Pwad merging

[SaGa]

make the new WA allow Pwad merging ie merging more then one pwad(with levels) togeather....since wintex has no support with zdoom maps that means i cant merge my levels togeather in one neat little pwad

[DeePsea]

If you want to merge several levels right away, press F7 in DeePsea to bring up the general Lump Dialog.

1. Select "Import Lump Files into a PWAD".
2. Select/make a target file, select the PWADS to combine ("Add a File to List") and
3. press "Import All Files".

It does more than just PWADs - (actually anything), so be sure you select the PWADs with levels you want to merge together. You can preview everything visually ahead of time, so don't worry about combining the wrong ones.

The next version will also merge TEXTUREx and PNAMES so you can instantly combine graphics from different sources. Plus beginners & experts can easily and instantly create brand new graphics. Just point it to some BMPs you made or like and it's a done deal.

Be sure to download the current version from www.sbsofware.com since the copy here is out-of-date. New version should be out in less than a week.

[X-DOOM]

deepteam :

Can you just stop boring us with your DeePsea !

SaGa has just saying a suggestion for WA --> Wad Author ! Not with DeePsea !
We know that DeePsea is a doom program that are in the Top10 ! But stop saying always DeePsea can do that ! We eat this !

Sorry but i'm in a bad smood ! Understood !

[Biffy]

Hey SaGa,

Yes, you can use Wintex 4.3 for merging zdoom pwads, but it takes a little determination. You have to use Wintex first to rename some resources in the wads so they don't overwrite. For example,
you need to rename the data lump map01 to map02 in your intended second map. Also, rename behavior to behavio2, for example. Merge the wads. Rename behavio2 to behavior. I probably forgot some other detail but you get the idea. If the "merge wads" button does not work, you can just copy and paste entire wads with all information into another wad, providing you take care to rename some things which shouldn't overwrite. Note that the wad can contain only one dehacked lump, vs. the multi behavior lumps.
Good luck...it's a bit painful but ahh, the thrill of success!

[SaGa]

deepteam said:

If you want to merge several levels right away, press F7 in DeePsea to bring up the general Lump Dialog.

1. Select "Import Lump Files into a PWAD".
2. Select/make a target file, select the PWADS to combine ("Add a File to List") and
3. press "Import All Files".

It does more than just PWADs - (actually anything), so be sure you select the PWADs with levels you want to merge together. You can preview everything visually ahead of time, so don't worry about combining the wrong ones.

The next version will also merge TEXTUREx and PNAMES so you can instantly combine graphics from different sources. Plus beginners & experts can easily and instantly create brand new graphics. Just point it to some BMPs you made or like and it's a done deal.

Be sure to download the current version from www.sbsofware.com since the copy here is out-of-date. New version should be out in less than a week.

um dude i dont like deepsea ofr a few reasons (1.wad author is better, there for every other editor to me sux)(2. deepsea has that sidedef limit and im not going to pay like 20$$ just for that limit would not exsist)

[DeePsea]

Interesting - WadAuthor has a time limit after which it won't work. So then you can't do anything. How do you get around that? Amazingly I too know the answer, but that isn't really fair to John is it?

I do hope John realizes that everybody knows how to defeat the time limit - I'm 100% certain that was not his intention or else he wouldn't have bothered would he!

The import feature has NO limits and it does what you ask -Without jumping through Wintex hoops. No need to get up in a huff.

[DeePsea]

X-DOOM said:

deepteam :

Can you just stop boring us with your DeePsea !

SaGa has just saying a suggestion for WA --> Wad Author ! Not with DeePsea !
We know that DeePsea is a doom program that are in the Top10 ! But stop saying always DeePsea can do that ! We eat this !

Sorry but i'm in a bad smood ! Understood !

Wasn't he explaining how he didn't know how to merge levels with Wintex (right?). That led to the "suggestion".

Bad "smood" or not, it seems appropriate to show how the "suggestions" are already handled by DeePsea. Weren't those suggestions thought to be useful in editing?

It's useful for others to know how to accomplish their editing goals in the easiest way possible. How is making life difficult useful? Understood:)

Let's not get carried away - keep it level headed and factual.

