Severed bunny head
Register | User Profile | Member List | F.A.Q | Privacy Policy | New Blog | Search Forums | Forums Home
Doomworld Forums : Powered by vBulletin version 2.2.5 Doomworld Forums > Special Interest > Freedoom > Freedoom maps: Vanilla compat or not -- (Potential) Contributors only
Mappers, what limitations would you be comfortable with?
This poll is closed.
Vanilla compatibility 12 32.43%
Limit removing 5 13.51%
Boom compatibility 12 32.43%
Other 0 0%
I don\\\'t make maps, I just want to vote 8 21.62%
Total: 37 votes 100%
  [Edit Poll (moderators only)]

Pages (2): [1] 2 »  
Author
All times are GMT. The time now is 19:32. Post New Thread    Post A Reply
chungy
Senior Member


Posts: 1893
Registered: 06-05


In lieu of the other topic, I want to see how many people that would contribute maps would actually care about vanilla limitations, or limit-removing (but no Boom or other port-specific features). Boom compatibility is the only specific port that is still in the possibility of being targeted, as it's the most universal aside from vanilla.

NOTICE! Only vote if you will seriously contribute maps to Freedoom. No "maybes"! (I want as accurate of a poll as possible.) Discussion should preferably be kept to the same people.

Old Post 12-21-08 04:53 #
chungy is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
esselfortium
A Major Doomworld Concern


Posts: 6610
Registered: 01-02


It's also worth asking how many potential contributors actually know what the vanilla limitations are?

I've talked to a few people who figured that KDiKDiZD was just a job of copying and pasting the ZDoom maps over and removing the slopes and ACS scripts from them, so some more clarification could probably help. (Though it is rather hard to get a clear understanding of where the limits lie from just a description, without having worked with them...)

__________________
essel.spork-chan.net - doom stuff, artwork, and music by esselfortium

Old Post 12-21-08 06:27 #
esselfortium is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Nuxius
Forum Regular


Posts: 751
Registered: 02-05


Agreed. You'd be surprised how many people think that "vanilla compatibility" and "limit removing" are one in the same.

Old Post 12-21-08 06:43 #
Nuxius is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Csonicgo


Posts: 4450
Registered: 03-04


Shouldn't all contributors be able to vote on this? Making the project Vanilla effects more than just the maps.

Old Post 12-21-08 06:57 #
Csonicgo is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
chungy
Senior Member


Posts: 1893
Registered: 06-05


The question only really applies to mappers. Sprite editors, for example, aren't affected by this decision.

Old Post 12-21-08 07:01 #
chungy is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
myk
volveré y seré millones


Posts: 15226
Registered: 04-02


The people that will end up playing it will be affected. This stuff only matters if in one of the categories it can be established it'd be very hard to complete the levels, or to get good levels. I tend to agree with what Boris and Fredrik said; we'll get all the levels regardless of what engine they're based on (especially if choosing between Doom and Boom; ZDoom is a third popular choice, but it's not free).

Old Post 12-21-08 08:12 #
myk is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
fraggle
Filled with the code of Doom


Posts: 7728
Registered: 07-00


It seems like Boom it is, then. It's worth pointing out that a few Vanilla compatible maps *are* needed, so that demos can be recorded on them. The closest thing to a demo standard is still Doom 1.9, and ports that can't play 1.9 demos at least fail gracefully when they encounter them.

Old Post 12-23-08 13:06 #
fraggle is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
myk
volveré y seré millones


Posts: 15226
Registered: 04-02


Looking at the poll, limit removing seems to be a better choice. It makes any level be able to manage a v1.9 demo, it removes the limits (the main concern of those who don't want vanilla) and is closer to vanilla than Boom in the way it works (may attract vanilla fans).

Old Post 12-23-08 14:15 #
myk is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Jon
Freedoom Bloke


Posts: 1351
Registered: 09-00



myk said:
Looking at the poll, limit removing seems to be a better choice. It makes any level be able to manage a v1.9 demo, it removes the limits (the main concern of those who don't want vanilla) and is closer to vanilla than Boom in the way it works (may attract vanilla fans).


Seeing as boom-compatible won, I disagree.

