More actor functions should be data scoped?

Remember, just because you request it, that doesn't mean you'll get it.

Moderator: GZDoom Developers

User avatar
Major Cooke
Posts: 8109
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:55 pm

Re: More actor functions should be data scoped?

Post by Major Cooke »

As long as it's made clear on deprecation and how we can transition this stuff, I'd be fine with that.

(But to be fair, since the spread rune is an absolute no-go, we'll never get there 100% of the way anyway.)
User avatar
Posts: 764
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: More actor functions should be data scoped?

Post by SanyaWaffles »

Nash wrote:Can't have your cake and eat it too especially where major progress is concerned
This so much. It's incredibly frustrating to constantly be held back because one mod out of a thousand did something wrong in terms of engine progress.
User avatar
Posts: 17346
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 12:07 am
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Re: More actor functions should be data scoped?

Post by Nash »

To be fair (and clear, so that I don't get misinterpreted), I'm not knocking on mods - I mean at the end of the day, given current features as of today, there's not really any other way to do certain things. As an example, Major Cooke linked to TargetSpy in the other post - which is a very well-coded mod and m8f certainly knows what he's doing. It's certainly not his fault that all he has at his disposal when his mod was made, is the current Actor.LineTrace or the LineTracer class.

But that also means that if GZDoom gets C/S, I think it's a realistic expectation that some mods won't "just work" out the box.

Return to “Feature Suggestions [GZDoom]”