Midtexture bleeding in Zdoom (port racism ITT)

[Da Werecat]

Arctangent said:

Isn't this basically like saying "god stop saying we're sexist and make me a goddamn sandwich."

Sure. It's not like it's gonna make him any more convinced that I'm against innovation or whatever.

(Let's pretend for a moment that bringing sexism here was appropriate.)

[Arctangent]

Well we are calling it port racism, might as well use that stuff.

[Fonze]

Exactly the reason why I wanted to nip that comment in the bud; it's incorrect and inappropriate.

[NiGHTMARE]

I think "port elitism" would be a more appropriate term.

[Fonze]

If by port-elitism you mean zDoom is capable of so much more than less-advanced ports and has maps already made for it that are simply if such a high quality that "my first maps" or even "my fifth maps" could never compete, then still no.

But if you want to go through life prejudging opinions you don't understand right off the bat... good luck to you.

*Edit*
v True; absolutely true.

[NiGHTMARE]

I was simply pointing out that ridiculous internet arguments about which particular version of a computer program is better should in no way, shape or form be likened to the centuries of violence, hatred, and bigotry perpetrated between groups of people who happen to have a different skin colour.

[jazzmaster9]

I guess "Port-elitist" or " Port-Hipster" would have been a better term.

At the end of the day. The first person you should be mapping/modding for is yourself. The popularity and Amount of demos you get should not always be the driving goal to your work. You mod Doom because you love the game. If you need ZDoom features to make your vision, go ahead, embrace it. The tech is there for a reason.

[Da Werecat]

If you can achieve broader compatibility without breaking anything, then you probably should. This is not an unreasonable thought. I'm not sure why it spawned so many words about freedom of self-expression.

Probably has something to do with it being wrapped into a rather excessive amount of words itself. If you expect geriatrics to start preaching vanilla any moment, it's not hard to see elitism in a long and confusing compatibility discussion. Even I thought I saw some ideas there that I can't find now.

[Quasar]

Gez said:

It has been used deliberately to create fake "glass floor" effects in Boom. Sink translucent midtextures below the ground and it'll look like it's the floor "above" them that is translucent. So you can give to the player the impression they're walking over a pit obstructed by a glass floor.

Of course that breaks in GLBoom+, GZDoom, Risen3D, and every other accelerated port you might try using with a Boom level, so...

Strife clips the midtextures just fine.

Please find me any screenshot of a clipped midtexture in vanilla Strife.

[Gez]

Quasar said:

Please find me any screenshot of a clipped midtexture in vanilla Strife.

After verification, Strife does not actually clip midtextures.

[40oz]

It's important not to forget that many (nearly all) community projects and collaborations are somewhere in the vanilla/limitremoving/boom category. I suspect the reason for this is to contain mapping communication between members to a limited set of rules so they can understand each other when discussing or evaluating each others work.

So I'd imagine that a pretty severe disadvantage of starting your mapping career with a constantly evolving map format can be a huge shock when one tries to collaborate with a person or a team or a community in a project with different ranges of skills, expertise, and familiarity with the roots of doom mapping. Especially if they're unfamiliar with the very basic building blocks of doom mapping, but excel in skills that aren't very useful outside their own special interests.

Not everyone is enthused about involving themselves in community projects but to bypass basic level editing formats and limitations in favor of your own path, is to run the risk of alienating yourself from an already small community that speaks and works within a set of norms that the average mapper should be familiarized with.

[mrthejoshmon]

I never actually knew you could stop the midtexture clipping with height and light changes.

I would have made so many wonderful secrets if I did and would have hidden monster alert chambers much better too.

[kb1]

Graf Zahl said:

Yeah, and by not using them you may compromise the vision of the project.
As usual when these arguments come up, the ultimate motivation to bring them up is, 'why dare you to not make this work with my favorite engine of choice.'

Maybe someone WANTS the changes certain engines provide...

Then, by all means, use the engine that supports your vision. But, if your only non-vanilla vision is to clip midtextures, then use vanilla and the "hack", so everyone (every port) can play your map.

Arctangent said:

I mean it's the basis of the entire argument. I'm not sure why you argued against it if you don't see it as very important.

No, I viewed your question as unimportant. This is proven by your above quote, that demonstrates the fact that you already knew my position on the subject.

@"Port Racism"
This is ridiculous - how does "preference" get mislabeled? Ports feel different. It may be as simple as Port A has a certain setting, or a nicer HUD, or the controls feel better than they do in Port B. By making your map use port-specific, non-vanilla features, you run the risk of making the player use a port that he/she is not familiar with, or does not have that specific feature, or has controls that feel funky.

