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

[akinata]

7 hours ago, LuciferSam86 said:

I mean, a gui like ZDL could help with profiles, but it's workaround and not a solution 

 

Hmmm, I think making a mod that changes the cvar should be kind trivial? Is the cvar applied at startup or at immediately? Maybe putting that on a gameplay mod? The only thing is the cvar looses against a modder choice on the MAPINFO per level and here we can be both right ( I think a modder choice should win against the user choice ) but we can discuss for hours and don't find a common point.  

Anyway still a workaround and not a solution 

the solution is simple.
letting the user choose what they prefer via the menu option. simple isn't it?
if the mod comes with maps, options can be enforced via mapinfo if the mapper really wants to force players to play with specific settings.
if it is a purely gameplay mod, i guess most doom player are inteligent enough to understand how to change the light mode to get a better dark and no glow.
or reverting back those changes when they change mods... or still play with glow if that's how they want to play.

[akinata]

 

1 hour ago, Lila Feuer said:

I suppose this wasn't thought out very well huh, that's what happens when you cater to a minority.

So since we or at least I know that the "casual users" was the smokescreen for the change,

the reason is clear:

a few random mappers complained about players not playing on their map with the "correct" light mode and so asked gzdoom devs to hide some light modes from the menu so most players would feel forced to play the way those mappers wanted...
when mapinfo exist and hidden light modes can still be used anyway...

the devs agreeing to that is concerning.

[Blzut3]

1 hour ago, Lila Feuer said:

and they wrote incredibly simple instructions to inform users what light mode worked best with their project

Which I guarantee you most users didn't read, so oh no they might experience the mod correctly now with the update.  Whatever will we do!

 

1 hour ago, Lila Feuer said:

is having big unforeseen consequences

There was nothing presented here that was unforeseen.  That's why you think you're "not being heard."

[akinata]

13 minutes ago, Blzut3 said:

Which I guarantee you most users didn't read, so oh no they might experience the mod correctly now with the update.  Whatever will we do!

 

There was nothing presented here that was unforeseen.  That's why you think you're "not being heard."

mappers can just force users option via mapinfo. thats what we are told to do if we want dark light mode on maps that requires it.
can't other mappers do the same with their maps, if software light mod or whatever is THAT important for their map?

the consequence is many maps (and some gameplay mods) ruined that now require extra input from the player to set up correctly, all for the "correct experience" you guys are trying to force upon us..
many didn't thought of forcing a light mode in the mapinfo because they knew players can set it up themselves correctly. (or it wasn't possible in the past? idk)
but apparently a bunch of angry old school mappers didn't want to use the tools provided to them and instead enticed gzdoom devs into making a global change for everyone.

Edited June 22 by akinata

[Shepardus]

2 hours ago, Lila Feuer said:

Yes, I can use a third party mod to put things back in

The thing is, you can't actually do that. Sure, you can add the option back to the menu, there's already a mod that does that, but since the option doesn't save that's not much use to any gameplay modder, or for anyone using it for anything other than one-off debugging. They would either have an option in their menu that for some reason has to be reconfigured every time players launch the game, unlike all the other settings they added, or would have to update their mod instructions from "set this menu option once" to "create a text file outside the game and add this command to it, and God help you if you don't know what an autoexec.cfg file is or what a text editor is."

Edited June 22 by Shepardus

[dasho]

Better remove gamma, contrast, brightness, and saturation too then. I am not experiencing this the way id intended.

 

[Lila Feuer]

12 minutes ago, Shepardus said:

The thing is, you can't actually do that. Sure, you can add the option back to the menu, there's already a mod that does that, but since the option doesn't save that's not much use to any gameplay modder, or for anyone using it for anything other than one-off debugging. They would either have an option in their menu that for some reason has to be reconfigured every time players launch the game, unlike all the other settings they added, or would have to update their mod instructions from "set this menu option once" to "create a text file outside the game and add this command to it, and God help you if you don't know what an autoexec.cfg file is or what a text editor is."

