[Public Beta] Ultimate Simplicity (Episodes 1-4)

Discuss anything ZDoom-related that doesn't fall into one of the other categories.
User avatar
Graf Zahl
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Posts: 49067
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 10:19 am
Location: Germany

Post by Graf Zahl »

Wrong. HUDDEF would be a cheap workaround, not a permanent solution. I can't say how it would look later but I don't want to lock myself to something now that might get in the way later.
User avatar
Posts: 17439
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 12:07 am
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Post by Nash »

All this talk about custom HUDs is good, but I wonder what is AgentSpork actually doing about Simplicity's custom HUD?
User avatar
Posts: 3302
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:31 pm
Location: New Jersey

Post by Zippy »

Lunch again, but I'll answer back to some of the ones that caught my attention the most. And then maybe more later, if I don't pass out from illness first.
HotWax wrote:You need to clarify what you're talking about when you speak of this issue. To me, backwards compatibility is more like what Graf was speaking of -- a feature that has now been deprecated but requires effort to maintain in order to allow older WADs to continue to function unchanged.
Alright, now we're getting somewhere. Yes, I was applying the term quite liberally, and certainly moreso than usual, in an attempt to drive the point across, since as mentioned before, to me it didn't seem to be coming across clearly. All maintainence of current features is a form of backwards compatibility (because as new things are added it should be made sure that old things work properly and with the same behavior), but it most strongly describes deprecated features or features which go unremoved for the purpose of supporting older things. A HUDDEF defined in the way you are suggesting would certainly run into issues of that when something to actually define a better HUD can be put in a HUDDEF. Then things for HUDDEF have to go back and be revisited to make sure it supports that, in addition to your method.
HotWax wrote:<example of how it would work>
Or in other words, it would be LOADACS except a menu gets created and you can toggle the libraries on and off? I'm sorry to be running the opposite way again, but that doesn't seem to be a good solution for the problem. It is far too general just to solve the issue of map authors who force their custom HUDs in. Moreover, that's really already possible. Just include all the custom HUD graphics and scripts in a seperate wad or pk3 and tell users if they want it just to load it with the main map set. If there is nothing in place to force authors to use to place everything in seperate libraries now, there's nothing about a seperate plaintext lump that is going to encourage them to do that either. Such a solution would hardly make a start to a real HUDDEF lump anyway.
HotWax wrote:Yes, a different way. I understand it via a method I like to call "Programming experience." You understand it through the wonders of "Stuff I invented one day while I was visiting the Land of Imagination." Clearly these are separate but equal views.
How interesting! I also understand it though a method called "programming experience." You'll notice we have different programming values though, since it isn't just a single faceted thing. In particular, I think I have a much stronger emphasis on design. The merits and downsides of different programming values can be debated themselves another time, since it's a whole nother whopper of an issue. Regardless, your solution reflects your design values, and my reasonings against it reflect my design values.
HotWax wrote:I can help you with that. It's called Logic. Look it up.
Witty, but it doesn't work like that. As said before, we operate on very different levels, and my idea on what several of the logical responses could be are hardly ever near what you see as a logical response. Like this quote here. Never saw it coming.

DING! Time's up. I'll see if I can check again later, perhaps after taking something for this cold.
User avatar
Posts: 8265
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 8:21 am
Preferred Pronouns: He/Him
Location: WATR HQ

Post by DoomRater »

I'll pass on the issues and just say I fully support Graf working on a permanent solution before a hack. (That's my job.) Hey, I waited years for Just Rail spirals, what's another year down the road for a completely custom HUD?
User avatar
Posts: 3302
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:31 pm
Location: New Jersey

Post by Zippy »

Sooo... Ultimate Simplicity. I finished only Episode 1. So all the thoughts and opinions here will reflect that.

Pretty good stuff. There was never really anything that distracted me or drew me away from the flow of the maps, so I think it's well organized and put together. Definately worth a play through, and I'll get to Episode 2 soon. With that said, the things that stuck out most in my mind (positively or negatively) were:
  • * Excellent use of TITLEMAP. A great example of what can be done with it.
    * It was a little too easy for playing on Ultra-Violence.
    * The end of level effects were also very nice, but
    * The quotes at the level starts could have stayed on a second or two longer, particularly for those levels where you start face to face with some enemies.
    * Maps moved smoothly, and were pretty well paced. It was easy to keep track of where I was and where I needed to go. They were a little bit on the linear side, though.
    * The custom HUD was nice in that it was small and out of the way, but it felt a little lifeless, particularly because of how it was colored. To go along with that, the changed palette didn't do much for me either. The projectiles particularly seemed drab.
No major complaints, so definately good stuff. Looking forward to seeing how Episode 2 will be, and I'll be waiting on a complete Episode 3.

Return to “General”