Favorite Source Port? (Multiple Choice Poll)

[Graf Zahl]

iori said:

ahh the wonders of what people can say when all they have are open mouths and closed ears...

I have to quote this...


Well, since zdoomgl is becoming alot more like Jdoom in looks, and keeping Zdooms funtionality, why would they switch? There is no particularily beneficial thing AFAIK that would convert the zdoom guys, especially not the Vets who swear by it.

I sincerely hope so. Unfortunately the current version doesn't even come close to JDoom or Risen3D in terms of performance (larger levels are close to unplayable on my AthlonXP 2000.) I believe that Timmie is aware of this issue and hope that he finds the cause. But as ZDoomGL is still in alpha stage some problems are to be expected and to be considered normal. If this gets worked out it definitely has a good chance to become one of the best source ports available, combining the strengths of several others.

[Graf Zahl]

DaniJ said:

EXACTLY. XG is NOT a scripting language! And obviously any attempts to use it as such are gonna end up long winded. Some of the XG types the D64TC crew wrote are VERY messy and a lot of it could be done a LOT simpler.

Ok. So far so good. But isn't the goal of XG and 'normal' scripting the same, i.e. to create in-game actions that aren't available in the stock resources? It's a totally different approach but to my understanding it's still 'scripting' which I understand as providing a (possibly compiled) text file that describes certain in-game behavior.

[DaniJ]

Ok. I can understand that. I just never thought anyone would try to use XG for scripting. It's very good for making complicated chained sector changes or doing cool things by envoking the console commands.

I've just checked out some of the wads that you (Graf) listed for me and they have largely changed my perception of ZDoom. Dark7 and Slipgate I really enjoyed and no doubt they will remain in my new zdoom folder for a while to come. I'm gonna check out Dissolution next.

I mainly spend most of my Doom community life over at NewDoom so I don't get to here much about new releases. I check out the reviews here at DW every sunday though.

I DO have an open mind. But as I said I can only form an opinion from what I've seen.

So ZDoom's implementaion of ACS:
How much has been added/improved over the original Hexen implementation?

I am starting to get into mapping and I would like to start using scripting in my levels but I want my wads to be playable under most ports. Now that the big 3 - Legacy, Doomsday and ZDoom are becoming a lot closer in their feature set (I hear Legacy is getting ACS in the new C++ rewrite?) this will become a new standard for Doom maps (eg Hexen based features). So with this in mind it won't be too difficult to add the features of each port to your map so that they are only used by the port you choose to run the map. Is this feasible?

[FireBastard]

ToXiCFLUFF said:

Ok, I'm going to stay out of personal opinion based stuff here, and just stick to facts.

Uh, you forget one vital point: ACS was already in Hexen - it has nothing to do with Skyjake. In Zdoom's case, ACS has been modified heavily - there is a hell of a lot of functions which weren't in it's original incarnation.

When talking about "interpreted", he was talking about Vavoom's progs.dat style stuff, which is basically the game code. NOT a scripting language made to utilise game code, which was what you were comparing it to.

Read very carefully what I said. This is truly about philosophical differences. Just because it isn't recognized as such does not mean this it is not.

It's simple. Goes like this. JK could implement scripting anytime he wants to since he obviously knows how to do this. Whether it's in HEXEN or not has nothing to do with what I said. From the comment made, sounds like he's doing to do this - like I said, it would be simple for him to do so.

The changes made in ZDOOM have nothing to do with my descriptions. It's similar in how BOOM is DOOM yet it isn't. Again an abstract description that covers much more than specific instances.

So ACS isn't game code? My what a short POV we have here. ACS is indeed game code since it can radically change the behavior of gameplay. IOW, a matter of perspective again. Technically you can add just about anything to ACS - so all this really defines are the different methods/limits of implementing game changing code. Nothing else.

[Xaser]

Zdoom is THE BEST. PERIOD.

I guess I would rank Jdoom as 2nd.

Oh, and about Legacy, I personally think Doom.exe and Doom95 are better.

[Fredrik]

Graf Zahl said:

I'm a programmer in a small game development company. Most of our work is localization and cell phone games.

Hence our disagreement about high-level versus low-level languages ;)

[Graf Zahl]

Fredrik said:

Hence our disagreement about high-level versus low-level languages ;)

The highest I have ever worked with extensively is Java and I must say I very much prefer C++! ;-)

[FireBastard]

Graf Zahl said:

I'm not wrong. You are.

