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.
User avatar
Alekv
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2015 12:41 am
Location: My world :)

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

Post by Alekv »

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.
D2JK
Posts: 538
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 8:21 am

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

Post by D2JK »

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 all

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

Code: Select all

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?
User avatar
Nash
 
 
Posts: 17342
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 12:07 am
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

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

Post by Nash »

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...
Gez
 
 
Posts: 17719
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:22 pm

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

Post by Gez »

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.
User avatar
Nash
 
 
Posts: 17342
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 12:07 am
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

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

Post by Nash »

That's actually a brilliant idea, how come Randi didn't do that back in the day. :D
User avatar
Caligari87
User Accounts Assistant
Posts: 6000
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 3:02 pm
Preferred Pronouns: He/Him

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

Post by Caligari87 »

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
Rachael
Admin
Posts: 13205
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:31 pm
Preferred Pronouns: She/Her

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

Post by Rachael »

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
Arch-vile90
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 4:39 pm
Location: Italy, the place of pizza

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

Post by Arch-vile90 »

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
Graf Zahl
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Posts: 48520
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 10:19 am
Location: Germany

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

Post by Graf Zahl »

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
ibm5155
Posts: 1268
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:24 pm

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

Post by ibm5155 »

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
NightFright
Spotlight Team
Posts: 1316
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 12:29 pm
Location: Germany

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

Post by NightFright »

I see GZD v3.2 has just been released. Does anyone have a quick overview of the changes compared to v3.1?
User avatar
Rachael
Admin
Posts: 13205
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:31 pm
Preferred Pronouns: She/Her

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

Post by Rachael »

There's a 6-points highlights list right at the top of the release post in enlarged letters right under the downloads.
User avatar
NightFright
Spotlight Team
Posts: 1316
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 12:29 pm
Location: Germany

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

Post by NightFright »

Ah right, that eluded me since I was expecting that in the "changelog" section. ^^ Thanks a lot!
Cromunism
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:49 pm

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

Post by Cromunism »

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?
Gez
 
 
Posts: 17719
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:22 pm

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

Post by Gez »

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.

Return to “Abandoned/Dead Projects”