[Phileosophos]

Actually, registered users of the old WadAuthor gain access to a DOS utility named WADMERGE.EXE that will merge up to nine PWAD files at a time into one large output wadfile. This feature has been supported in this way since the first day WadAuthor was released. Nevertheless, if I do complete the code to support lump management, one of the features will be the appending of one wadfile into another.

[Phileosophos]

deepteam said:

Interesting - WadAuthor has a time limit after which it won't work. So then you can't do anything. How do you get around that? Amazingly I too know the answer, but that isn't really fair to John is it?

I do hope John realizes that everybody knows how to defeat the time limit - I'm 100% certain that was not his intention or else he wouldn't have bothered would he!

The import feature has NO limits and it does what you ask -Without jumping through Wintex hoops. No need to get up in a huff.

>Interesting - WadAuthor has a time limit after which it
>won't work. So then you can't do anything. How do you
>get around that? Amazingly I too know the answer, but
>that isn't really fair to John is it?
>I do hope John realizes that everybody knows how to
>defeat the time limit - I'm 100% certain that was not
>his intention or else he wouldn't have bothered would he!

Unless I have misunderstood your post, it saddens me. The way you "get around that" is you *pay* for the product! I guess I'm kind of silly that way, but I figure the rather largish amount of time and effort I've devoted to writing WadAuthor deserves some kind of recompense if persons wish to use the product.

And yes of course I realize that the limit can be worked around relatively simply. After all, I am the one who wrote the code! Believe me, I'm not a novice; I could have made it far more difficult to circumvent. Nevertheless, I am opposed in principle to the lack of respect it would show users for WadAuthor to require a dongle or hide little bits of data in the boot sector, partition table, FAT, etc. to leave a more permanent record.

What really isn't fair to me is when persons trample my generosity by continuing to use the product without paying the pittance I ask for registration.

[DeePsea]

John, it's a very common post here to tell someone how to get around the WadAuthor time registration limit.

Trust me, if you want to at least get 50 cents/hr (that's about what I figure I get<g>), and not ZERO, you need to change it. It's way too easy as it is - almost as if it didn't exist.

Sad as reality may be, it is reality. Most users won't pay unless there is a barrier that can't be easily undone. So yes, they do trample all over you. I originally wrote DeePbsp for a $5 registration fee back in '94. Mind you, it saved 10 minutes per node build on a 486. I got 3 people that paid on the "honor" system. So much for respect.

This is hardly "lack of respect" to the users, when they have absolutely no respect for one's work. As you note, there is a large amount of time invested in the editors.

I get crap all the time over the enforced "size" limits. They treat the small registration fee like it's some king's ransom.

One suggestion is to "know for sure" who a copy was registered to. Any program with a "key" becomes "warez" in a heartbeat. For example, Ehelp/RoboHelp - something we both use and paid a lot of money for does it the -wrong- way.

[Phileosophos]

>John, it's a very common post here to tell someone how to
>get around the WadAuthor time registration limit.

(sigh) I wish I could say it surprises me.

>Trust me, if you want to at least get 50 cents/hr (that's
>about what I figure I get<g>), and not ZERO, you need to
>change it. It's way too easy as it is - almost as if it
>didn't exist.

$0.50/hour!? That's about $0.49/hour more than I figured I was getting?!

>Sad as reality may be, it is reality. Most users won't
>pay unless there is a barrier that can't be easily undone.
>So yes, they do trample all over you. I originally
>wrote DeePbsp for a $5 registration fee back in '94.
>Mind you, it saved 10 minutes per node build on a 486.
>I got 3 people that paid on the "honor" system. So
>much for respect.

This is pretty interesting to me. The day before I released the first version of WadAuthor, I remember laughing and telling my wife that thousands of people would probably download and use it, whereas roughly four would probably ever register it. Yet I had more paid registrations than that in the very first day. I don't have the exact figures, but there are approximately 13,000+ registered users of WadAuthor.

