So, GZDoom has replaced its sector light options...

[Edward850]

8 hours ago, akinata said:

there is way more than just 3 people. most ppl just don't bother coming here.

 

3 hours ago, akinata said:

the answer is simple. because most player just do not care going on some niche forum to discuss about a niche game.

Just to be clear, what you are trying to do is invent a person that simultaneously cares way too much about their personal preference on Doom's lighting model, while simultaneously thinking that Doomworld as a website is too niche for them. I hope you understand the absurd position you're trying for here.

[Blzut3]

2 hours ago, Redneckerz said:

I very much doubt DoomWorld is a niche forum. And the ZDoom Forums... well, i didn't see this thread over there.

This thread is on the ZDoom forums and it was recently bumped by NeoWorm as well.  It likewise a pretty short thread suggesting not many people there care either.  https://forum.zdoom.org/viewtopic.php?t=78326

 

However if you search the Internet at large you won't find anything.  On the other hand I know over the years we've had to explain the purpose of the light modes multiple times, so it's not imaginary that the purpose of the setting is non-obvious which leads to people setting the wrong thing.

 

Now one might want an explanation on how something being non-obvious can be known to lead to people setting the wrong thing.  For example, in the Steam version of Super 3D Noah's Ark I had to restrict the screen size option to remove the ability to remove the status bar in the options menu.  What I observed is while a lot of people never open the options menu, there's also the set of people that do go through them and they'll see something like "screen size" and think "well surely I want the biggest setting" adjust it and then wonder why the status bar is missing.  I capped it in the menu and no more complaints, but if one really wants to run the game without a status bar they can by knowing the button to press in game.

 

8 hours ago, akinata said:

so basically just like it was before but with the setting hidden??
just put it back inside the menu but hidden behind a switch if you don't want the casuals to use dark mode... 

Lets focus on this because I truly can not follow your argument here.  So based on what you said you'd be OK if we tucked it 10 menus deep and required you to jump through a hoop to enable said menu.  But it being accessible by console only is too far?  What is it that's so important about it being in the menu to you?  The menu is supposed to be for options that casuals are expected to change.

 

You'll probably be tempted to answer with a what-about-ism, but as I've addressed earlier in this thread the argument that this is a drop in the bucket UX improvement is basically just arguing "no progress should be made since you didn't solve every problem at the same time."

 

Also with NeoWorm's arguments against autoexec being dispelled, given that you said: "either force it via mapinfo or i will play it with dark. because thats what i like."  I fail to see why you are not happy with the autoexec solution.  Since it sounds like you can have exactly what you want today, you just refuse to edit a file for some reason to get your unpopular option.

 

8 hours ago, akinata said:

and even if there wasn't many, getting rid of a QOL setting just because it is not popular enough is dumbfounding. 

A setting being unpopular is definitely a reason to consider its removal.  My desktop environment of choice, KDE, runs into this problem with some frequency.  They were known as being infinitely configurable but routinely they get feedback that the options are confusing, hard to locate, and even cause stability problems due to too many possible code paths.  There have been efforts to choose better defaults and remove unpopular options, and similarly met with a lot of hot air with similar "I thought KDE was about choice" arguments from the handful of people who are affected by the changes.

 

To be clear I'm not arguing the light modes cause stability issues in GZDoom, I'm merely pointing out that being unpopular is indeed an important metric and GZDoom isn't alone in doing this.

 

21 hours ago, Shepardus said:

I would expect the value to persist in my save, like a gameplay flag.

If it hasn't been so already, this actually isn't a terrible idea to pitch to the active GZDoom devs.  I'm not sure it presents a meaningful improvement to the status quo, but I would say there's some substance here.

 

Similarly for Xaser's suggestion of auto-compat entries.  Although the idea of auto-compat doing cosmetic changes pains me (mostly since the bloat of the auto-compat definitions leads people to point at it as some evidence that GZDoom's backwards compat is terrible despite a lot of it being not strictly necessary), it's not like GZDoom doesn't already have a bunch of those so it's not a new concept.

