Which doom source port is the most edit-friendly?

[Grimm]

Soon Legacy will have both Fragglescript and ACS. :)

Heh, excellent.

2. You want to do cool stuff in your level without too much work. For this ZDoom clearly is the best choice. For this EDGE is far too limited in my opinion (as are most other ports.)

I agree, EDGE is kinda limited. But you'd still have to learn ACS for ZDoom, wouldn't you?

I do like EDGE a lot, simply because I think it's ludicrous that we're still operating under the constraints of the original executable.

[myk]

You know, in my opinion the most edit-friendly source port is Doom (or Doom2), since it offers the features I like on the maps I play. Also, it offers a set and limited framework, which is what foments genuine artistic standards. Of course, it's hard to work with in two respects, since a lot of effort has been put into this kind of editing over the years, and the limitations (potential VPOs, HOMs, and so on) can be quite a challenge when attempting some things. But then again, it's the basics of DOOM editing, so anyone making a map will probably want to start out with a plain Doom project.

[Graf Zahl]

myk said:

You know, in my opinion the most edit-friendly source port is Doom (or Doom2), since it offers the features I like on the maps I play. Also, it offers a set and limited framework, which is what foments genuine artistic standards. Of course, it's hard to work with in two respects, since a lot of effort has been put into this kind of editing over the years, and the limitations (potential VPOs, HOMs, and so on) can be quite a challenge when attempting some things. But then again, it's the basics of DOOM editing, so anyone making a map will probably want to start out with a plain Doom project.

That's not 'edit-friendly' but rather the opposite you are describing. All these limitations can make editing a real pain. Just because you prefer it simple doesn't mean that everybody should limit him/herself the same way.

[myk]

Graf Zahl said:
All these limitations can make editing a real pain.

Yes, I suppose I see what you mean, in a way, as I even admitted it can be hard... but when posting in a forum I see personal preferences (and why) as the most relevant things to mention. You can then also add more generic, common-sense based advice... but that's not worth much more than a secondary comment.

I see the plain wad standard as edit-friendly for being most attractive due to the reasons mentioned, which in themselves imply a difficulty. I mean, I'm saying that those limitations are a framework and inpiration for editing, even though they are a challenge (and partly because they are a challenge.)

Things such as an economic ease of editing (features that easily produce a lot of effects) or user demand ultimately devaluate the worth of a wad, especially when they are sought after ("I want an easy way to do cool stuff," "I want lots of people to play my wad.")

As for limiting oneself to anything, I don't suggest that unless it's desired. It wouldn't be any different than adopting methods or means without being interested in them.

I'm not supposing that by posting about what I claim is the best editing choice that anyone will feel morally or forcefully compelled to edit like I do... and actually, I'm all for versatility. I'm not interested in seeing everyone doing what I'm doing. That'd probably be stressing too. On the contrary, it sometimes even bothers me when I see someone's project is similar to mine in some way.

[Graf Zahl]

myk said:

Things such as an economic ease of editing (features that easily produce a lot of effects) or user demand ultimately devaluate the worth of a wad, especially when they are sought after ("I want an easy way to do cool stuff," "I want lots of people to play my wad.")

All I can say about this is:

What a pile of garbage!

It's obvious that you don't like enhanced abilities of source ports. But this line of reasoning is simply ludicrous. Editing is not about keeping things as complicated as they were originally (which they were because id only implemented those features they actually used in their own maps) Providing mappers with enhanced options is the main reason of existence for source ports. Otherwise we all would still use vanilla Doom or Doom95 because they are absolutely sufficient if seen by your viewpoint. By essentially devaluating any WAD that uses 'easy to use' features to achieve cool effects you insult a lot of excellent mappers!

[myk]

Graf Zahl said:
Otherwise we all would still use vanilla Doom or Doom95 because they are absolutely sufficient if seen by your viewpoint.

That's my viewpoint and that's what I do... but where on this world have you seen a place where everyone thinks the same way or likes to do the same things? It seems to me that you take viewpoints as mandates, that there's an objective truth or best on which we should strive to base our judgement and actions on. The fact is that we're all different. At most we agree on some things, sometimes.

