Midtexture bleeding in Zdoom (port racism ITT)

Guys, this is a reaaally old discussion... All these points have been made like 10 years ago. And guess what, noone has ever changed their opinion. :D Imo you should just smile and move on but I understand it can be very fun to have extended pointless arguments.

Perhaps in my rush to get that last post out before heading back to work I didn't word my thoughts as well as I should have. This:

Graf Zahl said:

... Like most commercial games, the engine was written to do what was needed, and bleeding/non-bleeding mid textures never were on the developers' radar because all midtextures they used were used at their full height.

is exactly what I was trying to say. Midtex's weren't meant to be used in a way which makes them bleed. But the fix (different sector properties on either side of line) for using them in such a way is not a hack either.

It was just happenstance that this difference even exists.

I agree. But that doesn't make the work-around/fix a hack.

Beware of source code Nazis! I think every mapper has the right to choose the port they want, not the port YOU want!

100% agreed; but why encourage somebody to spend their time building something they want people to play and enjoy when their chosen format is what is holding them back? There is a community standard. ZDoom demands a higher expectation of detailing because it is capable of more and other maps for the same target audience will make better use of the tools; much the same as if you made a map that could pass as a vanilla Doom map in some modern game; people would shit on it, nobody would play it, and you would have wasted your time. The harsh fact that nobody wants to think about is that all mappers, modders, and anybody else who provides content for Doom are competing with one another for others' time. There are many maps, and you can read what my thoughts are in the TWID articles, for zDoom which I praise, but shooting oneself in the foot shows that the person was likely unaware of what they were doing. If they are unaware of what they are doing that might not be up to the community's standards, they are also unlikely to be familiar with the community's standards in general, which means that their work will be more likely to be subpar. Hence the red flag. Of course being a statistics thing, it's never guaranteed, but % likelihood goes up with each red flag, of which this is certainly one.

Also, it's an undeniable fact that most newcomers map for the most convenient source port, which is the (G)zDoom family. I see this often when going through new submissions to the archives, as well as looking through "my first map" threads. There's nothing wrong with (G)zDoom, they are very powerful programs that can do some truly amazing stuff, but underutilizing the tools you have available is a bad look.

And what qualifies you to make such a statement?

Aside from nothing? I guess if I had to fish for a reason I could just say that I'm observant and like to learn, or I could point out the work I've done for DWS over the past year (granted, with a couple breaks), which isn't anything special, but certainly entails a lot of exposure to many people's work, of which I'll typically also read others' thoughts to get a more well-rounded perspective. But that doesn't really matter, anybody could point these things out and they'd still be just as true; you don't need to be qualified to make an obvious observation. There are many people who have been with this community for a decade that would say the same thing, or worse. I think the term "red flag" is lenient enough.

It doesn't matter. Like I said, if people don't want to map for Boom, let them.

Lol, it's true, I am far more partial to Boom than zDoom, but I have an even greater respect for a good limit-removing map set and far more for a sweet vanilla map set. That all said, I am still one to go crazy (in a good way) when I see an awesome (G)zDoom map set. But you simply cannot compare a good zDoom map to a vanilla-made-for-zDoom-because-I-wanted-one-3D-floor map. And that difference is enough for the zDoom crowd to play something else, which is exactly why I say that only hurts the author.

Thing about it is this: (for a decent analogy) comparing zDoom to Boom is like comparing woodwork with power tools to woodwork with hand tools. Sure, you can make some amazing things with hand tools, but a machine can do so much better, so much faster. Just for fun let's complete the analogy: limit-removing is like whittling with just a small knife and I guess that means vanilla is just some guy rubbing his wood hoping something sticks.

Dumb jokes aside, I'm not saying this because it's how I want it to be; I'm saying it because I've observed trends over time. Go through the logic step by step of why folk don't have/make time for certain maps, but they'll have time for others. It has to do with what genuinely sparks enough of an interest in somebody to make them want to make time to play the given wad, especially given the vast quantity of material out there. Funny thing about life, as adults we never have time for anything we don't make time for, but of course to be polite and to cover our own ass in the future when we inevitably say it, we don't call people out on "not having time" for something (especially for a hobby). Still, what makes some maps get more feedback/attention/plays than others, if not related to how genuinely interested in something somebody is over everything else they could be doing with their life?

Gez said:

I disagree.

What's "clearly unable"? Monsters that spawn every ten seconds in an arena? You can do that with a conveyor belt and voodoo magic. Bump it down to Boom. A 3D floor bridge? You can fake that with criss-crossing mid textures, self-referencing sectors, and instant floor movement with appropriate triggers. Bump down to limit-removing. Transparent windows? Well you could just use a texture with a few MS-Painted diagonal streaks. Bump down to vanilla.

