Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
Pure Hellspawn

Which source port has the most non-vanilla features?

Recommended Posts

I currently use ZDoom (newest version), but I wonder which Source Port has the most non-vanilla features.

I also would like to know what features are on the other source ports that ZDoom does not have atm. (I know legacy supports up to 32 players)

Share this post


Link to post

Pure Hellspawn said:
I currently use ZDoom (newest version), but I wonder which Source Port has the most non-vanilla features.


ZDoom, without a doubt.

I also would like to know what features are on the other source ports that ZDoom does not have atm. (I know legacy supports up to 32 players)


Legacy: 3D floors (but not the most stable implementation
JDoom: Aside from visual enhancements: nothing
EDGE: 3D floors
Vavoom 3D floors

With most other ports the list is as short. Many can do some of the stuff ZDoom can do but not everything. So unless you need 3D-floors, hardware rendering or total customizability of the engine you won't find anything with more features.

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder if you'll ever take your blinkers off Graf. Personaly, I'm getting a bit tired of your inability to see further than Zdoom and your own perceptions/opinions. Considering how long you've been involved with the Doom community you should know better than to present your opinions as fact.

Another person could quite easily say:

ZDoom: Aside from level/wad authoring features: nothing

It depends in what areas your asking about Pure Hellspawn (graphics? sound? gameplay? level editing? compatibility? demos? multiplayer?). Each port offers a huge number of features, it would be very childish to try and play top trumps (Graf) as the value of each feature is subject completely to personal opinion.

Share this post


Link to post

I believe ZDoom has the longest development time of any sourceport (plus it incorporates code from several other ports), so it only stands to reason that it's going to have more features.

Share this post


Link to post
Graf Zahl said:

Legacy: 3D floors (but not the most stable implementation


Whats so unstable about them?

Share this post


Link to post
DaniJ said:

It depends in what areas your asking about... it would be very childish to try and play top trumps (Graf) as the value of each feature is subject completely to personal opinion.

Absolutely!

The number of enhanced visual features lacking in ZDOOM is about as great as it's editing features. The importance of each depends on how much pixelation and poor lighting bothers you :)

In addition is heavily influenced by one's current system. Very old systems with old video cards will either not look good or run like a dog with hardware rendered ports. A PIII450, 256MB and a GF level video card are probably the entry level requirements to get good results for hardware ports.

Arguably "the most non-vanilla" probably goes to the hardware ports, since by definition that's 100% non-vanilla vs a software rendered port. Various specials etc is just adding relatively easy variations to "vanilla", not really something radically different. But others may disagree and that's ok :)

Share this post


Link to post
DaniJ said:

I wonder if you'll ever take your blinkers off Graf. Personaly, I'm getting a bit tired of your inability to see further than Zdoom and your own perceptions/opinions. Considering how long you've been involved with the Doom community you should know better than to present your opinions as fact.

Another person could quite easily say:

ZDoom: Aside from level/wad authoring features: nothing

It depends in what areas your asking about Pure Hellspawn (graphics? sound? gameplay? level editing? compatibility? demos? multiplayer?). Each port offers a huge number of features, it would be very childish to try and play top trumps (Graf) as the value of each feature is subject completely to personal opinion.


'Features' in combination with Doom source ports normally means gameplay features. And even you can't deny that JDoom which is apparently exclusively devoted to improving its visual appearance doesn't have that much.

Now, you can make a list of all the visual eye candy JDoom has to offer but for any normal user it can be summarized quickly in 'visual improvements'. Most people don't care what in particular has been improved and they won't notice all isolated improvements. They will only see that it looks better.

And that is what JDoom is to me in a nutshell. It is a program that makes the original levels look better. Too bad that it can't handle any of my favorite levels due to lack of features...

Share this post


Link to post

'Features' in combination with Doom source ports normally means gameplay features.

I don't agree. IMO 'features' covers every aspect of a source port not just the "small" area of editing features.

Features like Linux/MacOS support are very important to me, as are features like hardware accelerated rendering and high quality 3D sound, so that I can make the most out of my expensive set up. For me True colour support is a must as well. Which as Deep pointed out are by far the most "non-vanila" features any port has to offer other than Vavoom's true 3D - Quake style.

I just wanted to point out that you assumed he was only interested in the same things you are.

And even you can't deny that JDoom which is apparently exclusively devoted to improving its visual appearance doesn't have that much.

