Name my port contest

Soultaker · Post by **Soultaker** » Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:29

Z-DooM Enhanced.

TheDarkArchon · Post by **TheDarkArchon** » Fri Sep 02, 2005 13:59

wildweasel wrote: get the hang of GZDoom's dynlight definitions.

You can always use a seperate WAD for dynamic lights and stuff. (That's what I'm doing, anyway.)

EDIT: Like this

Skunk · Post by **Skunk** » Fri Sep 02, 2005 15:19

Call it Grue.

NiGHTMARE · Post by **NiGHTMARE** » Fri Sep 02, 2005 15:42

Omega

Psycho Siggi · Post by **Psycho Siggi** » Fri Sep 02, 2005 23:28

Moodz

Slasher · Post by **Slasher** » Fri Sep 02, 2005 23:45

X-Doom
y? because it has been proven that if you add an x to anything it automatically becomes cool...

jk

Post by **solarsnowfall** » Fri Sep 02, 2005 23:54

ZDoomX??? Zdoom Extended? XZDoom???

Soultaker · Post by **Soultaker** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 0:22

Isn't there already something called X-DooM?

EGD - Enhanced GL DooM

The HavoX · Post by **The HavoX** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 1:07

GraDoom.

Ajapted · Post by **Ajapted** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 4:43

BorgDoom

Your features will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

Post by **Graf Zahl** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 9:32

What features? The only non-ZDoom features in here are dynamic lights (a basic requirement for a GL port) and 3D floors which when I first did them were admittedly based on Legacy's features. I added some EDGE options later but all that way way before I started thinking about releasing this stuff.

What's wrong about looking through the docs of all the source ports and implement the means how they do the features? For example, Vavoom support cost me less than a day to code. All the required stuff was already there before I started.

On the other hand, something like the new Legacy version could drive me mad. They have everything laid out in front of them by other ports but what do they do? Create an incompatible MAPINFO! In other words, it will be impossible to do maps that work with both ZDoom and Legacy and use some of the enhanced features exposed through that lump!
Equally bad, it seems they did many linedef types which ZDoom already has differently. There goes all hope of even a minimal set of cross-port compatibility...

I won't do something like that. If I think that GZDoom is technically capable of handling a map and the required thing is easy to do I'll add it.
Take Vavoom's slope definitions for example. From an editing standpoint they are crap and there's no real need to support them. I added the code nevertheless, a) because it took me an hour to do and b) because without it my port couldn't play Vavoom maps even though it has everything it needs to do so.

Does that clarify my view of things?

Post by **solarsnowfall** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 15:33

So do any of these names sound promising? Do you want a specific ZDoom referance in the name, or is just a Doom referance fine? Can you speek further on this?

Post by **Paul** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 17:05

Hybrid

(Zdoom, Legacy, Vavoom in one

)

Post by **Graf Zahl** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 17:09

...which it is not. There's not a single shred of Vavoom code in there. I never even looked at the Vavoom code when I added support for its 3D-floor and slope stuff.

There's some minor Legacy code regarding 3D-floors but 90% of that are also new (and when a 2.1.0 version comes even that will be reduced by half.

Post by **Paul** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 17:36

Actually I meant the support for each port's maps, but nevermind then.