That's funny Graf. Way to go. That's your answer every single time with no facts to back you up. What I'm describing is the difference between the way an engineer looks at a bridge vs an artist. You are the engineer and see the girders, nuts and bolts, but fail to appreciate the big picture such as captured in a photograph.

In other words, stuff nobody was talking about here. So who needs reading glasses???

Again, you are wrong. That's exactly what we are talking about here. By expressing you narrow POV, you describe a philosphy that is merely YOU. For example, you mentioned somewhere that you prefer command line over graphical interfaces for DOOM tools, yet that is a minority opinion and merely a philosophical difference. You are entitled to this, but then so it the next guy. This discussion is no different. You said several things which I disagree with and can prove it's not so. Learn to deal with it.

Every single post of you I can remember is offensive and aggressive in a rude manner.

No, for every single post that I disagree with you on, you get petty, offensive and start slinging mud as soon as you can. You have never been polite with anyone or anything you disagree with. Arrogant might be a more appropriate word here.

Hot you again!

No, I (sic) "hot" you again!. Please reread the ACS stuff. Both you and Toxicfluff just don't see the connection. Doesn't matter where he got the code, the point is only that JK could (and looks like he is) do ACS in DOOM. Has nothing do do with if he changed it or not.

Yes, the original goal of JK was merely rendering, however, that's not really true since the XG, DED, InFine and countless other changes really say something else entirely. People repeat things so much they can't see what is right in front of their eyes - he actually changed much more than just the renderer.

[/b]Just proves perfectly that you have absolutely no fucking clue what's going on here.[/b]

No, what it proved is what a "fucking" shallow mind you have(that wasn't very nice Graf). Rather than thinking that maybe you just don't understand what I'm getting at (or want to know), you just resort to mud slinging.

To refresh your memory, XG, DED and InFine are 3 different ways of approaching the problem of redefining the gaming options. In many ways much more sophisticated and flexible than ZDOOM for what they do (although an ACS addition would be welcome).

Both formats have totally different goals so they aren't even comparable to begin with.

Nope bud. You again draw engineer conclusions where the topic has nothing to do with what their goals, merely the technique used. IOW, is this scripting or not? That is the topic. Neither one is scripting.

Since you fail to see my point about DECORATE vs XG, let's review. You said XG was scripting (see above) and I say it is not. No more than DED is. They comprise a definition language, not scripting. Now Infine is scripting:)

Obviously you are not a programmer so your words regarding this are worth shit. Apparently you have no idea what a good programmer can read from a source code.

Obviously I am :) (told you that before). That's why I conclude your words are not worth "shit". (Nice going again Graf). There is nobody in the community that can look at source code and tell you the quality of a nodes builder. Yet you actually said you could do that. That's a joke if I ever saw one. Only the most egotistical coder would make such a claim. I don't think Carmack would say such a thing bud.

The only thing you can do by looking at source code is a "style" issue, which includes important things like comments. In that regard I like JK's code much better than Randy's.

Your style is to quickly accuse the other person of what you do right way. I never even come close to the insults you sling willingly at me and port authors who are not here to defend themselves. Here's a good example of how you like to twist things around:

So far all I see from you is a complete disrespect for a civilized discussion. Just because I once dared to challenge your (sacred?) beliefs you seem to have a perverse need to attack me every time you see fit. Why should I give you the slightest bit of respect? You discuss like a total moron.

See, there you go. You call me names again (very rude - show me where I called you a "moron" Graf) and you actually state things the opposite of what actually happened. It is you that did not like being challenged Graf, not I. I actually explain why I say what I do. You OTOH, behave like some little kid with all the instant name calling and bragging.

The facts are you were factually incorrect in a news post about GLBSP and node builders (and that upset you) and you take a subjective/philosphical opinion and treat it as if it were fact - because you say so of course. XG and DECORATE are not scripting. Period. Why? Simple, the goal of something does not define what it is. That's a total distortion of accepted terminology.

For the record: you always say "this will be my last post" when you know that you are completely offbase. So predictable:)

This post is too fucking long -- sorry

[Graf Zahl]

DaniJ said:

Ok. I can understand that. I just never thought anyone would try to use XG for scripting. It's very good for making complicated chained sector changes or doing cool things by envoking the console commands.