I haven't made $20/license on more than a fraction of those because many of them received a registered copy through my deal with SAMS on the "3D Alchemy" book. So I haven't gotten rich or even recouped the effort I've put into it at anything close to minimum wage. Just so people know how badly content authors get screwed in book deals, I was pretty lucky to get *any* royalties at all--SAMS wanted to pay me a one-time pittance to include the full version of the product. After negotiating, I was lucky to scrape out a whopping $0.20 per copy of the book. In other words, I was getting 1% of the normal price of my own product. Nevertheless, I have been pleasantly surprised at the number of people that have been honest enough to register. I have also been surprised at the number of companies/individuals willing to pay the $500.00 I've charged for access to the source code.

>This is hardly "lack of respect" to the users, when they
>have absolutely no respect for one's work. As you note,
>there is a large amount of time invested in the editors.

No? Perhaps you're using some method I didn't consider. I looked into the various ways of securing software, and all of the methods I considered (1) relied upon stuffing hidden data in obscure places on a person's machine to uniquely identify the install date, license, etc., or (2) required a hardware dongle or something similar, or (3) involved different executables, license files or something similar.

I decided against (1) because I'm just against cramming stuff in hidden spots on someone's machine. It strikes me as a violation of a user's computer. I'd never want a program to do it to me, and I actively ditch programs that take such license in sprawling across my hard drive(s). I decided against (2) because in my experience dongles *never* work the way they're supposed to, and they cost a fair amount to implement anyway.

I chose (3) with the full knowledge that it was pretty easy to defeat. I guess I wonder: if you've got limits hard-coded in your executable or something like that, how is that any tougher to beat? We both know that my scheme can be beaten just by copying some files, but can't yours as well?

If you don't want to respond to that publicly--and believe me I can understand why you wouldn't want to--then please send me email at wc@zyan.com. I'd very much like to learn whatever you're willing to share about your protection methods. If I can lock WadAuthor down more securely without seriously hampering the user's ability to evaluate the package in a substantive way, then I'll do it.

[boris]

> CONSIDER THIS, guys .....
> John's "WadAuthor code" is NOT used JUST for WadAuthor -- it's > licensed to companies who pay him for right to use it in their > software.
> Because, it's a very advanced code.
> If he let us Doomers use his WadAuthor for free -- it >MIGHT "legally impact" on his RIGHT to make Companies pay to >use the code in it.

Could be, but I think it's rather unlikely. Nobody is talking about releasing the source for WA. Also, as you know, id has released the sources for Wolf3D, Doom and Quake, which were also used by other companies (which for sure played MUCH more than $500.00 for the source) and they were not sued (the companies which licensed the source don't make money of that programs by now anyways).

I don't really understand why to make the user register anyways. Both of them said they get $0.01 to $0.50 (though I guess they are exaggerating a bit) per hour working on the editors. This is like nothing and it will not get more at any time.
IMO the best way to show the respec they deserve (which they surely do) is to build great levels with their editors.

[Guest FRAGG]

GENTLEMEN: I been reading this whole, long, "Pwad merging" Thread.
I'd like to say couple things......

John's "WadAuthor code" is NOT used JUST for WadAuthor -- it's licensed to Companies who pay him for "right to use it" in their software.
Because it's a very advanced code.
If he let us Doomers use his WadAuthor for free -- it MIGHT "legally impact" on his RIGHT to make Companies pay to use the code in it.
Some smartass Company-lawyer might get tempted to court-challenge ("When WadAuthor Editor became "free" --the code in it became "Free Public Code". So, we can use the code in it for free").

Can it be put any plainer?
The code in WadAuthor is John's "living". He licenses that code to Companies.
The code pays his rent/puts food on table -- it's his "bread n'butter".
To ask him to make WadAuthor "free" is to ask him to risk his living.

FINAL POINT:
Speaking for myself, I LIKE it when Jack jumps into a Thread.
As he did here, and does in other Threads -- and offers a "DeepSea solution" to someone's Problem. Even, when the problem concerns "another" Editor.
(Note: I've ALSO seen him offer a "WadAuthor solution" to a guy's problem).

WHY do I like to see Jack join Threads?
Because like many guys here, I'm a "newby mapper".
And Jack explains things so clear and so detailed, that I learn things just by reading his posts.
(And not just about Editors. He explains lotsa OTHER things too).
And, I'm sure plenty other guys learn from his posts.

