The (G)Zdoom Question

General discussion of the port and Doom-related chat.
User avatar
Popsoap
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 2:38 pm
Location: Inside a wall

Re: The (G)Zdoom Question

#21

Post by Popsoap » Mon Apr 10, 2017 11:26 pm

Rachael wrote:They really aren't. Not only are they related by ancestry, but they share quite a few features both downstream and upstream. What's different are the communities and the focus of the ports. Other than that, they are virtually identical, outside of Zandronum using older code and having a working client-server model multiplayer implementation.
There is the issue of porting over the various gamemodes (CTF, LMS, Survival, Skulltag, Invasion, etc.).

I totally support this idea of merging together though, less time spent on doing catch-up and more on refining the experience.

User avatar
Mobius
Posts a lot
Posts: 702
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2012 3:43 am
Location: The center of the A3's controversial and machiavellian conspiracy
Clan: Cube
Clan Tag: Aᵌ
Contact:

Re: The (G)Zdoom Question

#22

Post by Mobius » Tue Apr 11, 2017 12:48 am

Popsoap wrote:
Rachael wrote:They really aren't. Not only are they related by ancestry, but they share quite a few features both downstream and upstream. What's different are the communities and the focus of the ports. Other than that, they are virtually identical, outside of Zandronum using older code and having a working client-server model multiplayer implementation.
There is the issue of porting over the various gamemodes (CTF, LMS, Survival, Skulltag, Invasion, etc.).

I totally support this idea of merging together though, less time spent on doing catch-up and more on refining the experience.

Most of those are slated to be phased out if they weren't already. I even read a "commit" from Dusk to no longer natively support CTF -- and Skulltag? I don't even think that's a thing in this port anymore.
dewsome: i can do this all day
dewsome: do you think you're somehow special? i spent years arguing with nostar, jenova, mobius
<+Thomas13> Mobius u r inferior, go outside and get beaten up
Alfonzo ~ "I wonder who will hear him trash talk when the dirt closes over him?"

User avatar
Catastrophe
ZanStuff Reviewer
Posts: 2533
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:44 am
Clan: Incredible

Re: The (G)Zdoom Question

#23

Post by Catastrophe » Tue Apr 11, 2017 12:57 am

Mobius wrote:
Popsoap wrote:
Rachael wrote:They really aren't. Not only are they related by ancestry, but they share quite a few features both downstream and upstream. What's different are the communities and the focus of the ports. Other than that, they are virtually identical, outside of Zandronum using older code and having a working client-server model multiplayer implementation.
There is the issue of porting over the various gamemodes (CTF, LMS, Survival, Skulltag, Invasion, etc.).

I totally support this idea of merging together though, less time spent on doing catch-up and more on refining the experience.

Most of those are slated to be phased out if they weren't already. I even read a "commit" from Dusk to no longer natively support CTF -- and Skulltag? I don't even think that's a thing in this port anymore.
Link? Very interested in this.
Youtube Channel
Projects: Super Demon | Idiotic LMS | ZCC | Cata WeaponZ

Currently hooked on Overwatch and PUBattlegrounds.

User avatar
Mobius
Posts a lot
Posts: 702
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2012 3:43 am
Location: The center of the A3's controversial and machiavellian conspiracy
Clan: Cube
Clan Tag: Aᵌ
Contact:

Re: The (G)Zdoom Question

#24

Post by Mobius » Tue Apr 11, 2017 1:38 am

Catastrophe wrote: Link? Very interested in this.
https://bitbucket.org/zandronum/zandron ... cb74a9c9a3
dewsome: i can do this all day
dewsome: do you think you're somehow special? i spent years arguing with nostar, jenova, mobius
<+Thomas13> Mobius u r inferior, go outside and get beaten up
Alfonzo ~ "I wonder who will hear him trash talk when the dirt closes over him?"

