Worst Doom Source Port?

[Graf Zahl]

Those Skulltag mods should normally work just by first loading the Skulltag content. If that is too much to ask I'd say the problem is with the user, not the engine. After all it calls itself "Zandronum" now, not "Skulltag"!

As for "just making a Zandronum mod", this is about things that are supposed to work with other engines as well - a source port that constantly needs to ask modders to change their mods to work with it, because its internal resources cause interference, is just broken

[Cacodemon345]

The licensing issues with the Build engine ports was all started with the base problem with the Build license itself. The only thing that would be good about the Build license would be the no-profit clause, and that itself is a double-edged sword; on one hand you can't go bypass the license and make a proprietary port of the engine to the mobile platforms, keeping the code free, on the other hand you can't actually commercialize any modern-day game made with the Build engine because that would require a license from Ken.

[seed]

7 minutes ago, Cacodemon345 said:

The licensing issues with the Build engine ports was all started with the base problem with the Build license itself. The only thing that would be good about the Build license would be the no-profit clause, and that itself is a double-edged sword; on one hand you can't go bypass the license and make a proprietary port of the engine to the mobile platforms, keeping the code free, on the other hand you can't actually commercialize any modern-day game made with the Build engine because that would require a license from Ken.

 

And he does grant just that permission, as he did with Ion Fury. The team has the legalese sorted out for it, including even past contributors.

[Graf Zahl]

Whether he may grant it or not is beyond the point. The fact remains that Build is a licensing quagmire and actually none of the existing ports ever lays out the specific licensing terms of their code. As provided they are all illegal because not a single code base contains an explicit statement about license exceptions. The only place where I've ever seen one is the Ion Fury help screen.

 

So for all intents and purposes, the only assumption under which one can operate is that all code comes with a linking exception towards the Build engine. But I don't think that this covers all. There is some code in the engine backend that comes with totally unclear license terms, either a simple copyright with no righrs granted or some even with no license at all. Tell me what you want, but nothing of this looks like it could survive any genuine scrutiny, and the worst part of it is that I cannot simply remove the code with unclear licenses because it sits deep in the engine.

 

Edited July 14, 2020 by Graf Zahl

[Redneckerz]

It is an interesting question to ask though: Is a Doom port considered the worst by way of its licensing scheme alone?

 

Personally i don't believe it is, else we would universally agree that ZDaemon is a very bad port for being closed source, haha.

 

Having said that, especially more elaborate ports rely on a lot of contributors, which is both the blessing and the curse of open source. A blessing, because it unifies the efforts of many. A curse, because you would need to uphold where the various bits and pieces come from.

 

Bigger ports usually do this better, but Build (Which is not a port obviously) is under a bit more scrutiny in terms of licensing.

[Graf Zahl]

11 minutes ago, Redneckerz said:

It is an interesting question to ask though: Is a Doom port considered the worst by way of its licensing scheme alone?

 

Personally i don't believe it is, else we would universally agree that ZDaemon is a very bad port for being closed source, haha.

 

ZDaemon is a bad port for being closed source. This is not a matter of license but a matter of attitude. It is clear that ZDaemon is not about sharing, but about exerting control - if they released their source they'd lose control, because it not only obscures the actual networking layer but also the entire infrastructure the port is based on.

 

13 minutes ago, Redneckerz said:

Having said that, especially more elaborate ports rely on a lot of contributors, which is both the blessing and the curse of open source. A blessing, because it unifies the efforts of many. A curse, because you would need to uphold where the various bits and pieces come from.

 

 

And here's where a clear license is a must. If you got multiple contributors it is important to have well defined terms about that external code's license. Otherwise you end up in the same situation as Ion Fury where its makers had to hunt down everybody who ever contributed to their code base to get their ok. And they apparently still haven't learned their lesson as even after IF more code with unclear rights got added to their engine backend.

For a project that was released under the GPL no such thing is needed, the license clearly lays out what may and what may not be done.

 

BTW, when it came to relicensing GZDoom we had two pieces of blocking code, one was the middle layer of the OPL player, the other one the voxel rendering function for the software renderer. For the OPL player we were unable to track down its author - he seems to have gotten lost in the mists of time - so the only choice was to rewrite the offending parts (which fortunately wasn't much) by using another, compatible source as reference, and for the voxel code we had to ask Ken Silverman because nobody was able to figure out that function. Fortunately he have his ok.

 

[jazzmaster9]

On 7/10/2020 at 2:54 AM, The Strife Commando said:

You wouldn't say that if it was more like Skulltag

No we would say its Like GZDoom except outdated in many ways, with a random gameplay mod added in to compensate for the fact it's outdated.

 

On 7/10/2020 at 2:54 AM, The Strife Commando said:

What's the point of having a different source port if it's just going to be the same thing but with multiplayer?