Well that's convoluted as shit, how is this a solution to the problem then? Can't even just have the benefit of the doubt with the crap advice that's being given in this thread, believe me I'd love for this first world problem to just cease to exist, but it appears that me and mega minority of complainers apparently cannot stack up the might of the combinative Oompa Loompas that is this dev team.
 

39 minutes ago, Blzut3 said:

Which I guarantee you most users didn't read

 

There was nothing presented here that was unforeseen.  That's why you think you're "not being heard."

Speaking on behalf of others again, how greasy!

Did you really think there would be zero resistance to this change and that there'd be no possible outcry whatsoever as a result of a very late change made well after the fact when this port has been around for nearly twenty years?

I'd still like to know who the "many mappers" are that pushed for this change. 

[Blzut3]

58 minutes ago, akinata said:

mappers can just force users option via mapinfo. thats what we are told to do if we want dark light mode on maps that requires it.
can't other mappers do the same with their maps, if software light mod or whatever is THAT important for their map?

I'm pretty sure I already answered this, but once more:

1. Vanilla maps don't necessarily have MAPINFO (cause you know, vanilla didn't have that) and should just work correctly out of the box.
2. We want to encourage GZDoom mappers to use the MAPINFO option if they're designing maps for a specific light mode.  This way users that don't read the directions get the intended experience.  (If you think users read, do software development.  You'll find out how difficult it is to get users to read anything very quickly.)
3. If the light mode didn't matter that much that setting it in MAPINFO was seen as unnecessary then clearly the new default was deemed an acceptable way to play the mod by definition.

Point 3 is why your so called "consequence" doesn't make sense.  Yes, it is understood that due to people being unaware of the MAPINFO option being around since forever (I too was unaware, but as a software renderer enthusiast I honestly never had a reason to care), there will be some mods that fall under point 2 but didn't set the option.  Where we disagree is on whether this fact is a big deal.

 

27 minutes ago, Lila Feuer said:

Speaking on behalf of others again, how greasy!

You do know I've been a (G)ZDoom, Skulltag, and Zandronum developer right?  Just not very active right now.  As for the first sentence, users not reading shouldn't be a controversial statement to you, or you haven't interacted with users long enough.

 

27 minutes ago, Lila Feuer said:

Did you really think there would be zero resistance to this change and that there'd be no possible outcry whatsoever as a result of a very late change made well after the fact when this port has been around for nearly twenty years?

Of course there is resistance and that was expected.  There's literally no change that can be made without someone complaining, hence the xkcd 1172 reference.  The level of resistance seen is about the level that was expected.  I engaged in this thread because I thought those championing the dark setting were motivated by different things than the initial wave of people complaining about the lack of the "legacy" setting, but it seems in the end the two camps are more similar than I thought.

 

27 minutes ago, Lila Feuer said:

I'd still like to know who the "many mappers" are that pushed for this change.

Even if we did keep a list of specific names, we are not going to facilitate your desire to harass.  Edit: Re-read your previous to this post mentioning this.  While the part about not having a list stands, I see that you intention was to avoid playing their mods which is less harsh than I assumed.  My bad for the accusation.

Edited June 22 by Blzut3

[Lila Feuer]

@Blzut3 Yes I know your credentials, I use ECWolf too which on a more positive note for what it's worth is a good port, not that there's a lot of competition in that particular field when it comes to that game however.

Also I have no problem with the mission statement in and of itself and I'm all for mappers being able to do what they want with their shit, modders do the same thing already, the issue is how inconvenient this is and how the proposed solution is actually still a non-solution and it's just a PITA now whichever way you slice it. It makes me want to downgrade GZDoom and if it means I miss out on some stuff then so be it, I barely use the port these days anyway outside of gameplay mods since the mapping scene for it is so niche to begin with.