User avatar
Ru5tK1ng
Posts a lot
Posts: 716
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:04 pm

Re: The (G)Zdoom Question

#25

Post by Ru5tK1ng » Tue Apr 11, 2017 4:35 am

<+Dusk> Moby: the world is better off without ctf leagues
<+Dusk> nah for real i'm removing the old implementation
<+Dusk> i thought the commit message was tongue in cheek enough :v
<+Dusk> i'm trying to generalize gamemodes again
<+Dusk> for the third fucking time
<Moby> What happened the last two times?
<+Dusk> they went to shit as the old code was too much to handl
<+Dusk> handle*
<+Dusk> so now i'm just dismantling the current gamemodes one by one

User avatar
Rachael
New User
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 12:06 am

Re: The (G)Zdoom Question

#26

Post by Rachael » Tue Apr 11, 2017 6:59 am

Torr Samaho wrote:Do you already have specific plans in this direction? I think if we'd work on this together from both sides, we could transition Zandronum's c/s approach to something much less invasive.
I haven't made any extensive plans yet - I was going to start from scratch. What I was going to do was focus on the visibility parts of each actor - frame set/index, XYZ, velocity, and render data. I don't really want to "reinvent the wheel" so to speak but a lot of stuff does not need to be sync'd to clients in a true server-run scenario. For level thinkers (platforms, etc), similar things as well.
Torr Samaho wrote:I have to admit that Zandronum's focus is too much on the stability side (3.0 is long overdue...), but I still think that GZDoom does not put enough focus on stability for what a multiplayer focused port needs. Don't get me wrong, for GZDoom intended purposes its development model is absolutely fine, success proves it right. I wasn't trying to say that it's not. My main point was that we have different priorities, which result from the different requirements. Meeting somewhere in the middle could be possible.
Success proves you right, too, though - it is good to have some focus on stability. No one wants to crash in the middle of a high stakes competitive CTF match. But you can't hold onto it forever, either. For that purpose, if we do merge, Zandronum can still continue being forked at least by name for its stability focus.
Mobius wrote:Most of those are slated to be phased out if they weren't already. I even read a "commit" from Dusk to no longer natively support CTF -- and Skulltag? I don't even think that's a thing in this port anymore.
If merging really is your goal, this will help immensely for it. Exporting all the game modes to ACS and/or ZScript will make managing the internal code a whole lot easier for both ports.

(@Torr: I made a topic for this to bring Graf into this discussion, because he will be the ultimate decider for how we do this going forward)

User avatar
mifu
Lead Administrator
Posts: 1024
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 10:34 am
Location: Aussie Land
Clan: Demon RiderZ

Re: The (G)Zdoom Question

#27

Post by mifu » Tue Apr 11, 2017 9:51 am

Hi Fam,

Just wanted to say that merging would be a swell idea. I think this would fuel both communities as well in terms of new modding features and performance upgrades etc.

But if we are going to talk about merging communities, that my friends is another ball game and most probably tricky to pull off. I dont mind change at all but I feel I need to bring up a few things in relation to this.

Im sure it wont be that tricky to do, however as we do have different values I guess and different goals to where to take each port, there is going to be a clash in not only how things are run i suppose, but a clash in how the community works too.

For example since this is a multiplayer port, I personally don't mind if the clan threads contain a bit of bickering since I feel that sort of stuff tries to promote rivalries and in turn, games (well that's the hoping end result, sometimes its not always the case). GZdoom or QZdoom wont have this of course since their focus is different.

Also I need to give everyone a stern reminder that Graf unfortunately (and probably without the intent of hurting Skulltag, I'm not sure though so go ask carnevil) had changed his license for GZDoom at the time when the dev team was using GZDoom features for Skulltag. It meant that since Skulltag was closed source, we could not use the source code for GZDoom unless Skulltag became open source. I can sort of see why this may make someone wary about the idea and could cause a dislike in Graf or disrespect (I mean this made alot of people mad when it happened). EDIT: To clarify, im suggesting that this was the start of the curse knows as being out of sync of Zdoom/GZDoom, and in turn not getting the new features.

That being said, for a merge to happen your roadblock would be Graf Zhal and pleasing him seems to be quite the challenge I heard. For a dev point a view, this is a genius idea and a Win-Win for the doom community as a whole if you ask me. The community stuff will need to be worked on of course but that would come in time id imagine.

Thats my tree fiddy right there anyways.

As for staff not playing, your right. In my defence (mostly shitty mind you, which i understand) Ive been lacking time to play anything lately. Add up time for work, TSPG and zandronum admin stuff I just don't get to enjoy an awesome game which sucks. Timezones also suck.

