Obligatory Legacy of Rust/ Nightdive Doom Port thread

If it's not ZDoom, it goes here.
Gez
 
 
Posts: 17937
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:22 pm

Re: Obligatory Legacy of Rust/ Nightdive Doom Port thread

Post by Gez »

yum13241 wrote: Fri Sep 06, 2024 12:24 pm Who got them to agree on the same numbers?
id Software...
yum13241
Posts: 854
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 8:08 pm
Preferred Pronouns: He/Him
Operating System Version (Optional): EndeavorOS (basically Arch)
Graphics Processor: Intel with Vulkan/Metal Support

Re: Obligatory Legacy of Rust/ Nightdive Doom Port thread

Post by yum13241 »

You do realize that in the code, let's take the archvile for example, is referred to as MT_VILE. They had names sitting right in front of them since Linux Doom. They aren't too friendly, but they're a start.

And for port authors too lazy to add negative indices (which is what a negative doomednum is), they'd just turn it into an unsigned short and call it a day, violating the id24 spec. (that should be part of the spec, unironically, lol)

You also didn't address the rest of my post, so it still stands, lol.
SanyaWaffles
Posts: 822
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:21 pm
Preferred Pronouns: They/Them
Operating System Version (Optional): Windows 11 for the Motorola Powerstack II
Graphics Processor: nVidia with Vulkan support
Location: The Corn Fields

Re: Obligatory Legacy of Rust/ Nightdive Doom Port thread

Post by SanyaWaffles »

There is no need for the inflammatory nature of your posts Yum. You can tell how it is without being inflammatory and holier-than-thou-art.

I can't even tell what you're arguing, it's just words for the sake of words.
User avatar
phantombeta
Posts: 2129
Joined: Thu May 02, 2013 1:27 am
Operating System Version (Optional): Windows 10
Graphics Processor: nVidia with Vulkan support
Location: Brazil

Re: Obligatory Legacy of Rust/ Nightdive Doom Port thread

Post by phantombeta »

yum13241 wrote: Fri Sep 06, 2024 9:13 am Ask any programmer if they like negative indices.
Maybe you should stop trying to speak for other people you know nothing about. Any programmer that has problems with negative indices for this purpose doesn't know what they're doing.
These aren't indices into arrays, they're arbitrarily assigned, randomly-spaced keys for hashmaps. And, fun fact, how you store them internally doesn't matter at all. Casting them to unsigned would work just fine- anything with a 1:1 mapping would work, so you could even use strings if you wanted to!
yum13241 wrote: Fri Sep 06, 2024 6:00 am The Master Levels: Am I a joke to you?
It's funny you chose an example that proves my point. The original Master Levels files mostly use MAP01, and the ones that don't are practically random- and they still manage to clash with other levels in the pack!
yum13241 wrote: Fri Sep 06, 2024 6:00 amSeriously, editor numbers being gone is sort of like float-ification of GZDoom. In the latter's case, it had to be done to have actual decimals. In the former's case, 32767 is going to be used up by hack things sooner or later.
I don't think comparing replacing editor numbers to a massive change that made developers leave and caused a minor schism in the community (and arguably nearly killed the port) was the greatest choice you could've made here.
And no, it's not "going to be used up by hack things sooner or later". Gez already thoroughly explained why that's not going to happen, maybe you should listen to him. Particularly considering he's one of the most knowledgeable people in this community.
User avatar
Hellser
Global Moderator
Posts: 2741
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 4:43 pm
Preferred Pronouns: He/Him
Operating System Version (Optional): Manjaro Linux
Graphics Processor: ATI/AMD with Vulkan/Metal Support
Location: Citadel Station

Re: Obligatory Legacy of Rust/ Nightdive Doom Port thread

Post by Hellser »

Yum, take a two week break my man. I've warned you before - you're arguing for the sake of arguing and you did not heed my warning.
User avatar
Redneckerz
Spotlight Team
Posts: 1098
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2019 8:54 am
Graphics Processor: Intel (Modern GZDoom)

Re: Obligatory Legacy of Rust/ Nightdive Doom Port thread

Post by Redneckerz »

Rachael wrote: Fri Sep 06, 2024 1:02 am

With the creator of this spec making posts like this, it's getting so incredibly difficult to take this whole kit and kaboodle seriously whatsoever.
Good thing Goober isn't the only person that worked on this. (Or is working on this, mind you)

Also, there was a far big fanout weeks prior, so i wonder why only now you are joining the party. A lot of your sentiment was already addressed there and i don't think its constructive to enable that again.

