A stupid Question.

What is the filename of the finished Wad going to be?

FreeDoom.wad?
FD.wad?
FDDespayre.wad?

Just curious. it's a dumb question, honestly, but the thought happened to come to me.

Although most ports now have a -iwad option to specify an iwad to use, probably doom2.wad etc like the original.

I thought we were going to ask port authors to make it so that "freedoom.wad" or whatever the final filename will be to be recognised as an IWAD without the need of using the -iwad parameter? Or was I just hallucinating again?

mmnpsrsoskl said:

I thought we were going to ask port authors to make it so that "freedoom.wad" or whatever the final filename will be to be recognised as an IWAD without the need of using the -iwad parameter? Or was I just hallucinating again?

I dont remember that but it seems like a good idea. I know Eternity is planning on having freedoom support; We can probably coerce the other ports into doing the same (cph?)

Ever thought about calling them (since I hear there will also be a doom.wad replacement) iwad.wad and iwad2.wad? Or maybe free.wad and free2.wad.

boom has -iwad and we are aiming for a minimum of boom support so calling it freedoom.wad should be fine.

fraggle said:

I dont remember that but it seems like a good idea. I know Eternity is planning on having freedoom support; We can probably coerce the other ports into doing the same (cph?)

Well I must have been drunk or something :)

And yeah I mean, if they don't that'd be a loss for them, and it shouldn't be too hard (like one line of code?)

Not quite "one line of code". Various ports have different ways to determine what IWAD you're playing with, and depending on certain things that may or may not be present within the IWAD.

IIRC, according to Quasar, the wad checking code for certain ports are fairly obfuscated.

It may or may not be a trivial issue, especially if we want $significant_subset_of_boom_compatible_ports to support loading freedoom.wad automatically.

However, this functionality would be needed in at least prboom, I would think, so that freedoom.wad would be able to be packaged and used with prboom packages seamlessly.

I remember the discussion about asking port authors to provide support for a WAD called "freedoom.wad". IIRC it was a side shoot of the "how can we make sure people don't use freedoom with the original EXE" discussion. (A discussion I never understood BTW - why should't you be able to use it with the original EXE?)

Anyway, I don't remember if any agreement was ever reached. If a name was agreed for the WAD, and some port authors did support it, all well and good. I don't know how many ports provide multiple IWAD support like Zdoom does (for example). ie a pop up menu on start up if Zdoom finds more than one supported IWAD in its directory, but it would be neat to have a "Freedoom" option in there.

For the other ports:

A lot of ports do have the IWAD parameter.

A lot of people use launchers to specify IWADs

There is always the option of simply renaming the file.

An almost unrelated issue: Someone remind me - I'm right in saying that the levels for freedoom can include BOOM features, right? So certain ports are going to be ruled out because of that too (older ports and JDoom spring Gazelle-like to mind - unless Jdoom has Boom support now - I haven't checked). Just asking.

Yes, it's called Boomsday. I think?

mmnpsrsoskl said:

Yes, it's called Boomsday. I think?

I believe this is a seperate port by a different author, based on the Doomsday engine, providing Boom support and a host of other features too. Deep knows quite a bit about this port as he has had the opportunity to do a bit of testing with it.