SO PLEASE ... no more stupid complaints like "Jack, stop butting in".
(Even if its only because your in bad mood, that you say it).
Why?
Because you might get Jack "pist off" -- and he might not come back here very often.
And me and other guys (trying to LEARN things!) would lose a DAMN GOOD TEACHER" !!!
Understood?
Thanks.
fragg

[DeePsea]

Phileosophos said:

if you've got limits hard-coded in your executable or something like that, how is that any tougher to beat?
==================================================

Rather than email, this might be interesting to some here to see the problems small developers face. (For those that don't know, a "dongle" is a piece of hardware attached to the PC that a program checks when started.)

My solution is in 2 parts, both very simple. One was tossed aside without perhaps realizing how easy it is. It's no secret that the DeePsea "shareware" version is not the same code as the registered version. That and the method used is not just some constant value in the program (that would be too transparent).

All you need are 2 identical IDE projects, with just a few files different. Very low maintenance, very easy for you to maintain. The maintenance consists of clicking "build" in each project and you have 2 executables in about 1 minute (it's amazing how fast stuff is today).

Next, I designed an automated registering system that makes the process both easy and fool proof from my end. The shipped registered version is thus different code and is uniquely tied to a user. For a low volume product, this is very practical and easy to do. Email me, if you want details on how to do this.

Otoh, if you want to keep it the way you do, then at the minimum use the method PSP uses (now there's a successful share product) with registry values. I'd modify their registered method so a "crack" would always reveal who the registered user was. The details require code cooperation not unlike what I proposed above.

One has to be "obscure" in concept, that's what protection of your intellectual rights is all about. No dongle, no sprawling, no violation, just putting the same effort into "this code" as into the functionality part of a program. Letting it just be "cleared" by something even a rookie will do (not knowing many programs still won't work) is not adequate.

Almost ALL programs today have a registry key (like VS, RoboHelp, etc). One is forced to accept that as a minimum standard in the current market.

Subjectively, I've never cared for "timed" systems. As an developer, they are relatively easy to crack. As a user, if one doesn't have time to evaluate, the next time you try it may be "expired". Then you can't try it again. Very frustrating.

It's clear the system has to check "somewhere" for the date, so instantly one knows that it wrote something, somewhere. There is a simple way to defeat this (although a bit risky) for the more advanced here.

The Sams Publishing payment to me for the book deal, was interesting. They didn't pay and when I called I found that they kept track of things "by hand". No computer, just a stack of paper in some guys drawer -lol. And here they are doing all these computer books. I think only Sams & main author were the ones that made out on that deal:)

Compuserve was cool though. DeeP became the most downloaded editor there (even after J.A. deliberately cut the download count, it still beat DEU). Too bad they cut the shareware program, that was a very good business and helped pay for something anyway. I never understood why they dumped it.

[Jayextee]

Phileosophos said:

I would just like to comment here, as an unregistered user (Kind of) that some people, like myself, maybe don't use WA as their main editor.

Paying $20 just for cutting-and-pasting WADs too big for my DOS editor seems a little much, especially as I've never done a level that big, yet.

If I used WadAuthor as my main editor, then getting 'around' the time limit or not, I would register - as it's the right thing to do. Thus, I look forward to the time when WadAuthor has a vertex/linedefs drawing mode A LA WadEd, so I can rightfully part with the fee and not feel like I'm ripping myself off.

On another note, I used to program for the Amiga. Although nothing I ever coded (Mainly simple games, for the record) was released publicly, I asked myself about this dilemma, and I beleive that 'cutting' out some of the more 'deluxe' features, or enforcing a time limit would be ideal for unregistered versions.

So I suggest, for the next version of WA, either 1) enforce a half-hour limit - which when met, WA will close down or 2) Restrict some of the WAD merging or other capability.

1) Can be beaten (Just open the program again!) but is a pain-in-the butt reminder that it's not a full version.
2) Is another reminder, but less prominent, and won't actually let users evaluate 100% of your program.

Just my two cents...

[Lüt]

X-DOOM said:

deepteam :

Can you just stop boring us with your DeePsea !

