ZDoom backwards compatibility flamewar

[WH-Wilou84]

TimeOfDeath said:

I dunno, I couldn't think of a better way to prevent demo incompatibility without the programmers doing way more work.

Would you have to maintain the code in a demo exe?

Thing is, many new (G)ZDoom features would be incompatible with old versions. Maintaining this retro-compatibility needs a ton of work, and ZDoom developers clearly said it's not their goal anyway.

Fortunately for you and for our viewing pleasure, TimeOfDeath, ZDaemon demos are still retro-compatible :)
I guess this is your only option here, for r-jumping demos I mean.

ZDoom is designed for modders, not really for competitive players it seems.
Too bad, we'll never see a ZPack or UTNT demo set :/
Oh well, let's play Hell Revealed then.

[TimeOfDeath]

Gez said:

Already done. The "demo exe" is called prboom+.

I mean for zdoom format maps and/or maps that allow jumping/freelook etc.

I like both classic play and newschool play, and use prboom+ for recording classic and zdoom for recording newschool. I think it could make some things easier and some people happier if zdoom had one version for recording/watching demos.

[WH]-Wilou84 said:

Thing is, many new (G)ZDoom features would be incompatible with old versions. Maintaining this retro-compatibility needs a ton of work, and ZDoom developers clearly said it's not their goal anyway.

Fortunately for you and for our viewing pleasure, TimeOfDeath, ZDaemon demos are still retro-compatible :)
I guess this is your only option here, for r-jumping demos I mean.

I'm not suggesting retro-compatibility, I'm just suggesting releasing one version of ZDoom for demo recording, so that people only use that version instead of using a different version every time ZDoom is updated. :)

I really like the ZDaemon demo format, except that you have to start a server if you want to record a demo. I can't start a server on some maps with many things, and my computer barely runs the maps in single player (framerate) anyway, without a server also running in the background. Plus, ZDoom rjumping is a bit different from ZDaemon, so using both has its benefits.

[chungy]

Overall pointless and counterproductive to work on a fork of ZDoom for recording demos. Just make a note of what version of ZDoom you used to record a demo, and people can simply download that old version again if needed.

[TimeOfDeath]

But that's one of the reasons people complain about ZDoom demo compatibility, because you have to find, download, move wad files cfg files, just to watch a demo. I don't think it's that big of a deal, but if there was just one version of ZDoom intended for demo recording then people wouldn't complain as much.

I don't think it would take a lot of work - just release a newish version of ZDoom that doesn't have bugs that affect recording, and call it zdoomrecord.exe or whatever.

[andrewj]

TimeOfDeath said:

I don't think it would take a lot of work

Sounds like you are volunteering TimeOfDeath.

[TimeOfDeath]

Ok, sure. :)

If I was smart enough to be a programmer, I'd just fix the screen wipe bug in ZDoom 2.2.0 and rename it zdoomrecorder.exe

[gggmork]

Actually (if people could be herded more easily) everyone could simply agree that, say, zdoom 2.3.1 will be the version for 'official' demos if they wanted. So no extra work needed; that version already exists and merely requires everyone to agree to use it exclusively for demos even after new zdoom versions are released. (not sure if that'd be desirable or not to the current method of just having/getting whichever version to match whichever demo).

I don't really know what I'm talking about. (deleted rest of my dumb paragraph).

[TimeOfDeath]

Using 2.3.1 could work too (with a fix for the "no bfg aiming" bug, also not sure if other bugs exist since I stopped using it after seeing the bfg aiming bug).

I thought it could be more official and noticable if there was a specific exe for recording on the ZDoom webpage or something, so more people will see it and use that specific version. But even just an agreement between players to use a specific version is good enough.

[myk]

The very purpose of PrBoom/+ and Chocolate Doom is to retain the functionality of Doom and Boom versions. G/ZDoom and Eternity aim, on the other hand, to add new game play and editing features. I get the impression that doing both things at once would take more than double the development time. You have to do both things but also sort out conflicts between either aim.

TimeOfDeath said:
I thought it could be more official and noticable if there was a specific exe for recording on the ZDoom webpage or something, so more people will see it and use that specific version.

