Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

kb1

Members
  • Content count

    2218
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About kb1

  • Rank
    Ask me about my source port

Recent Profile Visitors

1942 profile views
  1. Yeah, it's a dick move. You see companies doing this: Creating some proprietary "standard" and pushing everything related to said company through it. The devs will get used to using the standard, and use it for everything. I think the hope is that it will lock consumers to a particular platform. Sort of like those 'Buy 10 subs get one free' punch cards, or Food Lion's MVP card - Companies think it locks people to their brand. Really it just makes things difficult for everyone involved, but that's how it goes.
  2. I am completely anxious to check this out!
  3. kb1

    PNAMES/TEXTURE1/2 sucks.

    Kinda takes the edge off when you don't explain said point. Really? Heh. I must be thinking of the sprite marker, which is definitely used. Still, the P_ markers are useful for editors when identifying lumps. Both are valid uses, of course. Are multi-patch textures really used that often these days, except for, maybe, switches? You make a good point, though: improving one patch instantly improves every texture that uses it. Let me break it down: The confusion stems from the fact that 4 types of changes can occur with texture wads. Texture wads can: Add new patch lumps - You can tell because the lumps have names not found in the IWAD. Replace IWAD patch lumps - The texture set's patches match an IWAD patch lump. Add new textures - The texture names are not found in the IWADs. Replace IWAD textures - The texture names match IWAD texture names. With both types of Adds, the process is simple, and it's what I was describing in my first post: Just copy the IWAD's PNAMES and/or TEXTUREx lumps and append the new resources to them. Done. For the Replace variety, you have to make a decision: Do I want to alter the appearance of the IWAD textures, or do I want to convert these resources into Adds? Unless it's something like a TC, or, say, a hi-res texture replacement pack, you probably want to convert the "Replaces" to "Adds". Because you want to make a large texture WAD that includes textures from multiple texture sets, for the rest of this post, I will assume that you want any and all "Replaces" to be changed into "Adds". Note that all texture set combine issues stem from duplicate names, in some form or another. Here's a procedure you can use to combine texture sets: Preliminary Steps 1. Use good tools. I have to stress that having good tools is the way to go here. At a minimum, you want a tool that can load both the IWAD, and a single texture set, and can show the patches and offsets that comprise a texture, the raw patch images, and the composited texture itself. 2. Make sure each individual texture set is defined properly (PNAMES/TEXTUREx, vs. the included patches). Some may include all the IWAD PNAME/TEXTUREx definitions, some may not. In other words, a texture set could simply replace patch lumps, without having any PNAMES/TEXTUREx defined. That's ok for now. What you don't want is a PNAMES/TEXTUREx set that defines patches that don't exist in either the IWAD or the texture WAD. Fix any inconsistencies. Prune any patch lumps with non-IWAD names that are not defined in either the IWAD's or the PWAD's TEXTUREx lumps. Then, prune any entries from PNAMES that define patch lumps that don't exist in either the IWAD or the PWAD. The idea is that the game should be able to load the IWAD, followed by the texture set, and be able to use those textures on walls without issues. So, in this step, verify that each individual texture set works. 3. Make 4 lists in a spreadsheet program that can sort: IWAD patches, IWAD textures, PWAD patches, and PWAD textures. Fill the IWAD patches with all the patch lump names in the IWAD. Fill the IWAD textures list with the names of all the textures in the TEXTUREx lump(s). Sort each list by name. 4. Experiment with your texture tool to figure out the best way to rename a patch. A good tool will let you rename a patch in one place, and it will update all textures to match this new name. When the time comes where you will need to rename a patch, the rename has to occur in the patch graphic lump, in the PNAMES definition, and everywhere the patch is referenced in all the textures that use that patch. Figure out how and in what order this works best, with your editor. For each texture set Using your lump editor, load a single texture set PWAD, without the IWAD. Delete all textures that match IWAD textures, both in name, and in looks. Go through all remaining textures, and compare the names to the texture names in the IWAD and PWAD Textures spreadsheets, and if any match, rename the PWAD textures to a unique name. Write this new name into the PWAD Textures spreadsheet. This ensures that all textures will have unique names. If there's no match, add the existing texture name into the PWAD Textures spreadsheet. Go through the PWAD's patch lumps, and for each patch lump, see if its name is in either Patches spreadsheet. NOT FOUND: If a match is not found, add the patch name to the PWAD Patches spreadsheet. FOUND: If a match *is* found, you must devise a new unique name for this patch - a name that cannot be found in either Patches spreadsheets. Rename the patch lump. Add the NEW name to the PWAD Patches spreadsheet. How you perform this step depends on what your tool can do. Hopefully, it lets you rename a PNAMES entry, and it will update all textures. At any rate, you must rename the PNAMES entry, and that change needs to be reflected in all the PWAD textures that used the old name. Save the texture set PWAD. Final Step Load the IWAD, and grab the PNAMES and TEXTUREx lumps, and paste them into a new PWAD. Open up each edited texture set PWAD, and move the patch lumps to the new PWAD. Append the texture set's PNAMES and TEXTUREx entries to the new PWAD. Done What's important to note is the way Doom loads its resources. For duplicate lump names, Doom always loads the *LAST* one encountered. This is true for individual patch lumps, and also for entire PNAMES and TEXTUREx lumps. Some ports will auto-concatenate PNAMES and TEXTUREx datasets, but if you want your texture set to work across all ports, you have to do the work to provide replacement PNAMES/TEXTUREx lumps yourself. So, if you make all texture and patch names unique, and all patch lump names unique, there are no conflicts. It's a pain, but it doesn't have to be confusing. I'm sure you know all of this, but because of some of the rudeness in this thread, I wanted to provide an exact set of steps to clarify my thoughts. I hope I didn't miss anything - it's not the easiest thing to type out. I did assume a good knowledge of the tools and procedures involved. Hope that helps. Again, using good tools is half the battle. The other half is avoiding "Replacers", and avoiding duplicate names. What is a numpty? :) How to improve: I think ZDoom's additive PNAME/TEXTUREx parsing handles things pretty well. The big remaining problem is duplicate patch and texture names. Since you basically have 8 characters, this is a real issue. Map formats can/may improve on this, so you could specify "BrickTextures:BRICK12" in a sidedef, but that's kinda awkward. "T_000123" might work for texture sets, allowing for 1 million textures, though it requires coordination amongst texture sets, and it removes the usefulness of having a texture name. I'd vote for long names, but that requires a custom PNAMES, custom TEXTUREx, custom sidedef struct, and custom sector struct. UDMF to the rescue!
  4. kb1