Again this is a matter of opinion. I'm not denying that Zdoom has a wider variety of editng features IF all your interested in is making new mods/levels.

If you were to look at this objectively you'd quickly realise that Zdoom has a very narrow scope when it comes to "non-vanila" features.

Ports like Risen3D, jDoom (Doomsday) and Vavoom offer a much wider variety of features.

To say that jDoom has nothing in the way of editing features is completely untrue. InFine for example is an extremely flexible and fully scriptable system that can be used for a huge variety of different things including intros, animations, scripted sequences, playing demos, overlaid HUDS etc etc. Yes the same results can be achieved using ACS (well to some degree) but it is a hell of a lot easier to use InFine and is far more advanced at stuff like that.

The point I'm trying to make is that although it could be argued that Zdoom has more features, you need to look at whats possible with the features each port DOES have and how good they are at what they do. Yes ACS is great but it's very generalised and not exactly easy to use when it comes to doing very specific editing tasks.

Cases in point:
2D scripted sequences.
Doomsday - Has an entire subsystem to use for exactly this purpose. IMO it's very easy to use and very powerfull.
Zdoom - You can do some really nice stuff using ACS but it requires a lot of heavy scripting.

Particles:
Doomsday - Has an entire subsystem in place so you can create any effect you can imagine even model particles.
Zdoom - Do you want a red fountain, a blue one or a spark effect?

Now, you can make a list of all the visual eye candy JDoom has to offer but for any normal user it can be summarized quickly in 'visual improvements'. Most people don't care what in particular has been improved and they won't notice all isolated improvements. They will only see that it looks better.

Much the same can be said about editing features Graf, this carries no weight what-so-ever. I think I'm right when say that most players don't actually make mods they PLAY them. Which means they don't care how something was made as long as it plays well (and with a bit of luck looks and sounds good too).

And that is what JDoom is to me in a nutshell. It is a program that makes the original levels look better. Too bad that it can't handle any of my favorite levels due to lack of features...

Exactly, YOUR opinion and a miss-informed one at that, as shown by your obvious lack of knowledge regarding any port other than Zdoom. You seem to have built up some sort of mental barrier over this because despite various peoples attempts to correct you, you still choose to believe what you want to about these "other" ports and continue presenting them as fact.

Why is it that every time a question such as this arises you feel you need big up Zdoom and ignore the obvious achievements of the "other" ports in such a dismissive way?

/Crap, huge post...

Share this post


Link to post
DaniJ said:

I don't agree. IMO 'features' covers every aspect of a source port not just the "small" area of editing features.

Again I agree. There are 2 distinct parts here and to me they are both important. Having either one in spades doesn't negate the argument for the other.

I'm not happy playing a pixellated scene and I'm not happy with too much hassle playing levels (which is my own definition as we've discussed another time).

Rather than make up a definition to suit my POV, let's just say that the visual impact of one port is a thorn in the side of the other and the editing/compatibility features in of the other is a thorn in the side visa versa. If you read the "wish list" of either forum you find users wanting cross-features present in one and not in the other (visual vs editing). That by itself tells all.

Both can be appreciated and both have a place in the evolution chain.

Share this post


Link to post
DaniJ said:

....Lot's of truth...

...Why is it that every time a question such as this arises you feel you need big up Zdoom and ignore the obvious achievements of the "other" ports in such a dismissive way?


And I thought he only had a grudge against EDGE :)

Share this post


Link to post

DaniJ said:
I don't agree. IMO 'features' covers every aspect of a source port not just the "small" area of editing features.


You are forgetting one important aspect of this 'small' area: The end user gets to exprience it in the maps that use them!

Features like Linux/MacOS support are very important to me, as are features like hardware accelerated rendering and high quality 3D sound, so that I can make the most out of my expensive set up. For me True colour support is a must as well. Which as Deep pointed out are by far the most "non-vanila" features any port has to offer other than Vavoom's true 3D - Quake style.


Why are you still playing Doom if this stuff is so important. In nearly every aspect it should be the wrong game for you! ;)
Seriously, if I could get a source port that combines hardware rendering with good compatibility I wouldn't hesitate to use it. The 8 bit palette is one of the biggest annoyances Doom is suffering from. But so far the only hardware accelerated Doom port that comes close to my needs is Risen3D. But with that I still can't play all the ZDoom maps I like to play and ZDoomGL is still too unfinished.