I hope you aren't serious. The fact that one has Multiplayer and other doesn't it, thats the Point.

you dont seem to understand how much difference multiplayer makes.

Edited July 14, 2020 by jazzmaster9

[SlayerOGames666]

On 6/22/2020 at 3:38 AM, Smouths said:

There's this one on the Microsoft Store

 

Oh, yeah! my favourite source port!

[seed]

1 hour ago, Graf Zahl said:

So for all intents and purposes, the only assumption under which one can operate is that all code comes with a linking exception towards the Build engine. But I don't think that this covers all. There is some code in the engine backend that comes with totally unclear license terms, either a simple copyright with no righrs granted or some even with no license at all. Tell me what you want, but nothing of this looks like it could survive any genuine scrutiny, and the worst part of it is that I cannot simply remove the code with unclear licenses because it sits deep in the engine.

 

Then how could this be solved? Only by relicensing the whole deal?

 

I understand that Build may be a legal quagmire, but considering nothing bad happened in over two decades, just maybe it isn't that nightmarish of an issue?

[Graf Zahl]

19 minutes ago, seed said:

 

Then how could this be solved? Only by relicensing the whole deal?

 

Essentially, yes. The main issue is that over the years nobody has invested any thought in the licensing situation because the Build license was the limiting factor.
So, even JFDuke added critical new code under the Build license, like the entire DEF parser. This would have to be redone entirely for a genuinely free port as this code was worked on by Ken Silverman. And this whole licensing attitude has persisted until today. Nobody has ever invested any time and effort into cleaning this up - even when hunting down all contributors for clearing Ion Fury, it wasn't used to clean up the source's licensing into a clear-cut package that is actually understandable by potential users.

 

19 minutes ago, seed said:

I understand that Build may be a legal quagmire, but considering nothing bad happened in over two decades, just maybe it isn't that nightmarish of an issue?

 

Yes, but it also hasn't done Build any good because we'll never know how many potential contributors had been scared off by this over those 2 decades.

[Redneckerz]

55 minutes ago, Graf Zahl said:

 

ZDaemon is a bad port for being closed source. This is not a matter of license but a matter of attitude. It is clear that ZDaemon is not about sharing, but about exerting control - if they released their source they'd lose control, because it not only obscures the actual networking layer but also the entire infrastructure the port is based on.

Previously (Read: When they turned ZDaemon closed source) it was because of hacks being applied. To this very day you can still file new changes, but you would need to use the latest open source release for it - Which obviously is rather dated. I would much prefer they would open source a semi-new release so people don't have to rely on what is there.
 

In how much that still influences todays decisions, i would not know.

 

22 minutes ago, jazzmaster9 said:

No we would say its Like GZDoom except outdated in many ways, with a random gameplay mod added in to compensate for the fact it's outdated.

 

I hope you aren't serious. The fact that one has Multiplayer and other doesn't it, thats the Point.

you dont seem to understand how much difference multiplayer makes.

Well GZ also has MP but the gist is that for multiplayer ZDoom, folks turn to Zandronum because of the C/S architecture.

 

I also find it humorous its consistently called Zandromum by Strife Commando :P

[Cacodemon345]

7 minutes ago, Redneckerz said:

Previously (Read: When they turned ZDaemon closed source) it was because of hacks being applied. To this very day you can still file new changes, but you would need to use the latest open source release for it - Which obviously is rather dated. I would much prefer they would open source a semi-new release so people don't have to rely on what is there.

There's that cheating problem that caused them to keep ZDaemon closed-source.

[Gez]

17 minutes ago, Cacodemon345 said:

There's that cheating problem that caused them to keep ZDaemon closed-source.

That's a pretext. Zandronum and Odamex have to face the same cheating problems, but they're open source anyway.

[Graf Zahl]

Security through obscurity never works. But by their engine being closed source they do control their entire infrastructure and that's arguably a lot more valuable to them than their reputation in the community outside their own small niche.

 

[seed]

Besides, it being closed-source means we're never going to know what exactly is inside it to begin with.

 

1 hour ago, Cacodemon345 said:

There's that cheating problem that caused them to keep ZDaemon closed-source.

 

1 hour ago, Gez said:

That's a pretext. Zandronum and Odamex have to face the same cheating problems, but they're open source anyway.

 

Yep, that's straight up bullshit, as long as there is multiplayer involved there will always be a cheating issue that needs to be dealt with, and keeping it closed for that "reason" is lame.

Edited July 14, 2020 by seed

[A Nobody]

2 hours ago, jazzmaster9 said:

No we would say its Like GZDoom except outdated in many ways, with a random gameplay mod added in to compensate for the fact it's outdated.

