Page 3 of 3

Re: The (G)Zdoom Question

Posted: Sun May 07, 2017 8:29 pm
by Trusty McLegit
Concerning the issue of update frequency, why not implement an automatic updater like Catastrophe suggested?

Re: The (G)Zdoom Question

Posted: Sun May 07, 2017 8:56 pm
by Torr Samaho
Trusty McLegit wrote:Concerning the issue of update frequency, why not implement an automatic updater like Catastrophe suggested?
If anybody volunteers to write an auto updater that works on Windows, Linux and OS X, and can handle clients and severs, please go ahead. It would be wonderful to have such a thing, but implementing it is a lot of work and I'd personally rather spend the necessary time and effort on Zandronum itself.

Re: The (G)Zdoom Question

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 12:44 am
by AlexMax
Torr Samaho wrote:
Trusty McLegit wrote:Concerning the issue of update frequency, why not implement an automatic updater like Catastrophe suggested?
If anybody volunteers to write an auto updater that works on Windows, Linux and OS X, and can handle clients and severs, please go ahead. It would be wonderful to have such a thing, but implementing it is a lot of work and I'd personally rather spend the necessary time and effort on Zandronum itself.
What if it was a feature of Doomseeker instead? It already can install testing releases automatically, why not stable versions too?

Re: The (G)Zdoom Question

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 4:55 am
by Empyre
I like that idea. ---^

Re: The (G)Zdoom Question

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 11:02 am
by Torr Samaho
AlexMax wrote:
Torr Samaho wrote: If anybody volunteers to write an auto updater that works on Windows, Linux and OS X, and can handle clients and severs, please go ahead. It would be wonderful to have such a thing, but implementing it is a lot of work and I'd personally rather spend the necessary time and effort on Zandronum itself.
What if it was a feature of Doomseeker instead? It already can install testing releases automatically, why not stable versions too?
I think Doomseeker could handle the clients, but not the servers.

Re: The (G)Zdoom Question

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 2:40 am
by AlexMax
Torr Samaho wrote:
AlexMax wrote:
Torr Samaho wrote: If anybody volunteers to write an auto updater that works on Windows, Linux and OS X, and can handle clients and severs, please go ahead. It would be wonderful to have such a thing, but implementing it is a lot of work and I'd personally rather spend the necessary time and effort on Zandronum itself.
What if it was a feature of Doomseeker instead? It already can install testing releases automatically, why not stable versions too?
I think Doomseeker could handle the clients, but not the servers.
I feel like that would be best served by creating yum/deb repositories, that way you can dnf or aptitude updates onto your system.

Alternatively, it would be nice to have a static place on the website where you curl a text file with the latest stable version number, and if it's new, a static place where you can curl the latest server binary.

Other than that, as a server host, I certainly wouldn't want any sort of automatic update built into the binary itself.

Re: The (G)Zdoom Question

Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 8:39 pm
by Roozy1999
What happens if you don't play Zandronum? There is no multiplayer in (G)ZDoom.

Re: The (G)Zdoom Question

Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 10:40 pm
by Empyre
Roozy1999 wrote:What happens if you don't play Zandronum? There is no multiplayer in (G)ZDoom.
I think that there is multiplayer in (G)ZDoom, but it is really clumsy and awkward.

Re: The (G)Zdoom Question

Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:06 am
by Lex Safonov
Zandronum 3.0 has support interactive portals?

Re: The (G)Zdoom Question

Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:56 pm
by Sean
Lex Safonov wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:06 am
Zandronum 3.0 has support interactive portals?
No

Re: The (G)Zdoom Question

Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2018 8:24 pm
by Samuzero15tlh
Im pretty worried about the comunity from the both sides, what it will happen if something goes wrong on this process?

The only thing that im sure about, If you update Zandronum to the Gzdoom updates maybe a lot of people would join to it, since we're talking about the same games don't we? In my opinion Im okay with the idea. I'll pray for the union of those 2 wonderful sourceports.

Re: The (G)Zdoom Question

Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 12:26 am
by Combinebobnt
maybe torr and graf went into the mountains to do this and will come back when it's done? -zscript+float rewrite+whatever thats not happening soon rofl

Re: The (G)Zdoom Question

Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2018 4:01 am
by KenFH
Seems I should toss in my 2 cents here before Something Bad might possibly happen. I'd much rather see the merge reverse - GZDoom into Zandronum - with Torr and/or like-minded people deciding major releases and feature yes/nos - than this, and would quite possibly just stick with the last Zandronum if this merge in GZDoom happened. I don't keep up with GZDoom or use it to any significant degree because it has never really met my needs - I want a stable, widely compatible play and development platform, not the unreliable, new-computer-focused bleeding edge, and I've never liked Zahl's handling of such issues. So I would definitely encourage Torr and company to keep on keeping on. I can and will wait for the next Zandronum, and the wider the compatibility, and the more stable the engine, the better, no matter how overdue it may become. Were this to go-ahead anyways, I feel the QZDoom renderer should be given priority over the GZDoom one. OpenGL reliance is a limitation I don't need or want in an ID Tech 1 source port - I don't feel it's justified or worthwhile, so it's just baggage to me. And I trust Torr Samaho far more, judgement and otherwise, than I will ever trust Graf Zahl.

Congrats on finally getting 3.0 out, Torr!

Re: The (G)Zdoom Question

Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:49 pm
by Rachael
@KenFH: Rest assured Zandronum is going to retain its own independence no matter what happens, even when C/S is eventually implemented (and don't expect that to happen overnight, but it will happen). The existence of forks as it is on GZDoom has prevented Graf from having an absolute monopoly over the port - he only has a partial monopoly over the users, and that was earned through years of trust and goodwill (even if you refuse to believe it - the fact that people are even there speaks volumes - he's not as bad as he seems, but I won't try to deny that he has his bad moments, and when you keep your distance from someone those bad things stick out a lot more). In fact, Graf's following and loyalty from his users was earned the same way as Torr's own following - they both worked hard and earned it.

Ultimately, when Zandronum and GZDoom start sharing code with each other more frequently, I expect that what will happen is people will be loyal to the ports by name - a "brand" if you will - GZDoom users will use GZDoom and Zandronum users will use Zandronum - even in the brief moments where the codebases are otherwise exactly the same. And this is something I do not want to change. A community works for a reason - and I don't think trying to force the two to mix would do anybody any good.

Re: The (G)Zdoom Question

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 9:43 pm
by StrikerMan780
From what I can see, combining efforts is the only way the multiplayer for Zandronum and GZDoom can survive.

Zandronum's development is excruciatingly slow, if not outright stagnant, not to mention severely behind GZDoom and lacking the modding features a lot of people want and/or need to progress with their mods. (I know that ZScript isn't compatible with how Zan does C/S, which IMHO is all the more reason to just ditch Zan in it's current state and fork current GZDoom and work on the new C/S from there.)

GZDoom's sync-based netcode really limits what kind of multiplayer-centric mods you can make (both technically and conceptually), can't handle as many players smoothly, feels terrible for competitive play, doesn't always play nice with ZScript, and the lack of in-game joining makes it more pain than it's worth to get everyone together. Also, GZDoom's C/S netcode isn't really gonna get anywhere soon without assistance from what I can see.

There does exist a clientserver branch for GZDoom, if some brave soul wants to help make it a reality: https://github.com/coelckers/gzdoom/com ... ientserver