By essentially devaluating any WAD that uses 'easy to use' features to achieve cool effects you insult a lot of excellent mappers!

Really? I was convinced capable mappers have a passion for editing itself and wouldn't feel offended by my (or any) differing mapping tastes or conceptions.

Naturally, this doesn't happen only with DOOM editing. I've experienced it with literature, music, movies and many other things, when I can see that lots of work has been put into something but its effect is unappealing for certain reasons.

[Nanami]

myk said:

I'd say that using Boom features and nothing else is pretty pointless. A number of engines don't support them (Doom and Jdoom for instance, which are popular enough) and, more importantly, they really don't add much more than gimmicks over standard DOOM functionality.

I can't remember who said this, but it's pretty true. If an engine doesn't support Boom it's a pretty retarded engine. Boom is pretty damn old. It would be like not supporting DeHacked patches.

Boom may not seem to add a lot but if you realize that moving floors can open up the gateway to about 321948049289048239042 other things, you'll see how important Boom is. Just moving floors alone can simulate scripted events, where you can have one switch do more than one thing by moving a dummy marine over several triggers.

[NiGHTMARE]

myk said:

I'd say that using Boom features and nothing else is pretty pointless. A number of engines don't support them (Doom and Jdoom for instance, which are popular enough) and, more importantly, they really don't add much more than gimmicks over standard DOOM functionality.

Three words: conveyor belt scripting.

[myk]

Nanami said:
Boom may not seem to add a lot but if you realize that moving floors can open up the gateway to about 321948049289048239042 other things, you'll see how important Boom is. Just moving floors alone can simulate scripted events, where you can have one switch do more than one thing by moving a dummy marine over several triggers.

Okay, I'll grant that it can open many possibilities. After I posted that I even thought about some sector effects, such as conveyors, wind and friction, that even without elaborate editing could have a relatively strong effect on play. Nonetheless anyone aiming for that type of editing will probably want to use it along with the newer methods (like scripting, which as you just said can do pretty much the same things through different means) even if it might mean (but it might not) cutting back slightly on the number of potential players.

I'll still call them gimmicks though, as the definition of the word seems quite accurate for them, (especially things like the dummy marine effects):

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?gimmick

[Graf Zahl]

Nanami said:

I can't remember who said this, but it's pretty true. If an engine doesn't support Boom it's a pretty retarded engine. Boom is pretty damn old. It would be like not supporting DeHacked patches.

Ín other words, JDoom is a retarded engine... ;-) (Not that I completely disagree with that opinion... :-D ) Honestly, I don't like JDoom for exactly this reason. I really don't care about its visual gimmicks and its mere existence will keep many mappers from using enhanced features because they want to support 'all major ports' which today means 'Doom2.exe compatible'. It's a real shame!

[Grimm]

Frankly, I think anyone who tries to support "all major ports" is a fool. As I've said before, the port you need is only a download away.

jDoom is great! True, it does lack any easy to use editing features (though if you check out the example WAD you'll see it is quite capable of some pseudo-advanced stuff), but it looks absolutely amazing. And now that it supports hi-res everything . . . man. I don't know why you hate jDoom, but if you haven't tried it out yet, go do it! I was skeptical myself, but after I tried it, I was sold immediately. Just make sure you either use the hi-res textures, run in Direct 3-D, or turn off mip, 'cause the blur will give you eyestrain pronto. Also, you'll probably want to consider changing how things are aligned and perhaps turn off smooth actor movement.

Did you ever consider that maybe the reason jDoom doesn't support Boom is the same reason most ports break Vanilla demos? SkyJake may simply have rewritten too much of the code to support Boom. Considering whaty a graphical overhaul he's done, it wouldn't suprise me.

[Nanami]

Grimm said:

Did you ever consider that maybe the reason jDoom doesn't support Boom is the same reason most ports break Vanilla demos? SkyJake may simply have rewritten too much of the code to support Boom. Considering whaty a graphical overhaul he's done, it wouldn't suprise me.