[akinata]

On 6/16/2024 at 3:36 AM, Edward850 said:

 

Just to be clear, what you are trying to do is invent a person that simultaneously cares way too much about their personal preference on Doom's lighting model, while simultaneously thinking that Doomworld as a website is too niche for them. I hope you understand the absurd position you're trying for here.

most people would indeed not care enough to complain on some doom forum. i am here just because i once created an account just to congratulate a mapper that made something that i felt needed congratulation.
else i wouldn't be here. i would have just gone to discord instead.

"there is only 3 people complaining about your issue on this forum" is not a valid argument

 

23 hours ago, Blzut3 said:

Lets focus on this because I truly can not follow your argument here.  So based on what you said you'd be OK if we tucked it 10 menus deep and required you to jump through a hoop to enable said menu.  But it being accessible by console only is too far?  What is it that's so important about it being in the menu to you?  The menu is supposed to be for options that casuals are expected to change.

 

You'll probably be tempted to answer with a what-about-ism, but as I've addressed earlier in this thread the argument that this is a drop in the bucket UX improvement is basically just arguing "no progress should be made since you didn't solve every problem at the same time."

 

Also with NeoWorm's arguments against autoexec being dispelled, given that you said: "either force it via mapinfo or i will play it with dark. because thats what i like."  I fail to see why you are not happy with the autoexec solution.  Since it sounds like you can have exactly what you want today, you just refuse to edit a file for some reason to get your unpopular option.

if you really want to hide the dark option from casuals, just put it under a special menu option that unlock it...
just how there is a full option menu you can click on in gzdoom already to unlock all options...

i don't see having multiple light mode as a problem at all. it is a user choice. and again, if some creator absolutely wants their maps to e played how they meant to... => mapinfo.
simple.

i can create a shortcut with the dark parameter. but then what if i want to change the light mode on the fly to test things out?
i have to write it down now. and memorize what every number means... what if there is some casual players who liked the dark light mode but now is confused on how to set it up? it would be so simple to just have the option inside the menu right?

 

On 6/16/2024 at 4:12 AM, Blzut3 said:

 

 

 

A setting being unpopular is definitely a reason to consider its removal.  My desktop environment of choice, KDE, runs into this problem with some frequency.  They were known as being infinitely configurable but routinely they get feedback that the options are confusing, hard to locate, and even cause stability problems due to too many possible code paths.  There have been efforts to choose better defaults and remove unpopular options, and similarly met with a lot of hot air with similar "I thought KDE was about choice" arguments from the handful of people who are affected by the changes.

also:

"unpopular".
there wasn't that much votes but dark reached a bit more than 10%.
in front of "standard" and "legacy".

whatever gzdoom devs decide to do next, getting rid of an easy way to get rid of the disgusting glow was not a smart move.

zandronum didn't got rid of the setting and there isn't any problem with that.

also i don't see any forum threads about how gzdoom has too many light mode and that it's confusing.

[Shepardus]

It would help a bit if the console option printed a description of its values when you enter its name alone (like many of the other options do); even someone who knows what the light modes are pretty much has to go to the wiki to figure out what value's what.

[Blzut3]

7 minutes ago, akinata said:

i can create a shortcut with the dark parameter. but then what if i want to change the light mode on the fly to test things out?
i have to write it down now. and memorize what every number means...

Don't forget that you can make console aliases and fancy key binds.

 

8 minutes ago, akinata said:

what if there is some casual players who liked the dark light mode but now is confused on how to set it up?

If they care enough they will seek out the information that's available.  The expectation is that most will just get used to the more accurate mode and over time the number of people even aware of the old modes will diminish.

 

9 minutes ago, akinata said:

zandronum didn't got rid of the setting and there isn't any problem with that.

Gee I wonder why a port that hasn't had a major release in years still has the option from the version it's based on still available.  I would think it's very likely Zandronum will inherit the change if they ever have the man power to rebase.