So, following that logic, if you do, indeed want to make a map that uses slopes, or 3D floors, or whatever, by all means go ahead. But know that this inconveniences some people. It's not a hate thing, at least for me. I appreciate the efforts of all of the port authors, though I may prefer the features, or the feel of some over others.

Now, if the port devs would get together, provide specs, and make attempts to standardize features, this would be much less of an issue, but that doesn't seem to happen that often. Being a developer, I shouldn't have to read, extract, and convert the source of one port, to get that feature working identically in another port.

That should not be the only way to get that information. Collaborating over features, providing specs, and pseudocode, and having it agreed upon, would be the way to add universal, compatible additions to a master Doom spec. But, other than Boom, MBF, and in a way DeHacked, that hasn't happened.

It used to be true that, the map lumps, other media lumps, and possibly a DeHacked lump would define the Doom experience 100 percent. But now, what that wad file means is based on which port you use to play it. That same wad may act totally different (or crash) in some ports than it does in others, without any specific way to know which port the author expected you to use. Sure, you can read the text file, you can open up the wad, and look for the presence/absence of certain lumps.

Unless you map vanilla. I would guess that this is the source of frustration, for most people who debate this subject.

[Arctangent]

kb1 said:

No, I viewed your question as unimportant. This is proven by your above quote, that demonstrates the fact that you already knew my position on the subject.

I have no idea what you're saying here. That whole tangent was all about whether or not the unmerging visplane solution was a hack ( and how the heck ZDoom's only solution was a "map hack" ). So ... are you admitting to arguing against something you didn't see as very important? Or are you saying that you had no idea what you were actually getting into, or ... what exactly?

[Graf Zahl]

kb1 said:

So, following that logic, if you do, indeed want to make a map that uses slopes, or 3D floors, or whatever, by all means go ahead. But know that this inconveniences some people.

That may be, but it's a blanket assumption that has never been backed by any numbers or research that this may be detrimental to the number of potential users this project may reach.

The real question need to be:

What will lose more users - a compromised project or specific engine requirements?

It's not as easy as saying 'the more engines I support the more users I get.' but this is the usual argument from people when trying to convince modders not to use an advanced engine.

[jazzmaster9]

Graf Zahl said:

That may be, but it's a blanket assumption that has never been backed by any numbers or research that this may be detrimental to the number of potential users this project may reach.

The real question need to be:

What will lose more users - a compromised project or specific engine requirements?

It's not as easy as saying 'the more engines I support the more users I get.' but this is the usual argument from people when trying to convince modders not to use an advanced engine.

Exactly this.
"You won't get as much demos and downloads if you use advanced ports" assuming that the modder is only in it for the notoriety rather than the creative aspect.

[scifista42]

Graf Zahl said:

It's not as easy as saying 'the more engines I support the more users I get.' but this is the usual argument from people when trying to convince modders not to use an advanced engine.

From what I notice, most non-ZDoom wads indeed get more feedback in the Wads&Mods subforum than most ZDoom wads. They also get almost infinitely more demos.

jazzmaster9 said:

"You won't get as much demos and downloads if you use advanced ports" assuming that the modder is only in it for the notoriety...

It's reasonable to assume that the modder might prefer to get more demos and downloads than less, and possibly even change the way he makes maps to achieve it. If he would, he might find the advice helpful. If he would not, he might ignore the advice. Either way, it's not wrong to tell him. It's not commanding the modder what to do, it's a clarification of a principle that seems to hold, just to make the modder know about it, and deal with it as he wants to.

[jazzmaster9]

scifista42 said:

From what I notice, most non-ZDoom wads indeed get more feedback in the Wads&Mods subforum than most ZDoom wads. They also get almost infinitely more demos.

I think that has more to do with the negative connotations of ZDoom mapsets (being over detailed and no gameplay) than the accessibility to the said port.

[Graf Zahl]

scifista42 said:

From what I notice, most non-ZDoom wads indeed get more feedback in the Wads&Mods subforum than most ZDoom wads. They also get almost infinitely more demos.

You are again making the same mistake as everyone here: You take Doomworld's user-base composition as representative for the entirety of Doom players. It's a fact that many of the more active ZDoomers never post here, for various reasons. But most users never even post anywhere - they just visit the download sites and get the mods without ever leaving one bit of feedback.