But yeah I'm more than well aware that some people have total reading comprehension inability, doesn't mean one should simply assume they're all like that and that this proposed solution is what'll remove it or the vast majority of it anyway. It'll certainly bring it down to an extent, but you'll always have someone asking about something or getting confused or annoyed with why something isn't working correctly, as a longtime programmer I'm sure you're more than accustomed to that never-ending sea of complaining. But once again, I think that's a secondary issue here and was only partially the mission statement, it's apparently so bad now that even I didn't know there were these mappers griping about their levels getting messed up in GZDoom, which also proceeds to...mess up brightness or have high gamma by default resulting in a washed out scene, texture filtering, sprites that default to clipping through the floor, the baboon-ass ugly default automap colors, I didn't know that the correct lighting modes were apparently a lot more important than those and I'm sure I missed something else that sucks ass by default.

My aim is not to harass, I don't have time for that and that's beyond petty and anyone who engages in that is effectively doing the "instead of aiming your anger at the institution you take it out on the people" and while they obviously played a major role in this decision I would personally prefer to decide if I even liked their works enough in the first place to consider letting a bygone be a bygone despite the inconvenience it caused me, or else if I just don't recognize/don't care i.e not a major name, then it'll be my choice in deciding if I even want to play their stuff now at all if I now view them in a different light.

Of course, the internet's terrible and there's going to be salty retards that won't listen to reason and will probably try to make the mappers' lives hell anyway so w.e I get your concern there at least. I was not trying to be vindictive, simply just being informed. I suppose ignorance is bliss!

[Blzut3]

8 minutes ago, Lila Feuer said:

which also proceeds to...mess up brightness or have high gamma by default resulting in a washed out scene, texture filtering, sprites that default to clipping through the floor, the baboon-ass ugly default automap colors, I didn't know that the correct lighting modes were apparently a lot more important than those and I'm sure I missed something else that sucks ass by default.

This is the what-about-ism thing I mentioned a few times.  The light mode question has a lot more developer consensus than the others, so it was the low hanging fruit.  Since this thread is in danger of being derailed to Doomworld's favorite topic (there were a couple attempts in this thread already), I don't want to say too much more beyond that no one thinks all of the problems were solved by removing that one option.

 

For what it's worth, I do sometimes wonder myself if GZDoom should just rip the band aid and revert a lot of stuff that was changed just because changing things was cool in 1998.  However I've seen enough projects (i.e. Python 2->3) attempt stuff like that to know it would be about 10+ years of people sticking to the old version if all of that done at once without care.  I don't think GZDoom needs to be demo compatible, but there's definitely a lot in there that in hindsight probably should have just been mods but of course the interfaces for that didn't exist at the time.  (Similar argument I made to have Zandronum divorce itself from the Skulltag stock content to get rid of some random breaks that the Skulltag mods did.  Which of course had a lot of resistance despite being fully compatible by just loading the mod.)

 

26 minutes ago, Lila Feuer said:

My aim is not to harass, I don't have time for that and that's beyond petty and anyone who engages in that is effectively doing the "instead of aiming your anger at the institution you take it out on the people" and while they obviously played a major role in this decision I would personally prefer to decide if I even liked their works enough in the first place to consider letting a bygone be a bygone despite the inconvenience it caused me, or else if I just don't recognize/don't care i.e not a major name, then it'll be my choice in deciding if I even want to play their stuff now at all if I now view them in a different light.

Of course, the internet's terrible and there's going to be salty retards that won't listen to reason and will probably try to make the mappers' lives hell anyway so w.e I get your concern there at least. I was not trying to be vindictive, simply just being informed. I suppose ignorance is bliss!

I edited my post to retract.  I apologize for the accusation of malicious intent.  I'm glad you see where my concern came from though.

[akinata]

23 minutes ago, Blzut3 said:

I'm pretty sure I already answered this, but once more:

1. Vanilla maps don't necessarily have MAPINFO (cause you know, vanilla didn't have that) and should just work correctly out of the box.
2. We want to encourage GZDoom mappers to use the MAPINFO option if they're designing maps for a specific light mode.  This way users that don't read the directions get the intended experience.  (If you think users read, do software development.  You'll find out how difficult it is to get users to read anything very quickly.)
3. If the light mode didn't matter that much that setting it in MAPINFO was seen as unnecessary then clearly the new default was deemed an acceptable way to play the mod by definition.

