Super Moderators
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

136 Good

About fraggle

  • Rank
    Registered just to make two posts
  1. Yes. It's so much nicer being able to express dehacked changes in the form of code rather than clicking through a UI or trying to type up a raw dehacked file. By the way, please enjoy this ridiculous dehacked patch which I'm calling "Invasion of the Candles".
  2. 1. Very Easy 2. Easy 3. Normal 4. Hard 5. Very Hard
  3. I had this discussion with someone else (I think Linguica) a few months, maybe a year ago, but I can't find the discussion (I don't remember if it was here on Doomworld or on Github). Maybe someone can find it. The brief summary is that I'd rather not do it since any such "emulation" would be an artificial hack and not authentic. If we can't do it in an authentic way then I'd rather not do it.
  4. Not going to bother with spoiler text since I haven't seen the movie anyway. I saw Prometheus. I think you make a valid criticism but it's kind of inevitable so long as they keep on making more Alien movies. Every one they make builds lore and makes the creature slightly more unknown than it was before. For example, Aliens revealed that there are queen aliens; Alien 3 revealed that if it's a dog that gets facehugged you get a different creature. There's the old cliche that we're afraid of the unknown and I think there's some truth there. There's something visceral and scary on an animal level when we feel like we could be threatened by something that we can see but don't know what it is. Humans figure things out - once we know what something is we can learn more about it, discover its weaknesses and learn to protect ourselves. Our defence moves to a more rational footing. Ghost stories are a good example - since ghosts don't exist we can never learn anything about them, so they remain timeless as a basis for scary stories told around a campfire. I do think the modern Alien films perhaps suffer from this a bit, but Prometheus at least seemed like a good film - the best Alien film they could have made. They should probably proceed cautiously in terms of developing the series; I'm reminded of the Borg in Star Trek, who initially had some of these same scary "unknown" qualities, but over a series of Borg stories became Just Another Alien Species for the crews to have to contend with. Probably Alien is safe so long as they never try to humanize the aliens - that was the main mistake they made with the Borg.
  5. Not sure what's behind all the Netflix hate. They're pretty much the only company making any good TV nowadays.
  6. That's a pretty childish way of thinking to be honest. Every publication, every organisation, every person you'll ever meet has an agenda of some kind. Part of being an adult is accepting that and recognizing that it doesn't mean they aren't still useful sources of information. Trust isn't a binary of "trust" vs. "don't trust" but rather a spectrum of how much you trust something. And by the way, that holds just as true for things like personal relationships as it does for newspapers and media sources. It's more about just keeping a skeptical mindset to what you read rather than shutting yourself away and saying "nothing can be trusted!" That in itself is actually kind of telling, because local newspapers don't have the same amount of resources that larger national newspapers have. A lot of things like this come down to the fact that journalists are lazy. Or not lazy so much as they don't have the time to be as stringent as they ought to be. If something like a press release comes along with all the information laid out it makes it a lot easier to write an article without needing to bother doing any extra research. Some articles can even end up being straight copy/pastes of the press releases they're based on. This has led to the phenomenon of churnalism, where marketing departments use press releases and made-up "scientific" studies to get brand names into newspapers by stealth. One journalist recently put out a fake story like this deliberately to demonstrate the problem. In this case the press release came from Fraunhofer, who owned the remaining patents on MP3. It isn't actually an example of churnalism or intended to be misleading but the release was misinterpreted, and of course once one publication reports on a story from a particular angle, others will look at it the same way too.
  7. Looks good. I'm glad to have Star Trek back on TV again - it's always been a TV series at its heart, rather than a film franchise. TV is where it really shines.
  8. There is a new update:
  9. Some of the startup sequencing / messages are different and any such recreation wouldn't really be "authentic". We do have it for the other games.
  10. Boom is a common set of extensions supported by a large number of source ports. If you're a mapper making levels then Boom makes for a convenient target because most players will be able to play your level regardless of what their favorite source port is - ZDoom or otherwise. All of them are in ZDoom, the point is that some people prefer other source ports.