 

I hope you aren't serious. The fact that one has Multiplayer and other doesn't it, thats the Point.

you dont seem to understand how much difference multiplayer makes.

It's not outdated, it's different. If someone wants a single player focused experience, they can use GZ. Those that want multiplayer with extra maps, modes, enemies, and weapons can go to Zandromum.

 

[jazzmaster9]

On 7/10/2020 at 2:54 AM, The Strife Commando said:

What's the point of having a different source port if it's just going to be the same thing but with multiplayer? 

31 minutes ago, The Strife Commando said:

If someone wants a single player focused experience, they can use GZ. Those that want multiplayer with extra maps, modes, enemies, and weapons can go to Zandromum.

 

31 minutes ago, The Strife Commando said:

It's not outdated...

When was the last Skulltag update? I just need the year thanks.

Edited July 14, 2020 by jazzmaster9

[A Nobody]

29 minutes ago, jazzmaster9 said:

 

When was the last Skulltag update? I just need the year thanks.

I was talking about Zandromum.

[Redneckerz]

51 minutes ago, jazzmaster9 said:

 

When was the last Skulltag update? I just need the year thanks.

I know you are joking but its 2012.

21 minutes ago, The Strife Commando said:

I was talking about Zandromum.

Zandro is pretty much the same thing, its a successor after all.

Besides its Zandronum, not mum :P

[Gez]

Xander's mum is less outdated than Skulltag. But it's stuck as the pre-ZScript ZDoom codebase because reconciling the move to a  VM with its netcode is a huge step, and it's hard to do it in a way that still guarantees stability and synchronicity online.

[jazzmaster9]

2 hours ago, The Strife Commando said:

I was talking about Zandromum.

Point still stands. still missing ZScript support, which is a big Step in ZDoom's development.

[VIM]

6 hours ago, iconofeggsafe666 said:

Oh, yeah! my favourite source port!

Isn't it all of ours?

[A Nobody]

5 hours ago, jazzmaster9 said:

Point still stands. still missing ZScript support, which is a big Step in ZDoom's development.

Wouldn't ZScript break Zandromum mods? I'm not sure how ZScript works.

Edited July 14, 2020 by The Strife Commando

[Dark Pulse]

6 minutes ago, The Strife Commando said:

Wouldn't ZScript break Zandromum mods? I'm not sure how ZScript works.

No, it's an entirely separate thing. But it's also more powerful than DECORATE is.

[A Nobody]

Better to have an "outdated" engine than to have one where someone's PC or device can't handle it.

[jazzmaster9]

48 minutes ago, The Strife Commando said:

Better to have an "outdated" engine than to have one where someone's PC or device can't handle it.

How does this even relate? Zscript is not very resource intensive even if you have a potato machine.

 

if you're not updating your machine then that's on you and not the devs.

Edited July 16, 2020 by jazzmaster9

[A Nobody]

26 minutes ago, jazzmaster9 said:

How does this even relate? Zscript is not very resource intensive even if you have a potato machine.

 

if you're not updating your machine then that's on you and not the devs.

No no, I'm fine. I mean those that don't have powerful hardware. It's not ZScript that I'm talking about. I mean on everything else.

[Redneckerz]

17 hours ago, The Strife Commando said:

No no, I'm fine. I mean those that don't have powerful hardware. It's not ZScript that I'm talking about. I mean on everything else.

You mean OpenGL support since GZ requires at minimum 3.3.

Edited July 16, 2020 by Redneckerz
GZ not FZ

[seed]

7 hours ago, The Strife Commando said:

No no, I'm fine. I mean those that don't have powerful hardware. It's not ZScript that I'm talking about. I mean on everything else.

 

Sorry, but I'm completely tired of hearing this pathetic excuse. It's 2020 and even a lowly PC or laptop with integrated graphics comes with support for GL3.3 and higher.

 

The reality is that only a small minority of people are still using such ancient hardware, and do not upgrade for whatever reason - either because they can't, which is understandable to an extent, or because they don't want to, in which case, that's entirely their problem.

 

Times and technology move forward, and you have to keep up with the times or you fall behind, and just because you do, it doesn't mean the tech has to be stuck in the stone age as well because "it will make a very small minority of people sad".

Edited July 16, 2020 by seed

[Graf Zahl]

And let's not forget that in order to even have a computer that doesn't support OpenGL 3.3 it has to be what? 9 years old at least? Yes, even Intel saw the sign of the times a decade ago and started improving their graphics hardware.

I bought my current computer in 2012 and even if I removed my discrete graphics card I'd still have OpenGL 4.0 support with the integrated chipset. It may not be powerful enough to play games at high frame rates but it's surely serviceable for an editor which can still operate reasonably at low frame rates where a game may already feel choppy.