[Lazy] ZDoom Features Summary

[Lutz]

So I'm horribly, horribly lazy. I'm sure that with even the barest modicum of effort I could find what I'm looking for, but I need more posts so I can change my tag line. Also, like I said, I'm really lazy.

Is there a document out there that comprehensively lists the new editing features of ZDoom? (I'm more interested in new linedef/sector types and how they behave as opposed to scripting stuff.) Also, what about GZDoom?

...so lazy...

[Da Spadger]

http://www.zdoom.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

\o/

[Graf Zahl]

You find all linedef types here:

http://www.zdoom.org/wiki/index.php?title=Action_specials

and to get an overview, here's some stuff you can do with scripts that can't be done with simple linedefs:

http://www.zdoom.org/wiki/index.php?title=Built-in_ACS_functions


You can do a lot without ever using a script - but considering your past maps with complex voodoo doll setups, ACS should make your life a lot easier.

As for GZDoom, it's mostly the same but you can define 3D-floors which ZDoom doesn't have.

[printz]

I'm heavily disappointed that everything concerning ZDoom editing features is only redirected to the ZDoom wiki. I don't really trust wikis, because they're not always complete, and can be sabotaged anytime. And I want or need it to stay in my hard drive, too.

Are there no real stable documentation files where everything is pointed by the author himself and only, the way ZDoom 1.22 had and Eternity has?

Maybe I'll change my mind after perusing the wikis, but the keepin' on my hard drive problem will still remain, because wiki data gets updated fast.

[RjY]

Lutz said:

I need more posts so I can change my tag line

Your title should be "My wad is prettier than your wad"

[Graf Zahl]

printz said:

I'm heavily disappointed that everything concerning ZDoom editing features is only redirected to the ZDoom wiki. I don't really trust wikis, because they're not always complete, and can be sabotaged anytime. And I want or need it to stay in my hard drive, too.

That's your problem. Do you have any idea how much work it is to write and maintain some documentation for a product that is in constant development?

Are there no real stable documentation files where everything is pointed by the author himself and only, the way ZDoom 1.22 had and Eternity has?

The Wiki *is* the documentation. There are no plans to maintain a separate set of data just for the paranoid consumer.

[printz]

Graf Zahl said:

That's your problem. Do you have any idea how much work it is to write and maintain some documentation for a product that is in constant development?

Keep a document open and add or modify info as you add or edit editing stuff to the code.

The Wiki *is* the documentation. There are no plans to maintain a separate set of data just for the paranoid consumer.

Could be valid. Though some master moderation would have to be maintained, to keep stray data in reach. Anyway, don't waste your time pointing me that it's just fine, because I'll have to look in there myself just to get convinced it's not that bad. I've still noticed missing (red) links, maybe not the necessary, maybe not even implemented in ZDoom anyway.

[Graf Zahl]

printz said:

Keep a document open and add or modify info as you add or edit editing stuff to the code.

Sorry, the Wiki was installed precisely so that it doesn't have to be done like that.

[Dr. Zin]

printz said:

Keep a document open and add or modify info as you add or edit editing stuff to the code.

Never programmed, have you?

[printz]

I have. Not Doom or Boom itself. How come I never programmed anyway? I'd see myself if it's possible to do what I said. Now I'm pausing programming.

Something unpleasant, negative, could happen if I keep protesting about wikis, I'm rather sure. Expansions. So enough for now. See this later (if likely).

[LexiMax]

You seem to be paranoid about wiki vandalism. Which begs the question, WHY!? Seriously, wikis rock for a couple of reasons:

* Allows everyone to help maintain the documentation. The programmer would probably rather spend his time programming and offer a simple explination of what something does. Why not have the community members who use and know the software inside and out (and are probably better at documenting things than the programmer) maintain it?
* Vandalism is impossible. Everything is recorded, and there is a way to instantly revert to an older version if something funny happens to it.

Now, wiki's do have their bad points, but most of them have to do with wikis that are vulnerable to (sometimes admin-sanctioned) POV forcing, whitewashing or other general article shittery. Fortuneatly, program documentation doesn't have to deal with either of those problems. ;)

[DooMAD]

Now would be a bad time to be paranoid about wikis, since at least 6 different ports are using them for documentation now.

printz said:

And I want or need it to stay in my hard drive, too.
(...)
Maybe I'll change my mind after perusing the wikis, but the keepin' on my hard drive problem will still remain, because wiki data gets updated fast.

There's just too much information for a single document, so you end up with several different files with too many sections. You're saying you'd rather have outdated and deprecated information scattered across several document files on your drive, rather than something accurate and organised? Why not go the whole way and have a user manual book?