Update - I didn't mean to sound like a rabid fan. - I can well imagine that you may have been
annoyed or even stalked in the past if you've gained any notoriety. - I'm not. I just appreciated
the inspiration that your early work provided.
I would like to get this project off my desk as it's been eating at me for quite a long time, and
I can't seem to get on with my life until I have it done.
Please reply at your convenience - It would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance for your time and attention.
Kind regards -
DEAR Mr, Rowand ! - Someone sent me a wad file back in the early 1990s titled NJ_Castl.wad.
It had no accompanying text file with author info otherwise I would have followed through long
ago. - It inspired me to start building and I had to learn DEU from scratch with no help, but I
made my way through - tore apart your completely defenceless map and expanded, elaborated
on it's basic structure adding all kinds of secret passages lifts backarounds and views and even
built a town in the bowels of the structure. - I built and built until I couldn't add or even delete
anything without the node builder crapping out on me. - The map ended up being too big to
even save in the game. - Thanks to your insipreing map I learned a lot about building and
went on to build several SP and many DM maps for my MP gaming center - Thank You !
Would love for you to see what your work inspired, and I would like to share it with mappers
and players. Would you be willing to have a look and consider granting permission for me to
post? - I retained 3 main elements of your original design and I couldn't in good conscience
post unless I had your approval.
If you say no - I'll happily accept that without question or any expectation of an explanation.
If you'd just view it I'd be thrilled - and I think the exploration would undoubtedly amuse you
at the least.
Please consider. - A long time fan who has seen nothing of your other works. - Very grateful
just to have found you and finally be able to thank you properly.
- Best Wishes -
Would you .... consider granting permission for me to post?
I don't want to speak for Enjay, but he has never denied permissions to use his work.Quote
A long time fan who has seen nothing of your other works.
Enjay is a prolific author, who has produced a variety of mods, many of which have been critically acclaimed. His most recent release, Waterlab GZD, was one of the runners up in Doom World's 2017 Cacowards. Some of his other work can be found here.
Heh - feels like we're playing tag - Thanks for your reply there and the added info here.
NJ_Castl is a very early work - couldn't find it anywhere in the archives - seems to have
come quite a long way in this time. - I'm not really surprised, I recognized the glimmers
of brilliance in that early work.
Thanks yet again for the added info - looks like I have a lot of catching up to do.
Off-line for years, and never got around to checking out these forums.. - feel a bit
like Rip VanWinkle - just shaking off the cobwebs..
Personally, I'd interpret that as bloody mindedness; typical of the attitude I've seen from some of the Vanilla soldiers in the community over the years. Presumably the "certain someone" is Graf who has already committed a change to the GZDoom code to handle blockmaps of the type under discussion. So it would be no skin off his nose and the only people hurt by this action would be the ones who wanted to play the map in their port of choice but who couldn't. And, lets be honest, how big a hurt would that be? "Oh gnoes, I can't play that one map, whatever will I do". :P Exactly my thoughts. A well worded post. I'd suggest that, these days, the de facto vanilla standard is a most-basic set of map parameters, features, editing tricks and so on that will work on any port claiming vanilla compat. Clearly, maps with this blockmap type don't comply with that. A vanilla map that isn't to vanilla spec. Doom paradox alert. LOL
True, but these days, so what? When did Carmack release the source 1997? For almost 20 years there have been source ports and for that entire time this quirk has gone unnoticed. Now, while I'm not saying that finding out new stuff about Doom isn't fun and interesting (hell, we even have a thread about "things you just found out") doing something that means ports can't play maps that they otherwise would have simply because of a newly discovered vanilla quirk almost 20 years after source ports first appeared and which no one has used ever until now? AlexMax is "technically correct" (which Futurama tells me is the best kind of correct) in as much as Vanilla means "the vanilla exe can play it" but the practical application of the term is that the specs that people have understood and created maps, tools and ports to for the last 20-24 years are Vanilla. So when a new thing comes to light after all that time that makes ports which have supported the "vanilla standard" for all that time balk at a map, it could be argued that such a quirk, even if it runs on the Vanilla exe, is not really in compliance with the de facto vanilla spec. Yes, but how high are those numbers? Easy? Possibly, but desirable? Best? That's subjective at least (not that you said it was desirable or best). There's no real way of telling how many people play using DOSBox+doom.exe versus people playing using ports but it won't be the majority; I'm pretty sure of that. Like I said, the source has been out for almost 20 years. Doom was on its own as the vanilla exe for 4 years. Source ports have been available for a long, long time. Hell, some source ports have been around for longer than the people who play them have been alive. I'm not saying that people shouldn't play doom.exe (whatever rows your boat, it's all good IMO) but people who still hold to the idea that it is the right, proper and only way to play (especially those who crusade about it) don't seem to acknowledge that situation ceased some time ago. What's more, it happened with Carmack's blessing, nay, encouragement. However, I now stand corrected that the type of blockmap under discussion doesn't have to be built by zokumBSP.