I've just checked out some of the wads that you (Graf) listed for me and they have largely changed my perception of ZDoom. Dark7 and Slipgate I really enjoyed and no doubt they will remain in my new zdoom folder for a while to come. I'm gonna check out Dissolution next.

Good to know you liked them. Dark7 is one of my all time favorites. ;-) If you liked those you will like Dissolution as well. It's by the same guy and he's an excellent mapper.

So ZDoom's implementaion of ACS:
How much has been added/improved over the original Hexen implementation?

A lot. First, ZDoom has a lot more line specials than Hexen and much of them can be invoked directly by ACS. Among those are cameras, translucency, setting light/fog color and much more.
Specific additions in the language consist of functions, libraries, arrays (pre-initialized or not), inventory functions (giving/taking powerups/weapons, checking health, keys and armor), enhanced text message functions, etc. And you can spawn any item from Hexen/Heretic and even some from Strife into a Doom game if you provide sprites for them.

I am starting to get into mapping and I would like to start using scripting in my levels but I want my wads to be playable under most ports. Now that the big 3 - Legacy, Doomsday and ZDoom are becoming a lot closer in their feature set (I hear Legacy is getting ACS in the new C++ rewrite?) this will become a new standard for Doom maps (eg Hexen based features). So with this in mind it won't be too difficult to add the features of each port to your map so that they are only used by the port you choose to run the map. Is this feasible? [/B]

Unfortunately it's not that easy. With each of them supporting ACS it will make it a lot easier to develop levels that run with all of them but an important factor is that Doomsday has no Boom support so much of the enhanced stuff in Legacy and ZDoom (deep water sectors, Boom-style scrolling floors, friction, etc.) can't be used.
You'd basically have to limit yourself to the Hexen set of features to maintain compatibility. Furthermore, ZDoom has extended ACS so much that it had to change the binary format of the compiled object code to support all of it. Old ACS is still supported, of course, but you won't be able to use most of the language extensions in a WAD that should also run with Legacy/Doomsday - even if there was a way to determine which source port your WAD is running on.

[Graf Zahl]

FireBastard said:

For the record: you always say "this will be my last post" when you know that you are completely offbase. So predictable:)

I meant 'Last post commenting your utterances'. Which is why I won't comment this one any further. I really don't mind discussing with all the other people in this thread.

[FireBastard]

Graf Zahl said:

I meant 'Last post commenting your utterances'. Which is why I won't comment this one any further. I really don't mind discussing with all the other people in this thread.

But you just did Graf:) Pity you can't argue nicely on the scripting issue as accepted by the normal coding community:)

XG is not scripting. DECORATE is not scripting, DED is not scripting (could also go to EDGE and ETERNITY for more examples).

ACS is scripting, InFine is scripting, FraggleScript is scripting.

Simple really once you understand that the goal of a method is not the same as the normally accepted terms for the method implementation used.

But nevermind, some people will just never admit they were wrong:)

[Xaser]

Geez. Your name fits you well, you flame throwing bastard. :P

[FireBastard]

Xaser said:

Geez. Your name fits you well, you flame throwing bastard. :P

Flames - really? Where did I call Graf names like he called me names? (don't count me literally quoting him<g>) All I did is explain the difference between scripting and a definition language. In fact, if you look at EDGE and ETERNITY you'll see that's how they define all this - not as scripting.

The least you can do is be accurate :P

[Cyb]

DaniJ said:

So ZDoom's implementaion of ACS:
How much has been added/improved over the original Hexen implementation?

It's quite extensive actually. Along with various functions which allow you to move floors and ceilings (and both at the same time, Boom elevators and pillar building namely) at any speed you desire (even instant) there are specials to check any monster (or player) health, speed, alter their sounds (see/attack/roam etc) on the fly, put images or messages on the screen, freeze monsters, you can spawn most anything at any location, there are a variety of cameras (moving, static panning, cameras that look at a specified thing), just to name a few things (cameras aren't really acs tho, but you get my point).

Really for the most part I haven't found anything not possible to do with scripting as long as you don't get insanely ambitious. There's a good deal of control allowed by the editor over what happens in the level allowing you to time specific events, add cutscenes and just overall do a ton of neat stuff, which is why I like editing for ZDoom so much. Granted it's got the old standard software rendering, but I honestly don't mind it, I think it's got some charm to it, and more often than not Doom's insanely lowres graphics look horribly blury in opengl ports, though out of all them jDoom seems to display everything the best.

