Zandronum

Posted: **Fri Apr 03, 2015 4:12 am**

darklord42 wrote: It really is great to finally see it out. Great job!

Not wanting to sound trolly, but I don't get it. It looks like Zandronum is still 5 years behind its upstream ports. Why target zandronum with 5 year old software, Zdoom hasn't been touched in 2 years why not have use the latest of their code base? What was special about 2.5.0? As they say, go big or go home... I'm sure there are important technical reasons and you didn't just go for 2.5 because you liked the number. :)

Wouldn't surprise me if it turns out Zandronum 2.0 was just in development that long.

And due to >developement you can't really just change the version you're adapting while you're in development.

Basically, it's the curse where you're ALWAYS going to be (n) progress behind, where n is the amount of time it takes to create a new version of Zandronum, which means that ZDoom gets (n) ahead while we're catching up.

Posted: **Fri Apr 03, 2015 4:29 am**

5 years ago they were skulltag
I guess it's because they are slowly merging in the code of the predecessors trying not to break everything. If only the core of zandronum was separated from the rest...

Posted: **Fri Apr 03, 2015 5:29 am**

As I understand it, the Zand devs want to use a tried-and-true stable version of ZDoom as its base, so they will never use the newest version.

Posted: **Fri Apr 03, 2015 7:42 am**

New update feels great, thank you.

Posted: **Fri Apr 03, 2015 8:40 am**

Empyre wrote: As I understand it, the Zand devs want to use a tried-and-true stable version of ZDoom as its base, so they will never use the newest version.

So we won't have in the future a Zand based on Zdoom 2.7.1 or higher version, is that what you mean ?

Posted: **Fri Apr 03, 2015 10:49 am**

AFAIK Zandronum 2.0 was almost fully ported to the current ZDoom base version few months ago... Everything after was testing and tracker tasks/bugs, and networking-related stuff.

Posted: **Fri Apr 03, 2015 12:58 pm**

First thing I made, massive amount of particles that have gravity and slow down and fade out.
Pretty much the same physics as firework explosion particles.
A_ScaleVelocity can be quite cool.

Oh, and abuse the hell out of FRandom.

Posted: **Fri Apr 03, 2015 1:17 pm**

fr blood wrote:
Empyre wrote: As I understand it, the Zand devs want to use a tried-and-true stable version of ZDoom as its base, so they will never use the newest version.
So we won't have in the future a Zand based on Zdoom 2.7.1 or higher version, is that what you mean ?

I am afarid im going to have to get you guys to hold da keyboard for a few.

There is actually a ton off reasons why we are behind zdoom, and using a tried-and-stable build is not really one of them.

The main one is backporting. Theres a high chance that the new zdoom code wont work with zandronum, so the devs have to simply make it work, and test. It is a lot safer by going up by order in revisions then using the latest. It's a lot of work to upgrade the Zdoom base because of this, which in turn, it takes a lot of time to do this.

Basically, 2.7.1 may happen, just it will take a lot of time to do this. Im sure a dev can elaborate further (or correct me if im wrong)

Posted: **Fri Apr 03, 2015 8:34 pm**

Fr Blood, what I meant was that when Zandronum is eventually using ZDoom 2.7.1, that will by then no longer be the newest version, but as Mifu explained, I was wrong about the reason.

Posted: **Fri Apr 03, 2015 8:44 pm**

darklord42 wrote:Zdoom hasn't been touched in 2 years why not have use the latest of their code base?

I wasn't aware that today was two years ago.

Posted: **Fri Apr 03, 2015 9:18 pm**

mifu wrote: (or correct me if im wrong)

Basically correct. The only thing that needs to be changed is Zandronum WILL get to 2.7.1. Can't say yet if that will be 3.0 or 4.0, but it will be one of those two.

But yes, it comes down to the development time it takes to adapt the new features to the net code and get it tested. (We had a lot of trouble with the bold point and Torr really doesn't like doing releases with untested features.) Zandronum can't roll with the absolute latest development version of ZDoom as while that would be awesome for mod authors, those playing won't get the best experience due to frequent updates and breakage that hasn't had time to be resolved.

Posted: **Mon Apr 06, 2015 9:17 pm**

Nooooo! D:
Named scripts doesn't work anymore. D:

In 1.3 you were able to use named scripts of type OPEN and ENTER.