I just wanted to point out that you assumed he was only interested in the same things you are.
Again this is a matter of opinion. I'm not denying that Zdoom has a wider variety of editng features IF all your interested in is making new mods/levels.


I repeat myself:

Although as a programmer I like to do stuff with the source my main interest in Doom is as someone who likes to play it. You make it sound that editing features are only of use to mappers. And that is total nonsense because all those features get exhibited by maps which use it to enhance and intensify gameplay.

If you were to look at this objectively you'd quickly realise that Zdoom has a very narrow scope when it comes to "non-vanila" features.


Only if you count hardware rendering and its benefits as the only valid non-vanilla features. But that's something you can't build a map on!

Ports like Risen3D, jDoom (Doomsday) and Vavoom offer a much wider variety of features.


It's fairly obvious that you are utterly dismissive of everything that does not involve hardware rendering. So please don't lecture me if you do exactly the same from the other side.

To say that jDoom has nothing in the way of editing features is completely untrue. InFine for example is an extremely flexible and fully scriptable system that can be used for a huge variety of different things including intros, animations, scripted sequences, playing demos, overlaid HUDS etc etc.
Yes the same results can be achieved using ACS (well to some degree) but it is a hell of a lot easier to use InFine and is far more advanced at stuff like that.


OMG, I have to recover from the big laugh I just had. You just sound like an advertising guy who tries to sell his crap without success.
So where is the great stuff that can be done with InFine. I haven't seen it and I doubt I will ever see it.
You know 'ease of use' is a purely subjective matter. You may think that JDoom's definition syntax is the greatest thing since sliced bread but I find in impenetrable to understand and even harder to read.

The point I'm trying to make is that although it could be argued that Zdoom has more features, you need to look at whats possible with the features each port DOES have and how good they are at what they do. Yes ACS is great but it's very generalised and not exactly easy to use when it comes to doing very specific editing tasks.

Cases in point:
2D scripted sequences.
Doomsday - Has an entire subsystem to use for exactly this purpose. IMO it's very easy to use and very powerfull.
Zdoom - You can do some really nice stuff using ACS but it requires a lot of heavy scripting.

Particles:
Doomsday - Has an entire subsystem in place so you can create any effect you can imagine even model particles.
Zdoom - Do you want a red fountain, a blue one or a spark effect?


You know, I won't even pretend that ZDoom is perfect. There is a lot of stuff that could (and should) be improved. The particle stuff in particular is a good example of that.
As for the 2D-scripted sequences, what's the point of something like that if you can have 3D-scripted sequences with the same amount of work! ;) I doubt any other source port comes even close to having something like ZDoom's moving cameras.

Much the same can be said about editing features Graf, this carries no weight what-so-ever. I think I'm right when say that most players don't actually make mods they PLAY them. Which means they don't care how something was made as long as it plays well (and with a bit of luck looks and sounds good too).


You continue to make the same mistake. With a reduced set of features you will have a reduced set of ways a map can play.

Exactly, YOUR opinion and a miss-informed one at that, as shown by your obvious lack of knowledge regarding any port other than Zdoom. You seem to have built up some sort of mental barrier over this because despite various peoples attempts to correct you, you still choose to believe what you want to about these "other" ports and continue presenting them as fact.


Look who's talking! At least for me the gameplay factor is the most important thing, not some high-tech crap that made Doom3 one of the most abysmal gaming experiences I ever had!

Why is it that every time a question such as this arises you feel you need big up Zdoom and ignore the obvious achievements of the "other" ports in such a dismissive way?


You started this, not me. If you can't stand that JDoom is easily dismissed because it is perceived to provide nothing but eye candy, then for god's sake, do something about it! Add some stuff that makes it more appealing to mappers. You have an engine at your hand that could be the greatest source port of all times and yet, right now it is far too limited in the choice of maps it is willing to play!

Share this post


Link to post

Rather than make up a definition to suit my POV, let's just say that the visual impact of one port is a thorn in the side of the other and the editing/compatibility features in of the other is a thorn in the side visa versa. If you read the "wish list" of either forum you find users wanting cross-features present in one and not in the other (visual vs editing). That by itself tells all.

Both can be appreciated and both have a place in the evolution chain.

I concur wholeheartedly.

Wow this gonna take some time to reply to... you seem to have missed the point entirely on purpose.