    Things about Doom you just found out

    That's very odd. Do you think it's a sample, or just a generated sine wave, or something?
  5. kb1

    PNAMES/TEXTURE1/2 sucks.

    The PNAMES/TEXTUREx system is quite powerful, and, if you follow the rules, it doesn't have to be difficult. Had id done just a little more work on it, it would have worked a lot better (like, if it supported multiple P_START/P_END markers, for one). Especially if the IWAD is Doom2.wad, by far the easiest thing to do is simply add new patches, and new entries to the PNAMES and TEXTUREx lumps. Because Doom2 is always loaded, you know that those patches will exist. This should be done with tools vs. manual editing. There's a couple of reasons for using P_START/P_END. First, it tells the texture engine where to start, when searching for the matching patches. Second, it lets WAD editors identify the lumps inbetween the markers. The root of the confusion is that Doom makes textures out of multiple patches. This was most likely done to save memory and disk space. But, by making all your new walls consist of a single graphic, one entry in P_NAMES and one entry in TEXTUREx will get the job done.
  6. Doom did pretty well with its particular lack of story. Like most things, it depends on the specifics. Story wasn't necessary in Doom, obviously.
  7. kb1

    How are other people emotionally?

    That is awesome. Great job! What were you expecting? I don't mean that sarcastically. What I mean is that the way you feel is something you have control of, if you take it. You can do things to change how you feel, positively, or negatively. But if you just expect to feel good, you're leaving it up to chance. Go do something you've never done before, or visit a friend, or take a walk. Go on a hike through the woods. Ride a bike. Actually, exercise is supposed to promote the production of enzymes and hormones that naturally improve your outlook, as well as your health. Physically go to the public library and check out some books. You can be happy, but it sometimes takes work to get there. Give it a shot.
  8. kb1