But then recording would have to ignore any new features implemented in versions released later. Had the ZDoom devs made such a choice with v1.22, for example, "ZDoom recording" wouldn't even include slopes! And more changes will likely come and various WADs, which you may want to record on, will use them.

[Graf Zahl]

myk said:

The very purpose of PrBoom/+ and Chocolate Doom is to retain the functionality of Doom and Boom versions. G/ZDoom and Eternity aim, on the other hand, to add new game play and editing features. I get the impression that doing both things at once would take more than double the development time. You have to do both things but also sort out conflicts between either aim.

A much bigger problem is that you have to take implications on game behavior into account with each tiny change you make. This alone might block the implementation of certain features or making improvements to the code.

Designating a certain version 'the' demo version is nonsense. ZDoom is in constant flux so all this would mean is that newer WADs could not be demo-recorded.

If you are so concerned about demo playback you can pick any GZDoom version you like. All binaries I ever released are available for download so you can be certain that people will be able to get it. ZDoom itself is a bit more problematic because many older versions are no longer available.

[TimeOfDeath]

myk said:

But then recording would have to ignore any new features implemented in versions released later. Had the ZDoom devs made such a choice with v1.22, for example, "ZDoom recording" wouldn't even include slopes! And more changes will likely come and various WADs, which you may want to record on, will use them.

Yes, that's one of the drawbacks. But, these days ZDoom can do a crapload of stuff and has tons of features. It's up to the mapper whether they want to design their map for the newest ZDoom version, or a version designated for demo recording. Either way, demos could still be recorded on either version.

Graf Zahl said:

Designating a certain version 'the' demo version is nonsense. ZDoom is in constant flux so all this would mean is that newer WADs could not be demo-recorded.

If you are so concerned about demo playback you can pick any GZDoom version you like. All binaries I ever released are available for download so you can be certain that people will be able to get it. ZDoom itself is a bit more problematic because many older versions are no longer available.

Wads that need the newest ZDoom version could still be recorded on, assuming you leave the demo code in the main program, right? GZDoom is opengl or whatever, right? I only play software mode. Btw, here's a page with a bunch of ZDoom versions that I found through google and not on the zdoom webpage - http://sourceforge.net/projects/zdoom/files/

I like ZDoom and am only trying to help. I'm not sure why you think the idea is nonsense. Honestly, having to find all the different versions of ZDoom and move files just to watch a demo is annoying. Also, with all the new features whenever ZDoom is updated, there are always new bugs. Do you know how annoying it is to spend time recording a 20 minute speed movie only to have it desync and be useless because screen wipes were turned on?

[myk]

noobody said in the linked PrBoom bug comments:
Here we see the difference between a port meant for recording and watching demos, and a port meant for "simply" playing. Bugs cannot be fixed because they are necessary when demo compatibility is the primary goal. Whereas when it's not considered truly important (Eternity) or even considered totally irrelevant (ZDoom), then bugs are fixed.

Not just demos. It's a "port" engine. Its purpose is to keep a Doom, Boom and MBF and TAS line engine package portable and fresh on current systems, adding only interface tweaks otherwise, as opposed to altering game play and adding editing features.

I also think that the compat flag system used by ZDoom seems a lot more sane than complevels.

Entryway explained why this is not really true in an important respect, in the bug tracker comments. If a user plays a Doom or Boom level and applies the appropriate compatibility level, the level is guaranteed to run as on the engine it was tested with when developed. If that user runs the level on an engine that relies on flags or separate settings, he has no clue which settings need to be applied for the level to avoid potentially breaking at one point. The mass of different compatibility options or flags, which often deal with obscure mechanisms, are a mess to most users. So the easily applied compatibility levels, especially Doom (2-4) and Boom (9), are very useful for people running the very many WADs made for Doom and Boom, regardless of whether they are recording a demo or not.

[tempun]

Can anyone please explain why "record what you see" approach can't possibly work in (G)ZDoom? AFAIK, Quake demos work that way.

[myk]

Actually, Graf Zahl said why he doesn't like it. Work... it could. ZDaemon uses the approach, if I am not mistaken.