 

14 minutes ago, akinata said:

also i don't see any forum threads about how gzdoom has too many light mode and that it's confusing.

It's going to be hard to find every instance that we've had to enumerate all the options and explain why they exist/when they should be used, and I certainly have more important things to do with my time.  However with some quick searching here's some examples of times where its been indicated that the intentions with the light modes is unclear to some extent.

• https://forum.zdoom.org/viewtopic.php?t=57613 (What's the difference between Doom and Software?)
• https://www.doomworld.com/forum/topic/98210-gzdoom-lighting-levels/ (What are all the lighting modes?  I noticed the one I was using wasn't accurate.)
• https://steamcommunity.com/app/2280/discussions/0/1762481957316112742 (Which mode is most correct?)
• https://forum.drdteam.org/viewtopic.php?t=4242 (What is the intended effect of the light modes?)

Maybe also worth noting that the poll you link also has a discussion on how to make the light mode names better.

22 minutes ago, akinata said:

also:

And another more recent poll has it in 5th place:

 

[Edward850]

1 hour ago, akinata said:

most people would indeed not care enough to complain on some doom forum. i am here just because i once created an account just to congratulate a mapper that made something that i felt needed congratulation. else i wouldn't be here. i would have just gone to discord instead.  "there is only 3 people complaining about your issue on this forum" is not a valid argument

So how do you know these people exist? Is there another forum? Can you link it? If you know of these other people, perhaps suggest them to come here so we know they actually exist. It would be weird to suggest changing an entire lighting system based on the suggestion of a couple of people, after all.

Edited June 17 by Edward850

[Shepardus]

36 minutes ago, Edward850 said:

It would be weird to suggest changing an entire lighting system based on the suggestion of a couple of people, after all.

Who here is suggesting to "change an entire lighting system"?

[Edward850]

29 minutes ago, Shepardus said:

Who here is suggesting to "change an entire lighting system"?

That's the entire premise of this thread as established. The lighting options directly affect how diminished lighting even works.

[Shepardus]

33 minutes ago, Edward850 said:

That's the entire premise of this thread as established. The lighting options directly affect how diminished lighting even works.

I don't see anyone asking to change the lighting system for anyone but themselves (besides mappers enforcing their settings on others, which they already have the ability to do). What I see is complaints that the already existing option to change the entire lighting system has been deliberately made less intuitive and convenient, not only for beginners who probably shouldn't be touching it, but even for those who know what they're doing, under the belief that mappers are the only people who have any reason to be changing it.

[Edward850]

1 hour ago, Shepardus said:

I don't see anyone asking to change the lighting system for anyone but themselves (besides mappers enforcing their settings on others, which they already have the ability to do). What I see is complaints that the already existing option to change the entire lighting system has been deliberately made less intuitive and convenient, not only for beginners who probably shouldn't be touching it, but even for those who know what they're doing, under the belief that mappers are the only people who have any reason to be changing it.

This assumes quite wrongly that any kind of function in GZDoom or any program cannot be a mistake and thus must be set in stone, an absurd prospect that you will not change any developers mind on. The whole problem here is it objectively changed how the lighting worked in maps, that a user would unknowingly change without understanding the consequences. This is broken as a concept.

Edited June 17 by Edward850

[Shepardus]

55 minutes ago, Edward850 said:

This assumes quite wrongly that any kind of function in GZDoom or any program cannot be a mistake and thus must be set in stone, an absurd prospect that you will not change any developers mind on. The whole problem here is it objectively changed how the lighting worked in maps, that a user would unknowingly change without understanding the consequences. This is broken as a concept.

I'm not saying that no features ever can be changed or removed, I'm saying that this specific feature isn't a mistake. If users playing in a way that was not "intended" is such a problem, why is there any choice at all? Of course "Classic" exists for performance/machines that don't support shaders, but why are both Software and Vanilla available? Why does gl_maplightmode exist when mappers testing their maps can and probably already have set a light mode in their MAPINFO?