    Things about Doom you just found out

    Yeah, it sucks when they turn blue.
  9. kb1

    Could a intelligent animals play doom

    You're right - that makes no sense. It's also not what I said. I said that it's wrong to take those pieces, form a hypothesis, and then claim that it has to be that way, just because the pieces almost fit. The situations you describe can be recreated at will, and observed. These 'pieces' *fit*. *This* is the scientific method. On the other hand, the Evolution debate goes something like this: "Son, I know it was you that eat the cookies off the table. I know I didn't eat them, and your sister wouldn't lie about it. And I've never seen any of our 3 dogs eat cookies off the table, so you must have done it!" Sure, it sorta fits, if you claim to "know" certain things, and use that "knowledge" to back other similarly-discovered knowledge. It's a bad foundation, and nowhere near worthy of being called truth. Woah, you just skipped a bunch of steps. Before you ever get to the 'not proven wrong' stage, you gather evidence, you do tests, you test the tests, in an effort to suggest that you may be onto something. The burden of proof first lies with those generating their hypothesis. By the way, I like how you take my statement that conjecture is not fact, and try to use it to disprove my theory, yet you can't seem to apply it to your theory. But it doesn't really apply, because I never claimed to know the facts. I only claim to know that Evolution has not been proven as fact. The record is right there, just scroll up... I never claimed otherwise. Keep trying. So do I, that's my point. Further down you say that scientific truths are truths, regardless of what you choose to believe. Why do I "need to show" that something untrue is untrue, when it is untrue. I have the authority to judge the believability of anything I see, don't you? Isn't that what you've been doing? Being ridiculed by people that aren't thinking through a problem is not much of an insult. Never mentioned feathers... Name calling, tsk, tsk. By the way, what is a "brid"? Actually, it was MetroidJunkie that said that. My reasonings were my common sense, and the lack of proof. The *lack of*. Not a few little things yet to be explained. Oh, and the others: The extremely small probability of a beneficial mutation, followed by the extremely small probability that that mutation produces what would be described as a new animal, on top of the extremely small probability that such a new animal would find a mate of the same new type that was also viable for breeding. And, all of that on top of the fact that life has supposedly only been around for a few billion years or so. And, on top of all that, the extremely small probability that some chemicals rolled on down the side of a volcano, in just the right type and proportion to create a living cell, capable of absorbing nutrients (that had better also be present), excreting waste, and being able to not only survive all of the other chemicals and conditions present, but to be able to divide itself in such a way as to end up with 2 copies of each other, also capable of doing the same thing. Multiply those odds together, and consider the age of the Earth vs. the length of generations of the various lifeforms involved, and, purely scientifically speaking, God is more likely. You're nervous that someone might believe my theories, presumably because there's common sense in them. I suggest it's something more along the lines that you wanted to strike up a debate, and when it didn't pan out, you're hurling insults as a form a reputation damage control. I can tell, because, instead of having a civil discussion (albeit with a bit of humor), you've resorted to cursing, name calling, and general lack of any attempt to devote any real constructive thought towards the possibility that life is governed by processes more divine and beautiful and bizarre than anything man has conceived. I would like to make sure that people have the chance to continue to think rationally about what they've been taught, vs. having some doctrine crammed down their throat. You seem opposed to this, instead choosing to "pull down their pants" by calling them ignorant, uneducated bloody hypocrites, and asking "where's the fucking holes?", then ignoring them as they are presented to you plainly. Do you think your insults hide this? The name calling, attempts at insults, and lack of dimension are what crush your believability - I had nothing to do with it. I never said Evolution was wrong because it was missing a few things. Your question: "where's the fucking holes then?", so it was along those lines that I was answering. The probabilities discussed above are all that is needed to convince me of the sheer unlikeliness of Evolution being the driving factor in the diversity of life on Earth. Ever wonder why a mother cat will raise a baby squirrel, bunny, or duckling, that has lost its mother? Ever wonder why most babies of all species are cute? You think that's because of "random mutation...if the offspring lives, rinse and repeat"? Do you even think about these things? There's more going on than the cold hard facts of science, and ignoring them is missing the very meaning of life. Please stop getting pissed because there are people that think differently than you, and embrace this fact. How boring would it be if everyone believed the same thing? Until I know differently, I choose to believe what makes the most sense to me. Isn't that what we all do? It's not an attack on you. You act like I stole your bike. I'm fighting for my right to believe what I believe, and to express it on an open forum, in a civil manner, after a question was presented. You're fighting my right to believe what I believe, and to express it on an open forum, in a civil manner, after a question was presented. Couldn't you have expressed your thoughts without going on the offense? Anyway, I've managed to say what I needed to, and explained my view. Hope it meant something to someone.
  10. kb1

    Things about Doom you just found out

    Nothing weird about it: This stuff is fascinating! Thank you! I am amazed at how much use id got out of their resources. Actually, that's not what's amazing. What's amazing is how well it worked to fool...me, anyway: I have to admit that, in 25 years of Doom, I can't honestly say that I've seen more than a couple or so. I would love to compile all the posts from all the threads where people have noticed texture/flat/sprite re-use, into one big document, just to see the extent of re-use. I know there's a lot: Missiles vs. lost soul, barrel and cyberdemon death, and many more. You can't really blame id, either: Doom has a *lot* of graphic resources, and 2 guys did it all. And, if you're as good as they were at it, why not get some re-use? Nice find!
  11. kb1

