Extended nodes

[David Ferstat]

I'm sorry, but I still think that we have a problem with "cross-port" compatibility.

As I see it, a wad is more than just the architecture. In Zdoom, the wad can contain a number of lumps which are, as I understand them, either unique to Zdoom, or unique in their implementation in Zdoom, such as DECALDEF, DECORATE, KEYCONF, MAPINFO, SCRIPTS, SNDSEQ, TERRAIN, BEHAVIOUR and DEHSUPP. Therefore, until and unless Vavoom, Legacy, Edge et al start to support these lumps, the only port that the people who use these lumps can write for is Zdoom.

Node format compatibility is, theoretically, all well and good, but it's quite useless unless there's lump compatibility also.

[Graf Zahl]

Exactly. And seen from the other side, Doomsday has DED and EDGE has DDF which makes WADS using them also incompatible with other ports. 'Cross-port compatibility' is a nice phrase to throw around but in the end it means nothing, especially considering that ZDoom has reached a point where it makes sense to think about a new map format because the old one can't be extended any further. And if that happens you can throw compatibility out of the window unless the other port developers support it as well - which probably won't happen because with their feature set a new format doesn't make sense.

[Your Name Is]

Will it be built the same way, and not like the HL level builder? Thats what I am wondering.

[Chris]

I'm sorry, but I still think that we have a problem with "cross-port" compatibility.

As I see it, a wad is more than just the architecture. In Zdoom, the wad can contain a number of lumps which are, as I understand them, either unique to Zdoom, or unique in their implementation in Zdoom, such as DECALDEF, DECORATE, KEYCONF, MAPINFO, SCRIPTS, SNDSEQ, TERRAIN, BEHAVIOUR and DEHSUPP. Therefore, until and unless Vavoom, Legacy, Edge et al start to support these lumps, the only port that the people who use these lumps can write for is Zdoom.

But this goes with the argument that you can't just say "If you want cross-platform compatibility, make ports ZDoom-compatible." While those things are nice for ZDoom, it's impractacle to expect other ports to copy their behavior 100%. MAPINFO should be fairly easy to support (at a basic level), but even the BEHAVIOR/SCRIPTS lump places prerequisites on the underlying engine.

THings like this need to be done one step at a time. The way I understood it, Randomlag has already been told that port authors would support this if other port authors agree.

[David Ferstat]

I'm sorry, but I still think that we have a problem with "cross-port" compatibility.

As I see it, a wad is more than just the architecture. In Zdoom, the wad can contain a number of lumps which are, as I understand them, either unique to Zdoom, or unique in their implementation in Zdoom, such as DECALDEF, DECORATE, KEYCONF, MAPINFO, SCRIPTS, SNDSEQ, TERRAIN, BEHAVIOUR and DEHSUPP. Therefore, until and unless Vavoom, Legacy, Edge et al start to support these lumps, the only port that the people who use these lumps can write for is Zdoom.

But this goes with the argument that you can't just say "If you want cross-platform compatibility, make ports ZDoom-compatible." While those things are nice for ZDoom, it's impractacle to expect other ports to copy their behavior 100%. MAPINFO should be fairly easy to support (at a basic level), but even the BEHAVIOR/SCRIPTS lump places prerequisites on the underlying engine.

THings like this need to be done one step at a time. The way I understood it, Randomlag has already been told that port authors would support this if other port authors agree.

Zdoom is just an example.

I'm not saying only "make ports ZDoom-compatible". I'm saying that, for cross-port compatibility, all ports must be Zdoom-, Vavoom-, Edge- and Legacy-compatible (plus whatever other ports are out there).

Without an in-principle agreement by the port authors to work towards cross-port support (which would, logically extended, lead to one uber-port, something that I'm not sure is achievable, let alone necessary or desirable) I just don't see it happening.

I'm sorry, but I think that it's a pipe-dream.

[Chris]

I'm not saying only "make ports ZDoom-compatible". I'm saying that, for cross-port compatibility, all ports must be Zdoom-, Vavoom-, Edge- and Legacy-compatible (plus whatever other ports are out there).

Not really. Think of it how Boom was to ZDoom. Boom had some improvements over the original Doom engine, but ZDoom had those improvements and more. The way it'd work here is that the different ports would have some agreement on how certain features are implemented, so levels using those features would work across different ports. Will that allow all ports play all wads? No, the different ports would still have their own extensions as they're made and worked upon (and hopefully eventually agreed upon so they're set as "standard"), but they would have a common subset that, if a wad-designer chose to do so, could allow wads to be made with more features and be able to run on multiple ports.

[Graf Zahl]

Some ports haven't even managed to implement Boom so where would you start?