All great points, and all the more reason of why simple convenience should not hold an author back from making their map compatible with the widest audience. I likely won't play a vanilla wad in DOS, but knowing it runs in DOS I can play it on my source port of choice and still look at it as a "vanilla wad."

Clearly unable is a layout in which 3D floors actually affect the gameplay in a real way, when you turn Doom into an RPG, add tons of custom assets nothing else would support, or modify the gameplay more drastically than less-advanced formats could support. It's also when you walk into a room and everything is detailed beautifully. You look down and there's a tiny grate with some pipes below it; below that is another path you can take. You look up and the ceiling slopes to make a pretty dome, you run forward on your 3D floor through some colored lighting up a slope onto a 3D bridge that moves up and down with monsters running below you as you make your way to an outside area with leaves blowing around in a dust storm, all the while the lost in the attention-to-detail of the author, etc. That wow's me; that belongs in zDoom. Not saying all of these need to be done, or that the description there was a complete list, but as an example I think it's an easily-pictured description. As stated before, zDoom simply requires a higher standard because it is capable of more, which means that when a person goes to play a zDoom map and they think "do I want to play x or y," are they going to choose the zDoom map that for all intents and purposes should have been a vanilla map or the zDoom map that actually utilizes zDoom's advanced features?

Arctangent said:

C'mon Arc, you're a smart guy; how'd you let that go over your head? Hehe. It was meant to be self-insulting; that's called self-deprecating humor and should have been a clear-enough sign to you not to take it seriously, which I kinda find funny that you did, but I'm also kinda mad at. Like we've never had problems before; I even put in a smiley face to attempt to further convey that I was messing with you. Don't you realize that when you take an obvious joke seriously, such as this, or such as another recent ph'd one, it makes you look... not good? Also, it was implied that I was sleeping with her and doing really kinky things, not an infant. But I sure would love it if you'd be my older brother, we could play "I win," "Nuh uh; I win!" and the floor is lava and let's poke this dead guy with a stick; it'll be a great time!

Still, I'm glad you noticed the awesome work these hundred monkeys in a room with a hundred typewriters are doing for me right now. They say they'll eventually compose the works of Shakespeare; I can't wait!

Fonze said:

stuff

Honestly, I did have an inkling that it was meant to be that way, but it was just so out there that it actually looped around from "ridiculous" to "ridiculous, but maybe serious" for me. Especially since it just came out of absolute nowhere right smack dab in the middle of the post.

Lol; ridiculous is a good descriptor.

Not quite absolute nowhere though; it came in response to the wording of this:

Arctangent said:

I'm not really sure what must've happened to you to warp your definition of...

Now you can't expect somebody to read that and not want to have some fun with it afterward, hah.

Arctangent said:

... Seriously, does vanilla Doom just cause stockholm syndrome? I get that making two sectors not identical so that they're separate visplanes isn't a hack ( since the code's doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing ), but that doesn't cover the fact that doing that clipping a midtex by having two sectors with different light levels isn't an intended effect.

Sure, that's a normal part of different visplanes, but to think that Carmack's thought process on this was actually "hmm yes let's make midtex not be culled through planes but let's also put in a way for mappers to do so once they figure out exactly how our renderer and such works and how to make it so that two sector don't get merged within it" is actually absolutely absurd.

Your mistake in logic is in assuming that Carmack was overtly concerned about anything other than getting the game out the door. He wasn't. Otherwise, adding individual sprites would be possible, without having to include all sprites in your pwad. Now, I know that he wanted to provide the facilities, but he didn't spend much time testing pwad support - that is pretty clear. So, what is absurd is your assumption. The engine was clearly built to support the levels of Doom and Doom II, and that's it. That's also why we have scroll left, but no scroll right - it wasn't needed to support the existing desires of the original mappers. It's no more deep than that.

Okay, so how does any of that mean that stuff like preventing visplane mergine to clip a midtex and making a higher floor raise to a lower floor to lower it instantly aren't hacks?

It really saddens me that people still believe that advance ports hold creatively people back in someway.
I belive that you map the way you want.
Im not a fan of this "You MUST map for the least common denominator or ports".

Tbh honest 1 reason of me Mapping mostly for ZDoom is to get rid of the "Port-Racism" thats goes on every now and then.
But I guess thats gonna be a trend that will persist till the end of time.

"There is obviouly no slopes here, why dont you just make it for boom".
Uhmm scripting and custom monsters, easy to map for, preference.. no?

jazzmaster9 said:

"There is obviouly no slopes here, why dont you just make it for boom".
Uhmm scripting and custom monsters, easy to map for, preference.. no?

