Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Doom Editing Digest Vol. 01 Nr. 162
From: owner-doom-editing-digest
To: doom-editing-digest@nvg.unit.no
Subject: doom-editing-digest V1 #162
Reply-To: doom-editing
Errors-To: owner-doom-editing-digest
Precedence: bulk
doom-editing-digest Thursday, 16 February 1995 Volume 01 : Number 162
Re: almost objective editor comparison
Re: DCK 2.0
Re: DEU 5.3 Beta
Re: almost objective editor comparison
Re: almost objective editor comparison
Re: almost objective editor comparison
Re: DEU 5.3 Beta
Re: BSP for unix
Re: editor comparison/3D preview
Re: Nodebuilding times
Re: DEU 5.3 Beta
Re: BSP for unix
Re: DEU 5.3 Beta
Re: almost objective editor comparison
Re: almost objective editor comparison
Re: editor comparison/3D preview
(Not) DEU 5.3/editor comparison
Re: DEU 5.3/editor comparison
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Damerell <djsd100@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 02:09:32 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: almost objective editor comparison
On Wed, 15 Feb 1995, Jason Hoffoss wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 1995 14:08:11 EST,
> Robert Forsman <thoth@cis.ufl.edu> wrote:
> >Steve McCrea <sm@eng.cam.ac.uk> ,in message <199502141707.26072@club.eng.cam.ac
> > .uk>, wrote:
> >> Why do so few people know about dmapedit?
> > Inertia. They find something that works and they are loath to invest time
> >learning something else.
> True. It also used to be hard to figure out, too, I think maybe. Dck and
> Edmap came along later, and people talk about them now pretty often.
Well, I just tried DCK2.0, and I'm _not_ impressed: even I could make a
better copy of DEU than that.
>I
> think it really all comes down to a matter of advertising, actually.
> People usually try out the editor they hear about the most, and almost no
> one seems to say anything about DMapEdit except me.
I've tried a few other non-DEU editors, but DEU 5.0 was quite clearly the
editor I would have written if I'd sat down and thought about it hard, so
I never switched. But you've tickled me into trying DME now.
> All the editors seem to be getting better, making it possible to use them
> without reading the docs, really.
I RTFM by habit.
> DMapEdit has changed a lot. The hard part is just trying to convince
> people to give it a try.. :)
I'll give it a try. You get that.
>The source code is also released with each
> new official version release, just like DEU does. How many people are
> aware of that?
That _is_ good - means I can ignore minor diffs in editing philosophy,
all I need to do is hack the source...
David Damerell, GCV Sauricon. djsd100@hermes.cam.ac.uk Trinity, Cambridge
WOODHAL2.WAD ftpable. CUWoCS President. METLMAZE.WAD sometime soonish.
|___| Loneliness pours over you: Emptiness can pull you through. |___|
| | | Your mother's eyes, from your eyes, cry to me... Queen, '39. | | |
------------------------------
From: RKIRCHER@delphi.com
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 21:35:28 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: DCK 2.0
> > It's not the processor (although you can't do much with an 8086), it's
the>
> > OS. Get a real one (such as Linux or SunOS, but not Sloaris).
>
> Of course you're right; I'm so used to DOS being the only OS for my
> personal development goals (sounds like some new age thang, doesn't it :)
>
> I realize there are much more interesting and manageable OSes out there,
> but for most of my projects it's just not realistic - especially for DCK,
> whose prime target is the 90% of DOOMers who are DOS/Windows users.
>
> So i have to stick with the kludges that the knowitall software companies
> come out with.
>
> - Ben
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------- * --------------------
> the felix of your truth will always break it / Ben Morris
> and the iris of your eye always shake it / ..your typical CN
> -- "Iris" / Live -------------------------- / -----------------------
> revel in your perception * bmorris@islandnet.com
Have you perhaps considered trying the DJGPP port of GCC to MS-DOS? It's
pretty much Borland compatible, not 100% but close. And it's 32 bit with
all that implies. Best of all, it's free.