I think there is no chance that there will ever be a larger subset of features that will be supported across ports. If you want more you have to choose between the stuff that exists right now And there is:

ACS: This has the best chance of gaining acceptance even though Eternity went out of its way not to do it so there is at least one port which is out of the picture. And to get a decent ACS implementation you have to use ZDoom's. The only alternative is Hexen's original but that's far too limited in every respect. But so far Vavoom is the only port which did it partially.

FraggleScript: Better forget about it. The implementation is a complete nightmare and it's amazing that it works at all! There is also only one active port which supports it so it is out as well.

3D-floors: To make it work properly in software mode is not easy. Even Legacy doesn't have decent support for it and the other ports which have it (EDGE and VAVOOM) are not the best choices if you look for good backwards compatibility.

Slopes: This has probably the best chance. But so far there are 2 different implementations (ZDoom and Vavoom) which are incompatible in how they define slopes in the map (although these could be combined.)

Custom actors: So far there is: DECORATE, DDF and to a limited extent DED. 3 implementations which are mutually exclusive so no chance of combining them.

In short: As nice as it were to get a unified set of features it will never happen because someone had to give up his own stuff.

[TheDarkArchon]

You're forggeting VaVoom C under the custom actors.

(Even though it's a Nightmare™ to use.)

[/picky]

[Graf Zahl]

Well, I don't consider VavoomC an editing feature. What's the point if you have to recompile the entire game code just to add a new monster? In the end that's as limiting as putting a modified ZDoom 2.0.63a in your Zip-file because it cuts you off from any future bug fixes.

VavoomC would be great if it was more modular.

[randomlag]

Grow up Graf. Perhaps too many female hormones - let's just say you talk like a woman Satisfied now

Give me a list.

LOL. I gave a list you are just too lazy to look. The issue is quantity, not quality. Seems simple enough to understand. Beginners and most level designers do not script. All they want is make a few levels and get some fun from them. That's the way it's always been. Whether they make stuff you like I never asked nor care. Your argument is non sequitur as it typical with how you argue. You never stick on topic when you don't have facts.

No, you opened your statement with telling your negative opinion about ZDoom's compressed node format.

It's your own thin gender skin that's getting in a twit here. Imagine somebody describing how one format worked and then proposing an alternative. The HORROR of it all.

Somehow it's ok if Graf explicitly says something "sucks" in a port (and you do that a LOT), but heaven forbid somebody give an alternative that is much simpler, accomplishes exactly the same thing and is accepted by the port community.

But more importantly you avoided my main point: Why didn't someone have the common courtesy to discuss this with other port authors? It affects ALL ports.

And to David/et al: This isn't the same thing as port "features". It's actually very similar to changing the level format - just one step removed. IOW, a port can crash vs a port not supporting features - a significant difference.

Anyway, why should the format be dumped - just because it goes against your beliefs?

OK Graf, where did I say it should be dumped? Again your negative attitude towards anything you don't comprehend is kicking in. Actually I'm saying that ZDOOM support the "other extended" format. I don't expect an apology

It's simple: you were and are amazed that the other port authors were more willing to accept the simpler format. It is quite telling that you refuse to acknowledge that little detail. So ALL the other port authors are wrong in wanting a simpler format including no less the author of GLBSP?

It's disappointing that you don't understand some simple things about cooperation and a complete lack of vision as to what would help the whole set of DOOM ports. It's the combined ports that make a community much bigger than ZDOOM. If only ZDOOM existed, I don't think you'd have the same sort of community there is now.

If your 'statements' were simple and made sense I'd accept them. [

LOL - you are so apt at describing yourself again [in fact this is a prime example of hormone graf]. Truth be told, I can't stand the speeches of females - happy again? What I said is quite simple: an alternative extended format support that the communitys supports - can't get any simpler than that. OTOH you have not really made any objective statements, but instead resort to exactly word for word flames each and every time. No imagination at all. I feel sorry for you.

Remember, I said the SIMPLE cases!

Sure Graf. As always another excuse to cover your tracks [and avoiding my "precision" vs "has to work" example. Just remember to never admit your were wrong and never concede a factual point.

Who cares about simple cases? It's not at all about "self referencing" at all. Again you are guessing vs asking me what is the real problem. The issue many times revolves around simple accidental level mistakes [you'll have to guess what they are - hint DV].

There are no 'cross port standards'.