  11. Not at all, this is my own experience from working on SMMU years ago. But I don't think I'm alone in this experience. Yeah, AutoDoom is another really good example of something that's off the well-beaten track of feature ports. I love that project, by the way - along with AutoWolf. You've done some really great work and it's very satisfying to watch the bots do their stuff. Fresh, new and interesting, which is what we should all want to see coming out of the Doom source hacking scene.
  12. I forget where I read this (it doesn't appear to be in "Masters of Doom") but didn't the id team take time off from developing Doom to finish off SNES Wolf3D? I distinctly recall reading that they essentially finished Spear of Destiny, started moving on to Doom, then had to go back for a month or so because the SNES port wasn't finished, so it makes sense that they would have rushed it. Plus it's pretty well-documented that their artistic vision for the game was compromised because Nintendo demanded they strip out all the controversial aspects of the game (blood, shooting dogs, nazis, etc.) so I doubt they were particularly motivated to hold it to their normal quality. EDIT: Turns out it's in the Doom postmortem, here.
  13. I understand where you're coming from but MrGlide actually has an important point that you're not considering. The cases you describe are fundamentally different in nature; specifically: when you say "required", who is it that requires them? If you're a company developing a product for a customer, or if you're donating your time to a non-profit, the answer is simple: you have a clear customer with particular needs that you're trying to satisfy. That isn't the case here: you're just posting a thread asking "what is required?". Required by whom? The one thing that's abundantly clear after years of working on developing Doom source ports is that that's a question that varies wildly from one person to the next. For one user, the ability to play with Brutal Doom is a requirement; for the next, the ability to play vanilla demos is a requirement. Unless you're going to pick a particular user and decide (for example) "I'm going to develop Edward850's perfect source port" the notion of requirements is kind of meaningless. As a side note - and again, this is from my own experience from years of developing Doom source ports - you'll probably find that this notion of developing a source port with features people want is going to be a dead end. I've heard these called "feature ports" and they tend to not be very fun to work on, because there's already a dominant feature port (ZDoom, now GZDoom) that everyone uses, you'll end up spending years trying to compete against it to no success, and there will always be an endless list of additional features people want from your source port. If that's the kind of source port you want to work on then I suggest you just spend your time contributing to GZDoom. If your code is good then I'm sure Graf Zahl will be thankful for the help. That's the real feature that people want - they want to continue using the source port that already does what they want, which is *ZDoom and has been for years. The requirement for most users is "it is *ZDoom". The other option is to take the niche route which is what I've done with Chocolate Doom. Do something fundamentally different in philosophy to existing source ports and set a clear goal for what you're trying to achieve. Don't do what you think "users want", do what you want and find interesting to make (it's absolutely untrue that "what you want doesn't matter" if you're the one putting in the work). If you can't say "no" to feature requests then you don't have a clear goal. Making something different to what we already have is more interesting anyway, and you'll probably find it's a lot more personally rewarding than voluntarily making yourself a slave to the whims of a nebulous user base.
  14. Nice! I was going to suggest something exactly like this but it appears you've already done it. Ideally it would be nice to see this expanded and automated to test every possible match-up of monster types. Ideally this would take the form of something like: N of monster type 1 vs. M of monster type 2. All of monster type 1 have the friendly flag set. The test runs some number of times - headless, at maximum speed (like -timedemo, but not bothering to render the screen) The test ends when every one of a particular monster is killed. (eg. in Sergeants vs. Lost Souls, if all Lost Souls are killed then the Sergeants win). Probably this needs a custom/modified source port to end the test and report the result. Some kind of random element is introduced so that the test doesn't produce the same result every time. Maybe this is achieved by moving monsters around to different starting positions for example. The results are examined in aggregate, and we use the results to adjust N and M (from step 1). Then we re-run the whole process again. The goal is to adjust the inputs until we end up in a stable situation where each monster type wins ~50% of the time. At this point we can say that they are evenly matched. Repeat all of steps 1-5 for all combinations of Doom monster types and build up a complete table of how the monsters match up.