- -Bob Kircher
rkircher@delphi.com
------------------------------
From: bmorris@islandnet.com (Ben Morris)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 95 18:50 PST
Subject: Re: DEU 5.3 Beta
> On Tue, 14 Feb 1995, Ben Morris wrote:
> > Out of interest, have the DEU team been keeping up-to-date with any of the
> > latest versions of the other editors? They're all far more sophisticated
> > than the 5.3 beta is - FAR more.
>
> That, of course, is a matter of opinion. I'd say that DEU 5.21 is
> indisputably superior to most other editors, although DCK looks like it
> may be quite cute. So unless 5.3 is a big step backwards...
Then tell me, what does DEU 5.21 have that other editors don't these days?
User interface? No. Texture alignment? No. Drag/drop/rotate/scale?
No. A clipboard? No. Other editors have these; some of them DEU
doesn't.
DEU allows you *complete* control over your level, something that is
absolutely necessary to create good maps.
So does DCK, EdMap, and DMapEdit.
> But that's just my opinion. OTOH, yours seems a lot more extreme - you
> think the Windoze editors are better than DEU?
I've never used Windows editors to any extent - I don't like Windows, I
don't run DOOM from Windows (so I don't see the point of loading Windows,
editing, exiting, running doom, and repeating.) .. I can't comment on
that.
My opinion is not extreme - it's like any other opinion: based on personal
preference and cognizance of the facts. I looked at DEU 5.3, used it for
fifteen minutes and noticed not much change from previous versions, and
made a decision based on that review. If I've missed something I
apologize for being hasty.
- - Ben
- ---------------------------------------------- * --------------------
the felix of your truth will always break it / Ben Morris
and the iris of your eye always shake it / ..your typical CN
- -- "Iris" / Live -------------------------- / -----------------------
revel in your perception * bmorris@islandnet.com
------------------------------
From: bmorris@islandnet.com (Ben Morris)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 95 18:53 PST
Subject: Re: almost objective editor comparison
> 2) Node generator is 100% reliable now. I challange anyone to find a map
> it cannot build nodes for. It is also 'the fastest node generator on
> the face of the planet!' Since WARM made this claim of it's node
> generator, and mine beat it, I guess it's my title now.. :)
>
> Node generator build times for E1M1
>
> WARM DMapEdit
> 11 seconds 9 seconds
>
> Anyone else want to compare theirs?
DeePBSP (although I almost hate to admit it) compiles E1M1, including the
blockmap, in 2.97 seconds.
Crazy, eh?
- ---------------------------------------------- * --------------------
the felix of your truth will always break it / Ben Morris
and the iris of your eye always shake it / ..your typical CN
- -- "Iris" / Live -------------------------- / -----------------------
revel in your perception * bmorris@islandnet.com
------------------------------
From: jumpstile@fortunat.pdial.interpath.net (Jumpstile Turner)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 01:27:45 -0500
Subject: Re: almost objective editor comparison
>All the editors seem to be getting better, making it possible to use them
>without reading the docs, really. At least if you want to check it out
>and see if it's anything you'd be interested in using. Usually you can
>figure most of the stuff out, but not all of it. DMapEdit used to be
>really hard to figure out how to get to the 'more advanced' type of
>options. Now, however, everything is pretty much in a toolbar and menus,
>so if you take all of 10 seconds max, you should be able to find what you
>want. It gives you information about toolbar buttons and menu items at
>the bottom of the screen, in case you can't figure out what something is
>from it's name or icon. And with demos now, you don't even have to read
>the docs, really. Just run a demo and sit back and watch as it teaches
>you how to use it, explaining things it's doing along the way. DMapEdit
>is probably the easiest editor to switch to from another editor. I've
>worked hard to make it easy to use and work like you'd expect it to.
>DMapEdit has changed a lot. The hard part is just trying to convince
>people to give it a try.. :) The source code is also released with each
>new official version release, just like DEU does. How many people are
>aware of that?