Old Post 12-23-08 19:58 #
Jon is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
chungy
Senior Member


Posts: 1893
Registered: 06-05


Boom features can be used, but that doesn't mean they will be forced. If a mapper can do something good entirely in vanilla constraints, it won't be rejected of course.

Old Post 12-23-08 20:23 #
chungy is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
esselfortium
A Major Doomworld Concern


Posts: 6610
Registered: 01-02


Of course, seeing as a vanilla map is technically Boom-compatible. :)

Having some maps mixed in that don't use Boom features shouldn't be an issue if some come up, as it's quite possible to have Boom maps that are very simple and vanilla or limit-removing maps that seem quite complex (and, of course, vice versa).

__________________
essel.spork-chan.net - doom stuff, artwork, and music by esselfortium

Old Post 12-23-08 20:32 #
esselfortium is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
myk
volveré y seré millones


Posts: 15226
Registered: 04-02



Jon said:
boom-compatible won
By a small margin in a very selective poll, and the majority voted the other two.

In any case, I wouldn't say a poll like this is a good measure of anything, even if polling were really a good method for deciding such a thing.

Old Post 12-23-08 21:26 #
myk is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Creaphis
I will deliberately take a contrary position just for the sake of writing incredibly long arguments


Posts: 4181
Registered: 10-05


This poll shows that six out of fourteen voters are not comfortable working below the Boom standard. Even though that isn't a majority, it's a significant proportion of those who may help.

Old Post 12-23-08 23:24 #
Creaphis is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
esselfortium
A Major Doomworld Concern


Posts: 6610
Registered: 01-02



myk said:
the majority voted the other two.

So what? It's true about both of the other two choices, too.

Also, for mappers (since that's who this poll is directed at, not players), the Boom standard is inherently inclusive of the other two, whereas the others are not.

__________________
essel.spork-chan.net - doom stuff, artwork, and music by esselfortium

Old Post 12-23-08 23:44 #
esselfortium is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
AlexMax
Senior Member


Posts: 1115
Registered: 01-03


I forgot where the original discussion about FreeDoom vanilla compat. took place, so here's an interesting communication I had with the author of Flash Freedoom.


Hi AlexMax,

I was definitely really amped to include FreeDoom, and I did a lot of research into including it back when I was adding Heretic and Hexen to the Triple Pack. Unfortunately FreeDoom requires a Boom-compatible source port, and Flash Doom port was built off of the vanilla Linux Doom source.

Bummer! I have been thinking about porting over Boom/PrBoom, but I've sort of moved on from those projects. Maybe if I get some free time down the road.

Take care,
- m

At 1 hour ago, AlexMax wrote:
I think that your flash doom is fantastic. However, I think that you could up your content ratio a considerable amount if you created a 'sequel' of sorts that uses Freedoom resource IWAD and the tons and tons of awesome PWAD's available.

Freedoom is here:

http://www.nongnu.org/freedoom/

Some examples of fantastic PWAD's:

http://www.doomworld.com/vb/doom-general/49436-doo m-challenge-checklist-help-plz/

(Any levelset that has a port enclosed in {brackets} like PRBoom+ or ZDoom would require some extra work or be completely impossible)

Any interest? I'm simply throwing this out there, if you like this idea I wouldn't mind chatting with you further.

-AlexMax


Food for thought.

Old Post 01-14-10 05:40 #
AlexMax is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
myk
volveré y seré millones


Posts: 15226
Registered: 04-02



AlexMax said:
I forgot where the original discussion about FreeDoom vanilla compat. took place,

Old Post 01-14-10 06:16 #
myk is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
wesleyjohnson
Senior Member


Posts: 1030
Registered: 04-09


Both of my maps, MAP09 and MAP13, depend upon Boom features.
Without Boom, they would be gutted of their most interesting features. They depend upon Boom deep water and sector attribute modifications.
They would not work using Vanilla Doom. Vanilla Doom mapping would not even be interesting anymore as it is too frustrating and limits creativity.

If I had my choice I would be using something with a 3d floor, and with sloped floors.

Legacy is nearing a new release, and I have fixed all known issues that affect FreeDoom compatibility and Legacy maps. I use my MAP13 to test it as it is big, complicated, and uses Boom features.
I do not expect enough people want to go that far, but where is there any middle ground.