User avatar
Nash
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 8:55 am
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Contact:

Re: The (G)Zdoom Question

#28

Post by Nash » Tue Apr 11, 2017 9:55 am

I fully support a merge. Like what happened between QZDoom and GZDoom. One port to rule them all!

[I would like to finally take C/S mod developing seriously. Can't wait to make my weather engine work in multiplayer smoothly]

User avatar
Rachael
New User
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 12:06 am

Re: The (G)Zdoom Question

#29

Post by Rachael » Tue Apr 11, 2017 10:16 am

mifu wrote:Hi Fam,

Just wanted to say that merging would be a swell idea. I think this would fuel both communities as well in terms of new modding features and performance upgrades etc.

But if we are going to talk about merging communities, that my friends is another ball game and most probably tricky to pull off. I dont mind change at all but I feel I need to bring up a few things in relation to this.

Im sure it wont be that tricky to do, however as we do have different values I guess and different goals to where to take each port, there is going to be a clash in not only how things are run i suppose, but a clash in how the community works too.
Agreed fully and have hinted as much to that effect. I don't think merging our communities together can happen gracefully. *If* anyone even wants that to happen the best we can do right now is try to encourage everyone to register to both sites. But beyond that, I think that's simply infeasible at the moment and should not be attempted before proper introductions are made. It will not end well. It might be better to just keep the communities separate, to be honest.
mifu wrote:Also I need to give everyone a stern reminder that Garf unfortunately (and probably without the intent of hurting Skulltag, I'm not sure though so go ask carnevil) had changed his license for GZDoom at the time when the dev team was using GZDoom features for Skulltag. It meant that since Skulltag was closed source, we could not use the source code for GZDoom unless Skulltag became open source. I can sort of see why this may make someone wary about the idea and could cause a dislike in Garf or disrespect (I mean this made alot of people mad when it happened). EDIT: To clarify, im suggesting that this was the start of the curse knows as being out of sync of Zdoom/GZDoom, and in turn not getting the new features.

That being said, for a merge to happen your roadblock would be Garf Zhal and pleasing him seems to be quite the challenge I heard. For a dev point a view, this is a genius idea and a Win-Win for the doom community as a whole if you ask me. The community stuff will need to be worked on of course but that would come in time id imagine.

Thats my tree fiddy right there anyways.
Graf has different values and does not really strongly deviate from them. It just so happened that supporting Skulltag being closed source never really was one of them. You notice how he never attempted to change the license again in a way that hurt Zandronum? (In fact, the only time he did change the license was when he found out that a fork was available and that it was apparently hard to get the source code - he migrated to LGPLv3 which prevents that from happening again - as I said, same values as before)

User avatar
ibm5155
Addicted to Zandronum
Posts: 1627
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 9:32 pm
Location: Somewhere, over the rainbow
Contact:

Re: The (G)Zdoom Question

#30

Post by ibm5155 » Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:48 pm

As long as the merge has clientside scripts support and the same (if not similar) way to connect/create servers I'm totally fine
EDIT: having the merge with the zandronum logo will be a plus for me :biggrin:

EDIT2:
Rachael wrote: (@Torr: I made a topic for this to bring Graf into this discussion, because he will be the ultimate decider for how we do this going forward)
IS that a thread where only admins can see it?
Projects
Cursed Maze: DONE, V2.0
Zombie Horde - ZM09 map update: [3/15/13]
Need help with English? Then you've come to the right place!

<this post is proof of "Decline">

User avatar
Rachael
New User
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 12:06 am

Re: The (G)Zdoom Question

#31

Post by Rachael » Tue Apr 11, 2017 3:54 pm

ibm5155 wrote:As long as the merge has clientside scripts support and the same (if not similar) way to connect/create servers I'm totally fine
That will be a basic requirement of any implementation.
ibm5155 wrote:IS that a thread where only admins can see it?
No, just a developer forum.

User avatar
Empyre
Zandrone
Posts: 1079
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 6:41 am
Location: Garland, TX, USA

Re: The (G)Zdoom Question

#32

Post by Empyre » Tue Apr 11, 2017 5:37 pm

I am a little bit trepidatious about this idea. The two ports have different goals. GZDoom is aiming for rapid innovation and frequent releases, which is great for a single-player game, but would cause problems with a C/S game. Whenever there is an update for Zandronum, there is a period of turmoil (usually brief, but there was that one time when a lot of players didn't like the new version) when some players and some servers have not yet updated. Zandronum could stand to update a little bit more often than it does, but nowhere near as often as GZDoom updates.