 

Whatever comes of this doesn't make much difference to me because I've known since before the start of the thread how to make it work for me; I just want to understand how having two cvars that do the same thing but with different numbering and different saving behavior is considered an improvement in usability.

Edited June 17 by Shepardus

[Blzut3]

17 minutes ago, Shepardus said:

but why are both Software and Vanilla available

Honestly wish I knew the exact reason the lighting was changed in ZDoom.  Given what the difference between vanilla and software is I assume it was done to make slopes more seamless, but this was all done well before I was involved with ZDoom.

 

In any case as things stand right now whether software or vanilla is more accurate depends and I was not involved with any discussions to know if anything was considered to try to rectify that problem.  Either way as long as it is the case that it is desirable to have a non-software shader option for performance, the selection between those two modes is a separate thing (would require a different mapinfo option at least).

[Professor Hastig]

3 hours ago, Blzut3 said:

Honestly wish I knew the exact reason the lighting was changed in ZDoom.

 

I remember dpJudas saying it was by accident, but when it was discovered there was no easy way to revert to the original formula anymore.

In any case with a true colour hardware renderer the specific quirks of the vanilla mode tend to be far more pronounced to the point where it just looks bad. It's fine with a paletted software renderer where the coarse gradients make it stand out less.

 

[akinata]

8 hours ago, Blzut3 said:

If they care enough they will seek out the information that's available.  The expectation is that most will just get used to the more accurate mode and over time the number of people even aware of the old modes will diminish.

 

Gee I wonder why a port that hasn't had a major release in years still has the option from the version it's based on still available.  I would think it's very likely Zandronum will inherit the change if they ever have the man power to rebase.

 

 

i hate that a bunch of people decided to hide some options because they felt the need to force players into using what they believe should be the way to play doom. unless those players are invested enough to care to seek a less obvious way to still use the settings they like.
zandronum did have an update not too long ago but changing the light mode options isn't a priority. why would it be?
i play on Qzandronum nowerdays. and there, dark mode is on by default for everyone :)
(which is the best light mode for QCDE anyway.)
 

9 hours ago, Blzut3 said:

It's going to be hard to find every instance that we've had to enumerate all the options and explain why they exist/when they should be used, and I certainly have more important things to do with my time.  However with some quick searching here's some examples of times where its been indicated that the intentions with the light modes is unclear to some extent.

• https://forum.zdoom.org/viewtopic.php?t=57613 (What's the difference between Doom and Software?)
• https://www.doomworld.com/forum/topic/98210-gzdoom-lighting-levels/ (What are all the lighting modes?  I noticed the one I was using wasn't accurate.)
• https://steamcommunity.com/app/2280/discussions/0/1762481957316112742 (Which mode is most correct?)
• https://forum.drdteam.org/viewtopic.php?t=4242 (What is the intended effect of the light modes?)

Maybe also worth noting that the poll you link also has a discussion on how to make the light mode names better.

And another more recent poll has it in 5th place:

 

i saw that one too. way less voters tho. 5 years later, less people lurking in the forum. at a time where gzdoom changed its light mode availabilities.
the issue i see in those threads are people confused on which is THE vanilla like light mode. some light mode were too similar which added to the confusion.
dark light mode is unique tho.

 

9 hours ago, Edward850 said:

So how do you know these people exist? Is there another forum? Can you link it? If you know of these other people, perhaps suggest them to come here so we know they actually exist. It would be weird to suggest changing an entire lighting system based on the suggestion of a couple of people, after all.

you would be mindblowed then to see the amount of ppl who just stick around discord or steam to exchange opinion instead of going on official forums to have better visibility for the devs...
no one is arguing about changing the lighting system. we are talking about putting back a setting that already exist, inside the menu, for QOL purpose.