[DaniJ]

Thanks for taking the time to bring me upto date on ZDoom's ACS.

A LOT of what you've specifically mentioned is possible in Doomsday (using the combined features of XG, InFine and ded). Although I haven't released anything yet I do admit that in order to fully understand the potential of Doomsday you need to spend time looking at all the availble tools to get the best out of it. For instance InFine COULD be used to create a full in game scripted HUD. It can also be used to change the music, run console commands etc. The main thing I've found with Doomsday is that there are often half a dozen different methods to achieve the same goal with merits to each one.

Plus it doesn't help when some of its features are totally undocumented/unrealised.

Although I'm speaking hypothetically (as there are so very few Doomsday maps and NONE that actually use it's features) I do believe that if it wasn't for the learning curve there would be a lot more Doomsday specific wads.

BTW did you know Doomsday can do scripted cutscenes, mid-level? I know it's not in any available levels but the features are certainly there to support it. It's just a case of being creative with the tools. If you want me to explain how then just say. They're probably not the easiest methods but it IS possible. ;-)

So I'd have to stick to the old implementation of ACS? That's fine, I can do plenty with that.

Is it possible to have two versions of your scripts in the same wad? What I mean is - one set (standard ACS) to be used by Legacy/Doomsday and another (ZDoom enhanced) for ZDoom? As long as the missing stuff wasn't critical then you could use the other features of each port in place of the missing ACS stuff.

Something I never could understand is the level of Boom support in Doomsday. A LOT of the extended line specials are easy to reproduce in XG. So I never could see why a standard set of XG comparatives could not be used and then Doomsday makes the needed reassociations at run time. Granted, stuff like Deep Water isn't possible.

ALSO

Is it just me or is the movement in ZDoom slighty loose? I can't think of the best way to describe it but theres something different about it.

[Xaser]

FireBastard said:

Flames - really? Where did I call Graf names like he called me names? (don't count me literally quoting him<g>) All I did is explain the difference between scripting and a definition language. In fact, if you look at EDGE and ETERNITY you'll see that's how they define all this - not as scripting.

The least you can do is be accurate :P

Oh yeah? Then what's all this shit?

FireBastard said:

Again, you are wrong. That's exactly what we are talking about here. By expressing you narrow POV, you describe a philosphy that is merely YOU.

...

No, what it proved is what a "fucking" shallow mind you have(that wasn't very nice Graf). Rather than thinking that maybe you just don't understand what I'm getting at (or want to know), you just resort to mud slinging.

...

That's why I conclude your words are not worth "shit". (Nice going again Graf). There is nobody in the community that can look at source code and tell you the quality of a nodes builder. Yet you actually said you could do that. That's a joke if I ever saw one. Only the most egotistical coder would make such a claim. I don't think Carmack would say such a thing bud.

...

You OTOH, behave like some little kid with all the instant name calling and bragging.

See. You were doing a bit more than just explaining the difference between scripting and a definition language.


And to top all that off, you're a liar.

FireBastard said:

No, for every single post that I disagree with you on, you get petty, offensive and start slinging mud as soon as you can. You have never been polite with anyone or anything you disagree with. Arrogant might be a more appropriate word here.

That is totally False. You obviously don't know him very well, then.


You know, Graf had the right idea to not comment on anything you said. It would probably be impossible to try and convince you to do anything. So therefire, this is the list time I'm going to post about all this shit.

Oh, and Cyb. You definately hit the nail on the head there. ACS is teh awesome!

[toxicfluff]

DaniJ: TRhe majority of stuff which is possible with scripting (ACS or FS or whatever) wasn't mentioned in Cyb's post, since the functions he mentioned are the building blocks of the language if you will - and building blocks can always be used in a thousand different ways to make a thousand different things.

But on a different note, I really respect you for your openmindedness - it's a pretty rare thing on an internet forum.

Firebastard said:

"JDOOM can obviously do ACS since his HEXEN code does just that."

"Both you and Toxicfluff just don't see the connection. Doesn't matter where he got the code, the point is only that JK could (and looks like he is) do ACS in DOOM. Has nothing do do with if he changed it or not."

It kind of does FB, since he didn't write one iota of it. If I copy pasted something, could I claim it as mine? Another point to note is that we are talking about the way things are, NOT the way things might/could be. Maybe he could, maybe he could have coded it all himself, but he didn't did he?.