In all fairness, i think most of us know how Goober can respond, yes?

And having said that, i prefer waiting for an update.
Rachael wrote: Fri Sep 06, 2024 1:02 am Alienating developers like this is how you lose them, everyone is just going to roll their own solutions and there will be no standards to follow.
The good thing is that anyone can already incorporate ID24 technology since its an open spec. Don't let the author of said spec cloud your judgement and just look at the code instead, with the warning that it is non-final. I am mentioning this because initially people used to go ape-shit on how incomplete this cleanroom implementation was/is.
User avatar
Phredreeke
Posts: 310
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2018 8:14 am

Re: Obligatory Legacy of Rust/ Nightdive Doom Port thread

Post by Phredreeke »

Redneckerz wrote: Sun Sep 08, 2024 11:50 am The good thing is that anyone can already incorporate ID24 technology since its an open spec. Don't let the author of said spec cloud your judgement and just look at the code instead, with the warning that it is non-final. I am mentioning this because initially people used to go ape-shit on how incomplete this cleanroom implementation was/is.
Except there's little incentive for anyone to implement ID24 right now, since there's nothing actually using it (aside from intermission screens and PSX-style skies for Legacy of Rust)
User avatar
Rachael
Posts: 13853
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:31 pm
Preferred Pronouns: She/Her

Re: Obligatory Legacy of Rust/ Nightdive Doom Port thread

Post by Rachael »

Redneckerz wrote: Sun Sep 08, 2024 11:50 am Good thing Goober isn't the only person that worked on this. (Or is working on this, mind you)

Also, there was a far big fanout weeks prior, so i wonder why only now you are joining the party. A lot of your sentiment was already addressed there and i don't think its constructive to enable that again.

In all fairness, i think most of us know how Goober can respond, yes?

And having said that, i prefer waiting for an update.
This isn't some "join the hate train" post. I have legitimate concerns that you so casually and easily dismissed - most notably, that someone is the frontman for a spec that is mostly being pushed as "THE Doom standard" seems to have the social skills of a rampaging drunk and is unable to realize that most of what he wants for that standard is more of a wishlist than a sensible implementation for the ports with the most modified code. Treating other users like that is more revealing of his state of mind than it is about the spec itself, and that is what is so concerning.
Redneckerz wrote: Sun Sep 08, 2024 11:50 am The good thing is that anyone can already incorporate ID24 technology since its an open spec. Don't let the author of said spec cloud your judgement and just look at the code instead, with the warning that it is non-final. I am mentioning this because initially people used to go ape-shit on how incomplete this cleanroom implementation was/is.
Don't go thinking that it's as simple as copy-pasting code from one port to another. It doesn't work that way, especially when you're talking about renderer additions or actor extensions because those are not even remotely the same between the two ports. GZDoom's code is extremely modified to allow more flexibility and features than the original Doom game ever had - and guess what? That's part of what made it so popular to begin with.

Is everything he wants feasible to some extent or other? Yes, everything could be done in GZDoom. Do we have any desire to do it? Most certainly not when a new "wish list" comes out every other week or so - especially when it is things that depend on the limitations of the original Doom engine such as 8-bit rendering.
User avatar
Chris
Posts: 2958
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 12:07 am
Graphics Processor: ATI/AMD with Vulkan/Metal Support

Re: Obligatory Legacy of Rust/ Nightdive Doom Port thread

Post by Chris »

Redneckerz wrote: Sun Sep 08, 2024 11:50 am The good thing is that anyone can already incorporate ID24 technology since its an open spec. Don't let the author of said spec cloud your judgement and just look at the code instead, with the warning that it is non-final.
Reading the code for specification information is terrible. First and foremost, you have licensing issues if developers have to read the code and write their own code based on it. There's a reason clean-room reverse-engineering efforts go to great lengths to avoid reading anything that can be construed as source code for the thing they're reimplementing, utilizing either middle-men who can read the code and write their own interpretation of the public behavior, that the developers then read to implement from scratch (ensuring they never see any source code and are just replicating behavior), or by black-box testing, with the developers writing their own test programs using the public interfaces with various inputs and checking the results, and write their own implementation that behaves the same. Even if you don't directly copy the code, when you're known to have used or had access to it, the onus is on you to prove it's not been copied (in a legal sense) if you don't want to inherit its license. Some companies disallow their employees from looking at code with unacceptable licenses, even if they have no intention of copying it. And according to the Doom Wiki, the code is GPL, which not everyone will want to or can be bound by.