>
I have to agree with all of this. The biggest thing that turned me on to
Dmapedit was the demo. THey say a picture is worht 1000 words, well, in
this case its worth at least that many. After watching the demo I had a 0%
learning curve jumping into it from Edmap and DCK. And I find it FAR
superior to any of the others I've tried. It's very well behaved and
doesn't bug out on weird sectors like the other editors do. Let me expand
on that. In most of the editors I've tried you generally have to create
sectors "a certain way", following a set procedure or else you sometimes get
some really strange results or you completely destroy the new sector. The
best part of Dmapedit is that it doesn't bug out. If something weird DOES
happen, its very very easy to get it fixed. Its really hard to tell you.
You just have to try it and see what I mean.
Another big plus is Dmapedits handling of sidedefs/linedefs. Its smart
enough to flip lines and sidedefs for you for just about every scenario I've
come across. It knows when to turn a two-sided line single, and vice-versa.
All the authors of all these other editors always claim their editors will
do all this, but I find in reality I spend 50% of my time trying to
circumvent an editor's idea of what IT thinks I want to do, not what *I*
want to do. I don't have this problem with Dmapedit. About the only bad
thing I can say about this program is that you can't make an auto-spiral
staircase. :) Doomcad is the only one I've seen that has it so far. And
despite what anyone else thinks, I think its a definite plus to have. It's
svaed me gobs of time. But I hate Windows. So I do them by hand. :)
Anyway, this from an UNbiased opinion: Definitely give Dmapedit a try. You
won't be disappointed. (This is one I'll certainly be registering.)
-Scott
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jumpstile@fortunat.pdial.interpath.net / This space available
"Sing the Hare Hare, Dance the Hoochie Koo!" / for advertising. ;)
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: bmorris@islandnet.com (Ben Morris)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 95 00:55 PST
Subject: Re: almost objective editor comparison
> > True. It also used to be hard to figure out, too, I think maybe. Dck and
> > Edmap came along later, and people talk about them now pretty often.
>
> Well, I just tried DCK2.0, and I'm _not_ impressed: even I could make a
> better copy of DEU than that.
DCK is by no stretch of the imagination a "copy" of deu. Of course it has
its similarities - every doom editor can be compared to another.
I guess this attitude is the same one that prompted you to, unprovoked,
hack DCK in r.g.c.d.e when you really didn't know what you were talking
about. (for reference, you said "DCK users wouldn't know how to fiddle
with sector refs if they needed to" - probably one of the most obvious
operations in the editor. But I doubt you knew that at the time, because
you "just tried DCK 2.0" as of now.
It's a shame statements such as "even I could make a better.." are so easy
to hide behind, or I'd call you out on it. Doubtless you'd excuse
yourself as a result of your busy schedule or sudden indifference to the
subject.
I apologize to the readers of this list for replying in kind to this
message.
- - Ben
- ---------------------------------------------- * --------------------
the felix of your truth will always break it / Ben Morris
and the iris of your eye always shake it / ..your typical CN
- -- "Iris" / Live -------------------------- / -----------------------
revel in your perception * bmorris@islandnet.com
------------------------------
From: D.Casali@rea0808.wins.icl.co.uk
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 09:36:19 +0000
Subject: Re: DEU 5.3 Beta
Here's my two cents:- I have always used DEU because up til
recently it was the only complete doom editor. You could make
the level, build the nodes and allign textures etc all in the
same package. And I've managed to create very good levels as a
result. My only gripe is that I could never get the GCC to work
so have had to make small levels... DC
------------------------------
From: Robert E Arthur <rea@st-andrews.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 11:17:13 +0100
Subject: Re: BSP for unix
OK, since my last post, I have managed to compile bsp12 for base memory, using
non-FPU code, compiled warm11 for SunOS, am going to try a different emulator,
and will probably attempt a hack for bsp12 to SunOS (for the hell of it!)
Thanks to all those who helped...
Byeeeee,
Bob.
------------------------------
From: Bernd Kreimeier <Bernd.Kreimeier@nero.uni-bonn.de>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 13:19:08 +0100
Subject: Re: editor comparison/3D preview
> 3D preview: Either none, or what methods of viewing a map your editor
> supports. W=Wireframe, s=Solid walls, S=Solid walls and floors/ceilings,
> t=texture mapped walls, T=texture mapped walls and floors/ceilings.
