ZDoom 2.3.0 released

Thanks! I'm going to test on my TC!

Personally, I find archives that put everything in a sub directory a pain because I like to decide what the parent directory is called at extract time. However, if all the files have already been put in a sub dir inside the archive, I invariably end up extracting that archive to the directory that I have made, realising that what I have done is extracted a sub directory to it, then remove the subdirectory to the higher level, delete the one that I had made myself, then rename the one created by the archive.

If the archive isn't set up with its own subdir, I extract everything to a directory that I have names and I'm good to go.

Fortunately, in my experience, archives that put everything into their own pre-determined sub directory are the exception.

cmake has its place, especially since automake is not that much of a highlight on non-cygwified Windows due to lack of an sh-compatible shell.

I just wished someone would cmakify zdbsp and acc too. Their horrid Makefile logic to enable or disable SSE has prompted me to replace it by an automake file for linux rpm builds.

Enjay said:
Personally, I find archives that put everything in a sub directory a pain because I like to decide what the parent directory is called at extract time. However, if all the files have already been put in a sub dir inside the archive, I invariably end up extracting that archive to the directory that I have made, realising that what I have done is extracted a sub directory to it, then remove the subdirectory to the higher level, delete the one that I had made myself, then rename the one created by the archive.

Yeah. In my case I can choose to dump it in a new folder or let the files go where ever the ZIP is sitting, and don't like it when the package forces me to have to move them from a new folder I didn't want. I presume MikeRS is taking about source code packages meant for Linux, though... otherwise he must rip his hair out every time he visits idgames or any other place containing many ZIPs, where practically all the packages contain stuff in their "root" location.

Well personally I always look at the content of an archive file before extracting it anywhere, so...

unzip -deternity-3.35.90 ee3.35.90-src.zip
7z x -ozdoom-2.3.0 zdoom-2.3.0-src.7z

I cannot change weapons with the new Zdoom 2.3.0 Scroll wheel doesn't change weapon neither does 1-9. Very strange!!

As a long-time Linux user, I expect tar files to be constructed correctly and look poorly on people who don't construct proper tar files.

However, I don't extend this sentiment to other formats like ZIP or 7z, or software developed for other platforms. For Chocolate Doom I do place the files in the Windows binary ZIPs in a subdirectory for convenience, but I don't expect other software to follow this convention or take a poor opinion of software that doesn't do it. It's absurd to apply expect conventions for one system to apply to another.

Even amongst Windows users, my own personal experience shows that using a dedicated subdirectory is common practice, no matter if it's in Zip or 7z. I can't guess on the number of Zips that violate this convention, but I can count on a single hand the number of times I have encountered 7z archives that violate it; ZDoom 2.3.0 is the 3rd or 4th time, out of hundreds of 7z archives I have encountered over the years.

fraggle said:

For Chocolate Doom I do place the files in the Windows binary ZIPs in a subdirectory for convenience

Yeah, I remember that being inconvenient when I last downloaded it. ;)

Joking aside, I did find it inconvenient to have the zip try to auto-create a subdir called "chocolate-doom-1.2.1-win32" I have no need of a cumbersome name like that and I suspect neither do most casual users. All I wanted to do was click "extract" type "chocolate" and be done.

Hellbent said:

I cannot change weapons with the new Zdoom 2.3.0 Scroll wheel doesn't change weapon neither does 1-9. Very strange!!

None of my friends can change weapons in DM using the new zdoom either!!

Hellbent said:

Hellbent said:

I cannot change weapons with the new Zdoom 2.3.0 Scroll wheel doesn't change weapon neither does 1-9. Very strange!!

None of my friends can change weapons in DM using the new zdoom either!!

This is a known problem, not fixed yet. Expect an announcement about a 2.3.1 version when it is.

Enjay said:

Yeah, I remember that being inconvenient when I last downloaded it. ;)

Joking aside, I did find it inconvenient to have the zip try to auto-create a subdir called "chocolate-doom-1.2.1-win32" I have no need of a cumbersome name like that and I suspect neither do most casual users. All I wanted to do was click "extract" type "chocolate" and be done.

Fair enough. I'll remove the subdirectory in the Windows ZIPs for future releases.

Well, I'll certainly appreciate it anyway. :)

Don't get me wrong, it isn't a huge issue that I sat around fretting over or anything, just something that was a bit inconvenient for me once a few months ago.

Yeah I always extract archives so that it makes a folder named the same as the archive filename just in case there is no inner folder and even then the inner folder is often the same name or something too generic for my use.

/pointless

If there's a version named dir like in Chocolate doom. I just enter that dir inside the zip and drag and drop the resources to the proper location.

randy said:

ZDoom has been updated to version 2.3.1. This version:

• Fixes the bug that prevented you from switching weapons after respawning in multiplayer.
  
• Fixes a performance regression introduced in 2.3.0.
  
• Adds support for zip/pk3 files with LZMA and BZip2 compression. (7-Zip is one program that can create such files.)
  
• Addresses a few other niggles.

http://forum.zdoom.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=21296

myk said:
On my system, I hear only a slight crackling, but sound is odd. It's slightly delayed, perhaps a little grave or hollow, and fireball sounds seem to buzz or stutter a bit.

I found a fix for my sound issue by changing the sample rate (snd_samplerate). The lower value I had been using doesn't seem to work right in these newer versions, on my system.

This version has some incompatibilities with CIF3.

What are 'some incompatibilities'?