Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Doom Editing Digest Vol. 01 Nr. 015
From: owner-doom-editing-digest
To: doom-editing-digest@nvg.unit.no
Subject: doom-editing-digest V1 #15
Reply-To: doom-editing
Errors-To: owner-doom-editing-digest
Precedence: bulk
doom-editing-digest Saturday, 22 October 1994 Volume 01 : Number 015
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Jason Hoffoss" <hoffo002@gold.tc.umn.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 94 18:05:01 CST
Subject: Re: Two-sided flag on LINEDEF's
On Thu, 20 Oct 1994 12:40:16 -0500 (CDT),
Jeff Rife <jrife@loanstar.tamu.edu> wrote:
>Well, I've been kicking this around in my mind for a while, especially after
>doing some special-effects WAD stuff, so, here goes...
>
>I think that we need to get the WAD editor designers, the spec maintainers,
>and us to call that bit the "shoot through" bit, or something similar. My
>reasoning:
>
>1. A LINEDEF with two SIDEDEF's does *not* have to have this bit set to
> function correctly. This bit does not determine "two-sidedness". If you
> don't believe this, I have a sample WAD that you can look at both sides
> of a LINEDEF with this bit unset, and there are textures on both sides,
> with no HOM.
You for something. If you have semi or fully transparent (-) textures, you
will get HOM if this bit isn't set. This bit is basically used by Doom's
rendering engine to decide if it needs to bother trying to draw anything
beyond this line. So, if you tell it no, but it's transparent, it doesn't
draw anything there, and you will get HOM. So, I for one am going to keep
calling it the 2 sided linedef/transparent textures ok flag. (Hmm, I don't
even make mention of the shoot-through properties..)
-Jason
------------------------------
From: S.Benner@lancaster.ac.uk (Steve Benner)
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 94 09:52:10 +0100
Subject: Re: Two-sided flag on LINEDEF's
jrife@loanstar.tamu.edu (Jeff Rife) wrote:
>I think that we need to get the WAD editor designers, the spec maintainers,
>and us to call that bit the "shoot through" bit, or something similar. My
>reasoning:
>
[Chop] [Chop]
>
>So, basically, all the bit really controls is what happens when a projectile
>hits this LINEDEF, and whether monsters think they can attack through this
>LINEDEF.
>
>The reason I suggest the change in naming convention is that I was very
>confused until I figured out the *real* effects.
I think Jeff has a point: it is confusing for a while. Having the editor
draw your attention to the 2-sided nature of the line is important though,
I'd say: while 2-sided linedefs don't NEED this flag set, ONE-SIDED ones
must NOT have it set, surely (I haven't checked that: it just seems to make
sense! I don't doubt some-one will flame me if I'm wrong). Also, it would
serve as a reminder to you (the designer) that you have to put something (a
sector, basically!) on EACH side of the line. Whether the editor does this
through the naming of the flags or in some other way is another matter
though.
Personally, I usually refer to the flag as the 2-s/look-thru flag -
whatever texture you put on the line (single patch only, of course)
monsters can see though it - and I don't really care what my editor calls
it. I just object when it won't let me uncheck the flag on my two-sided
lines.....
> At the very least, we need to add these notes to the specs.
>
Sorry, Jeff but I thought they were already there? The Unofficial Doom
Specs 1.3 does mention all of your points: maybe not as clearly as might be
but they're there; and Tom Neff's Design FAQs explains it perfectly imho.
Perhaps we need something somewhere which points beginners at *all* of the
necessary documents? Any ideas anyone?
- -Steve
------------------------------
From: Dan Cormack <dancor@worldgate.edmonton.ab.ca>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 1994 04:05:32 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Re: Two-sided flag on LINEDEF's
On Fri, 21 Oct 1994, Steve Benner wrote:
> Sorry, Jeff but I thought they were already there? The Unofficial Doom
> Specs 1.3 does mention all of your points: maybe not as clearly as might be
> but they're there; and Tom Neff's Design FAQs explains it perfectly imho.
> Perhaps we need something somewhere which points beginners at *all* of the
> necessary documents? Any ideas anyone?
>
Perhaps the FAQ FAQ? Or the Unofficial FAQ of the Unofficial Doom Specs?
How about FAQ's for those who don't RTFM.. 8-)
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Cormack Internet dancor@worldgate.edmonton.ab.ca
DeathMatch.. The Ultimate Experience. WaD_MaN --> IRC
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: Ray.Prock@es.atl.sita.int (Ray Prock)
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 1994 22:52:04 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Stupid question !related to editing
I don't want to remove my address from the list, just change it.
Anyone know how this is done?
--ray
------------------------------
From: fenske@rocke.electro.swri.edu (Robert Fenske Jr)
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 94 15:56:04 CDT
Subject: Re: Two-sided flag on LINEDEF's
>1. <deleted>
>2. Monsters and players cannot shoot through a LINEDEF with this bit unset.
Then this has changed from v1.2. I know monsters would shoot through
LINEDEFS with the 2S bit unset in v1.2. I suspect in v1.666 that
monsters don't try to shoot through such LINEDEFS--this is what you
suggest in 3. below. I'm pretty sure though that projectiles and
bullets will still go through, i.e. the player can still shoot through
and monsters can accidently shoot through.
>3. Monsters don't even think they can see through a LINEDEF with this bit
> unset, and *can* see through a LINEDEF with this bit set, regardless of
> textures.
>4. <delete>
------------------------------
End of doom-editing-digest V1 #15
*********************************