Point 3 is why your so called "consequence" doesn't make sense.  Yes, it is understood that due to people being unaware of the MAPINFO option being around since forever (I too was unaware, but as a software renderer enthusiast I honestly never had a reason to care), there will be some mods that fall under point 2 but didn't set the option.  Where we disagree is on whether this fact is a big deal.

 

You do know I've been a (G)ZDoom, Skulltag, and Zandronum developer right?  Just not very active right now.  As for the first sentence, users not reading shouldn't be a controversial statement to you, or you haven't interacted with users long enough.

 

Of course there is resistance and that was expected.  There's literally no change that can be made without someone complaining, hence the xkcd 1172 reference.  The level of resistance seen is about the level that was expected.  I engaged in this thread because I thought those championing the dark setting were motivated by different things than the initial wave of people complaining about the lack of the "legacy" setting, but it seems in the end the two camps are more similar than I thought.

1/ dark mode works well with original maps too. how dare you try to force onto me your vision of how OG doom maps should be played on? does that warrant a general change of gzdoom menu options? no. the reason why devs hid some light mod from the option menu was already explained. and your argument was not the reason. it was because of something petty.

2/ so you want to encourage mappers to use mapinfo by... hidding some option from players???
i am am modder myself (tho not on doom, yet) and know very well that some just don't know how to read even when you write in big red letters something crucial just beside the download button...
however i rarely read the readme given with doom mods myself. i already konw how to tailor my own experience for doom and am fine with it. if some mappers wants to force me to play with their own light mode, they can. if they do'nt i will just play the way i like and never complain about that.

3/deemed acceptable doesn't mean it is the best. some just like to leave the choice (or they just don't care) to the player to tailor their experience as they like.
or they just didn't realised they could use mapinfo to force certain options... which again didn't matter much since people can just set whatever they feel like is best.
if some mappers really wants the players to play only a certain way the can force it with the mapinfo. (i am repeating myself here.)

it is a big deal. changing light mode is a major visual change. and that glow can really ruin the epxerience of some mods. (maps and gameplay mods)
of course you don't care since you prefer software light mod. so because i prefer something you don't like i am sudenly illegitimate?

of course there is ppl complaining since the reason for that change was petty.
i don't care about legacy as it's something ppl fight over for the best OG doom visuals.
the difference here is that dark light mod is THE ONLY light mode without the glow (while keeping darkness, dark). that is major itself. why don't you understand that there is many mods and maps that work best with it. there is also alot of ppl who DO NOT CARE about playing doom like how it looked back in the days. they seek instead something that look better, beside the maps and mods which requires an immersive darkness.

[Dark Pulse]

35 minutes ago, akinata said:

the difference here is that dark light mod is THE ONLY light mode without the glow (while keeping darkness, dark). that is major itself. why don't you understand that there is many mods and maps that work best with it. there is also alot of ppl who DO NOT CARE about playing doom like how it looked back in the days. they seek instead something that look better, beside the maps and mods which requires an immersive darkness.

You say this like you're some kind of authoritative figure who got all of these mappers to go "Oh yes, I intended Dark!" You're not. Stop trying to pass yourself off like your opinion is the only one that matters and other people aren't allowed to disagree.

 

Look, it's fine that you're arguing Dark should be an option, and obviously you're right that there's a lot of people who don't care about playing Doom how it looked back then (though I'd also say those people wouldn't be getting GZDoom in the first place, but I digress). But facts are facts: Light attenuation (which is what you call "the glow") was intended to be part of the engine, as it is part of what made the game more realistic compared to Wolf (which had no light attenuation at all... or lighting, for that matter). All those maps from back in the day were, to a point, built with this in mind, because there was no "turn it off" option for things like that.