Secondly, reading the code doesn't distinguish between public specifications and internal implementation details. There's no reliable way to distinguish between a bug in the code and intended specification behavior (if there's a signed type that doesn't check for negative, are negative values intended to be supported?). Or when there is an apparent code bug, what the fix should be from a specification perspective (e.g. if there's an integer overflow in the code, is the fix to use a wider integer type to avoid overflow? or restrict the maximum to the largest value that won't overflow? or restrict it to some other "reasonable" lower value?).

Thirdly, isn't it a problem for this to be "non-final"? Being an open spec is great and all, but if things aren't final and are subject to change, what good is it to implement something (let alone create mods using it) if the next day it gets changed in a way that much or most of the work has to be redone from scratch while breaking existing mods relying on the old spec? There has to be a list of things set in stone that can't and won't change. At least until that happens, it's rather pointless for others to implement or use for production purposes.
Professor Hastig
Posts: 256
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2023 2:02 am
Graphics Processor: nVidia (Modern GZDoom)

Re: Obligatory Legacy of Rust/ Nightdive Doom Port thread

Post by Professor Hastig »

I think it is a huge problem if the author of the spec does not even consider differing opinions and openly stating that as long as he and some of his friends are okay with it, it is not going to change.
A spec that doesn't at least acknowledge that not all ports are created equal is never going to work out. Far too much of it makes detailed assumptions about how the underlying engine is supposed to work that goes beyond "implementing Doom".
Gez
 
 
Posts: 17937
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:22 pm

Re: Obligatory Legacy of Rust/ Nightdive Doom Port thread

Post by Gez »

Chris wrote: Mon Sep 09, 2024 12:30 amReading the code for specification information is terrible.
The specs are CC0 documents. They don't come with code except for some data tables and templates in the first draft.

first draft (v0.99.1)
second draft (v0.99.2)
ID24 Formal Specifications is released under CC0 1.0
Chris wrote: Mon Sep 09, 2024 12:30 am Thirdly, isn't it a problem for this to be "non-final"? Being an open spec is great and all, but if things aren't final and are subject to change, what good is it to implement something (let alone create mods using it) if the next day it gets changed in a way that much or most of the work has to be redone from scratch while breaking existing mods relying on the old spec? There has to be a list of things set in stone that can't and won't change. At least until that happens, it's rather pointless for others to implement or use for production purposes.
Yeah, the aim with the specs being a draft is that it's supposed to allow for some changes before things are final. Including changes from feedback. Indeed there's no hurry to implement things as they are now; even in the official port support is not complete yet, best proof being Legacy of Rust using MBF21 for its actors and weapons that are supposed to be built-in with ID24.
User avatar
Rachael
Posts: 13853
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:31 pm
Preferred Pronouns: She/Her

Re: Obligatory Legacy of Rust/ Nightdive Doom Port thread

Post by Rachael »

Gez wrote: Mon Sep 09, 2024 2:26 am Yeah, the aim with the specs being a draft is that it's supposed to allow for some changes before things are final. Including changes from feedback. Indeed there's no hurry to implement things as they are now; even in the official port support is not complete yet, best proof being Legacy of Rust using MBF21 for its actors and weapons that are supposed to be built-in with ID24.
That is all well and good and all, but it doesn't take into consideration how hostile both he and the Doomworld community have been to people who have concerns or don't want to do the things outlined in the spec. The banning of kraflab, especially, has had a chilling effect on the discussion in question - anyone with an ounce of self-preservation is thinking twice now before speaking up. And if they do, it's so incredibly easy to dismiss them and their concerns, no matter how legitimate their concerns may be.

This isn't how you develop a spec. This is how you develop a cult of personality - an ongoing issue Doomworld couldn't distance itself one micrometer away from if its life depended on it. And as long as discussion remains in such an environment, no constructive or positive discussion can come out of that which would benefit it or improve its chances of being implemented elsewhere.