Because many people already use the ports in question to play Vanilla maps so it's reasonable to assume that they will play any vanilla map they want to load up? Vanilla is a base standard that all ports should attempt to play reasonably well, if not perfectly (within the bounds of what the port is designed to do or enable). And while this new BSP program may well build nodes to Vanilla spec, clearly it's a part of the spec that has been unsupported in many ports for many years. Suddenly a user finds a map that doesn't work in their port of choice? I suspect the reality is that they will either just ditch the map or report that the map is bugged. They won't ditch their port. Playing a map for many people is a one-off but they are likely to have a regular/main port that they use over and over. And I don't think I suggested that anyone was suggesting such a thing.
On the other hand, making a tool that generates blockmaps that mean the maps concerned cannot be played on many of the popular ports that people play on these days seems to be doing the converse except that you can replace the word ZDoom with Vanilla. And while I'm not saying this is your stance (in fact I'm pretty sure it isn't) Doomworld has traditionally had the reputation as the home of people who have the "it's the vanilla way of the highway" attitude, this does nothing to dispell that. Consciously making a tool in 2017 that makes maps unplayable in many people's port of choice unless vanilla standards are explicitly set? I'm not sure how people can think that's a good idea.
Oh wow! I'm just discovering this. Played a little bit and it's really good. It's very faithful to the feel of the original with lots of nice enhancements that improve the way it plays to give it a more modern gaming style without ruining the old-school experience. Lots of nice subtle tweaks here and there without messing with the stuff that shouldn't be messed with. A very nice balance. It's also a really nice demonstration of what 3DGE can do too. It's good for the port to get a big project.
Enjay replied to t3hPoundcake's topic in Doom EditingIf it's a map for a format and port that supports scripting, you could do it in a script. e.g. when the switch is flicked it runs a script that does what you want the switch to do and also activates the trap line.
Interesting, I've never had mm3d mess up a model like that. If you're not already using it, can I suggest using Misfit Cubed; a slight improvement on the version from the original author's site, though both have now been abandoned it would seem. https://sourceforge.net/projects/misfitcubed/ Also, I would also suggest saving in MD3 format. MD3 is more precise whereas with MD2 the vertices tend to move around when you save and it can really mess up the look of your model.
Enjay replied to riderr3's topic in Doom EditingI have and still use the paid-for version of DeePsea. In fact, most of the time it's still my go-to editor. It's a real Swiss army knife of an editor that can do just about anything you want with a map or a WAD file. I know it inside out and my unfamiliarity with other tools means something I could do in seconds in DeePsea takes me minutes in more modern alternatives. As a result I find using other tools frustrating: I know they can do the thing I want but I just can't find it. I do dip in and try every now and again and I'll probably get there one day but my motivation to do so is limited. However, because it hasn't been actively worked on for a number of years now, DeePsea has fallen behind the curve. It doesn't support PK3 files or UDMF maps and PNG graphics support is only partial as is automatic support for DECORATE items other than the original very simple original DECORATE format. With ZScript becoming a reality, that's another feature it doesn't support. DeePsea can also be a bit quirky on versions of Windows after XP. That being said, I did have an exchange of emails with Jack Vermeulen (the author of DeePsea) a month or two back and he helped me out with a problem that I was having getting the 3D editing mode to work in Windows 10. I hadn't "spoken" to him in years and yet he was still very helpful. So, for someone looking to get into editing, it would be difficult to recommend DeePsea over a combination of GZDoomBuilder and Slade these days. GZDB and Slade are both excellent, very stable tools that are actively worked on and support all modern features and are still evolving as the ports and features they support evolve too. Personally, I'd really like to see DeePsea worked on again and brought up to speed with modern features but that seems highly unlikely. I didn't really discuss it with Jack but the fact that he no longer gets involved in the community may well indicate a lack of interest in getting back into it and, to be fair, the feature catch-up that DeePsea would require is pretty significant and unless he was particularly motivated, I really couldn't blame any author for not wanting to do it.
I think the influence of the ZDoomHexen format and ACS in ZDoom is quite important too. From relatively early on, that caused quite a stir and allowed people to do things with Doom maps that simply hadn't been possible before, even with BOOM extensions. Once people got to grips with the format and the scripting, it was a one way street for many people, they learned it and didn't go back. Although there was a learning curve, it was not an entirely untrodden path because the format was basically the same as Hexen so there was already some expertise and documentation out there. Then when ZDoom got DECORATE, as ports such as EDGE started waning (as Graf said), it was pretty clear which one was going to win out in the go to modders port race. And if that's where the modders are, that's where the players will be because the players want mods to play.
Has there ever been a decent Duke hi-res pack made, like the Perkristian one for Doom? I've got the HRP and it mostly has music and a tiny handful of sound effects and I also have PSX one from the DukeHRP page but they still aren't that much improved.