Zandronum 3.0

News and events are posted here. Threads also show up in the Latest News section.
User avatar
Fused
Forum Staff
Posts: 594
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2013 9:47 am
Location: Netherlands
Clan: TK
Contact:

Re: Zandronum 3.0

#81

Post by Fused » Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:36 am

scrooloose wrote:I was about to masturbate to porn but then I saw this announcement and instantly blew my load!
ZCC, A Client Enhancement for Zandronum
Zombie Horde 2 (coming soon) || DoomZ : Overpoch (coming not so soon)

Image

User avatar
Zanieon
Forum Regular
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:17 am
Location: Somewhere in the future
Contact:

Re: Zandronum 3.0

#82

Post by Zanieon » Mon Sep 18, 2017 6:17 pm

Since we're into weird positive reactions to demotivate developers in continue the source port.
Image

EDIT: This fucking 3.0 is good, but i am getting even more problems with morphing than ever before.
A matter of perspective.

User avatar
aivar242
New User
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2014 11:40 pm

Re: Zandronum 3.0

#83

Post by aivar242 » Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:53 am

Version 3.0 I was pleased. Only here it is not clear - why it was impossible to take a newer version of the GZDoom port as a basis? Version 1.3.8 has long been obsolete.
I first played on the port Zandronum 3.0 and then immediately launched GZDoom 3.1 to compare their work. GZDoom 3.1 - works softer no jerking when the camera turns.
I lead to the fact that the future of Zandronum port is a single player. In this while the port Zandronum loses port GZDoom.

User avatar
Combinebobnt
Contributor
Posts: 1833
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 3:37 am
Location: Erth
Contact:

Re: Zandronum 3.0

#84

Post by Combinebobnt » Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:56 am

good idea, you should be the head coder in porting over the rest of the gzdoom changes. looking forward to seeing all that work done.

User avatar
aivar242
New User
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2014 11:40 pm

Re: Zandronum 3.0

#85

Post by aivar242 » Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:12 am

Combinebobnt - Thank you for your trust, but I do not do this. I just now prompted the direction where to move the port of Zandronum, to become the best port. Just a little bit is necessary - this is to make soft and fast, the work of the camera when turning the head. Nothing more is required.
If this is done, then: - The Zandronum port will work just like GZDoom in a single player, and have an excellent multiplayer, which GZDoom does not have. As a result, Zandronum will be the best port of the game in the old Doom and not only.

User avatar
WhiteAce
Forum Regular
Posts: 470
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 9:20 am
Location: Not in this world

Re: Zandronum 3.0

#86

Post by WhiteAce » Fri Sep 22, 2017 10:57 am

Combinebobnt wrote:good idea, you should be the head coder in porting over the rest of the gzdoom changes. looking forward to seeing all that work done.
...
aivar242 wrote:Combinebobnt - Thank you for your trust, but I do not do this. I just now prompted the direction where to move the port of Zandronum, to become the best port. Just a little bit is necessary - this is to make soft and fast, the work of the camera when turning the head. Nothing more is required.
If this is done, then: - The Zandronum port will work just like GZDoom in a single player, and have an excellent multiplayer, which GZDoom does not have. As a result, Zandronum will be the best port of the game in the old Doom and not only.
I think it might be a good idea to point out that Combine was being a tad sarcastic, it's not always easy to keep on top of everything and also to add to this it's not that simple to get all that work done in a short amount of time, it's also very easy for a third party to suggest something especially when it's a "Cool idea" but much harder for the first party to implement suggested features.

Konda
Forum Regular
Posts: 455
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Zandronum 3.0

#87

Post by Konda » Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:30 pm

Probably because they'd have to reimplement multiplayer all over again and by the time that gets stable enough to be released gzdom will pump out like 10 new versions, effectively changing nothing. It's probably easier to just add new gzdoom features one by one on an already stable multiplayer base than the other way around if we're gonna lag behind no matter what.

User avatar
aivar242
New User
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2014 11:40 pm

Re: Zandronum 3.0

#88

Post by aivar242 » Fri Sep 22, 2017 7:18 pm

It has long been time to merge - GZDoom and Zandronum to make a really cool port. But ambitions of one side and ambition of another still allow it to be done. As a result the gamer suffers.