[Kinsie]

21 minutes ago, akinata said:

zandronum did have an update not too long ago but changing the light mode options isn't a priority. why would it be?
i play on Qzandronum nowerdays. and there, dark mode is on by default for everyone :)

All versions of Zandronum are based on a pre-ZScript version of GZDoom, which means at their most recent they're based on a version from... (SFX CUE: Frantic Googling) seven-ish years ago. If they ever managed to somehow navigate the nightmare of hooking up the old Skulltag-born netcode to ZScript and update to modern GZDoom, you're probably going to see the same changes happen.

 

21 minutes ago, akinata said:

you would be mindblowed then to see the amount of ppl who just stick around discord or steam to exchange opinion instead of going on official forums to have better visibility for the devs...

The developers do not use Discord, and a good chunk of them don't even use Steam, so trying to invoke those platforms as some Silent Majority argument is very silly.

 

21 minutes ago, akinata said:

no one is arguing about changing the lighting system. we are talking about putting back a setting that already exist, inside the menu, for QOL purpose.

And we're trying to tell you that you'll have an easier time getting a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than you will convincing the GZDoom devs to revert this specific change.

Edited June 17 by Kinsie

[LuciferSam86]

GitHub is the main platform for suggestions / issue tracking / development for GZDoom. 

 

I know some suggestions about this are just closed, mainly because it's not the current target of the development, and, if I remember correctly, those "legacy options" are considered deprecated. ( But on this I might be wrong) 

[Bauul]

Honestly it feels like this thread is going in circles.  There's a few people who really like non-vanilla lightmodes, and removing them from the menu introduces some inconvenience for them.  It seems no amount of explanation or justification is going to make them feel positive about this decision.

 

I think it just needs to come down to "I get some people don't like it, but it's not being changed" and leave it there.

[LuciferSam86]

1 hour ago, akinata said:

 

we are talking about putting back a setting that already exist, inside the menu, for QOL purpose.

The right question is: how hard is to re-implement this? That might be other reasons, like a complete rewrite of the system, for example, and removing them might help for the transition. 

 

Of course if someone is full aware of the implications of those changes ( maybe after a discussion , and maybe with a PR) that person is welcome to proposing those changes :)

 

Software development is not easy, at all. 

Edited June 17 by LuciferSam86

[dpJudas]

4 hours ago, Professor Hastig said:

 

I remember dpJudas saying it was by accident, but when it was discovered there was no easy way to revert to the original formula anymore.

In any case with a true colour hardware renderer the specific quirks of the vanilla mode tend to be far more pronounced to the point where it just looks bad. It's fine with a paletted software renderer where the coarse gradients make it stand out less.

 

I did indeed change it by accident, but that only really applied to the software renderer. At the time I saw the vanilla looks as a math bug that I then went to fix. The hardware renderer never had the vanilla looks at any point.

 

This wasn't why I added the vanilla light mode though. It was a bit of a trolling move to be honest - after discovering what I broke in the software renderer I decided to emulate that specific look in the hardware renderer to prove a point: a lot of people actually prefer the software version over the vanilla version. By giving people both they could see for themselves that perhaps the better vanilla accuracy isn't always preferable. At least not to everyone.

 

I wasn't the one that removed the extra sector light options, but my personal stance on this matter is that the diminishing light effect is an intended artistic design of how Doom is meant to look like. I don't have a problem with people being able to override it, but I do think the naming convention of the light modes made it extremely easy for a newcomer to Doom to think "Standard" or "Doom" was the intended looks of the game. It simply is not.

 

Personally I would just have renamed the light modes so it would be clear which is the default (Software), make it default it to that one, and leave it up to users to change it if they really want something else. The game should default to looking how the game designer wanted it to look, and the user should have the power to override the artist - that's my basic point of view.

[Blzut3]

12 minutes ago, dpJudas said:

I did indeed change it by accident, but that only really applied to the software renderer. At the time I saw the vanilla looks as a math bug that I then went to fix. The hardware renderer never had the vanilla looks at any point. 