Damn ACS's string to integer conversion! :I

Posted: **Tue Apr 07, 2015 5:36 pm**

Vincent(PDP) wrote: In 1.3 you were able to use named scripts of type OPEN and ENTER.

FYI, 1.3 was completely unaware of names scripts. So they were never supported. If they worked at all, then because acc silently converted them to numbered scripts with high numbers. Unfortunately, ZDoom 2.5.0 doesn't support script numbers above 999 (using them will simply crash the game, that's why I made Zandronum reject higher numbers).

Possibly, I can lift this restriction, so that script numbers above 999 work again. If you give me an example wad with a script that worked in 1.3, but doesn't work anymore in 2.0, I'll see what I can do.

Posted: **Wed Apr 08, 2015 8:13 pm**

Torr Samaho wrote:
Vincent(PDP) wrote: In 1.3 you were able to use named scripts of type OPEN and ENTER.
FYI, 1.3 was completely unaware of names scripts. So they were never supported. If they worked at all, then because acc silently converted them to numbered scripts with high numbers. Unfortunately, ZDoom 2.5.0 doesn't support script numbers above 999 (using them will simply crash the game, that's why I made Zandronum reject higher numbers).

Possibly, I can lift this restriction, so that script numbers above 999 work again. If you give me an example wad with a script that worked in 1.3, but doesn't work anymore in 2.0, I'll see what I can do.

Here you go! :)
Link to WAD

Code: Select all

#Include "zcommon.acs"

Script "NAMED_TEST" ENTER
{
    Print(s:"Yay, it worx!");
}

Posted: **Wed Apr 08, 2015 9:25 pm**

#define NAMED_TEST 999

script NAMED_TEST ENTER{
here we go :D
}

EDIT: well, it's like a bug, people saw something that worked for them and that was a bug, it got fixed and people got mad because their working bug was fixed...
This is how many people may feel with zandronum 2.0, idk if it's their fault, since well, it took something like 3 or 5 year to this update reach a high zdoom version.

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2015 3:13 am**

Vincent(PDP) wrote:Here you go! :)
Link to WAD
Code: Select all
#Include "zcommon.acs"

Script "NAMED_TEST" ENTER
{
    Print(s:"Yay, it worx!");
}

Crashes on nextmap.
This is not a good example, because it demonstrates perfectly why this was a bug that needed to be fixed.

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2015 6:21 am**

I raised the internal limit on the script numbers, here is a testing binary. While this is still not intended to support named scripts, it is intended to make 2.x accept mods that worked in 1.3. This version also doesn't seem to crash on nextmap with your example wad. BTW: Mentioning the nextmap crash was very helpful. It showed that I needed to do more changes than I initially expected.

Still, this needs thorough testing. I can't guarantee that there are no side effcts of this change.

Posted: **Sun Apr 12, 2015 7:23 am**

Torr Samaho wrote: I raised the internal limit on the script numbers, here is a testing binary.

No feedback? Does this mean the demand for high script numbers was greatly exaggerated or did just nobody notice the testing binary since I didn't make a separate thread for it?

Posted: **Sun Apr 12, 2015 7:55 am**

I've shown the link in the zatesting IRC channel. I hope this suffices.

Posted: **Sun Apr 12, 2015 9:51 am**

Torr Samaho wrote:
Torr Samaho wrote: I raised the internal limit on the script numbers, here is a testing binary.
No feedback? Does this mean the demand for high script numbers was greatly exaggerated or did just nobody notice the testing binary since I didn't make a separate thread for it?

Oh, sorry. I saw your post but I forgot to test it. I'll do it later today, or tomorrow if I don't get the time for it today.

Zandronum

Zandronum 2.0

RE: Zandronum 2.0

RE: Zandronum 2.0

RE: Zandronum 2.0

RE: Zandronum 2.0

RE: Zandronum 2.0

RE: Zandronum 2.0

RE: Zandronum 2.0

RE: Zandronum 2.0

RE: Zandronum 2.0

RE: Zandronum 2.0

RE: Zandronum 2.0

RE: Zandronum 2.0

RE: Zandronum 2.0

RE: Zandronum 2.0

RE: Zandronum 2.0

RE: Zandronum 2.0

RE: Zandronum 2.0

RE: Zandronum 2.0

RE: Zandronum 2.0

RE: Zandronum 2.0