The /newstuff Chronicles #372

I don't know why this discussion is still going on. The map in question works in ZDoom and GZDoom, it just didn't work for the reviewer. Had Jodwin tested in all Boom-supporting ports, the reviewer would have had the same problem.

Graf Zahl said:

Next time if you declare a WAD 'Boom compatible' but it doesn't work right in ZDoom, you should mention this in the text file.

Graf Zahl said:

Nowhere in your text file did you mention anything about specific ports. All you said was 'Boom compatible'. So you assumed that everyone using your map would declare 'Boom compatible' as 'Use PrBoom'. Well, obviously that's not the rule. So you can only blame yourself, not the reviewer.

As far as I can tell Jodwins map is 'boom compatible'.

I always thought that 'Boom compatible' == Boom v202 (in source port terms == prBoom-plus -complevel 9), if that is not the case then someone please explain.

Well, prboom-plus with -complevel 9 (and all "compatibility with common mapping errors" options set to "no") is designed to match the in-game behaviour of Boom 2.02 and Prboom 2.02 (i.e. WinBoom) and so maintain demo compatibility. However, it also allows some things that Boom doesn't support, such as higher limits, some graphical features and some other things that would cause a crash or error, or simply be ignored, in Boom 2.02 or Prboom 2.02.

So if these features are used, and the map is otherwise Boom-compatible, then some comment is needed (the term "Boom++" has been proposed in some recent discussions as a term for this). Only if the map has been tested with Boom 2.02 or Prboom 2.02 can it definitely be said to be Boom compatible without further qualification. Jodwin's map does appear to work OK in Prboom 2.02, btw.

In practice, testing with Prboom-plus and -complevel 9, together with making sure the map doesn't actually crash Prboom 2.02 upon loading, should normally be good enough to ensure the map is fully Boom compatible.

Thanks Grazza.
That clears everything up for me.

Revenant Battlefield: Slaying Daredevils and Chapel of Chaos was very fun to play :)

I missed the memo that explained that Boom compatibility meant "work's perfectly with ZDoom." I always thought it meant that it worked perfectly with, well, Boom. Thanks for clearing that up for me guys!

I'm going to make a new port called EsselDoom, and I'm going to declare it Boom-compatible. To add an exciting, modern twist, though, EsselDoom is going to make conveyor belts randomly decide to go in reverse. Any wads that dare to call themselves truly Boom-compatible must support EsselDoom's backwards conveyor belt behavior, or specifically state their incompatibility with my newly revised Boom standard.

Hmm... I think 40oz said it best:

40oz said:

I have no qualms about a wad being reviewed using a port that is not intended by the autho, however it is smart of the reviewer to heed the potential problems it could cause. And in the event in which it does cause problems, that should not rise as a reason not to play it within the review.

Okay, so there's a discrepancy between Boom and ZDoom on one point here. It happens. But the reviewer mentions that it even crashes ZDoom at one point -- isn't this a bit of a giveaway that it doesn't work correctly in ZDoom?

Hehe, WAD NOT REVIEWED IN INTENDED SOURCE PORT

kristus said:

Why is it that screenshots of Heretic maps in /newstuff are always taken with -nomonsters?

Because the Heretic monsters are butt-ugly.

I see my map got a review, thanks for reviewing it.

Thanks for the fair and honest review of Blood Burden. I promise my next release won't be so meh. (Hey, I'm still learning...)

Xaser said:

Hmm... I think 40oz said it best:



Okay, so there's a discrepancy between Boom and ZDoom on one point here. It happens. But the reviewer mentions that it even crashes ZDoom at one point -- isn't this a bit of a giveaway that it doesn't work correctly in ZDoom?

Hehe, WAD NOT REVIEWED IN INTENDED SOURCE PORT

No, it's just a sign that it doesn't work with ZDoom on his system. Didn't crash for me, but then I didn't bother running that abomination of a level for more than 2 minutes...

Regardless of wheter this particular Boom level does work on ZDoom, an example has been given in which ZDoom isn't fully Boom compat, which has been confirmed by yourself.

Hence, why are you still arguing?

Full Boom-compatibility demands also full Boom-bug compatibility and Boom-glitch compatibility and Boom-exploit compatibility. I'd imagine that most ports are more interested in Boom-feature compatibility.

And anyway http://zdoom.org/Changelog/2641/files

Gez said:

Full Boom-compatibility demands also full Boom-bug compatibility and Boom-glitch compatibility and Boom-exploit compatibility. I'd imagine that most ports are more interested in Boom-feature compatibility.

And that seems to be the problem here. 'Boom compatible' does not mean much. I doubt that there's 2 Boom feature compatible engines that precisely replicate all the bugs and glitches so it's inevitable that a 'Boom compatible' map needs to be tested with more than one of them.

I only point again to UAC Ultra's MAP07. That one didn't work because it used Boom features, it worked because it exploited some bad implementation in the scroller code. Fix that bad code and the map no longer works.

Graf Zahl said:

that abomination of a level...

That's just ur dooming skillz.

revbfeld - I liked it - COOL

I was kinda surprised how low the fps were on my computer with prboom-plus, it was barely playable for the first couple minutes (I have an older P4 3.26 ghz), and then it lagged to hell for a few seconds when all the revs died on the outer ring. Playing that map on my computer with ZDoom would be impossible for sure. But it's not really zdoom's fault since it has many extra features and stuff, and prboom is simpler (at least that's the impression I got from a post by entryway).