Eternity is about to have a bazillion more editing features than it already has. Right now it has a lot of stuff that you can do with it, and it still runs demos, as far as I know.

[Cyb]

Nanami said:

Eternity is about to have a bazillion more editing features than it already has. Right now it has a lot of stuff that you can do with it, and it still runs demos, as far as I know.

jdoom is much different than eternity though. As far as I know doomsday generalized a lot of the shared game data between Heretic, Hexen and Doom and broken the game specific stuff (enemies, weapons etc etc) into game dlls (making them more like mods for the doomsday engine), whereas eternity is a flat out modification of the doom source which hasn't touched many of the fundamentals of the original engine which allows it to run old demos.

however this point is a bit moot, because isn't skyjake working on jBoom anyway?

[myk]

Nanami said:
Eternity is about to have a bazillion more editing features than it already has.

Eternity comes from the Boom editing line (Boom -> MBF -> SMMU -> Eternity) so it had Boom features before anything else. Not that skyJake couldn't add Boom features quite buglessly if he wanted. I'm sure he could, but from what I see JDoom is a pretty pure mod. It doesn't directly borrow from here and there (unlike ZDoom and Doom Legacy) but instead does things pretty much its own way. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

I'm sure Heit can have due credit from merging so many features coming from different Doom-like engines and whatnot, but might it not be that other people might want to follow a different path in how they make their source mods? Some people pretty much want to do what they want their way... Just like you like to have a lot of editing opitions in order to achieve whatever editing results you want, some coders like to decide what their engine will be like, and unlike map editors they only have whatever limits hardware and coding languages impose when working... I doubt they care if some little mapper (or whoever) says something like "engines without Boom features are retarded." They just have their own concept and follow it.

[Nanami]

Heh well my point is it has nothing to do with breaking demos. =P

[myk]

And that point is valid if you ask me since from what I know JDoom doesn't even run v1.9 demos.

[Graf Zahl]

Cyb said:

however this point is a bit moot, because isn't skyjake working on jBoom anyway?

Let's hope he does! It would be really nice to have a source port which has all the editing features and a good renderer. Of course ZDoomGL will be there first and it'll be interesting to see how those 2 compete.

Grimm said:

Did you ever consider that maybe the reason jDoom doesn't support Boom is the same reason most ports break Vanilla demos? SkyJake may simply have rewritten too much of the code to support Boom. Considering whaty a graphical overhaul he's done, it wouldn't suprise me.

Well, as a programmer I can definitely answer 'no'! Most of Boom's new stuff is relatively simple to add. The only features that really require a few changes to the game code are the thing carrying sectors (not to make them work but to make them work correctly!) and the deep water effect. Apart from these 2 the rest can be simply added to the source without changing anything else. I could do it in 2 days.

[Rellik]

Three words: conveyor belt scripting.

I made a random teleporter for one of my DM maps that way. BOOM kicks so much ass. I think when modders make BOOM specific stuff they are sending the message that "We like BOOM. Support it." Besides, it's not always a good idea to do things another way. The more things in common the ports have, the better it is for the modders.

[FireBastard]

Cyb said:

however this point is a bit moot, because isn't skyjake working on jBoom anyway?

JBOOM was done by Graham Jackson, not skyjake. IIRC it's been renamed to RISEN3D. Has full BOOM support and an extremely well done renderer. Tried to get the link working, but it's down atm.

[FireBastard]

Graf Zahl said:

Well, as a programmer I can definitely answer 'no'! Most of Boom's new stuff is relatively simple to add. The only features that really require a few changes to the game code are the thing carrying sectors (not to make them work but to make them work correctly!) and the deep water effect. Apart from these 2 the rest can be simply added to the source without changing anything else. I could do it in 2 days.

Hehe - in the context of JDOOM? Don't think so. It's not that simple in an OPENGL setting. Or better yet, why don't you take the JDOOM source, add it in 2 days and prove me wrong.