Firebastard said:

"To refresh your memory, XG, DED and InFine are 3 different ways of approaching the problem of redefining the gaming options. In many ways much more sophisticated and flexible than ZDOOM for what they do(although an ACS addition would be welcome)."

I must admit that in this and in other areas, you sound pretty misinformed, so I'd like you to enlighten me regarding some instances of where this holds true?

[iori]

JK could implement scripting anytime he wants to since he obviously knows how to do this.

Hmmm, but from what i hear from chatter over on the doomsday forums, JK is less interested in adding editing features to his engine and more concerned with creating a largely graphical experience that will attract people accustomed to newer games.

[dr_st]

iori said:

Hmmm, but from what i hear from chatter over on the doomsday forums, JK is less interested in adding editing features to his engine and more concerned with creating a largely graphical experience that will attract people accustomed to newer games.

To me Doomsday was always about graphics. Since at this point there is still lots of levels (arguably, the majority) that is released for Vanilla, there is still a lot to benefit from Doomsday in terms of graphics alone, and I really appreciate it as a port with a clear goal and a theme.

Hopefully, eventually some standard of advanced DOOM editing will be reached, and then it will be possible to integrate the editing capabilities with the advanced graphical engine to reach some product that feels complete, which is something that cannot be said on ports nowadays, as they are constantly in development.

[DaniJ]

JK is less interested in adding editing features to his engine and more concerned with creating a largely graphical experience that will attract people accustomed to newer games.

While this is mostly true it's a situation that will change the closer Doomsday gets to it's ultimate goal (becoming a generic 2.5d game engine) as in order to support games like Duke Nukem there will need to be significant upgrades to both the renderer and the mapping options.

Saying this though I have been able to get various new XG stuff added when I've asked. I think it's a case of asking while he's working on something related and he's much more likely to add trival (to implement) things like new line types.

The other reason is unlike some coders he's very cautious of introducing code that could potentially cause untold problems or extra work futher down the line. IMHO Doomsday is by far the most polished/stable port available.

Slowly Doomsday is enveloping more and more of the game.dll's. Pretty soon I should imagine there will be hardly any game logic left in them and they will become mostly a whole bunch of code pointers and AI routines.

[dr_st]

DaniJ said:

in order to support games like Duke Nukem there will need to be significant upgrades to both the renderer and the mapping options.

I can understand the mapping options, but what would need to be updated on the renderer? BUILD engine wasn't too far above DOOM, and Doomsday pretty much implements true graphical 3D. What's left?

DaniJ said:

IMHO Doomsday is by far the most polished/stable port available.

It does feel this way (besides the long abandoned BOOM).

[chilvence]

dr_st said:

BUILD engine wasn't too far above DOOM, and Doomsday pretty much implements true graphical 3D. What's left?

Actually, the difficulty is that Build uses a different method to get the same results - you can move sectors about as much as you like in build, during runtime, thanks to the method it uses for visibilty checking. Whereas Doom, and even Doomsday still use a pregenerated table of sorts to decide what needs to be drawn from any given viewpoint. If you were to move any of the sectors, that table would be null and void.

At least thats my non technical understanding of the situation.

[iori]

If you were to move any of the sectors, that table would be null and void.

Hence the inclusion of polyobjects. I do have a question though. How come polyobjects are somehow bound to the reject table? Monsters dont try and attack you through polyobjects... If the method used to correct that problem was used to fix the legacy 3d floor problem, that would be cool.

[Graf Zahl]

iori said:

Hence the inclusion of polyobjects. I do have a question though. How come polyobjects are somehow bound to the reject table? Monsters dont try and attack you through polyobjects... If the method used to correct that problem was used to fix the legacy 3d floor problem, that would be cool.

Polyobjects aren't tied to the reject table. The sight checking code uses the reject table to avoid expensive calculations in obvious cases. Otherwise it checks the entire line of sight between the monster and its targets for anything blocking.

Now it gets a little tricky. There are two different algorithms for this. Doom uses the BSP for this. ZDoom uses Hexen's sight check which uses the blockmap. (Hexen's algorithm is significantly better than Doom's in terms of performance, according to Randy.) Since the polyobjects are linked into the blockmap they get checked and hence can block sight (the effect you are experiencing.)