 

More modern stuff that came about after the various source ports tweaked the lighting are a different story, of course. "Dark" was essentially just eyeballing Vanilla Doom's lighting falloff, but it was also made at a time when it wasn't possible to selectively brighten certain areas - which is what the vanilla renderer actually did, and couldn't really be done on GPUs until shaders became a thing in the early 2000s. It's also, simply put, not accurate, and while you may prefer that look, functionally speaking, thousands upon thousands of levels were never made with it in mind. "Software/Vanilla" replicates this, and thus, is most accurate in that sense - PERIOD. Not liking it does not mean that it is not an objectively better choice for the majority of Doom maps that do not specify their own lighting mode (including literally every map ever made before source ports that tweaked lighting came out).

 

Yes, it's a breaking change. Yes, there's some users (such as yourself!) who are clearly not happy with it since the mode you preferred got forced into a MAPINFO option. And yes, there's a fair point to an argument that "People who want to play it how it was back in the day wouldn't care." But this still boils down to a basic fact: the way you prefer makes maps darker than was intended much of the time, and making players think that's a "proper" way to play the maps is misleading, because odds are they were intended to be played with a setting that had the lighting halo around the player - and as you point out repeatedly, Dark is the only one that does not have this.

 

It's much better to make the defaults close to what the vanilla game would have done, give the mappers the flexibility to specify a darker one if they want that via some minimally-invasive MAPINFO settings that any mapper worth their salt can figure out how to make, and roll with that. The fact this sucks for you is understandable, but going back to how things were will mean a lot more people will for some reason think that a lighting mode that doesn't have something that was a key part of Doom's lighting system is intentional and by-design - and simply put, that's a mistake. You're also ignoring a key benefit of the change - that now Mappers can FORCE a specific lighting mode, and in turn, set up how they want lighting to work on their levels, whereas the old way turned it into a global thing that they had absolutely no control over if the user decided to change it. That's actually fairly important, but the payoff from that will be years down the line.

 

I do feel like the main lighting modes could use better naming conventions though. Personally I'd say "Software (Classic ZDoom)", "Vanilla (Original Doom)", and "Performance (Low-End Hardware)" or something like that. It's a bit more verbose, but at least it clarifies the difference between what Software and Vanilla are supposed to mean, and removes the ambiguity of "Classic (Faster)" which seems just confusing as heck.

Edited June 22 by Dark Pulse

[Shepardus]

2 hours ago, Lila Feuer said:

Well that's convoluted as shit, how is this a solution to the problem then?

If I could just mod it into the menu and have the cvar save like any other video setting, I wouldn't have anything to complain about. That it doesn't save seems to me to cause more problems than it solves. Or, more accurately, I don't understand what problems it solves. I can get behind the options being relegated to the console and understand the motivation behind that (even though changing the default is really the part that's doing the heavy lifting in the changes made), but why even the console option seems to be designed to prevent its use is beyond me.

[Jermarcus275]

On 6/21/2024 at 11:58 PM, Shepardus said:

If I could just mod it into the menu and have the cvar save like any other video setting, I wouldn't have anything to complain about. That it doesn't save seems to me to cause more problems than it solves. Or, more accurately, I don't understand what problems it solves. I can get behind the options being relegated to the console and understand the motivation behind that (even though changing the default is really the part that's doing the heavy lifting in the changes made), but why even the console option seems to be designed to prevent its use is beyond me.

So Is There A Way To Add The Software(Or SoftPoly) Rendering Option In The More Recent Versions Of GZDoom Above Version 4.8.2???

 

I Feel That The Hate Of The Software Rendering Option Is Just Gonna Add An Unnecessary Barrier To Those Who Are Interested In Using The Doom Source Port, And It's ALL Thanks To A Person In The Fourms Who Hates Having The Software Renderer Option By The Name Of ABunchOfTrash(https://test.doomworld.com/profile/33038-abunchoftrash/) For Stating That The SoftPoly(Software) Renderer SHOULD Be Removed!!!!!

Edited October 6 by Jermarcus275