You are forgetting one important aspect of this 'small' area: The end user gets to exprience it in the maps that use them!

So the end user doesn't experience things like 3D sound, being able to play splitscreen multiplayer etc etc?

Why are you still playing Doom if this stuff is so important. In nearly every aspect it should be the wrong game for you! ;)

As I've said before, I still play Doom because I enjoy playing Doom.

You make it sound that editing features are only of use to mappers. And that is total nonsense because all those features get exhibited by maps which use it to enhance and intensify gameplay.

I didn't imply that. If thats how you took my point then by your own definiton the same applies to models, particle effects, dynamic lighting and any other graphical/audio features.

Only if you count hardware rendering and its benefits as the only valid non-vanilla features. But that's something you can't build a map on!

I fail to see your point here sorry.

It's fairly obvious that you are utterly dismissive of everything that does not involve hardware rendering. So please don't lecture me if you do exactly the same from the other side.

Sorry Graf but you've missed the point entirely. Where exactly did I dismiss any port BECAUSE it's software only?
What are you talking about? Your comment doesn't relate to what I'm talking about in any way and only makes further example of your closed-mindedness.

OMG, I have to recover from the big laugh I just had. You just sound like an advertising guy who tries to sell his crap without success.

And your first post in this thread wasn't? I INTENDED it to sound like that in responce to your post. Considering your reply to this I've done my own fair share of OMG LOLZ!

You may think that JDoom's definition syntax is the greatest thing since sliced bread but I find in impenetrable to understand and even harder to read.

What is this comment even doing here in this discusion?

You know, I won't even pretend that ZDoom is perfect.

But that is exactly what you are doing by dismissing any other port because it's not Zdoom!

As for the 2D-scripted sequences, what's the point of something like that if you can have 3D-scripted sequences with the same amount of work! ;) I doubt any other source port comes even close to having something like ZDoom's moving cameras.

I'm trying not to digress into specifics here as they have little to do with the original point I was making...
What's the point in software rendering if you can have hardware accelerated? What's the point in apple pie when you can have blackcurrent and raspberry?

What have Zdoom's cameras got to do with 2D animations? Please, at least TRY to compare apples with apples Graf. IMO ACS, for 2D stuff, is long winded and overly complicated.

Look who's talking! At least for me the gameplay factor is the most important thing, not some high-tech crap that made Doom3 one of the most abysmal gaming experiences I ever had!

Once again your reply has nothing to do with what I said.

You started this, not me.

Started what? YOUR the one who is trying to turn this into an argument, so far I've been entirely impartial.

If you can't stand that JDoom is easily dismissed because it is perceived to provide nothing but eye candy...

In the same vein Graf don't preach your opinions and then act all wounded, bringing up topics that don't belong in the conversation just to suit your POV.

then for god's sake, do something about it! Add some stuff that makes it more appealing to mappers. You have an engine at your hand that could be the greatest source port of all times and yet, right now it is far too limited in the choice of maps it is willing to play!

I intend to.

Share this post


Link to post

Graf, I love ZDoom, I just made a fucking gravity gun in ZDoom, but you are a total raging ZDoom fanboy.

EDGE can do all sorts of crazy shit, just look at that Doom3 - >Doom 2 project.

Doomsday can do cool shit, it has those DED files, and some other various editing features I am sure I know nothing about. And it had that Doom64 TC and appears to be pretty popular and active. Plus it looks nice.

Doom Legacy can do cool shit, it has FraggleScript and true 3D, and I saw a WAD where someone did a Pong game in the HUD.

Vavoom, well, I am sure the 3 people that use Vavoom find it very neat. In any event it has 3D and slopes and some sort of VavoomC so I assume that people could do awesome stuff for it if anyone used it.

Personally I don't care for any of those because I'm a big dork and I like the "look" of Doom and hardware acceleration fucks that up, especially the lighting. The only thing I want 3D in Doom for is for perspective-correct mouselook, I even turn off texture filtering so everything stays pixelly. Plus lots of people use ZDoom and Cyb knows all about it so I can bug him about stuff plus the wiki is very comprehensive. But I don't pretend to say that ZDoom is the alpha and omega of Doom ports, even though it's the only one I ever use and it's the de facto official port of Doomworld, really.

Oh yeah and if people want to play ZDoom levels with a somewhat higher graphical prettiness they can use ZDoomGL, hello?!?!