Regarding Legacy's 3D-floor problem: Legacy uses Doom's sight checking algorithm and with that it's practically impossible to check 3D-floors (because it doesn't traverse the LOS in order.) Using Hexen's algorithm which traverses the LOS in order it should be possible to properly check for 3D-floors but I never spent much thought about it so I cannot say how much work it might be.

[iori]

Ok, I understand the whole scenario now, thx.

Legacy uses Doom's sight checking algorithm and with that it's practically impossible to check 3D-floors (because it doesn't traverse the LOS in order.)

Well with the inclusion of HexenLegacy, i assume this will be a viable contender in the solution for 3d floor Vis checking... :)

[Graf Zahl]

iori said:

Ok, I understand the whole scenario now, thx.

Well with the inclusion of HexenLegacy, i assume this will be a viable contender in the solution for 3d floor Vis checking... :)

I hope so. It's a real problem in the current version that those damn monsters stubbornly try to shoot through those floors...

[FireBastard]

Xaser said:

..stuff..

Thanks for not reading my post and skimming over the hostile name calling by Graf, which I only "quoted":) IOW anyone reading his post would have noticed he is the one that used those words (and not just me either). So you obviously think he's flaming, whether you realize it or not:P I agree it's a total waste of time to convince those whose only purpose is to stick up for something that's total BS:)

Fucking up the definition of words is not the way to discuss various ports. For sure, it's impossible to discuss game code in the abstract. One good source for background is reading Carmack's various decisions and changes of direction as he thought about how to make the game flexible, yet not hackable (as he found out was easily done with DLL additions).

This is all about what could be done, not what is done. IOW, the options open to any of the port authors is up to them. If they have the code available, then obviously they can do it (doesn't matter where it came from). Randy has done that many times - borrowed code from somewhere else. So has JK (DEH reading for example). In fact, that's the sign of good coding, using code already done (too bad it's not done more).

All this is pretty easy to explain from a coding POV. Setting up definition tables is much easier than adding scripting. ZDOOM's SNDINFO, SNDSEQ, MAPINFO, DECORATE, ANIMDEFS are all various easy ways to add flexiblity to various parts. That's exactly what XG and DED do. They are not scripting though. That's all.

So please don't call those scripting. They are just methods to add/change variables in the game or generically gaming options. Scripting also does that, but it's a "logic" type of effort vs just setting up a bunch of "tables".

Since some here clearly don't know what the DOOMSDAY words stand for here they are (lifted from DOOMSDAY docs, including upper case:)

XG = Extended General Line and Sector Type Reference (like BOOM added stuff, just a more flexible way. And this is what ZDOOM cannot do directly:)

DED = Doomsday Engine Definitions Reference
Does this: THING DEFINITIONS, STATE DEFINITIONS, SPRITE DEFINITIONS, LIGHT DEFINITIONS (like ZDOOM's DECORATE just more powerful). Also includes: DECORATION DEFINITIONS, DETAIL TEXTURE DEFINITIONS, GENERATOR DEFINITIONS, SOUND DEFINITIONS, MUSIC DEFINITIONS, TEXTURE ENVIRONMENT DEFINITIONS, MAP INFO DEFINITIONS, FINALE DEFINITIONS, TEXT DEFINITIONS, VALUE DEFINITIONS, MODEL DEFINITIONS - some more stuff like ZDOOM, but way more flexible.

Notice the use of the word DEFINITIONS IOW, this shit isn't scripting. And that's what I disagreed with in the first place.

Oh, last but not least:

WHAT IS INFINE? InFine is a very simple scripting language ...

Sure, they are more "complicated" because they can do so much. It takes time to learn, but actually pretty simple. But what do I know since all I do is actually read what the port authors themselves say (including comments in source).

[Graf Zahl]

Just a wild guess:

FireBastard=RandomLag=DeeP?

Any comments regarding this are welcome! :-D

[Bloodshedder]

Graf Zahl said:

FireBastard=RandomLag=DeeP?

Any comments regarding this are welcome! :-D

I can affirm this statement. It doesn't appear to me that he was trying to hide it either. One does wonder why he needs three forum accounts, though.

[iori]

people yelling on page 4 and before

This is just a vicious circle isnt it? Yelling gets to a point, thread adds to the posthell count, a new one gets created by some unsuspecting person, and the same ordeal happens all over again. Please keep it in perspective, guys. I dont care how much you hate each other or disagree with each others opinions, but this we are trying for educated discussion here, so please cool it.