I'm sorry but with the way things stand currently, ID24 is dead on arrival. If things significantly change for the better, if somehow GooberMan suddenly became more receptive to people's concerns, listened carefully, and made more careful consideration such as consulting other devs for new ideas before just throwing them on the spec sheet - this would be a non-issue. There would be no problem here. But that's not what we have. No cooperation means no cooperation back - you can't force other devs to do what you want. And the inevitable calling us out for refusing to play ball (I haven't seen it yet, but rest assured if it hasn't happened yet it's definitely coming) definitely won't help them get what they want either.
User avatar
Redneckerz
Spotlight Team
Posts: 1098
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2019 8:54 am
Graphics Processor: Intel (Modern GZDoom)

Re: Obligatory Legacy of Rust/ Nightdive Doom Port thread

Post by Redneckerz »

Its been a while since i got multiple notifications. Am i that bang out of order with what i said?
Phredreeke wrote: Sun Sep 08, 2024 3:12 pm Except there's little incentive for anyone to implement ID24 right now, since there's nothing actually using it (aside from intermission screens and PSX-style skies for Legacy of Rust)
The upside is that its that its part of id software's suite, so unless the entire community does a big no on this (which ironically would be against the entire design goal of said spec, which is to unify everyone under a single standard from which others can build upon - That's really the gist of it, anyway -) then somewhere down the line this will see support.
Rachael wrote: Sun Sep 08, 2024 5:00 pm This isn't some "join the hate train" post. I have legitimate concerns that you so casually and easily dismissed
I am not casually dismissing it, what i am saying is that we had this talk a month ago. The fact you bring the banning of Kraflab into this as a point of contention is - again - something that happened a month ago. I am sorry, i understand you aren't joining a train, but the points you make make it eerily sound like you do.

Also - The spec was released in a unfinished state. That alone should be a clear indication of one's intentions.
Rachael wrote: Sun Sep 08, 2024 5:00 pm - most notably, that someone is the frontman for a spec that is mostly being pushed as "THE Doom standard" seems to have the social skills of a rampaging drunk and is unable to realize that most of what he wants for that standard is more of a wishlist than a sensible implementation for the ports with the most modified code. Treating other users like that is more revealing of his state of mind than it is about the spec itself, and that is what is so concerning.
Alright, then we just let Xaser do the talking. Its not like Gooberman (On Discord atleast) hasn't admitted that he has a tendency to run his mouth, so..

It isn't a one man show.
Rachael wrote: Sun Sep 08, 2024 5:00 pm Don't go thinking that it's as simple as copy-pasting code from one port to another. It doesn't work that way, especially when you're talking about renderer additions or actor extensions because those are not even remotely the same between the two ports. GZDoom's code is extremely modified to allow more flexibility and features than the original Doom game ever had - and guess what? That's part of what made it so popular to begin with.

Is everything he wants feasible to some extent or other? Yes, everything could be done in GZDoom. Do we have any desire to do it? Most certainly not when a new "wish list" comes out every other week or so - especially when it is things that depend on the limitations of the original Doom engine such as 8-bit rendering.
To be fair - I do not think a lot of what the ID24 spec describes works for GZDoom. I mean, per-sector colormaps, to name one. GZ doesn't really have a need for a lot of the technical implementations, so i don't think it holds a horse in this race.
Chris wrote: Mon Sep 09, 2024 12:30 am Reading the code for specification information is terrible. First and foremost, you have licensing issues if developers have to read the code and write their own code based on it.
I should rephrase because i mentioned code but what i mean't was just the documentation describing the spec. Anyone can use that to implement ID24 compliancy, the idea being that if you are ID24 compliant, you are also DSDHacked/DEHExtra and below compliant, but which also allows being compatible with KeXDoom. This also goes for point 2.
Chris wrote: Mon Sep 09, 2024 12:30 am Thirdly, isn't it a problem for this to be "non-final"? Being an open spec is great and all, but if things aren't final and are subject to change, what good is it to implement something (let alone create mods using it) if the next day it gets changed in a way that much or most of the work has to be redone from scratch while breaking existing mods relying on the old spec? There has to be a list of things set in stone that can't and won't change. At least until that happens, it's rather pointless for others to implement or use for production purposes.
It is a problem indeed. A lot of the spec as it stands is either vague, open to interpretation, or simply doesn't account for the implications it sets. I understand the motivation was to release the spec early as to get A: people excited for it and B: to show the community they weren't here to bullshit people. I think in hindsight, considering the amount of questions raised, it would have been better if they kept the spec under wraps until 1.0 was reached. As it stands, the ID24 spec raises more questions than it answers them.