LOL - yes there are, you just can't see the trees because your are looking at the forest. The nominal "cross port standards" that exist are:

1. The level formats.
2. The supporting format (nodes).
3. The BOOM stuff (almost all active ports support these special lumps)

Hence as some here realize, this is but 1 small effort to keep those together. It is not meant to address the way ports "do things". Don't expect to be able to change that at all. I do support other ZDOOM lumps and how they are done. For example DECORATE [although a bit too complicated] and MAPINFO. These should be standardized too in the "other" ports. Why? So level authors don't have to remember a completely different set of rules. I post and get into discussions about keeping these similar too - the ZDOOM way - for exactly the same reasons.

From looking at Randy's pictures the rendering principles seem to be close enough to the software renderer. And at least Randy believes that it should work. We'll see.

Don't think so. Hint: Do you know why JDOOM is known as "Sky Jake"?

Conclusion:

It's not about the ports, it's about people who create levels. The more things are the same, the easier it is for them to have fun.

[TheDarkArchon]

Grow up Graf. Perhaps too many female hormones - let's just say you talk like a woman Satisfied now

And you use lame insults like a 4 year old. Satisfied?

From looking at Randy's pictures the rendering principles seem to be close enough to the software renderer. And at least Randy believes that it should work. We'll see.

Don't think so. Hint: Do you know why JDOOM is known as "Sky Jake"?

How will you know it won't work, smartass?

Conclusion:

It's not about the ports, it's about people who create levels. The more things are the same, the easier it is for them to have fun.

And make it easier to market DeepBSP. OOPS!!! I'VE SAID TOO MUCH.

[David Ferstat]

Grow up Graf. Perhaps too many female hormones - let's just say you talk like a woman Satisfied now
....

I'm very disappointed in you, Randomlag. I've gone in to bat for you before now, against Hotwax, Graf Zahl and even Randy, because I thought that, contrary to what your detractors said, you were actually a mature person trying to benefit the Doom/Zdoom community. This certainly shakes my faith in you. It's extremely immature of you to descend to this kind of childish insult, and you owe Graf Zahl, this forum, and yourself an apology.

OK Graf, where did I say it should be dumped? Again your negative attitude towards anything you don't comprehend is kicking in. Actually I'm saying that ZDOOM support the "other extended" format. I don't expect an apology

Sadly, neither do we.

...

There are no 'cross port standards'.

LOL - yes there are, you just can't see the trees because your are looking at the forest. The nominal "cross port standards" that exist are:

1. The level formats.
2. The supporting format (nodes).
3. The BOOM stuff (almost all active ports support these special lumps)

Unfortunately, this is not enough for cross-port compatibilty. It's simply not enough to require a port to support a particular method of recording the architecture, which is what you're talking about with the three points above. You must also include support for the other lumps. Without this support, it doesn't matter if the port can read the architecture, because all the other data would be ignored anyway, which leaves you back where you started.

If Edge, or Legacy, or Vavoom can read the architecture in a Zdoom wad, it's still pointless if the port can't also load the decorate, or script, or behaviour lumps, to list just three of them.

... It's not about the ports, it's about people who create levels...

But it's the people who create the ports that decide what happens here. Unless you can convince them that there is an overwhelming advantage, to both the ports and the community, in converging the ports (because, let's face it, this is the logical extension of this proposal) then they're simply not going to put in what is, when you look at the whole picture, an awful lot of work.

[TheDarkArchon]

If Edge, or Legacy, or Vavoom can read the architecture in a Zdoom wad, it's still pointless if the port can't also load the decorate, or script, or behaviour lumps, to list just three of them.

Likewise, Zdoom can read EDGE/Legacy/VaVoom maps but would still break the map by being unable to read DDF/FraggleScript/VaVoom C(Sic).

[Graf Zahl]

Grow up Graf. Perhaps too many female hormones - let's just say you talk like a woman Satisfied now

Give me a list.

Finally you show your true face. You are an idiot. I think many people here agree with that.

And from someone like you I don't take rude insults like this. Now shut the fuck up, please! And frankly I have more than enough from your supremely arrogant smart-ass attitude.

LOL. I gave a list you are just too lazy to look. The issue is quantity, not quality. Seems simple enough to understand. Beginners and most level designers do not script. All they want is make a few levels and get some fun from them. That's the way it's always been. Whether they make stuff you like I never asked nor care. Your argument is non sequitur as it typical with how you argue. You never stick on topic when you don't have facts.

So you fold. Great!

No, you opened your statement with telling your negative opinion about ZDoom's compressed node format.

It's your own thin gender skin that's getting in a twit here. Imagine somebody describing how one format worked and then proposing an alternative. The HORROR of it all.

Hear the politician blabbering. It's the tone that made everyone's decision go your way. But admitting to that is impossible,

Somehow it's ok if Graf explicitly says something "sucks" in a port (and you do that a LOT), but heaven forbid somebody give an alternative that is much simpler, accomplishes exactly the same thing and is accepted by the port community.