SaGa has just saying a suggestion for WA --> Wad Author ! Not with DeePsea !
We know that DeePsea is a doom program that are in the Top10 ! But stop saying always DeePsea can do that ! We eat this !

Sorry but i'm in a bad smood ! Understood !

Actually, I don't mind at all, I like picking up random information like that. Somehow I learn best when I'm not trying to learn anything.

[SaGa]

deepteam said:

Wasn't he explaining how he didn't know how to merge levels with Wintex (right?). That led to the "suggestion".

Bad "smood" or not, it seems appropriate to show how the "suggestions" are already handled by DeePsea. Weren't those suggestions thought to be useful in editing?

It's useful for others to know how to accomplish their editing goals in the easiest way possible. How is making life difficult useful? Understood:)

Let's not get carried away - keep it level headed and factual.

i didnt say i didnt know how i do know how but wintex cant merge zdoom map filez it just fucks up the maps

[Phileosophos]

boris said:

>Could be, but I think it's rather unlikely. Nobody is
>talking about releasing the source for WA. Also, as you
>know, id has released the sources for Wolf3D, Doom and
>Quake, which were also used by other companies (which
>for sure played MUCH more than $500.00 for the source)
>and they were not sued (the companies which licensed
>the source don't make money of that programs by now anyways).

Heh. Actually one person posteed something to that effect a week or so ago if memory serves. Though the number of "requests" has dropped off over the years, I used to receive quite frequently all kinds of email from the information-wants-to-be-free crowd. And almost without an exception, they would literally tell me what a bucket of dung I am because I have the gall not to release my code freely to anyone who so much as asks for it.

I have no doubt that Id Software makes a lot more than $500 for the code to their engines. But just because I'm not in their league doesn't mean I'm not entitled to place a value on the fruits of my labor. Something you and others really must understand is that a non-trivial chunk of the code that comprises WadAuthor is completely independent of WadAuthor.

My company's ability to write software quickly and cheaply stems largely from the amount of time and effort that has been put into developing a certain code base, which essentially represents the company's "intellectual capital". Were I to go just handing that out freely because, after all, $500 is a lot less than bigger companies make, what competitive advantage would I have? The whole point of companies hiring Williston Consulting is that they expect a certain level of competence, quality and speed in the final product. If any old programmer can do that, thanks to access to my company's libraries, then why ought anyone pay me?

>I don't really understand why to make the user
>register anyways. Both of them said they get $0.01 to
>$0.50 (though I guess they are exaggerating a bit) per
>hour working on the editors. This is like nothing and
>it will not get more at any time.

Since you don't understand, allow me to explain. It's certainly true that I didn't make WadAuthor for the money, nor do I continue to work on it for the money. I generally charge between $75 - 150 an hour for consulting work, and the hours I spend on WadAuthor clearly don't net that kind of change.

Nevertheless, the money that I receive for WadAuthor does provide me incentive to keep working on it. It also helps me pay the ridiculous sums of money I have to fork out to keep my development tools current.

For example, I've generally had to pony up an average of something like $600 each year to Microsoft for their latest compiler and a developer level subscription to MSDN. This is in addition to the $900+ I had to pay for a now-outdated version of the memory management code in WadAuthor (SmartHeap + HeapAgent), the roughly $600 I had to pay for the original help-editing tools (RoboHelp--which is "broken" by every new release of Microsoft Word and must be repurchased at roughly full price every time), and so forth. Frankly, it just plain costs money to keep even a single computer ready to develop software these days, and those WadAuthor registrations help!

>IMO the best way to show the respec they deserve
>(which they surely do) is to build great levels with
>their editors.

Well, when you write and distribute your own level-editing software, then you can distribute your code with this requirement in mind. If you wish to show me respect, however, for WadAuthor, then the best way to do that is to pony up the $20 to register it.

[Phileosophos]

Jayextee said:

>I would just like to comment here, as an unregistered
>user (Kind of) that some people, like myself, maybe
>don't use WA as their main editor.

I didn't assume that you did as there are lots of alternatives available.

>Paying $20 just for cutting-and-pasting WADs too big for
>my DOS editor seems a little much, especially as I've
>never done a level that big, yet.

I agree completely. I wouldn't pay the $20 either just for that feature--particularly when it's implemented at present in a completely separate DOS utility.

