Guys, i have an idea for source port. It will be nice if there's port that will allow to add Build Duke Nukem 3D Engine features in Doom levels. 3D Bridges, fliping things, jumping, ducking, allow to object shrink you [like an in E1L4 Toxic Dump]. Transprent water, etc. Actually i know that ZDoom support similar features but it will be nice if this source port run maps made BUILD.EXE but for Doom 1 and Doom 2.

I am not programmer. I just want to ask you guys what you think about this idea. Nothing more. :)

P.S. If my ideas sucks freely say that. ;)

Share this post


Link to post

I wouldn't say it sucks, but ZDoom has just about all of BUILDs features, and some of them are done better than Build anyway. Then you have GZDoom..

Share this post


Link to post

Yes i know that GZDoom are better than Build Engine. But that requires ACS code which can be boring and complicated. Using BUILD.EXE is much easier way for these features. But that would be possible if we made a DOOM TC for Duke Nukem 3D.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't understand, should it run BUILD-format maps with custom Doom-extensions (e.g. object codes for Doom monsters)? Or just throw some hacks into existing Doom formats (e.g. Room-over-Room) to make it look more like BUILD?

Share this post


Link to post

Unfeasible without having a dual game engine or without translating one format into the other before actually running -which means that either the Doom or BUILD side must prevail, and either way there would still be the need for adding extensions -more on the Doom side than on the BUILD side.

This is pretty much like asking if a tool that converts DOOM maps to e.g. Doom 3 maps could be made.

Share this post


Link to post

ZDoom can actually load Build maps. Just don't expect the resulting maps to be fully functional; but you can still visit them.

Share this post


Link to post
Gez said:

ZDoom can actually load Build maps. Just don't expect the resulting maps to be fully functional; but you can still visit them.


What should i type i console. MAP MAPNAME.MAP ??? I want to try it out

Share this post


Link to post
LakiSoft said:

What should i type i console. MAP MAPNAME.MAP ??? I want to try it out


Drop a DN3D MAP file - I'll use E1L1.MAP as an example - into ZDoom folder

In ZDoom type this into console

open E1L1.MAP

Share this post


Link to post
Eris Falling said:

Drop a DN3D MAP file - I'll use E1L1.MAP as an example - into ZDoom folder

In ZDoom type this into console

open E1L1.MAP


Doesn't work. Crashes game.

Share this post


Link to post
Eris Falling said:

Same. That's new.


I think that problem is that i extracted map with newest version of MAPSTER32 instead of .GRP file editor

Share this post


Link to post
LakiSoft said:

It's already made. DTOD3


I doubt that gives 100% perfect, playable results that need no futher editing, even with the precondition that the conversion is done from the less (Doom) to the more (Doom 3) capable engine.

In your -hypothetical- "BUILDOOM" engine, the dominant engine should be the BUILD one, as the more capable of the two. The reverse would just have to be a compromise.

Share this post


Link to post

We need less of this not more of it.

Use of the asininely licensed BUILD code is a cop-out. Implement these features from scratch using your own intellect or don't bother. It is an unfair and unnecessary burden on the rest of us, who take licensing seriously.

Out of everything I could consider a dislike about ZDoom, the only thing I cannot forgive is its continued insistence on following this direction and the way that it flies in the face of the spirit of sharing that pervades the rest of the port development community.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, I for one am glad ZDoom exists and puts features and functionality above all of the licensing BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Dragonsbrethren said:

Well, I for one am glad ZDoom exists and puts features and functionality above all of the licensing BS.


Until you get summoned to court.

Share this post


Link to post
Quasar said:

Out of everything I could consider a dislike about ZDoom, the only thing I cannot forgive is its continued insistence on following this direction and the way that it flies in the face of the spirit of sharing that pervades the rest of the port development community.

Honestly for ECWolf the code in ZDoom that turns GPL when used outside of ZDoom has so far been the only problematic code. Not that ECWolf isn't GPL, but I insist on having it dual licensed. (It kind of my way of forcing all new code to be BSD licensed since I'm not going to allow morphing licenses in ECWolf either for the aforementioned reason.)

Share this post


Link to post
Quasar said:

Out of everything I could consider a dislike about ZDoom, the only thing I cannot forgive is its continued insistence on following this direction and the way that it flies in the face of the spirit of sharing that pervades the rest of the port development community.


If sharing was the same as bowing down to the GPL, yes, you'd be correct.

The problem is two-sided. You can't just blame the other side. The GPL and it's asinine restrictions are as much at fault as the idiotic Build license.


BTW, there once was a lot more Build code in ZDoom. I tossed out a large chunk of it when I redesigned the frame rate interpolation stuff. The C-based Build code not only was burdened with the license, it also was very badly designed and inflexible.