Got to settle on Boom at least.

Last edited by wesleyjohnson on 01-14-10 at 21:21

Old Post 01-14-10 20:51 #
wesleyjohnson is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
wesleyjohnson
Senior Member


Posts: 1030
Registered: 04-09


Freedoom Players should also get some kind of vote.
During Legacy testing I have been going though old wads. Those wads made for DoomI have few interesting features and repeat the same traps and puzzles.
Even wads made for DoomII require every trick of the engine (plus dehacked, etc) to make them interesting anymore to someone who has seen Heretic, Hexen, and Quake.

If this was a project to restore an old game, just to have a copy exactly the way it was, then Vanilla Doom would be it.
If this is supposed to be something playable and interesting, then at least Boom features are needed. I think within 3 or 4 years, even that is not going to be enough to keep their interest. By then some modern Quake level features are going to be required, at least. The players probably would agree and they should get a chance to vote it.

Last edited by wesleyjohnson on 01-14-10 at 21:30

Old Post 01-14-10 21:17 #
wesleyjohnson is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Quasar
Moderator


Posts: 6087
Registered: 08-00


I am not a mapper but I believe it would have been best if the maps targeted either vanilla, or Doom+, allowing them to run on basically any port.

Old Post 01-14-10 21:21 #
Quasar is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
myk
volveré y seré millones


Posts: 15226
Registered: 04-02


Vanilla is the best, as Doom+ or limit removing leaves all ports that use the base source out of the picture about as much as Boom does. Some could argue vanilla-based engines can still use Freedoom by adding a megawad, but some ports try to make things simple and don't focus on add-ons, if they allow them at all, because allowable interfaces are limited, or the like. I had to help some guy to get Alien Vendetta running on some system by having him merge the contents into an IWAD. Vanilla levels guarantee universal compatibility with the base code and any offshoots just like all the other resources in Freedoom do. Why break that with the levels, which aren't even the main focus of the project? I mean, the hardest priority is the resources, which, unlike levels, aren't dime-a-dozen in this community.

Old Post 01-14-10 21:57 #
myk is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Gez
Why don't I have a custom title by now?!


Posts: 11203
Registered: 07-07


If I'm not mistaken, there are only two major, currently-active ports that do not support the most-used Boom features: Chocolate Doom and Doomsday/jDoom. The former is by design. Targeting Doom+ would exclude it as well. The latter plans to support Boom features later, but they're waiting to finish reworking their code before doing that; in the meantime Risen3D can be used instead.

So the choice is vanilla or Boom; Doom+ doesn't seem an interesting target.

Old Post 01-14-10 22:09 #
Gez is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
myk
volveré y seré millones


Posts: 15226
Registered: 04-02


Why should Freedoom be subservient to major ports, whatever that is? All "minor" ports devling into other systems, such as hand-helds or other devices, which may be used by a lot of people, could certainly benefit from a totally free game to run.

Why restrict that by placing optional, advanced features in its core files?

Old Post 01-14-10 22:23 #
myk is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
AlexMax
Senior Member


Posts: 1115
Registered: 01-03



wesleyjohnson said:
Both of my maps, MAP09 and MAP13, depend upon Boom features.
Without Boom, they would be gutted of their most interesting features. They depend upon Boom deep water and sector attribute modifications.
They would not work using Vanilla Doom. Vanilla Doom mapping would not even be interesting anymore as it is too frustrating and limits creativity.



What's preventing you from releasing those maps on their own? If they look best in Freedoom, then say so in the readme.

We're not discussing just another megawad, we're talking about an entirely new IWAD here. An IWAD should be as useful for as many different potential uses as possible.

Old Post 01-15-10 17:01 #
AlexMax is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
jute
My avatar grips his belt rather tightly.


Posts: 1394
Registered: 03-03


I'm only a music contributor but for what it's worth vanilla seems like the best, most inclusive choice.

Old Post 01-15-10 18:19 #
jute is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Gez
Why don't I have a custom title by now?!


Posts: 11203
Registered: 07-07



myk said:
Why should Freedoom be subservient to major ports, whatever that is?