Oh this was a recentish change? Somehow I never noticed so I assumed it was a way back ZDoom change once it was pointed out.

 

I can't say I agree with the logic to retain it just to prove a point. Seems like needless confusion for marginal/debatable benefit.

[Darkcrafter07]

29 minutes ago, dpJudas said:

I did indeed change it by accident, but that only really applied to the software renderer. At the time I saw the vanilla looks as a math bug that I then went to fix. The hardware renderer never had the vanilla looks at any point.

 

This wasn't why I added the vanilla light mode though. It was a bit of a trolling move to be honest - after discovering what I broke in the software renderer I decided to emulate that specific look in the hardware renderer to prove a point: a lot of people actually prefer the software version over the vanilla version. By giving people both they could see for themselves that perhaps the better vanilla accuracy isn't always preferable. At least not to everyone.

Maybe you wanted to make it better but "Software" option looks closer to the original exe. Vanilla is way too dark and if there was only way to darken up the "Software" just a super tiny bit... here's GZDoom software options with palette tonemap shader engaged A/B/C comparison to Chocolate Doom. The gamma was brought up by the editor though.

For maximum Vanilla exe authenticity, I'd go "Software" mode but man, that "Vanilla" option may look good either! I think it becomes a thing of taste which one to use.

 

 

[Lila Feuer]

13 hours ago, Blzut3 said:

If they care enough they will seek out the information that's available.  The expectation is that most will just get used to the more accurate mode and over time the number of people even aware of the old modes will diminish.

Not with an entire generation in the player base they won't. Especially now since it can be modded back into the game, effectively futureproofing it.

https://forum.zdoom.org/viewtopic.php?style=12&p=1251783#p1251783

Anyway I'd like to know what mappers were responsible for this decision since it has nothing to do with casuals getting lost in options menus that were already given a simplified treatment by default so I can not so much hold them accountable for the overwhelmingly majority vote but to simply avoid their works since they messed with a popular source port that is anything but "authentic" to the Doom experience. It's more like a game engine nowadays that just so happens to run id Tech 1 games.

E: Fixed post, forum software's kind of ass.

Edited June 17 by Lila Feuer

[Shepardus]

1 hour ago, dpJudas said:

Personally I would just have renamed the light modes so it would be clear which is the default (Software), make it default it to that one, and leave it up to users to change it if they really want something else. The game should default to looking how the game designer wanted it to look, and the user should have the power to override the artist - that's my basic point of view.

That's what I would have done as well; seems like a pretty sudden shift to go from not only supporting, but defaulting to the "wrong" option, to treating the whole thing as a mistake and trying to brush it under the rug. Goes back to one of my earlier posts here saying that the real problems with the light modes were the names and the default.

 

49 minutes ago, Darkcrafter07 said:

Maybe you wanted to make it better but "Software" option looks closer to the original exe. Vanilla is way too dark and if there was only way to darken up the "Software" just a super tiny bit... here's GZDoom software options with palette tonemap shader engaged A/B/C comparison to Chocolate Doom. The gamma was brought up by the editor though.

For maximum Vanilla exe authenticity, I'd go "Software" mode but man, that "Vanilla" option may look good either! I think it becomes a thing of taste which one to use.

 

Yeah, in my experience "software" looks closer to other source ports, though I admit I've only compared a few cases. Apparently whoever documented gl_lightmode here and here thinks the same. Don't know why that is when "vanilla" is supposedly more true to the original calculation, though I've heard it has to do with truecolor vs. paletted.

Edited June 17 by Shepardus

[akinata]

3 hours ago, Kinsie said:

All versions of Zandronum are based on a pre-ZScript version of GZDoom, which means at their most recent they're based on a version from... (SFX CUE: Frantic Googling) seven-ish years ago. If they ever managed to somehow navigate the nightmare of hooking up the old Skulltag-born netcode to ZScript and update to modern GZDoom, you're probably going to see the same changes happen.