[Graf Zahl]

FireBastard said:

Hehe - in the context of JDOOM? Don't think so. It's not that simple in an OPENGL setting. Or better yet, why don't you take the JDOOM source, add it in 2 days and prove me wrong.

If you really read my post you should have realized that I said 'Apart from these ...'. The only things that are more work are the deep water stuff (changes to the renderer) and the carry specials because they use lists that didn't exist in that form in the original Doom. The rest of the Boom extensions can practically be cut and pasted into the JDoom code because it's only added sector movement stuff, line specials, silent teleporters and simple texture coordinate manipulation. Nothing that might be hard to implement because the basics are already there.

The complexity of adding the deep water stuff depends upon how much preprocessing is being done on the level geometry. It would take a few days to figure that out before I could make an estimate how difficult this is.

[NiGHTMARE]

Of course you could always take a look at the ZDoomGL source, seeing as that's a GL port with Boom (and obviously ZDoom) support and all :)

[Graf Zahl]

NiGHTMARE said:

Of course you could always take a look at the ZDoomGL source, seeing as that's a GL port with Boom (and obviously ZDoom) support and all :)

But that won't help because it's totally different code (and much better programmed IMHO). Frankly, when ZdoomGL is finished, JDoom will be obsolete anyway because it won't have anything special to offer then... ;-)

[FireBastard]

Graf Zahl said:

If you really read my post you should have realized that I said 'Apart from these ...'. .. blah blah

Oh I really read your post and you had me laughing. I mean exactly as you meant it (look at what I quoted). Just modify JDOOM in 2 days (excluding the "apart..") and prove me wrong.

[Grazza]

Graf Zahl said:

its mere existence will keep many mappers from using enhanced features because they want to support 'all major ports' which today means 'Doom2.exe compatible'.

And avoiding some Doom2.exe tricks that don't work in some of the OpenGL ports.

[Nanami]

Heh, Grind2 was supposed to be for a "limitless port" and jDoom messed up one of the effects. And since Legacy doesn't have voodoo dolls it seems the only major port that does vanilla correctly is ZDoom!

[NiGHTMARE]

Nanami said:

Heh, Grind2 was supposed to be for a "limitless port" and jDoom messed up one of the effects. And since Legacy doesn't have voodoo dolls it seems the only major port that does vanilla correctly is ZDoom!

I'd said PRBoom, Eternity and Skulltag were all fairly major ports, and they all do vanilla properly :)

[Graf Zahl]

FireBastard said:

Oh I really read your post and you had me laughing. I mean exactly as you meant it (look at what I quoted). Just modify JDOOM in 2 days (excluding the "apart..") and prove me wrong.

Honestly, how much work is it to copy and paste some code into nearly unmodified Doom source? For this stuff you only have to touch the game DLL and there really is nothing that requires a change - just some added code. Just a few more options to move floors and ceilings; the silent teleporters can just be copied in unaltered and a few hours of work to get the scrollers working, that's it for the editing features. A little work has to be done for some bugfixes but since most of those are just a few isolated changes in the code it should be quick also. You may be surprised how quick something like this can be done if you just approach it correctly. (And from experience I can say that this is the part which most people do wrong!)

[FireBastard]

Graf Zahl said:

Honestly, how much work is it to copy and paste some code into nearly unmodified Doom source?...

Sure. Be a hero and do it in 2 days. Seems like a natural way to become famous eh?

[The Ultimate DooMer]

Burnov said:

I'm in the market for a good doom source port that's easily edited... as in dehacked-type editing. I love doomsday but there are just certain things you can't edit with dehacked patches such as hitpoint values for players or other things... so it's basically useless to me. I specifically want to crank the hitpoints for players down to 25 or so, like in marine doom. I find there's just not enough excitement and challenge otherwise. Anyhow. If anyone would has any ideas for me I'd be appreciative. I would on a subsidiary note prefer something graphically appealing. But even if the port still looks like old vanilla doom. It's better than nothing.

ZDoom has BEX (an extension of Dehacked), which allows you to do all sorts of things, such as new monsters (with new behaviour) and weapons. (although new weapons have to replace existing ones, unless you're really clever like me...)