User avatar
aivar242
New User
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2014 11:40 pm

Re: Zandronum 3.0

#89

Post by aivar242 » Sun Sep 24, 2017 11:40 am

Although I would be quite satisfied with just a newer version of the GZDoom port in the port of Zandronum. For example 2.x.x. and not 1.8.6., which is now in it.

Konda
Forum Regular
Posts: 455
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Zandronum 3.0

#90

Post by Konda » Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:16 pm

Me too but we gotta wait about 3 years before that happens

Lollipop
Zandrone
Posts: 1082
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:34 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Zandronum 3.0

#91

Post by Lollipop » Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:31 pm

You don't even know what you are asking for. Try browsing through the source code and see for yourself what I mean.


About the source code. Who decided how to structure it? Just curious because I find it rather difficult to navigate and find things. I have yet to find some function implementations of FWadCollection or whatever it was called as they don't seem to be defined in the only logical place, W_Wad.cpp. This is likely an annoyance that comes from upstream.
Reorganizing the source code at this stage before too many changes are made in terms of additions and upgrades could perhaps be a good idea? I am aware it would cause a greater delay before we get any user end improvements, but it is to prefer over the risk of the codebase eroding into a big ball of mud. It would also be easier for people like me to dig into the source code and perhaps contribute.

Just a few thoughts from the top of my head. I'm not sure how helpful it might (not) be.

User avatar
Torr Samaho
Lead Developer
Posts: 1458
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 6:03 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Zandronum 3.0

#92

Post by Torr Samaho » Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:46 pm

doomjoshuaboy wrote:yes at latest Stretch, also that would be great if you can adjust your codes a bit for Raspbian Stretch.
I was posting one earlier about that in help section but no one is answered. anyways someone compiled it for me to use for stretch.
Please see my comment in your other thread: https://zandronum.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 16#p108716
ibm5155 wrote:EDIT: if it doesnt hurt, Torr, could 3.1 have a support to store the vid_fps cvar so I could always start with that enabled or disabled?
I have some code that tries to detect the affected Intel GPUs and just activates vid_fps automatically for them.
Peanut wrote:Does this mean that annoying displacement bug with sky portals is fixed or closer to being fixed? WDI01 of WhoDunIt for instance, I built that skybox with anchors throughout that entire map without the knowledge of that limitation and it was always a coin toss whether it worked properly or not. This is merely for future reference.
I'm exactly not sure which problem you are referring to. Do you have a minimal example wad that allows to reproduce the problem?
Peanut wrote:Clients load into map but the server can't properly spawn in every single anchor actor or something happens between the packets being sent to the clients due to the amount on the map, thus leading to the sky breaking in multiple sectors or just completely so the server resolves to sit there with broken anchors. Of course, I could be mistaken on how this works because as of now I can't really recall any other actors being effected this way, but that's the first thought that popped in my mind when I read about the packet increase.
Information about actors is sent in reliable packets, i.e. all commands are guaranteed to arrive in the correct order and no commands are lost. So if you weren't disconnected, this doesn't sound like a packet loss problem.
aivar242 wrote:Version 3.0 I was pleased. Only here it is not clear - why it was impossible to take a newer version of the GZDoom port as a basis?
The GZDoom code is very c/s unfriendly since it was designed based on p2p networking. Thus, changes in GZDoom usually require substantial adaptions to our c/s additions, which requires a lot of work, a lot of testing and even more work to fix the problems found in testing. Not to mention that it's not even clear yet how (or even if) ZScript can be combined with our c/s approach.

EDIT:
Lollipop wrote:About the source code. Who decided how to structure it? Just curious because I find it rather difficult to navigate and find things. I have yet to find some function implementations of FWadCollection or whatever it was called as they don't seem to be defined in the only logical place, W_Wad.cpp. This is likely an annoyance that comes from upstream.
Yes, this is from (G)ZDoom. On Zandronum's side, we have to minimize our differences to the (G)ZDoom base we are using, or we would make upgrading even more difficult. Thus, we cannot restructure GZDoom code in Zandronum. Restructuring for better c/s support has to be done inside GZDoom, so that future GZDoom versions take this into account.