Graf Zahl said:

I only point again to UAC Ultra's MAP07. That one didn't work because it used Boom features, it worked because it exploited some bad implementation in the scroller code. Fix that bad code and the map no longer works.

Regardless of how bad the code is, if you change it then it might not be compatible with Boom anymore, right? Boom is what it is, including all the "bugs" and "glitches" and "bad code".

When a wad requires a "Boom-compatible" source port, to me this has always meant that I need to use a port compatible with Boom's feature set, but not necessarily one that replicates its bugs. After all, when a wad is listed as only requiring Doom2.exe, that doesn't mean that we need to play it on a port that suffers from visplane overflows, drawseg limits, save game limits, BLOCKMAP bugs, etc...

If a mapper releases a wad as "Boom-compatible" but fails to confirm that his wad works on the most popular ports that are compatible with Boom's feature set, then that mapper has done a poor job of presenting his work to the public. An important part of all art and craft is how it's promoted, and it's the mapper's job to make sure that members of the public won't be steered wrong by the wad's documentation. Graf is really going above and beyond his responsibilities by hacking support into ZDoom for these glitchy wads.

Can't say I agree, Creaphis. People map for various reasons, not solely to give something to play to random strangers. If the mapper is concerned about popularity, then I suppose it can be argued it should be his job to make it as accessible as possible, but otherwise why should he even care ?

There's a fair number of Doom2.exe wads for which ZDoom has specific compatibility checks AFAIK, so in fact some Doom2.exe compatible wads do require specific bugs. What about the BLOCKMAP fix ? It won't outright crash your game, but it certainly makes certain maps significantly easier than intended, to the point that sometimes the wad can be considered broken.

It's somewhat weird to expect every mapper to have extensive knowledge of what is and what isn't a bug anyway, given how hard it is to find understandable information on *features*, let alone bugs.

Phml said:

It's somewhat weird to expect every mapper to have extensive knowledge of what is and what isn't a bug anyway, given how hard it is to find understandable information on *features*, let alone bugs.

That's where this line (which doesn't appear in the .txt generator) comes in handy -

Tested With             : Engines/exes used during testing (include versions)

Creaphis said:

When a wad requires a "Boom-compatible" source port, to me this has always meant that I need to use a port compatible with Boom's feature set, but not necessarily one that replicates its bugs. After all, when a wad is listed as only requiring Doom2.exe, that doesn't mean that we need to play it on a port that suffers from visplane overflows, drawseg limits, save game limits, BLOCKMAP bugs, etc...

If a mapper releases a wad as "Boom-compatible" but fails to confirm that his wad works on the most popular ports that are compatible with Boom's feature set, then that mapper has done a poor job of presenting his work to the public. An important part of all art and craft is how it's promoted, and it's the mapper's job to make sure that members of the public won't be steered wrong by the wad's documentation. Graf is really going above and beyond his responsibilities by hacking support into ZDoom for these glitchy wads.

Bullshit, if it says Boom Compatbile and is compatible with Boom, then the problem is with ZDOOM

Has anyone else looked at Blood Burden in the automap?

http://a.imageshack.us/img687/3213/screenshotdoom201009010.png

... Looks really, really familiar, doesn't it?

Mr. T said:

Bullshit, if it says Boom Compatbile and is compatible with Boom, then the problem is with ZDOOM

"Compatbile" is the word of the week. This whole thread is full of compat bile.

Also, it has already been established that the problem was solely with ELIGITINE'S COMPUTER. (I don't know why we're suddenly supposed to use all caps for what we accuse to be the problem, but whatever.)

ZDoom isn't fully Boom compat. But it is Boom compat enough to run this wad.

That seems to be universally agreed on. Hence why are people still arguing?

Vermil said:

ZDoom isn't fully Boom compat. But it is Boom compat enough to run this wad.

That seems to be universally agreed on. Hence why are people still arguing?

Don't worry about it, it's just a couple of bitter developers that always want to act like everyone is attacking thier work when bugs or compatability issues are presented to them. As opposed to, you know, actually addressing things in a civil manner.

EDIT: looks like one of them edited out their impolite comments, that's good I guess!

Mr. T said:

Bullshit, if it says Boom Compatbile and is compatible with Boom, then the problem is with ZDOOM

This is precisely why the text file template has "May Not Run With..." as a text field.

Herculine said:

Thanks for the fair and honest review of Blood Burden. I promise my next release won't be so meh. (Hey, I'm still learning...)

I'm sure Oblige will do better next time.

Infurnus said:

Don't worry about it, it's just a couple of bitter developers that always want to act like everyone is attacking thier work when bugs or compatability issues are presented to them.

If only those other pesky source ports would just disappear, everything would be so grand.

WildWeasel said:

This is precisely why the text file template has "May Not Run With..." as a text field.

No, that's where you're supposed to fill in "The Crowd" or "Ur toaster LOL!!"

esselfortium said:

No, that's where you're supposed to fill in "The Crowd" or "Ur toaster LOL!!"

You forgot

Scissors
Straight Gasoline
The devil

Kate said:

Has anyone else looked at Blood Burden in the automap?

http://a.imageshack.us/img687/3213/screenshotdoom201009010.png

... Looks really, really familiar, doesn't it?

Good eye. The automap makes it look exactly like an oblige map. It looks like he changed textures/flats, added some monster closets and other stuff. I think it's ok to edit oblige maps, or make maps from scratch based on oblige maps, but why didn't he mention oblige in the txt file?