But what is implied in your message is that it's ok, then, not to pony up the $20 as long as you only use some small portion of the program. You know, it's ok because it's not my *main* editor. I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

I don't know what line of work you're in, but if we assume for a moment that you make/sell some product, are you going to want to let me come into your shop and use it for one task that I have to accomplish from time to time without any recompense? I mean, ought U-Haul let me use their trucks for free every once in a while because they're not my *main* moving company? Of course not. And it shouldn't be any different with software.

The point is simple: if you don't want to pay the $20 for that one feature, I don't blame you, but don't take it as a license to screw shareware authors by re-installing their program again and again just because the program is not your *main* utility for that task.

>So I suggest, for the next version of WA, either 1)
>enforce a half-hour limit - which when met, WA will
>close down or 2) Restrict some of the WAD merging or
>other capability.

I may take you up on suggestion (1) as it's apparently considered a more onerous restriction than the nag screen and minimal protection I have now. I don't think I'll ever implement something like (2) because I'm opposed to it in principle. The "try before you buy" approach just doesn't work in my estimation if I'm not really trying what it is I'm buying.

[Phileosophos]

deepteam said:

Ok, so it sounds like your system isn't really any harder to beat than mine. That is, while one can "crack" WadAuthor simply by installing it again and again, one may "crack" DeepSea simply by obtaining the registered version of the executable. Your method does involve a bit more labor on the part of the cracker insofar as he has to track down a new registered version with each new release. Perhaps that additional smidgen of protection is worth the effort.

I do recognize, of course, that by uniquely stamping each executable, you can easily discover precisely who it was that leaked their code, but are you really going to sue them? I mean, the cost of the lawsuit alone would be far more than you'd ever recoup. What do you do when you discover someone has uploaded their registered-only copy? Do you stop giving them rights to the upgrade? I guess I'm curious how the enforcement works if, in fact, you've ever had to enforce it.

Thanks, by the way, for sharing how DeepSea does its thing. Regardless of how others might be "bored" by your postings, I find them quite interesting.

[DeePsea]

John, ANY registered program can be defeated if somebody gives them a copy - no news there (see warez). For that matter, even dongles can be defeated.

But the topic is really the shareware version, right? That is, how to keep it as "time limited" or whatever one thought of - something that is not easily undone (as it is now).

The DeePsea shareware version is limited in the size it can "save", but not in the size one can edit. So a user can see all the functionality. Isn't that the idea, to let a user use all the tools and yet not take the whole farm? As distributed it won't morph into an undesireable form.

To give you a very good comparison, what was the difference between the shareware DOOM and the registered DOOM? Id did exactly the same thing I did (if you think about it). No messy intrusions, just a different "set" of stuff.

A thief has no honor, but fortunately, most people that pirate are at heart "honest". So having a "name" pop up as a verifiable "pirate" is not cool.

Computer software can readily be obtained "illegally" in the PRIVACY of one's comfortable chair. Just ask your Dr or Dentist (people who can afford not to pirate) and you'll find out even they snatch copies of software they didn't buy.

I not alone in realizing why this happens. MS is trying very very hard to initiate online registrations for each and every copy of Windows. They have exactly the same problem - the $$$ are just bigger:))

[boris]

Phileosophos said:

> I have no doubt that Id Software makes a lot more than $500
> for the code to their engines. But just because I'm not in
> their league doesn't mean I'm not entitled to place a value on > the fruits of my labor. Something you and others really must
> understand is that a non-trivial chunk of the code that
> comprises WadAuthor is completely independent of WadAuthor.

I never said that you're not allowed to sell the source. You wrote it all, so there is no reason why you could not sell it!

> Well, when you write and distribute your own level-editing
> software, then you can distribute your code with this
> requirement in mind.

Actually I wrote some small WAD editing tools (with source included). BTW, I'm currently working on some game, which I'm quite sure will have it's source released once I get it to a playable (and cleaned up ;) version. And believe me, I know what it means to put a lot of work into some program!

[Lüt]

Phileosophos said:

I generally charge between $75 - 150 an hour for consulting work

How the hell do you do that?? Who the hell pays that much anyways?