And to be frank, i hope a proper update is out there soon. I don't really want Goober adressing the crowd on questions raised - I want the spec to be finalized. Then, and only then, should judgement pass.
User avatar
Rachael
Posts: 13853
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:31 pm
Preferred Pronouns: She/Her

Re: Obligatory Legacy of Rust/ Nightdive Doom Port thread

Post by Rachael »

Redneckerz wrote: Mon Sep 09, 2024 5:27 am And to be frank, i hope a proper update is out there soon. I don't really want Goober adressing the crowd on questions raised - I want the spec to be finalized. Then, and only then, should judgement pass.
Unfortunately, Gez raises an excellent counter-point to that, which is something I already addressed in my earlier post.

The spec being "final" isn't the time to raise your concerns. It needs to be before that. It's not as much "judgment" as it is "this won't work".
Redneckerz wrote: Mon Sep 09, 2024 5:27 am I am not casually dismissing it, what i am saying is that we had this talk a month ago. The fact you bring the banning of Kraflab into this as a point of contention is - again - something that happened a month ago. I am sorry, i understand you aren't joining a train, but the points you make make it eerily sound like you do.
And why would that be? Because I want an open and honest conversation about this spec? Because I want there to be a chance that it could actually be taken as seriously as it purports itself to be? Because I have an issue with the way the conversation has been handled thus far, both by Gooberman and by the Doomworld staff? God forbid someone gets a little passionate about it - no, clearly not just a spurt of anger that will pass that could've just been handled with a simple cooling off period. I'm sorry I didn't meet your arbitrary "statutory limit" for being angry about that stuff. It's not like I have a browser page open to Doomworld and I refresh it every 2 seconds.
Redneckerz wrote: Mon Sep 09, 2024 5:27 am Alright, then we just let Xaser do the talking. Its not like Gooberman (On Discord atleast) hasn't admitted that he has a tendency to run his mouth, so..

It isn't a one man show.
Xaser is not the one doing most of the coding. Xaser also isn't the one running his mouth and getting the whole thing into trouble. And as far as I can tell Xaser also isn't the one proposing ridiculous ideas that aren't expansion-friendly or forward thinking.
User avatar
Redneckerz
Spotlight Team
Posts: 1098
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2019 8:54 am
Graphics Processor: Intel (Modern GZDoom)

Re: Obligatory Legacy of Rust/ Nightdive Doom Port thread

Post by Redneckerz »

Rachael wrote: Mon Sep 09, 2024 5:43 am Unfortunately, Gez raises an excellent counter-point to that, which is something I already addressed in my earlier post.

The spec being "final" isn't the time to raise your concerns. It needs to be before that. It's not as much "judgment" as it is "this won't work".
Alright, well i hope you will be listened at.
Rachael wrote: Mon Sep 09, 2024 5:43 am And why would that be? Because I want an open and honest conversation about this spec? Because I want there to be a chance that it could actually be taken as seriously as it purports itself to be? Because I have an issue with the way the conversation has been handled thus far, both by Gooberman and by the Doomworld staff? God forbid someone gets a little passionate about it - no, clearly not just a spurt of anger that will pass that could've just been handled with a simple cooling off period. I'm sorry I didn't meet your arbitrary "statutory limit" for being angry about that stuff. It's not like I have a browser page open to Doomworld and I refresh it every 2 seconds.
No need to get raunchy, but if you want any actual conversation, perhaps Goober should join in? Or perhaps you can respond at the DW thread about it?
Rachael wrote: Mon Sep 09, 2024 5:43 am Xaser is not the one doing most of the coding. Xaser also isn't the one running his mouth and getting the whole thing into trouble. And as far as I can tell Xaser also isn't the one proposing ridiculous ideas that aren't expansion-friendly or forward thinking.
No, but Xaser is the one that has the more reasonable takes about ID24 if you don't want to take it to Goober because of the reasons you stipulated.

Return to “Off-Topic”