Share this post


Link to post
Linguica said:

[ZDoom is] the only one I ever use

Well, that can't be quite true. You've watched at least one or two non-Zdoom demos recently, right?

Anyway, I'm certainly glad that there is great diversity in ports. They each have their own strengths and priorities, and this enables the developers to press ahead in their port's own areas of strength. The community can only benefit from this diversity.

Share this post


Link to post

Why must every comparative source port thread turn into a flame war? Sheesh. Let's bring it down a notch or two.

First off, the definition of "feature" is not exactly well defined. I could claim that every separate construct available in the EDF language in Eternity constitutes a feature, including every single thing flag I've added. But, some people would just consider the whole of EDF a single feature. Are either of these incorrect? No. They're just considering different levels of functionality within the same program. Because of this, comparisons between source ports may become more apples vs. oranges than actual, meaningful comparisons.

Also, the value of all features is not equal, so simply counting features on lists, even two of comparable functionality levels, may not mean anything at all ultimately. The best measure of usability is what port exposes the most of its internals in ways that allow you to both do things at a low level AND to work at a high level by interfacing with native code subsystems that do a lot for you. Even I'm pretty sure zdoom wins the first one, but I do not think it wins the second one. ACS scripts have to get pretty complicated most of the time to pull off things that could perhaps be helped out a lot by higher level native functions.

Share this post


Link to post
Grazza said:

Well, that can't be quite true. You've watched at least one or two non-Zdoom demos recently, right?

I don't count using PrBoom to watch demos :P

Share this post


Link to post

Linguica said:
Graf, I love ZDoom, I just made a fucking gravity gun in ZDoom, but you are a total raging ZDoom fanboy.


... and DaniJ is a total raging Doomsday fanboy if that's true.

And since a pissing contest requires 2 sides to constantly ignore or reinterpret what the other has to say I am ending it right now because it's just stupid.

Oh yeah and if people want to play ZDoom levels with a somewhat higher graphical prettiness they can use ZDoomGL, hello?!?!


Well, not quite. At least the current version is still a little too unfinished for that. Hopefully the next version will be closer.

Share this post


Link to post

... and DaniJ is a total raging Doomsday fanboy if that's true.

I don't deny it, I am. The difference is I don't allow my personal tastes/opinions to prevent me from giving sound, non-biased help.

And since a pissing contest requires 2 sides to constantly ignore or reinterpret what the other has to say I am ending it right now because it's just stupid.

Your right, pissing contests are stupid. Considering you've managed to turn a normal discusion into one, I agree that it's best we stop it here.

Graf, I think you obviously have a great deal of knowledge regarding Doom and it's inner workings, I respect that. I don't have any personal issues with you or an axe to grind, I just think its a shame the way you constantly bad mouth other ports, especially some of the posts of yours I've read in the Zdoom forums.

Share this post


Link to post
DaniJ said:

I just think its a shame the way you constantly bad mouth other ports, especially some of the posts of yours I've read in the Zdoom forums.



So discussing some ports' shortcomings is 'badmouthing', right? Yes, sometimes a discussion arises about other ports and why some people don't like this or don't like that. Yes, sometimes the language gets a little harsh but it is something completely different to say 'Doomsday sucks because it's a piece of shit' (which it isn't) than to discuss one's likes or dislikes of some port's behavior, bugs, annoyances etc. And yes, sometimes it is fun to do that in a rather dismissive manner but it should always be backed with facts or at least some good arguments.

Yes, I freely admit I can't stand Legacy and Vavoom but that's not because these ports inherently suck, that's because I have some really annoying issues with both of them that I find totally aggravating.

Share this post


Link to post

Also, the value of all features is not equal, so simply counting features on lists, even two of comparable functionality levels, may not mean anything at all ultimately. The best measure of usability is what port exposes the most of its internals in ways that allow you to both do things at a low level AND to work at a high level by interfacing with native code subsystems that do a lot for you. Even I'm pretty sure zdoom wins the first one, but I do not think it wins the second one. ACS scripts have to get pretty complicated most of the time to pull off things that could perhaps be helped out a lot by higher level native functions.

I think thats a very fair evaluation. The problem I have with ACS is that it's too low level. It's obviously very capable at pretty much any task but users could really benefit from some higher level functions that interface directly with 'helper' subsystems.

So discussing some ports' shortcomings is 'badmouthing', right?