    Could a intelligent animals play doom

    You can't start out with "scientific method", and then discuss mere theories as fact. The amount of conjecture you present as fact is only topped by your use of insults as convincers. You may beat up your friends that way, but in intelligent discussion, it just looks try-hard. You assume to know what I know, just like you know Evolution - two stories, both flawed for the same reason. My God, you're not "informed", nor have you "pulled my pants down", though that seems to be the goal. You say you "proved me wrong" with theories. Do you realize how asinine that sounds? The "literature" breaks down when the people involved start claiming to know the truth about events they have never witnessed, using spotty, incomplete evidence. I've considered the literature, and I'm not convinced. My cat just had 5 beautiful babies. You know what they look like? Kittens - perfect kittens. And, Momma is a perfect cat, born from perfect parents. If you consider the short amount of time that life has supposedly existed on this planet, these mutations must be massive, and happening all over the place, in every birth, for the number of distinct healthy creatures that have existed/do exist. Every account I've seen of mutations is extremely rare, and is usually a grotesque deformity that absolutely is not beneficial. So, you've got significant mutations being extremely rare, with beneficial mutations being extremely rare, in an extremely short (in terms of Evolution) amount of time. Evolution theory just doesn't add up, not by itself. Usually when man crossbreeds an animal, the animal is sterile. So, there's yet another extremely rare occurence: An animal, born with a mutation that qualifies it to be classifiable as a new animal, with a new genetic makeup that disallows breeding with the the type of animal it was born from. One has to agree that, in the theory of Evolution, at some point in time, the offspring must be considered a different animal that cannot breed with the parent species. Cats are not dogs, after all. So, it's logical that you would need for there to be a male and a female of this new species, around each other at the same point in time to breed. When you stack all of these probabilities, and consider the amount of time since the first cell on Earth, there's no way to win that lottery. You seem to possess some intelligence, from what I've seen. You've shown your hand, and I called your bluff. Instead of devoting so much energy trying to "teach" an uneducated person who has spent no time on the subject, why not use that intelligence to question conjecture presented as facts, and consider for yourself if things add up. Who knows, you may one day figure it out. But, you'll never figure it out just blindly believing conjecture as fact. Often, the people that present this information have agendas, and have been paid to produce results. It's not often that these professionals go against their colleagues, which may or may not apply here, but it's worth consideration. You haven't been able to sufficiently answer the questions I presented, to my satisfaction...but that's okay. I don't expect you to be able to - there aren't sufficient answers yet. What I do expect, is the realization that there are questions that cannot be answered with a quick comeback. What I would hope, is that these questions spark a tiny bit of curiosity, which can be interesting to everyone. I feel that I am in an awkward position. It's as if I am playing Hide and Seek with a child, trying desperately to avoid crushing the child's spirit as he thinks he's outsmarted me by standing in plain sight, facing the corner of the room with his hands over his eyes. You've taken pride at "proving me wrong" and insulting my intelligence, while I am amazed at how easily you accept theories wholesale, and refuse to consider the questions at face value, not knowing that you don't know. You don't need to tell me. Just think about it on your own time, and see what conclusions you arrive at - that's my best wish. I will consider the facts as they are revealed, and I reserve the right to change what I believe, when and if it seems appropriate. After all, that's what intelligence is for.
  12. kb1

    Could a intelligent animals play doom

    @Nine Inch Heels I don't disagree that there are pieces of the puzzle. But it is wrong to take those pieces, form a hypothesis, and then claim that it has to be that way, just because the pieces almost fit. You can't say it is true, and neither can anyone else. It reminds me of those shows where they've dug up some ancient culture, and the commentator goes on to say: "This room is where they performed rituals to speak to the gods." And, there's literally a busted up floor, and a few bricks. In a few thousand years, they'll be digging up a radio, and claiming "This is an ornamental box where the king's most prized possessions were preserved for the afterlife." What I provided is food for thought. But it looks like you've decided to turn it into some personal campaign to insult my intelligence - again without having any real knowledge to base it on. Ironically, you chose to actually consider any of it - not a very wise move from someone who feels so capable of judging intelligence. In this sentence, you understand about people devising stories about things they cannot fully explain. Yet, Evolution is fact, because... what? I suggest that you open up your mind to the possibility that things are not necessarily what they seem. Or, risk drinking the koolaid. And, no, you may not see my monkey.
  13. kb1

    Boom sight bug

    Yep, looks like a cut/paste/modify bug, like P_DivlineSide.
  14. You can try removing and reinserting the floppy, and trying again. This causes the disk to land in a slightly different place, which just may help align it better. If you're lucky, you might get one good read, though it's a long shot.
×