I am also afraid that Torr is being asked to hand over the reigns of his project and either no longer be involved, or have much less involvement. Torr is too awesome to be just cast aside. It also wouldn't be fair to ask Graf to hand over the reigns to Torr.

On the other hand, the idea of having access to up-to-date features for mapping and modding excites me.

Whatever you guys decide, I will follow. You can get rid of me that easily.
"For the world is hollow, and I have touched the sky."

User avatar
Rachael
New User
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 12:06 am

Re: The (G)Zdoom Question

#33

Post by Rachael » Tue Apr 11, 2017 5:57 pm

Empyre wrote:I am also afraid that Torr is being asked to hand over the reigns of his project and either no longer be involved, or have much less involvement. Torr is too awesome to be just cast aside. It also wouldn't be fair to ask Graf to hand over the reigns to Torr.
I don't think anything like that will happen.

What will most likely happen is the GZDoom and Zandronum repositories will be more in sync with each other with each respective author still maintaining control - however, it may be likely that Torr would be given contributor access to GZDoom in order to maintain the network code and keep things in line so that future merges are easier.

It'll be a lot less work for Torr in the long run - which if you look closely at his posts it seems like something he really won't mind... ;) No one likes maintaining a code base that has deviated as much as it has from its source. I had this problem in maintaining QZDoom - you won't believe how many curses I uttered (where no one could hear it of course) every time Graf started playing around with the renderer code.

This is why I had no issue when Graf said he wanted to merge in QZDoom's software renderer.

User avatar
Torr Samaho
Lead Developer
Posts: 1452
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 6:03 pm
Location: Germany

Re: The (G)Zdoom Question

#34

Post by Torr Samaho » Tue Apr 11, 2017 7:39 pm

Rachael wrote:It'll be a lot less work for Torr in the long run - which if you look closely at his posts it seems like something he really won't mind... ;)
Absolutely!
Rachael wrote:No one likes maintaining a code base that has deviated as much as it has from its source. I had this problem in maintaining QZDoom - you won't believe how many curses I uttered (where no one could hear it of course) every time Graf started playing around with the renderer code.
And now I imagine that I'm syncing Zandronum/Skulltag with GZDoom for 10 years now. Can't believe how long I'm around here already...

User avatar
Rachael
New User
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 12:06 am

Re: The (G)Zdoom Question

#35

Post by Rachael » Tue Apr 11, 2017 8:34 pm

Torr Samaho wrote:And now I imagine that I'm syncing Zandronum/Skulltag with GZDoom for 10 years now. Can't believe how long I'm around here already...
Honestly, I don't think I want to imagine that. At the very least though, you weren't trying to stay up to date on a daily basis. That's what killed me with QZDoom.

But even still - the times when you did sync couldn't have been easy.

User avatar
mifu
Lead Administrator
Posts: 1024
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 10:34 am
Location: Aussie Land
Clan: Demon RiderZ

Re: The (G)Zdoom Question

#36

Post by mifu » Wed Apr 12, 2017 12:41 am

Rachael wrote:
mifu wrote:Also I need to give everyone a stern reminder that Graf unfortunately (and probably without the intent of hurting Skulltag, I'm not sure though so go ask carnevil) had changed his license for GZDoom at the time when the dev team was using GZDoom features for Skulltag. It meant that since Skulltag was closed source, we could not use the source code for GZDoom unless Skulltag became open source. I can sort of see why this may make someone wary about the idea and could cause a dislike in Graf or disrespect (I mean this made alot of people mad when it happened). EDIT: To clarify, im suggesting that this was the start of the curse knows as being out of sync of Zdoom/GZDoom, and in turn not getting the new features.

That being said, for a merge to happen your roadblock would be Graf Zhal and pleasing him seems to be quite the challenge I heard. For a dev point a view, this is a genius idea and a Win-Win for the doom community as a whole if you ask me. The community stuff will need to be worked on of course but that would come in time id imagine.