 

The developers do not use Discord, and a good chunk of them don't even use Steam, so trying to invoke those platforms as some Silent Majority argument is very silly.

 

And we're trying to tell you that you'll have an easier time getting a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than you will convincing the GZDoom devs to revert this specific change.

there is not one reason for zandronum devs to even think of doing the same anti player friendly act of removing options inside the menu.
and if they ever do it for some obscure reason, Qzandronum exist.
yeah, one year after and gzdoom devs seems to be happy to get rid of QOL features for the sake of "playing the way doom is meant to be played".

i am interested in knowing exactly why gzdoom did this change. the "casual not knowing what they are doing" or "mappers get confused on what light mode they need for their maps" arguments are cheap.

 

[Redneckerz]

10 minutes ago, akinata said:

yeah, one year after and gzdoom devs seems to be happy to get rid of QOL features for the sake of "playing the way doom is meant to be played".

i am interested in knowing exactly why gzdoom did this change. the "casual not knowing what they are doing" or "mappers get confused on what light mode they need for their maps" arguments are cheap.

 

Emphasis bolded, suggestion italic. Are you actually interested? Because i generally see you say the exact same thing, establishing GZDoom Devs as some kind of monolith that is out there to get you.

 

Alas its also not getting rid of features: They are just accessed differently in a manner you deem unsupportive.

 

There is already an answer by dpjudas. You want the official answer? Then we need to envoke Graf Zahl.

[Shepardus]

2 hours ago, LuciferSam86 said:

The right question is: how hard is to re-implement this? That might be other reasons, like a complete rewrite of the system, for example, and removing them might help for the transition. 

 

Of course if someone is full aware of the implications of those changes ( maybe after a discussion , and maybe with a PR) that person is welcome to proposing those changes :)

 

Software development is not easy, at all. 

The light modes themselves still exist, the only changes are in the cvars/menus, which are simple to change.

 

13 minutes ago, Redneckerz said:

Alas its also not getting rid of features: They are just accessed differently in a manner you deem unsupportive.

I think everyone here is aware that the light modes still exist, the complaint is that they've been deliberately made inconvenient to access.

[dasho]

Hey guys is this the texture filtering thread

[Lila Feuer]

1 hour ago, dasho said:

Hey guys is this the texture filtering thread

No it's corpses clipping halfway thru the floor with """"smart"""" sprite clipping (filter your textures/sprites and use washed out gamma all you want but that's my biggest pet-peeve.)

[Edward850]

6 hours ago, akinata said:

you would be mindblowed then to see the amount of ppl who just stick around discord or steam to exchange opinion instead of going on official forums to have better visibility for the devs...

I would indeed have my mind blown about this given it doesn't happen. See this may come as a surprise to you but I already check the Steam forums, being a developer of many Nightdive games I actually check the forums of many games on schedule, this includes Doom 1 and 2 because I also look at Doom64 and just cover by bases, and surprise nothing there at all.

Now if this is happening on Discord, well perhaps telling your friends that if they want something changed, they need to post in in a visible place. Kinda useless on a hidden private discord.

Edited June 17 by Edward850

[akinata]

1 hour ago, Redneckerz said:

Emphasis bolded, suggestion italic. Are you actually interested? Because i generally see you say the exact same thing, establishing GZDoom Devs as some kind of monolith that is out there to get you.

 

Alas its also not getting rid of features: They are just accessed differently in a manner you deem unsupportive.

 

There is already an answer by dpjudas. You want the official answer? Then we need to envoke Graf Zahl.

 

5 hours ago, Kinsie said:

And we're trying to tell you that you'll have an easier time getting a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than you will convincing the GZDoom devs to revert this specific change.

^^^^^^^^
people are saying to me that gzdoom devs are adament on their decisions. what do you want me to say?

i just call what i see by its name. and it is called getting rid of QOL by hiding settings from the ingame menu.
dumno what you are trying to make me say here...

yes. i do want to know what motivated that kind of decision.