While some of those mods indeed get mostly ignored here, they get the feedback tenfold at the ZDoom forum.

[scifista42]

jazzmaster9 said:

I think that has more to do with the negative connotations of ZDoom mapsets (being over detailed and no gameplay) than the accessibility to the said port.

I think "negative connections" are a negligible factor in comparison to the fact that ZDoom lacks good demo compatibility support, therefore nearly all players who like to speedrun or record demos prefer using non-ZDoom ports, therefore they will be likely to avoid wads made for ZDoom or at least give a distinct priority to non-ZDoom wads out there. Then there are players who prefer using non-ZDoom ports for other reasons, such as a "classic feeling".

Regardless of the reason, there are simply people who don't use ZDoom. And given that ZDoom plays practically any wad but non-ZDoom ports only play a certain subset of wads, then by mere probability, ZDoom wads will naturally get less players, even without any prejudice/opinion-based bias involved. I'll explain it below.

Suppose that there are 2 groups of players: Those whose favorite port is a ZDoom-based one (aka "ZDoom players"), and those whose favorite port is a non-ZDoom-based one (aka "non-ZDoom players"). Also suppose that there are 2 groups of wads: Those that can be played in ZDoom-based ports only ("ZDoom wads"), and those that can be played in ZDoom or also any port / any limit-removing port / any Boom port ("widely-compatible wads"). Now suppose that the distribution of number of players across the wads they play is somewhat uniform, so that their average can actually be telling of something. ZDoom players play both ZDoom wads and widely-compatible wads, therefore an average wad (either ZDoom or widely-compatible wad) gets played by X ZDoom players on average. Non-ZDoom players play widely-compatible wads only, therefore an average widely-compatible wad gets played by Y non-ZDoom players on average. In total, an average ZDoom wad gets played by X players (the ZDoom players), and an average widely-compatible wad gets played by X + Y players (the ZDoom players + the non-ZDoom players). Obviously, X is lesser than X + Y, assuming Y is non-zero, which we know it is, and also assuming that ZDoom players aren't being picky to only play ZDoom wads, but they play widely-compatible wads with an equal probability, which is also certainly closer to being true than the opposite. So it's natural that ZDoom wads get played by less players than widely-compatible wads - even without knowing exactly how many ZDoom and non-ZDoom players there are, or even which group is greater than the other.

[jazzmaster9]

scifista42 said:

Suppose that there are 2 groups of players: Those whose favorite port is a ZDoom-based one (aka "ZDoom players"), and those whose favorite port is a non-ZDoom-based one (aka "non-ZDoom players"). Also suppose that there are 2 groups of wads: Those that can be played in ZDoom-based ports only ("ZDoom wads"), and those that can be played in ZDoom or also any port / any limit-removing port / any Boom port ("widely-compatible wads"). Now suppose that the distribution of number of players across the wads they play is somewhat uniform, so that their average can actually be telling of something. ZDoom players play both ZDoom wads and widely-compatible wads, therefore an average wad (either ZDoom or widely-compatible wad) gets played by X ZDoom players on average. Non-ZDoom players play widely-compatible wads only, therefore an average widely-compatible wad gets played by Y non-ZDoom players on average. In total, an average ZDoom wad gets played by X players (the ZDoom players), and an average widely-compatible wad gets played by X + Y players (the ZDoom players + the non-ZDoom players). Obviously, X is lesser than X + Y, assuming Y is non-zero, which we know it is, and also assuming that ZDoom players aren't being picky to only play ZDoom wads, but they play widely-compatible wads with an equal probability, which is also certainly closer to being true than the opposite. So it's natural that ZDoom wads get played by less players than widely-compatible wads - even without knowing exactly how many ZDoom and non-ZDoom players there are, or even which group is greater than the other.

Hmm yeah that seem to make more sense thinking about that now.
But I think people also need to consider the mapper's motivations and Goals in regards to his project.
If his goals require some ZDoom stuff then the "Hey Boom will net you more plays but you'll have to sacrifice some features you like" shouldn't be thrown. feed back IMO should always fall on the mapping itself and not the format.

Also regarding the "port Racism" quote. Yeah big Apologies for that, Im not the best when it comes to being level headed in post like these

[Gez]

From what I notice, ZDoom mods are largely ignored on Doomworld but do get plenty of attention on the ZDoom forums, so just market your stuff in the right place.

[Memfis]

[scifista42]

^ Better than playing a pronoun game.

[Da Werecat]

Graf Zahl said:

That may be, but it's a blanket assumption that has never been backed by any numbers or research that this may be detrimental to the number of potential users this project may reach.