Thats my tree fiddy right there anyways.
Graf has different values and does not really strongly deviate from them. It just so happened that supporting Skulltag being closed source never really was one of them. You notice how he never attempted to change the license again in a way that hurt Zandronum? (In fact, the only time he did change the license was when he found out that a fork was available and that it was apparently hard to get the source code - he migrated to LGPLv3 which prevents that from happening again - as I said, same values as before)
Good to know honestly. I know some people actually think Graf just did it on purpose at which point those same people have blamed Graf for this and still do today.

But honestly for progress to happen, the past must stay in the past. Im sure ultimately they will see this is a good move if this should happen dev wise as it means they will get all the new features alot more quicker at least which is what everyone is wanting.

I think right now, it would be good if 3.0 would be released soon. so TSPG is going to force the 3.0 beta on its servers to see if we can give a helping hand with testing etc in hopes that it will help Torr out.

EDIT: @Torr is it possible for another beta to be released?

Lollipop
Zandrone
Posts: 1080
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:34 am
Location: Denmark

Re: The (G)Zdoom Question

#37

Post by Lollipop » Wed Apr 12, 2017 2:59 pm

Developing unique and interesting mods these days is a daunting task because of the associated workload. If zscript can ease development of mods then that would be great in that regard, but the main problem is that the community is growing older and more time goes into other things of importance, which puts modding on the sideline.

In terms of developing the port itself, perhaps a design method could be adopted that could allow for generalizing the networking implementation, and having that networking implementation be completely separate from the GZDoom codebase, so it is structured as a side-addition? It would probably be a pain in the ass, but maybe it could ease some things in the long run. I'm not an expert on the construction of these ports, so I don't really know.

I would personally like to devote more time to Doom these days, but tbh life is kind of getting in the way just as for so many others. (Several university courses having exam projects on top of each other. Yeah, university grade planning)

PS. I can't read the ZDoom thread. The forum claims that a moderator manually locked access to my account when I click on "forgot my password", though I have only made three posts on the forum (nothing issuing warnings or the like). I think it's more likely the fact that I tried to log in so many times, and I can't really contact a moderator there because you need to be logged in to see their contact information, so yeah a cyclic problem. The page could benefit from a button to send a standard request to the moderators.

User avatar
Empyre
Zandrone
Posts: 1079
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 6:41 am
Location: Garland, TX, USA

Re: The (G)Zdoom Question

#38

Post by Empyre » Wed Apr 12, 2017 3:58 pm

Lollipop wrote:PS. I can't read the ZDoom thread. The forum claims that a moderator manually locked access to my account when I click on "forgot my password", though I have only made three posts on the forum (nothing issuing warnings or the like). I think it's more likely the fact that I tried to log in so many times, and I can't really contact a moderator there because you need to be logged in to see their contact information, so yeah a cyclic problem. The page could benefit from a button to send a standard request to the moderators.
I've been having the exact same problem, and I hadn't visited there for years.
"For the world is hollow, and I have touched the sky."

User avatar
Fused
Forum Staff
Posts: 585
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2013 9:47 am
Location: Netherlands
Clan: TK
Contact:

Re: The (G)Zdoom Question

#39

Post by Fused » Wed Apr 12, 2017 4:05 pm

That's probably because of https://forum.zdoom.org/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=55791
Either way the thread appears to be for just the zdoom forum moderators/developers.
ZCC, A Client Enhancement for Zandronum
Zombie Horde 2 (coming soon) || DoomZ : Overpoch (coming not so soon)

Image

User avatar
Doomkid
Frequent Poster Miles card holder
Posts: 879
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2012 2:04 am
Location: Aussie Land
Clan: UniDoom
Clan Tag: [UD]
Contact:

Re: The (G)Zdoom Question

#40

Post by Doomkid » Sat Apr 15, 2017 5:48 am

As long as Zand stays reasonably up to date with GZDoom, I'm fine if we don't merge. If we do, that's cool too. Whatever works for the developers and whatever leads to more uniformity between the two ports. Zand has always basically had the goal of being CSGZDoom with an option for software rendering, right? As long as that's what it remains, I personally don't mind one way or the other. It would be kind of cool to see the communities merge I suppose, the more time passes the clearer it becomes that division isn't sustainable, but at the same time we don't want one half of the proposed port weighting down the other and vice-versa.

Post Reply