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)