The real question need to be:

What will lose more users - a compromised project or specific engine requirements?

It's not as easy as saying 'the more engines I support the more users I get.' but this is the usual argument from people when trying to convince modders not to use an advanced engine.

You seem to have a complicated position on the matter. When a feature not supported by ZDoom is being brought up, you're worried about the audience shrinking. But when someone talks about not using a ZDoom-exclusive feature, the vision becomes your main concern.

It's almost as if you have an ulterior motive here.

jazzmaster9 said:

"You won't get as much demos and downloads if you use advanced ports" assuming that the modder is only in it for the notoriety rather than the creative aspect.

Kinda sounds like the mappers who make levels with demo recording in mind are merely whoring for attention.

[Graf Zahl]

Da Werecat said:

You seem to have a complicated position on the matter. When a feature not supported by ZDoom is being brought up, you're worried about the audience shrinking. But when someone talks about not using a ZDoom-exclusive feature, the vision becomes your main concern.

What I notice here is some kind of warped perception, which is the result of what kind of people are active in this forum.

Yes, demo compatibility is imporant for Doomworld's users - it bears no relevance for the majority of players.

Yes, I know what ports are the most favorite here, but it's a pretty big assumption that

And yes, I am dead tired of some people using bogus arguments to discourage users from exploring ZDoom features. Not by directly badmouthing it, but by always bringing the same two things to the front. But like I said: Where's the proof that these are so important that they trump everything else?

[Da Werecat]

That clears everything up. Maybe except:

Graf Zahl said:

Yes, I know what ports are the most favorite here, but it's a pretty big assumption that

I'm assuming an important argument was accidentally deleted here?

[Graf Zahl]

Yes, some editing mishap. Sorry, I can't remember anymore what precisely I had written.

I think it was about assuming that distribution of port use among Doomworld users is representative for the entirety of Doomers.

[kb1]

Graf Zahl said:

That may be, but it's a blanket assumption that has never been backed by any numbers or research that this may be detrimental to the number of potential users this project may reach.

No it isn't. It inconveniences me to have to use any software other than the software I choose. Now, it may be worth it, to play a nice mapset with plenty of special features used well, sure.

Graf Zahl said:

The real question need to be:

What will lose more users - a compromised project or specific engine requirements?

It's not as easy as saying 'the more engines I support the more users I get.' but this is the usual argument from people when trying to convince modders not to use an advanced engine.

I never tried to convince anyone from using whatever they want if needed. But if your otherwise-vanilla-map is being made in a niche-format, just so you can clip midtextures with a dedicated flag vs. "a hack", then, yeah, you've made a sucky choice. There would be no compromise to convert that map to vanilla format, and, as a result, everyone can play it, without having to use a specific port.

Arctangent said:

I have no idea what you're saying here. That whole tangent was all about whether or not the unmerging visplane solution was a hack ( and how the heck ZDoom's only solution was a "map hack" ). So ... are you admitting to arguing against something you didn't see as very important? Or are you saying that you had no idea what you were actually getting into, or ... what exactly?

Wow. It's amazing how you can make a fluent statement in one reply, then lose all comprehension skills when quoted. But, see, I think you do get it, but you seem to enjoy selectively slinging shit, and I don't want to get any of it on me. But, hell, I don't know you, so maybe you don't get it. So, here goes again:

A functionality that:
1. Works in all ports
2. Gets the job done
3. Has no nasty side effects
4. Is free, space and performance-wise

can be called whatever floats your boat, but you won't find me labelling it a "hack", trying to place a negative connotation on it. "Sweet find" is a better label.

[Arctangent]

The thing about hacks is that they are only negative when the program isn't static. Much like an exploit in a game - as long as there isn't any risk of suddenly being able to not use it, you're free to use them in your strategy, and sometimes they become a very important part of how the game is actually played ( see: a helluva lot of stuff in Super Smash Bros. Melee ).

Which ... means this is kind of problematic when dealing with future compatibility with ports that make their own software renderer, meaning it's entirely possible for the trick to suddenly stop working because by that renderer's logic there's no reason to stop drawing the midtex.

Even if that's so little concern, though, it doesn't change the fact that it's a hack. There's honestly a lot of stuff that would break if you ran them in an advanced port if said port didn't go out of their way to force them to work. Which is where the distinction becomes more important - it's a lot more justified when a source port author decides to stop supporting a hack than one that's definitely a feature of the engine, after all.