The rest of the Build code suffers from one general problem that makes it virtually impossible to replace: The code is completely unreadable and incomprehensible to the uninitiated. Unfortunately the only person who makes some sense out of it doesn't show the slightest motivation to get rid of this mess.

Share this post


Link to post

I always had the impression that Ken Silverman was too clever for his own good, both in code and licensensing...

Share this post


Link to post
Graf Zahl said:

The problem is two-sided. You can't just blame the other side. The GPL and it's asinine restrictions are as much at fault as the idiotic Build license.

Except for one important difference.

The GPL wasn't chosen, whereas the use of Build code was.

The original DOOMLIC.TXT license is not a sustainable model for distribution; it doesn't even really provide distribution rights. "Educational use" is legally vague on top of that. The only alternative offered to us by id is distribution under the GPLv2+ license. As a result, BOOM and MBF changed to that license to escape the DOOMLIC.TXT prison.

I'm not sure where ZDoom derives the ability to release any DOOM code under BSD, nor where it derives the ability to freely distribute under DOOMLIC.TXT, but that's not at issue here for me. Just the fact that if I want to legally make EE BSD, I need ~30 peoples' permission first. It is not my call to make, nor should it be. I didn't create all of that code, and therefore I don't exclusively own it.

Now given that the unavoidable fact is that 90% of ports are GPL, IMO, using BUILD code, in a legally questionable fashion in the first place, is trolling. Especially when you're simultaneously doing it while sniping under-development features off other ports. And you already know what I'm talking about, and no, I probably never will let it rest until something is done to rectify it.

Share this post


Link to post
Graf Zahl said:

The GPL and it's asinine restrictions

I'm curious, what exactly about the GPL is too restricting? All I really know about it is that it allows commercial usage, and that you're required to release the source code.

Share this post


Link to post
Quasar said:

And you already know what I'm talking about, and no, I probably never will let it rest until something is done to rectify it.


I don't think Randy is to blame for Stroggos not following through.

Sodaholic said:

I'm curious, what exactly about the GPL is too restricting? All I really know about it is that it allows commercial usage, and that you're required to release the source code.


It also prevents you from linking to libraries that restrict GPL-granted rights. In ZDoom's case, the FMOD Ex sound system would have to go to, in order to fully comply with GPL terms. Unless you want to loophole around that it's a "system library", which is debatable.

Share this post


Link to post
Gez said:

It also prevents you from linking to libraries that restrict GPL-granted rights. In ZDoom's case, the FMOD Ex sound system would have to go to, in order to fully comply with GPL terms. Unless you want to loophole around that it's a "system library", which is debatable.

Can't you dynamically link to it? Or is it so ONLY if it's an OS library? Doomsday uses FMod.

Share this post


Link to post
printz said:

Can't you dynamically link to it? Or is it so ONLY if it's an OS library? Doomsday uses FMod.

It is a very vague clause I think. The idea is that if the standard library you link to is GPL your program does not have to be and that non-free software can be made for Linux for example. In addition it also allows GPL software to be developed for proprietary systems like Windows.

I would say that Doomsday is in violation of the GPL if it indeed uses fmod. The fmod license does not allow commercial use and thus introduces a new restriction.

In my opinion anything more restrictive than the LGPL includes "asinine restrictions."

Share this post


Link to post
Blzut3 said:

I would say that Doomsday is in violation of the GPL if it indeed uses fmod. The fmod license does not allow commercial use and thus introduces a new restriction.


You can use FMod commercially but you have to purchase a license, of course.

That said, ZDoom does link dynamically to FModEx.dll - you can use it without FMod, although it'd be without sound then.

Blzut3 said:

In my opinion anything more restrictive than the LGPL includes "asinine restrictions."


Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Quasar said:

I'm not sure where ZDoom derives the ability to release any DOOM code under BSD,



It doesn't.
All files with original Doom code have the original Doom license, if some do not it's unintentional. ZDoom's original code is BSD, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Blzut3 said:

It is a very vague clause I think. The idea is that if the standard library you link to is GPL your program does not have to be and that non-free software can be made for Linux for example. In addition it also allows GPL software to be developed for proprietary systems like Windows.

I would say that Doomsday is in violation of the GPL if it indeed uses fmod. The fmod license does not allow commercial use and thus introduces a new restriction.

Doomsday is not in violation of the GPL because it is not dependent on FMOD Ex, it is not mandatory (it isn't even part of the distro on *nix platforms, its a separate install for those) and lastly, Doomsday is not a commercial product.

Doomsday is licensed under the GPL and if installed, we link dynamically to FMOD Ex and use it according to terms laid out by the FMOD Non-Commercial License.

Share this post


Link to post
DaniJ said:

Doomsday is not a commercial product.

But it can be, under the GPL. Just something to consider.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now