No, not inherently, of course not. Discussing the various shortcomings of each port's various subsytems is always productive as it can spark ideas and help to get everyone thinking of 'the bigger picture'. A discussion like that can only happen though when people are prepared to remain open-minded about other peoples ideas and opinions, whilest not allowing any personal gripes/opinions/ideals to cloud your judgement.

Share this post


Link to post
DaniJ said:

I think thats a very fair evaluation. The problem I have with ACS is that it's too low level. It's obviously very capable at pretty much any task but users could really benefit from some higher level functions that interface directly with 'helper' subsystems.


Make a few suggestions. I'd be more than willing to discuss them on the ZDoom forum or even implement them myself. There is enough room to still improve ZDoom.
But I think your problem is not its low-levelness but rather its approach to do things. It's more like a programming language than some property definition file (which appears to be Doomsday's preferred way of exhibiting its features to the user) and which one is preferred heavily depends on the programming skills of the person who has to use it. As a programmer myself I find it powerful, flexible and quite easy to use so it is not easy for me to understand your problems with it.

No, not inherently, of course not. Discussing the various shortcomings of each port's various subsytems is always productive as it can spark ideas and help to get everyone thinking of 'the bigger picture'. A discussion like that can only happen though when people are prepared to remain open-minded about other peoples ideas and opinions, whilest not allowing any personal gripes/opinions/ideals to cloud your judgement.


Believe me, my judgment isn't clouded - only by some bad experiences with certain source ports - for example the one time I wanted to start Vavoom with my firewall active. That goddamn program locked the whole computer because it grabbed the mouse before initializing the network - and without any chance of getting control back. And due to the firewall everything else got blocked as well. The end result was that I lost an hour of hard work. Such memories tend to stick...

Most of the time this source port bashing is more like sport. It's not meant to be taken 100% seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
boris said:

Vavoom. Hands down. The problem is that you'd have to code most of it yourself :P


I wouldn't even have a problem with that. What I don't like about Vavoom's approach of 'flexibility' is that you'd have to recompile the entire game code even for a minimal change. And this would cut you off from eventual changes in later versions. In the end it is not much better than recompiling the C code itself. It should be more modular to be effective.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm a programmer also Graf and I appreciate the flexibility that low level 'tools' provide but I can also see how non programmers would like to have a higher level interface for a lot of tasks. As an example when creating a custom HUD a user should not have to code a widget class. It should be enough to tell the program the parameters of the widget and let it take care of the 'complex' stuff.

property definition file (which appears to be Doomsday's preferred way of exhibiting its features to the user)

Yes the DED reader is a bit annoying and it's due for a total rewrite. It was not originaly designed to be used in the manner in which it is now being used. Over time though it has been easier to extend it rather than rewrite. Ideally a proper parser should be written to handle DED, InFine and ACS (implementing a globaly consitent syntax) and is currently one of the highest priorities.

Share this post


Link to post
DaniJ said:

I'm a programmer also Graf and I appreciate the flexibility that low level 'tools' provide but I can also see how non programmers would like to have a higher level interface for a lot of tasks. As an example when creating a custom HUD a user should not have to code a widget class. It should be enough to tell the program the parameters of the widget and let it take care of the 'complex' stuff.


You know what: That's my biggest problem with ZDoom! I don't like its HUD at all because it doesn't provide me with the necessary information and the ACS huds I have seen so far were all quite messy (Cold as Hell comes to mind even though it looked good on first sight.) This is definitely something that should be take n care of. Too bad I don't have the time to do it properly myself...

Yes the DED reader is a bit annoying and it's due for a total rewrite. It was not originaly designed to be used in the manner in which it is now being used. Over time though it has been easier to extend it rather than rewrite. Ideally a proper parser should be written to handle DED, InFine and ACS (implementing a globaly consitent syntax) and is currently one of the highest priorities.


Don't tell me! ;) I'd guess that could be called the universal laziness syndrome and appears to apply to all programmers in the world.

Share this post


Link to post

Without spending the time to sit down and digest the Zdoom ACS specs and knowing what mod makers repeatedly have to script I can't think off hand what else could be improved. No doubt there is more though. BTW what kinds of array have been inmplemted in Zdoom's ACS as of now?

ATM the priority list for the Doomsday 1.8.X series is:

1) New Multi-platform launcher (nearing completion as we speak).
2) Redesigned DED Reader
3) MD3 models

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
×