I didn't say that. I said the choice was between vanilla and Boom, because Doom+ would practically leave aside as much as Boom so it's a half-assed compromise. Either go with all-inclusiveness and vanilla, or with greater set of editing feature and go with Boom.

Old Post 01-15-10 18:34 #
Gez is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
myk
volveré y seré millones


Posts: 15226
Registered: 04-02


Oops, my bad. Dunno what made me misread your last sentence. Maybe my mind was looking for something different form what I had said. My response seems to have served to reword the "universality" angle with a bit more of a punch, at least :p

Old Post 01-15-10 18:42 #
myk is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
wesleyjohnson
Senior Member


Posts: 1030
Registered: 04-09


I was asked why I could not release MAP09 and MAP13 on their own as wads.

I made MAP09 and MAP13 solely to fill slots in Freedoom. They are custom designed especially for their slots. I spent an 100's of hours developing them and making sure they were compatible with all the requirements of Freedoom. They were made for Freedoom.

I designed according to the Freedoom standards stated as of spring of 2009, which can be found in the old threads.

If the Vanilla Doom people chase off the Boom people, then Freedoom will be down to about 8 to 13 people, maybe a few more. This is a likely result that should be taken into consideration.

If Vanilla doom is so important then we can make a Vanilla-Freedoom. We can then also have a Doom+_Freedoom, and I can get a Legacy-Freedoom. Then you will probably get the same answer that I got when I brought this same subject up back in spring 2009, that there are not enough contributors to support multiple Freedoom targets.

Do note this, that a Vanilla-Freedoom can be a copy of the Boom-Freedoom with all the Boom stuff removed and appropriate substitutes made. It would not be THAT much work, and that is exactly what it means to change Freedoom to Vanilla-Freedoom anyway. It just depends upon how much of the work you are trying to get other people to do to support the Vanilla Doom standard. Some of the mappers may be willing to make a version of their map cleaned down to Vanilla Doom standards but I cannot promise that for everyone. With a separate Vanilla-Freedoom it is the same amount of work, but the Boom-Freedoom does not get erased from GIT, and gets a release of its own.

Last edited by wesleyjohnson on 01-15-10 at 21:43

Old Post 01-15-10 21:21 #
wesleyjohnson is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
myk
volveré y seré millones


Posts: 15226
Registered: 04-02



wesleyjohnson said:
If the Vanilla Doom people chase off the Boom people, then Freedoom will be down to about 8 to 13 people, maybe a few more. This is a likely result that should be taken into consideration.
Are you trying to scare potential contributors or decision makers? Vanilla map sets get made all the time. As noted, the Boom choice is chasing off vanilla people in a concrete, practical sense, and I mean users of various kinds, not just contributors. Boom people are vanilla + Boom people, and vanilla people are vanilla - Boom people, because Boom includes vanilla and not vice versa.


If Vanilla doom is so important then we can make a Vanilla-Freedoom. We can then also have a Doom+_Freedoom, and I can get a Legacy-Freedoom.
So, you're worried there won't even be enough people to do vanilla maps, but expect many forks of the project? Rather self-contradictory, eh? If we have so much level-making power, quit worrying that the vanilla levels won't be made. People can indeed make variants eventually, but that can be left to optional initiative, as the project is better off focusing on and putting a guarantee on being as highly useful and portable as reasonably possible, especially if it's for the public, and not something for a certain clique or niche of gamers like us PC DOOM fans. To boot, if you make vanilla levels, it's not so hard to expand them and alter them by adding features later.

The main reason given to use Boom, explicitly, is that some designers don't like being limited by vanilla when making maps. As noted, this is relative. Others love vanilla, and yet others will make maps in many formats. Even if there is some loss in level design contributors, we can trust there will be enough, and good ones, because the community's strongest design point is by far level production. Thirty-two (or more) good vanilla levels can easily be produced well before the sprites and sounds are done.

Another reason one can suspect people may push for Boom is to plug, promote or advocate source ports with extra features. If you add Boom stuff, the IWAD will be crippled for the game "as is," forcing users to download a more-advanced source port. Of course, this agenda has a malicious side effect; any Doom engine or port that for whatever reason leaves out Boom features, even some of them, is incompatible with Freedoom or more awkward to use with it.

