy because it managed to successfully destroy all of his OpenGL drivers.

pritch is always right! Don't you forget that!

So no matter how much more stable Legacy is going to become in the future, Legacy will always fail it.

End of disscussion.

[randomlag]

The point is that it is totally uncalled for. It has nothing to do with Legacy per se, nor that this is a ZDOOM forum. Let's just say it's a respect issue.

Whether the facts are as stated are debatable (that's from experience in working with users).

In case you missed the point of my post, I had to REBOOT my system everytime I ran ZDOOM 1.22 which is not exactly fun. Yet I persisted.

[HotWax]

/me pins a medal on RandomLag's chest.