Lollipop
Zandrone
Posts: 1082
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:34 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Zandronum 3.0

#93

Post by Lollipop » Sun Sep 24, 2017 1:31 pm

What a shame. Do you believe there is any possibility of Graf reorganizing the code to make your lives easier if you ask nicely? Perhaps it could be a joint effort and maybe a first step to either merge or at least not require as intrusive changes into the code in order to upgrade zan to a newer gzd codebase.

User avatar
Ivan
Addicted to Zandronum
Posts: 2134
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 5:38 pm
Location: Omnipresent

Re: Zandronum 3.0

#94

Post by Ivan » Sun Sep 24, 2017 2:45 pm

Lollipop wrote:What a shame. Do you believe there is any possibility of Graf reorganizing the code to make your lives easier if you ask nicely? Perhaps it could be a joint effort and maybe a first step to either merge or at least not require as intrusive changes into the code in order to upgrade zan to a newer gzd codebase.
The amount of effort Graf will put into reorganizing code for some other port just so that this said other port can implement his changes easier is proportional to... Well, 0 because he won't do it.
=== RAGNAROK DM ON ... uh... dead forever? ===
=== ALWAYS BET ON ... uh... dead forever? ===
=== Who wanta sum wang? ===
=== Death and Decay - A new Monster/Weapon replacer ===

User avatar
Monsoon
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:09 am
Location: USA

Re: Zandronum 3.0

#95

Post by Monsoon » Mon Sep 25, 2017 10:57 pm

So im having an issue with Zandronum 3.0 stable that simply wasnt happening at all with 3.0 alpha/beta.

On attempting to join a server, ANY server, i get instantly kicked for missing packets the moment i try to join just sitting there as a spectator is fine but if i try to actually play... nope i get kicked

User avatar
Torr Samaho
Lead Developer
Posts: 1458
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 6:03 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Zandronum 3.0

#96

Post by Torr Samaho » Tue Sep 26, 2017 6:08 am

Lollipop wrote:What a shame. Do you believe there is any possibility of Graf reorganizing the code to make your lives easier if you ask nicely? Perhaps it could be a joint effort and maybe a first step to either merge or at least not require as intrusive changes into the code in order to upgrade zan to a newer gzd codebase.
I'd still be interested in merging with GZDoom and I'm in contact with Rachael regarding this, but it's still not clear if this feasible.
Monsoon wrote:So im having an issue with Zandronum 3.0 stable that simply wasnt happening at all with 3.0 alpha/beta.

On attempting to join a server, ANY server, i get instantly kicked for missing packets the moment i try to join just sitting there as a spectator is fine but if i try to actually play... nope i get kicked
There shouldn't be any differences between the last 3.0 beta and the final version that could cause this kind of problem. If this happens on every server, it sounds more like a problem with your connection. Did you try to join an empty server running a small map with no mods?

User avatar
Monsoon
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:09 am
Location: USA

Re: Zandronum 3.0

#97

Post by Monsoon » Tue Sep 26, 2017 11:43 am

So if the server isnt running any mods i can play... but if its running anything that isnt complex doom i can't, that's the only mod so far that hasn't autokicked me on join for packet loss

scratch that. the server i was playing on the day before yesterday just kicked me as soon as i joined.

User avatar
Torr Samaho
Lead Developer
Posts: 1458
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 6:03 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Zandronum 3.0

#98

Post by Torr Samaho » Tue Sep 26, 2017 5:55 pm

So, it is just one specific host you cannot play on?

User avatar
Monsoon
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:09 am
Location: USA

Re: Zandronum 3.0

#99

Post by Monsoon » Tue Sep 26, 2017 6:08 pm

no... upon trying every server hosted on doomseeker, populated or not. i found im not able to play on any of them so its definitely an issue with my connection... but it makes no sense, I can connect to servers on other games just fine just not zandronum for some reason...

User avatar
Torr Samaho
Lead Developer
Posts: 1458
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 6:03 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Zandronum 3.0

#100

Post by Torr Samaho » Tue Sep 26, 2017 6:24 pm

That sounds really strange. Can you connect to a Zandronum server on your own machine?

Post Reply