Old Post 01-15-10 22:48 #
myk is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
wesleyjohnson
Senior Member


Posts: 1030
Registered: 04-09


Most of that last "argument" misstates everything that I said.
I pointed out what I was told. I think that it would be easy to support Vanilla-Freedoom and Boom-Freedoom as they will be the exact same levels with only a few changes. Those changes are the exact same changes that would be needed anyway. It is the exact same amount of work, but it lets each group have their wad released.

I am trying to find a solution that does not fracture the group.
I have seen this happen before when some faction decides they are going to redirect the project. You have no justification for making wild accusations at me, just because I point out what should be obvious.

Why are you against a separate Vanilla-Freedoom. That gets you everything that you want.

What do you want that this solution does not give to you ???

Old Post 01-16-10 19:39 #
wesleyjohnson is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
wesleyjohnson
Senior Member


Posts: 1030
Registered: 04-09


A previous discussion that touched on Boom vrs Vanilla, with much that is still relevant to this discussion.
The replies there were that Freedoom is Boom.

http://www.doomworld.com/vb/freedoo...as-pwad-or-lmp/

I read through this previous thread, and it contains the same proposals that I have made.
http://www.doomworld.com/vb/freedoo...0-7-discussion/

It also concluded that Freedoom remains Boom.

What I got from that discussion is that there are a few people who have absolute core beliefs that Vanilla doom is the only possible goal. They argue that there are some people who still run old ports, and not losing them should be more important than trying to have any improvement in the playability, or any other advancement in features.
The problem is that there is no argument that can be made that is ever going to have any effect on a core belief.

They also argue that it would be no problem at all in finding all the Vanilla mappers they need. So why can they not form a side-project to make a Vanilla-Doom if they have all these potential supporters?

Just saying that there are going to be all these great Vanilla levels does not create them, nor does it prove to anyone what is going to make them so great, and why they would not be equally great as a Boom level. In fact if you make any really great level in Vanilla-FreeDoom, then I would surely be willing to use them in Boom-Freedoom too.

Saying that we need 60 levels is nonsense, as both Vanilla-Freedoom and Boom-Freedoom would have the same existing levels, with minor modifications in Vanilla-Freedoom to remove Boom features. This has already been tested on some levels, as stated in the thread. Only after someone makes a level exclusively for one would they drift apart. If the Vanilla-Freedoom people really, really, think they absolutely need their own level design, then they can do so. It is the same amount of work that they are proposing in converting Freedoom to be exclusive Vanilla only.

I would like to hear some hard numbers on how many players play using the original binaries (DOS). How many potential players can actually run DOS with their current operating system. And I am not asking if it is possible, I am asking how many of these "cannot even read the documentation" people actually have the ability to run DOS programs.
I am going to assume 1%, maybe.
Then we can count the number of people who can play a Boom-Freedoom.

Then we could discuss if the frustrations of working within Vanilla is worth it (and I do not mean that you get to decide what is worth it for me).
Boom features were invented because Vanilla was too limited. This has continued with other ports, and will continue into the future because the most active people are not satisfied with Vanilla doom. That is what makes them active is the desire for something better.

Saying the users are too stupid to choose between Vanilla-Freedoom and Boom-Freedoom, and therefore nobody else should have a choice either, just is too much. If Freedoom is driven by the lowest standards, there will be little worth having. It will be something like most TV shows, which are dumbed down to the idiot level to avoid losing anyone.

As far as I can see there are two reasonable choices:
1. Boom standard, as voted in three separate polls.
2. Split Vanilla-Freedoom off as a separate release, with the same levels modified for Vanilla port compatibility. Then everybody gets something.

Last edited by wesleyjohnson on 01-16-10 at 22:20

Old Post 01-16-10 20:13 #
wesleyjohnson is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
All times are GMT. The time now is 19:32. Post New Thread    Post A Reply
Pages (2): [1] 2 »  
Doomworld Forums : Powered by vBulletin version 2.2.5 Doomworld Forums > Special Interest > Freedoom > Freedoom maps: Vanilla compat or not -- (Potential) Contributors only

Show Printable Version | Email this Page | Subscribe to this Thread

 

Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are OFF
[IMG] code is ON
 

< Contact Us - Doomworld >

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.2.5
Copyright ©2000, 2001, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.