Chocolate Doom 1.7.0 Released

Neat!

This should be fun.

exp(x) said:

While not the highly anticipated version 2.0, it is still nice to know that the project is not forgotten.

Heh. It's admittedly not a very exciting release. It's been over a year since the previous release, I mostly haven't bothered to do a release before now because there haven't been many exciting changes to make it worth the effort. But a sufficient number of things have piled up that I figured it was about time I put out a new version.

I admittedly haven't been spending a huge amount of time on Chocolate Doom over the past few months. I've been dedicating a lot of time to my new job and I also have another project that I've been spending a lot of time on. I still want to get v2-branch finished though (apologies to Quasar, to whom I promised that I would finish it). It's nice to work on other things sometimes, as working on the same thing for a long time can become tedious.

May i ask why 2.0 is highly anticipated (in terms of features) since i wasn't following Chocolate Doom for quite some time.

Coolster said:

May i ask why 2.0 is highly anticipated (in terms of features) since i wasn't following Chocolate Doom for quite some time.

2.0 will mark the first official release of Chocolate Heretic, Chocolate Hexen, and Chocolate Strife, for three good reasons :)

- freecode announcement and setting the default download on SF to 1.7.0 yet tbd :)

Quasar said:

2.0 will mark the first official release of Chocolate Heretic, Chocolate Hexen, and Chocolate Strife, for three good reasons :)

Why wait until then? What's left to do, so simultaneously for those three, even though Chocolate Strife came way later?

printz said:

Why wait until then? What's left to do, so simultaneously for those three, even though Chocolate Strife came way later?

The codebase has been unified for all of the engines, so releasing source for one without the others doesn't exactly make sense.

Maybe not highly anticipated, but still completely awesome.

exp(x) said:

The codebase has been unified for all of the engines, so releasing source for one without the others doesn't exactly make sense.

Is it going to support 4 games in one executable?

Thanks for all the handy little fixes in this one. And I'm definitely looking forward to 2.0, whenever that happens. =)

GhostlyDeath said:

Is it going to support 4 games in one executable?

Of course it is.

However, that's not the case here. One unified codebase doesn't mean one single executable.

Gez said:

Of course it is.

However, that's not the case here.

Sorry, it's either one or another. Second sentence contradicts the first.

Is it possible to multiply by two with a computer? Of course it's possible, but in this code, bit shifting is used instead. Ah! You contradict yourself! The existence of bit shifting means that multiplying by two is not possible!

Sorry, but no. There is no contradiction at all. Just because Chocolate Doom generates four different executable from the same codebase doesn't mean that Vavoom and ZDoom -- to give two examples of Doom ports supporting four different games in the same single executable -- no longer exist.

Then you also have hybrid solutions like Doomsday where there is a single executable, but the game support code is actually put in plugins.

GhostlyDeath said:

Is it going to support 4 games in one executable?

No.

Hirogen2 said:

- freecode announcement and setting the default download on SF to 1.7.0 yet tbd :)

Whoops. Done now, thanks.

The Linux binary (rpm package) is still on 1.6.0 because I haven't built one for 1.7.0 yet.

Gez said:

Sorry, but no. There is no contradiction at all. Just because Chocolate Doom generates four different executable from the same codebase doesn't mean that Vavoom and ZDoom -- to give two examples of Doom ports supporting four different games in the same single executable -- no longer exist.

Except it doesn't matter what other ports do as the question was specifically about the Chocolate Doom engine.

I know. If Printz wasn't being dense, there wouldn't have been any need for this silly digression.

Yay, new chocdoom!
Now all i need is a decend editor under Linux, something like DB2...

Bastet Furry said:

Yay, new chocdoom!
Now all i need is a decend editor under Linux, something like DB2...

Someone has posted a tutorial on how to make DB run on Linux, using Wine...

Wait. Am I missing something here? Either I've caught the printz bug or there was a mistype/misquote, because I'm seeing the same thing printz is likely seeing:

GhostlyDeath said:

Is it going to support 4 games in one executable?

followed by:

Gez said:

Of course it is.

However, that's not the case here. One unified codebase doesn't mean one single executable.

Gez's first sentence basically says "Of course it is going to support 4 games in one executable." Then the next sentence implies that it is "not the case here," which was then confirmed by fraggle. This makes the meaning of the post a bit of a "yesno".

I don't get it. D:

Gez's post was just unclear. The proper answer to GhostlyDeath's question was simply "No."

I dunno why, I read GD's question as "it is possible" and only now see it was "is it going" all along. %|

Bastet Furry said:

Yay, new chocdoom!
Now all i need is a decend editor under Linux, something like DB2...

This is very good, although not as featureful as DB2. The only reason I don't use it is because my Linux box is in a box at the moment.

printz said:

Someone has posted a tutorial on how to make DB run on Linux, using Wine...

Yeah, with constant crashes and whatnot. Wine is just a crutch... but CodeImp _had_ to use .NET with WinForms and, IIRC, Direct3D. So you can't just trow it at .MONO and be happy. :/
Would have helped if he had used Qt and OpenGL, then everyone could run it on every major system, being Windows, Linux and even Mac.

Lance MDR Rocket said:

This is very good, although not as featureful as DB2. The only reason I don't use it is because my Linux box is in a box at the moment.

Thanks for the hint. :)

Bastet Furry said:

Yeah, with constant crashes and whatnot. Wine is just a crutch... but CodeImp _had_ to use .NET with WinForms and, IIRC, Direct3D. So you can't just trow it at .MONO and be happy. :/
Would have helped if he had used Qt and OpenGL, then everyone could run it on every major system, being Windows, Linux and even Mac.

I remember back when work on DB2 started, CodeImp specifically stated that he wasn't interested in supporting a cross-platform editor. Can't say I blame him.

You might be able to use Mono to run it, though as I recall, it uses PInvoke native invocation for some things, so it might not work.

fraggle said:

You might be able to use Mono to run it, though as I recall, it uses PInvoke native invocation for some things, so it might not work.

Also, and more importantly, it uses the SlimDX library to make DirectX calls.