[Mordeth]

deepteam said:

Be sure to download the current version from www.sbsofware.com since the copy here is out-of-date.

Doomworld's 'utilities' section carries the very latest Deepsea (v10.21 if I remember correctly). Updated the moment I got back online :)

Also, a big 'thank you' to both the Deepsea team as to the author of WadAuthor, for their continuing efforts! People often don't appreciate the effort, and forget that many of the new features ports offer these days cannot be implemented without an updated editor. Without up-to-date editors Doom simply can't grow nor flourish. Thanks!

[DeePsea]

SaGa said:

i didnt say i didnt know how i do know how but wintex cant merge zdoom map filez it just fucks up the maps

Explaining things requires somebody to "listen". I'm not debating nor rationalizing what I wrote, just explaining.

As somebody showed, Wintex can do it, one just has to put a lot of effort in "tricking" Wintex. Go back and you'll see Biffy descibe the hard way to do this - using Wintex. Or you can do it the easy way, your choice.

Relax

[DeePsea]

Mordeth said:

Doomworld's 'utilities' section carries the very latest Deepsea (v10.21 if I remember correctly). Updated the moment I got back online :)

Also, a big 'thank you' to both the Deepsea team as to the author of WadAuthor, for their continuing efforts! People often don't appreciate the effort, and forget that many of the new features ports offer these days cannot be implemented without an updated editor. Without up-to-date editors Doom simply can't grow nor flourish. Thanks!

Thanks, Nightfang told me you were having troubles. I didn't check again - bad me.

We both appreciate stating that "Without up-to-date editors Doom ports simply can't grow nor flourish".

You nailed the main reason I put forth the effort. The new ports open up a new world for levels, but new easy tools make them much more likely to flourish. Thanks!

If I stated the obvious, them somebody is sure to rain on me:))

[Phileosophos]

Lüt said:

How the hell do you do that?? Who the hell pays that much anyways?

To be perfectly honest, I'm pretty cheap as computer consultants go. And note well: this is not because I'm a newbie or not very experienced at it. Rather, it's because I generally do a fair amount of work for friends, religious institutions, charities, etc. and give them a break when not rendering outright pro bono work. I get that kind of money from professional clients because it's less than the "going rate" and because I'm good at what I do.

[Phileosophos]

deepteam said:

>John, ANY registered program can be defeated if somebody
>gives them a copy - no news there (see warez). For that
>matter, even dongles can be defeated.

No doubt.

>The DeePsea shareware version is limited in the size
>it can "save", but not in the size one can edit. So a
>user can see all the functionality. Isn't that the idea,
>to let a user use all the tools and yet not take
>the whole farm? As distributed it won't morph into
>an undesireable form.

So what do you trap? The number of things? The number of linedefs? The number of sectors? All of the above? Perhaps I'll implement similar functionality in the next version of WadAuthor. Or perhaps I'll just force the program to close after 15 minutes or something like that. Alternately, I could pop up nag screens every few minutes. I don't want to piss off the evaluator, but I want to make piracy less pleasant if I can.

[Lüt]

Phileosophos said:

To be perfectly honest, I'm pretty cheap as computer consultants go. And note well: this is not because I'm a newbie or not very experienced at it. Rather, it's because I generally do a fair amount of work for friends, religious institutions, charities, etc. and give them a break when not rendering outright pro bono work. I get that kind of money from professional clients because it's less than the "going rate" and because I'm good at what I do.

Not a lot?? Unless you only work a few hours a day you could probably buy Maine in 10 years.

[SaGa]

deepteam said:

Explaining things requires somebody to "listen". I'm not debating nor rationalizing what I wrote, just explaining.

As somebody showed, Wintex can do it, one just has to put a lot of effort in "tricking" Wintex. Go back and you'll see Biffy descibe the hard way to do this - using Wintex. Or you can do it the easy way, your choice.

Relax

i was merly saying a good idea for wad author ..hmmm then i suddenly see my post have 20 replys of you and philophos(whatever his name is) tring to debate on sharware cracking and how to provent it. and you deapteem seem to be the one cozing all this argument.(or is this a sighn of jelousy of wad author...
forgive my poor spelling