The thing that sucks most in the Doom community is your presence. Anyway, I reserve the right to criticise things I don't like. And there's a lot to criticise about certain source ports - and I don't exclude ZDoom here.



And to David/et al: This isn't the same thing as port "features". It's actually very similar to changing the level format - just one step removed. IOW, a port can crash vs a port not supporting features - a significant difference.

Anyway, why should the format be dumped - just because it goes against your beliefs?

OK Graf, where did I say it should be dumped? Again your negative attitude towards anything you don't comprehend is kicking in. Actually I'm saying that ZDOOM support the "other extended" format. I don't expect an apology
[/quote]

Beware of sarcasm. Apparently some people can't detect it...

It's simple: you were and are amazed that the other port authors were more willing to accept the simpler format. It is quite telling that you refuse to acknowledge that little detail. So ALL the other port authors are wrong in wanting a simpler format including no less the author of GLBSP?

Yes, after you spoon-fed it to them in a way that they had to. Not once you went into details to describe what ZDoom's format is doing. Instead you
started like 'It's compressed but you don't want that because it's too complicated, right?' I have said several times that you intentionally steered all of them in the direction you wanted and not even once mentioned that even though it is compressed it is quite easy to handle.

It's disappointing that you don't understand some simple things about cooperation and a complete lack of vision as to what would help the whole set of DOOM ports. It's the combined ports that make a community much bigger than ZDOOM. If only ZDOOM existed, I don't think you'd have the same sort of community there is now.

I understand the simple things very well, most importantly your primary agenda as an author of a Doom editor and a node builder. You are in a position that hardly qualifies for any objectivity.

If your 'statements' were simple and made sense I'd accept them. [

LOL - you are so apt at describing yourself again [in fact this is a prime example of hormone graf]. Truth be told, I can't stand the speeches of females - happy again? What I said is quite simple: an alternative extended format support that the communitys supports - can't get any simpler than that. OTOH you have not really made any objective statements, but instead resort to exactly word for word flames each and every time. No imagination at all. I feel sorry for you.

Same to you! But your flamethrower is much bigger than mine and your arrogance towers the entire Doom community. You present yourself as the all-knowing God of Doom knowledge and are unwilling to accept anything that might jeopardize that position.

Remember, I said the SIMPLE cases!

Sure Graf. As always another excuse to cover your tracks [and avoiding my "precision" vs "has to work" example. Just remember to never admit your were wrong and never concede a factual point.

Yeah, yeah. Again the arrogance in that statement is staggering. Read my first post about this and you see that you are wrong. The only factual point is that you, the Great God of Doom Knowledge must not be proven wrong and to ensure that you resort to petty insults. You are utterly pathetic.

Who cares about simple cases? It's not at all about "self referencing" at all. Again you are guessing vs asking me what is the real problem. The issue many times revolves around simple accidental level mistakes [you'll have to guess what they are - hint DV].

They are the stuff that makes a level look weird. But IMO it is much more important to properly support the known rendering tricks than map errors. If the mapper isn't careful he should not complain when some source port doesn't handle it properly.

There are no 'cross port standards'.

LOL - yes there are, you just can't see the trees because your are looking at the forest. The nominal "cross port standards" that exist are:

1. The level formats.
2. The supporting format (nodes).
3. The BOOM stuff (almost all active ports support these special lumps)

Hence as some here realize, this is but 1 small effort to keep those together.

Why? Just so that you don't have to bother with even more variety? Face it, Sooner or later some source port will define something new because the level format as it is is far too limited for further extension. ZDoom already has to resort to some crappy workarounds because of it.

From looking at Randy's pictures the rendering principles seem to be close enough to the software renderer. And at least Randy believes that it should work. We'll see.

Don't think so. Hint: Do you know why JDOOM is known as "Sky Jake"?

So you dismiss it right from the start. That's really mature. Have you actually tried to make it work?

Conclusion:

It's not about the ports, it's about people who create levels. The more things are the same, the easier it is for them to have fun.

[/quote]

Conclusion: It's not about the ports. It is only about the work that has to be invested in editor. The less variety there is the less you have to do. Well, it doesn't work that way!

[randi]

Grow up Graf. Perhaps too many female hormones - let's just say you talk like a woman ... Truth be told, I can't stand the speeches of females

It makes me sad to see you initially request support for your node format but later attempt to insult Graf Zahl by calling him a woman, as if there is something inherently wrong with being a woman. I don't care if you thought you were joking. It's not funny. Approximately half the world's population is female, and being a woman is nothing to be ashamed about. And calling a man a woman is a stupid way to intimidate him.