It may even just be something as simple as 'Well, Boom does not let me define an episode layout so it won't work for my project'.

I have seen some of those where the only reason to go for ZDoom was trivial omissions in the more basic ports that were making the planned project impossible.

jazzmaster9 said:

"You MUST map for the least common denominator or ports" [...] the "Port-Racism" thats goes on every now and then

Does anybody really say that / mean that? Making wads compatible with lesser-advanced ports has certain benefits, and pointing this out to a person who might not be aware of port compatibility issues and who is working on / releases a wad that seems like it could be easily made compatible with lesser-advanced ports, is totally a valid feedback IMO. An advice to a novice mapper to start with a simple and less flexible map format for the sake of making learning simple and stay focused onto the goals that make a quality work, is also a valid advice IMO. When I say valid, I mean that the causes and purposes of these advices are justified, not that they're absolute truths that everybody must follow (because completely opposite advices can also have justified causes and purposes) - and I think other people who give out such advices usually mean it the same way. So, I feel that it's alright for anybody to bring up those points anytime it seems appropriate, and it's just as alright for anybody to not follow them in his own works if he doesn't feel like it.

scifista42 said:

An advice to a novice mapper to start with a simple and less flexible map format for the sake of making learning simple and stay focused onto the goals that make a quality work, is also a valid advice IMO.

But only if the advice comes with 'Do not try to work around the limitations'.

It is pointless to advise someone who wants to build a multi-story building to do it in Boom or (gasp!) vanilla.

In that case either advise that they should start with simpler things or use a foundation that supports their plans.

Graf Zahl said:

It is pointless to advise someone who wants to build a multi-story building to do it in Boom or (gasp!) vanilla.

Off-topic but, is making a multi-story building (3D floors, Slopes, Translucent windows, 3D slopes, colored light and all that jazz too) even possible in vanilla?

I guess you can give the impression of colored light with different colored textures, but it's probably not a good idea.

Zulk-RS said:

Off-topic but, is making a multi-story building (3D floors, Slopes, Translucent windows, 3D slopes, colored light and all that jazz too) even possible in vanilla?

That was the entire point of my post. Of course it is not, unless you blissfully hack away.

If you point people to simpler things for learning, it needs to come with the catch that obviously in a far more limited environment the possibilities are inevitably limited.

I know. I was just asking if it can be done in any way as long as it doesn't involve changing the game's code.

You will never make anything in vanilla that will both look and behave exactly like the respective ZDoom-only features. Sometimes you can achieve vaguely similar effects with compromises. So, the answer to your question of whether they're possible depends on how closely do you want them emulated and how much increased effort and how many restrictions and side effects do you tolerate.

How about having them look "functional" and having them just work.

Like the 3D bridge in Boom with floating actors and some mid-textures looks like a bridge and works like a bridge.

You should define them more precisely, otherwise your question can once again be answered both yes and no at the same time. For example, if you define a 3D floor as "a solid floating platform such that game objects can exist both above and below it at the same time", it's impossible in vanilla. But if you define it as "a floating platform that is sometimes solid so that objects can stand on it (but can't exist below it), and sometimes non-solid so that objects can stand below it (but not on it)", it's possible in vanilla. If you say "the floating platform must render its floor and ceiling just like normal sectors do, and should be possible to place anywhere in the map and look OK when viewed from any direction", it's impossible in vanilla. If you say "the floating platform may consist of midtextures only, or it's usage may be restricted to be used only alongside walls", it's possible in vanilla.

Okay... Let me try to define it better:

3D floors: Must be visible and objects must be able to stand both below it, over it and on it. It can be composed of mid-textures only. It's usage can be limited to next to walls or other parts of the map.

Slopes: Must look like an actual slope and limited use is okay. If it is made by stairs, people shouldn't be able to tell right away.

Colored light: Must appear such that the light is colored without it actually being such.

3D Slopes: Like the 3D floors. It must be such that the height changes (like the stairs). It can be limited in use.

Arctangent said:

Okay, so how does any of that mean that stuff like preventing visplane mergine to clip a midtex and making a higher floor raise to a lower floor to lower it instantly aren't hacks?

I don't see that as a very important question. What is your goal by asking such a thing?

As far as the 'which port to use?' thing: Each port has it's own feel, and it's own set of options, prompting people to prefer the feel of one vs. the other. My stance has always been to make modifications to ports in such a way that they can be added to all ports as easily as possible, for those port authors who want such a thing.

By using non-vanilla features, you limit your audience, or force your audience to accept a certain feel, a certain set of options.

