WadC?

Now we're literally writing levels? Pphhh, why bother?? What's the advantage? :-|

Maybe Fiffy could use this to make some decent levels. :) Seriously, it's an interesting concept.

I think WadC is a pretty good thought, with all the scripting-capable engines out there, there should be a programming based editor to make the interactive levels and allow the user to control every detail in the level. But with the screenshot of WadC in mind, I think it should incorporate a better interface such as the ability to program levels and also have a DCK like interface for novices and allow the program to write and compile the WadC code as the beginner level designer draws all the linedefs and sectors.

"and also have a DCK like interface for novices" Um, you gonna program it? It is always funny that when you make something (for just one reason: because you think its cool yourself), and you release it for the sole reason other people may like it too, people have these opinions on how "it should be", because the existing code doesn't suit them. WadC is just a wacky idea by yours truly, born out of frustration with all existing doom editors that require me to do WAY too much manually, and repeatedly to boot. Is this any faster than drawing it? that depends. If you are a programmer who is good at making abstractions and structuring stuff, and you want to make a detailed map, then probably yes. For ME for example it is way faster than using a normal doom editor. But for most people this will indeed be too complicated, and WadC isn't for them. Sorry. What's the advantage? summarized: if you structure your program well, you will never have to define something (a line, a sector, a texture, a piece of detail, a hallway, whatever) more than once, regardless of how many times it appears in the map or in different shapes. It is more powerful than any copy/paste command because copies can be parametrized over any propertry, so they can all look different. And of course, changing stuff afterwards is totally trivial. --Aardappel

Someone actully did it. They wrote a level in Notepad! Well not quite, but close enough.

I've seen two Quake levels done almost entirely through a text editor. I was amazed that it was possible. The levels were plain though and featured lots of repeating architecture.

ok I kind of can't wait till it comes out and about telling him..WHAT IS HIS FUCKING E-MAIL ADDRESS!!!!!!!??

hey ling when u gonna make doomworld set a cookie for userinfo.

To "Anonymous Guy," aka Aardappel.

Yeah, isn't it funny how when you release things that you create to public scrutiny, how people have opinions on them? I've always thought that people should just take whatever applications they come across and use them without comment, regardless of how well it works or if it has the features they want. This is, after all, how Sierra operates.

As for "doing things manually." HELLO?! Do you really believe that writing the level in some sort of psuedo-code is EASIER than drawing vertices, linedefs, and sectors with the mouse? And who the hell uses the same structures over and over again? The only thing I could think of in any interesting map that repeats is, I dunno, the basic square ZETH creates when you hit F9. Of course, that shape gets twisted and changed into whatever the author wants to create...but I can see how it would be nice to be able to make that square with several lines of handtyped code rather than just hitting the F9 key. My hands might get fat if that's all they had to do.

I don't know how you could NOT at least be intrigued by the idea. Looks great to me, keep on proggin! Mantastic

that's not what I meant and you know it. Of course people should have opinions. It's just not very helpful that if you release something which sole purpose is to try things in a totally different way than how all editors work, you get people saying that it should work like all other editors.

The other thing is that if you release something as a programmer people seem to assume your only goal can be to please them. Some people seem to think I am confused or something the way I set up this editor, and that I need them to remind me that doing it all with the mouse is the way I should have done it. Maybe I wanted to do this? nahhhh.

As for what is EASIER, yes using the mouse is ALWAYS easier. As for what is less work in the long run... as I said that depends. There are people for which this will be more efficient, and I am one of them. surprise. And it's not the "same" structures. The power lies in the fact that you can reuse something even if some things about it are different. -- Aardappel

http://www.gamesinferno.com/aardappel/wadc/readme.txt

A readme I just wrote for the betatesters.

I was writing to AndrewB and happened to put in WTF? as the subject....little did I know it was the same as your last message. Sorry for the mishap. ;) Mantastic

Despite what some people say, I think WadC is a very interesting idea, and I can't wait to see the program. I've always liked strange and new ideas. fyi- There is a front end batch file named doombat2.zip in ftp.cdrom.com/pub/idgames/utils/frontends. This file works much like the standard-EXE front ends, complete with interactive prompts, and even a console-like interface of sorts. It was interesting to see how the author pulled that one off.

Don't pay attention to those naysayers who want everything 'easy', GUI, and point-and-drool. This program looks really, really cool. I am facinated by programming hacks, especially DooM-inspired ones. WadC joins the ranks of SLIGE (http://doomworld.com/slige/) and DooM System Administration Tool (http://www.cs.unm.edu/~dlchao/flake/doom/) in my book! Keep up the great work!!! BTW, I'm working on improvements to the sysadmin tool at http://unofficial.capital.edu/admin-staff/dkoppenh/psdoom/

That doom process manager is total brilliance. If people would devote more of their time to projects like this instead of being "useful" all of the time, the world would be a better place. --Aardappel

Thanks! Though I'd love to take credit for thinking up the idea and implementing it first, I can't. Dennis at UMN is the genius. I just took his idea (and code) and ran with them.<BR> <BR> And as for my GUI rant below, don't you think it's kinda ironic since I'm working with what amounts to a GUI interface to 'ps', 'renice', and 'kill'? heh heh heh <BR> <BR> --DJK

I'd have preferred a language based on Scheme. Those lambda expressions really kick ass. Example: (define (for start past-end monoid) (let loop ((index start)) (if (< index past-end) (begin (monoid index) (loop (+ index 1))) #t))) (for 1 6 (lambda (x) (display x) (newline))) => 1 2 3 4 5 #t All that's needed is functions (vertex x y), (linedef v1 v2), and so forth, and we can make levels that have the same room, over and over, hundreds or even thousands of times. :-)