Giomancer

Members
  • Content count

    94
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Giomancer

  • Rank
    Mini-Member
  1. Noted and logged.
  2. @Graf Zahl, @kb1 : Well, that explanation makes things much clearer, honestly. It's one thing to say a port is an obstacle from the perspective of a port author (Graf's original statement) and another to say it from the point of view of someone trying to reach as large an audience as possible (Graf's expanded statement). That said, I don't think there's any reason to view PrBoom as an obstacle. After all, you don't view Chocolate Doom as an obstacle to defining a standard, do you? Of course not. Define your new Boom+ standards. Implement them. PrBoom is a port dedicated to its own goals, namely compatibility and preservation. There's no need to change them, is there? Go forth, make progress.
  3. DeHacked.
  4. I believe chungy was considering updating it himself, though I last heard him mention that years ago. David Hill has a nice little suite of programs, one of which is called the GDCC Wad Archiver, which, as may be expected, packs and unpacks wads. As far as I know, however, it can only create a pwad from scratch, though it certainly doesn't have trouble unglomming whatever wad you throw at it.
  5. This. I don't know how widespread this custom was or where it originated, but it was not unheard of.
  6. @esselfortium 1) It was a verbal mirror to Graf's statement. He says we've been constrained for 19 years by following Boom's de facto standard, and cites PrBoom as THE SOLE OBSTACLE TO PROGRESS. He, who headed (heads?) GZDoom, a port which has added quite a bit in the way of single-wad hacks and anything else deemed necessary, -- also demonstrably popular with mappers and modders -- apparently believes that he has been held back by PrBoom somehow. When I see him say this in combination with these proposed standards, I can only interpret that as a desire to control PrBoom and other preservationary ports. Hence my phrasing: "One Ring to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them." 2) If ZDoom already has all of the features, fine. They'll become a standard when other ports start implementing them (like Decorate, say). UDMF, too, which was a collaboration between persons of interest. Nothing stops others from implementing UDMF and their own namespace. If kb1 wants to create a cleaner, sharper Boom, let them do so. I don't understand how Graf can imagine mappers being held back by the existence of PrBoom. @kb1 Actually, I have nothing against your project at all, nor do I question your motives. Implement it. I love having new, unique targets.
  7. That much is true. ZDoom was adding new features, and Vavoom was mimicking them, starting (in my memory) with slopes and ending with DECORATE support. I believe Janis gave up chasing ZDoom with little reward.
  8. Nothing against you, but isn't it sad your idea of improvement is glomming together pieces of other ports?Imagine where mapping could be if there was but one port to rule them all, and with your "standards" bind them?
  9. https://github.com/fabiangreffrath/crispy-doom/issues/132 Read this. Fabian explains how to make Heretic, Hexen, and Strife compile again.
  10. Vavoom's penultimate release, 1.32, was actually fairly stable and usable; the ultimate release, 1.33, removed the software renderer and was almost incapable of running. VavoomC was quite a powerful scripting language. Jānis also independently reverse-engineered Strife. The best feature was the interoperability of features between map formats. Strife conversations in Doom, say. https://doomwiki.org/wiki/Vavoom I was a big fan of Vavoom, and was working on a Heretic project at the time. I was truly bummed when it died. ZDoom is like the Borg: it adapts a port and its features to service itself. Resistance is futile.
  11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave Your problem, Mr. Foebane72, with Doom 64's identity was actually presented some millennia ago in Plato's Republic in the Allegory of the Cave. To sum up, Doom has an essence - a "Doomness" if you will - that makes it what it is. Doom 64, I would argue, has that essential Doomness, and none of your arguments against it disprove this. Certainly, Mr. Foebane72, you are entitled to your opinion, but before you can argue that one thing is not something, you must first understand what it is.
  12. Because only conservatives are authoritarian.
  13. Solution: Don't play Zandronum But seriously, it's really a matter of how much polish you (we?) want to put in.
  14. Hurrah!
  15. RIP, Espi, Assmaster, Toke.