Which is ridiculous for this particular setting.

kb1 said:

By using non-vanilla features, you limit your audience, or force your audience to accept a certain feel, a certain set of options.

Yeah, and by not using them you may compromise the vision of the project.
As usual when these arguments come up, the ultimate motivation to bring them up is, 'why dare you to not make this work with my favorite engine of choice.'

Maybe someone WANTS the changes certain engines provide...

kb1 said:

I don't see that as a very important question. What is your goal by asking such a thing?

I mean it's the basis of the entire argument. I'm not sure why you argued against it if you don't see it as very important.

Graf Zahl said:

Yeah, and by not using them you may compromise the vision of the project.
As usual when these arguments come up, the ultimate motivation to bring them up is, 'why dare you to not make this work with my favorite engine of choice.'

Maybe someone WANTS the changes certain engines provide...

So much this. :)

Well I had a nice, long and partially funny thing typed out to explain myself properly, but... computers... So I'll just settle for learning to type things first in notepad and saying here that nowhere did I espouse the laughable concept of "port-racism." In fact, my views come from the perspective of somebody who legitimately wants to help new mappers, unlike the ignorant people who scream "port-racism."

I had a pretty way of saying this before, but it boiled down to tracing out the thought process of a potential player. First off, we all play zDoom and we all get the urge to play a zDoom map set every now and again. So let's say I'm in the mood for playing zDoom. Why on Earth would I play a vanilla-made-for-zDoom map set when there are other zDoom map sets that have wowed me that I still haven't had the chance to properly play? Think about it like this: Map A > Map B, so I'll play MAP A now and Map B later. Later may never truly come, as the question later will be "do I want to play Map B or Map C?" If Map B < Map C, guess which will be played next. After that, Map B vs Map D; so on and so forth until I eventually forget about Map B because that's human nature.

When you map for a more advanced source port, you put yourself in competition with the maps and standards of that source port. Competition for players' time; standards come from the precedent set by previous map sets and authors. If your map cannot hope to compete with something much better for the same port, what favors do you do for yourself by mapping for that port? And what harm are you bringing upon a new mapper by telling them "it's okay, map for what you want; people will still play it... totally." Especially when the map in question fully underutilizes the tools available.

I don't ultimately care what port people map for; to me, we're all adults (or at least independents) here, so do what makes you happy. But if what is going to make you happy is more feedback/players, mapping for a more advanced source port than you need is cutting off your nose to spite your face; saving pennies but losing dollars. That's where I'm coming from. Do me a favor in the future and take the "port-racism" concept and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

Hey I just call it how i see it.
If people want to map for Zdoom let them do so.
I personally do not believe that ALL ZDoom mapsets needs to be Winter's Fury or Torment and Torture. Map where and how you want. You're Vision should be whats is put first before compatibility or anything else.

Fonze said:

"it's okay, map for what you want; people will still play it... totally."

Yep this is 100% (even though your usage was a passive aggressive counter "argument") People will play your mapsets, you will always find a crowd. This isnt a popularity context it's creating stuff for a game we love.

Fonze said:

Do me a favor in the future and take the "port-racism" concept and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

Hey if you keep forcing it on people that "ZDoom Format is no good cause it's not compatible with my port of choice" Its really hard not to think about the concept.

I still really want to see a mapper that's extremely skilled with monster encounters that normally doesn't touch ZDoom dip into it for a mapset that has custom monsters.

It's kind of a shame that we so rarely see highly talented mappers attempt stuff outside the standard bestiary. We'd probably see some absolutely incredible maps touted as the defacto way to make use of custom monsters.

I agree 100% Arc

jazzmaster9 said:

Hey if you keep forcing it on people that "ZDoom Format is no good cause it's not compatible with my port of choice" Its really hard not to think about the concept.

Citation needed.

Fonze said:

Citation needed.

Well that quote it wasnt directed at you specifically, but It is just based on experience.

jazzmaster9 said:

If people want to map for Zdoom let them do so.

Okay. I give them my permission.

After years of oppression, they can finally map for whatever they want! A new era is in front of us!

Da Werecat said:

Okay. I give them my permission.

After years of oppression, they can finally map for whatever they want! A new era is in front of us!

Im out man. All this passive aggressive nonsense is getting us nowhere.
Enjoy your 90s technology.

This will probably come as shock to you, but people throwing accusations of "port racism" around are no less irritating than people disliking ZDoom just because.

Nevertheless, enjoy your questionable design practices (on a slightly pimped up 90s technology).

Da Werecat said:

throwing accusations of "port racism" around are no less irritating ... enjoy your questionable design practices (on a slightly pimped up 90s technology).

Isn't this basically like saying "god stop saying we're sexist and make me a goddamn sandwich."