Ask b= uses BSP. You could render a map with LineDefs, SideDefs,
Vertices and Sectors, without using Nodes & Cie.
Ask h= height determination, i.e. determine current sector,
use floor height += 56.
Ask o= things, supports Things (at least A0 and A1 sprites :).
Ask l= z/sector dependend lighting.
Ask w= walkthrough, instead of jump-on-mouseclick (on automap).
Ask d= limited look up/down (walls still treated as vertical).
Note the sky texture handling differs a little from handling walls.
But you may have sky ceilings (and floors) without having any
other floors & ceilings. Gee, we are running out of chars.
Hmmmm.....
Ask g = gameplay :-).
B.
------------------------------
From: Steve McCrea <sm@eng.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 13:19:49 GMT
Subject: Re: Nodebuilding times
Ben Morris wrote:
> Jason Hoffoss wrote:
> >
> > Node generator build times for E1M1
> >
> > WARM DMapEdit
> > 11 seconds 9 seconds
> >
> > Anyone else want to compare theirs?
>
> DeePBSP (although I almost hate to admit it) compiles E1M1, including the
> blockmap, in 2.97 seconds.
>
> Crazy, eh?
>
It certainly is. And what did WARM and DMapEdit get, on your P5-100? :)
Steve.
------------------------------
From: David Damerell <djsd100@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 13:33:59 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: DEU 5.3 Beta
On Wed, 15 Feb 1995, Ben Morris wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Feb 1995, Ben Morris wrote:
>>> Out of interest, have the DEU team been keeping up-to-date with any of the
>>> latest versions of the other editors? They're all far more sophisticated
>>> than the 5.3 beta is - FAR more.
>>That, of course, is a matter of opinion. I'd say that DEU 5.21 is
>>indisputably superior to most other editors, although DCK looks like it
>>may be quite cute. So unless 5.3 is a big step backwards...
>Then tell me, what does DEU 5.21 have that other editors don't these days?
>User interface? No. Texture alignment? No. Drag/drop/rotate/scale?
>No. A clipboard? No. Other editors have these; some of them DEU
>doesn't.
No more than one - DEU doesn't have a clipboard - but I can use a scratch
map area adequately for that purpose, and it sticks around between edits.
DME won't let me zoom while moving objects. That's something I do a lot,
and that's a real problem.
DCK seems to attempt to insulate me from the existance of sidedefs - I
never saw a sidedef number listed - can I attach several lines to one
sidedef?
Also DCK seems to have a very coarse display - DCK in 640x480 looks like
DEU in 320x200 to me.
> DEU allows you *complete* control over your level, something that is
> absolutely necessary to create good maps.
> So does DCK, EdMap, and DMapEdit.
I downloaded DME 4.0 (beta 2): the docs would seem to imply that the
floor-ceiling heights are represented more coarsely than in DooM, and
that DME will sometimes flip linedefs because it thinks I have something
wrong. Maybe I _want_ it wrong. This is, IMHO, not complete control.
> > But that's just my opinion. OTOH, yours seems a lot more extreme - you
> > think the Windoze editors are better than DEU?
> I've never used Windows editors to any extent - I don't like Windows, I
> don't run DOOM from Windows (so I don't see the point of loading Windows,
> editing, exiting, running doom, and repeating.) .. I can't comment on
> that.
Ah. You said 'all far more sophisticated than the 5.3 beta is - FAR
^^^
more'. Hence I presumed that 'all' included all editors. If you define
'all' to exclude Windoze editors, that's a funny 'all'. OTOH, you don't
seem to have said what other editors have that DEU doesn't.
David Damerell, GCV Sauricon. djsd100@hermes.cam.ac.uk Trinity, Cambridge
WOODHAL2.WAD ftpable. CUWoCS President. METLMAZE.WAD sometime soonish.
|___| Loneliness pours over you: Emptiness can pull you through. |___|
| | | Your mother's eyes, from your eyes, cry to me... Queen, '39. | | |
------------------------------
From: mark.mathews@channel1.com (Mark Mathews)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 08:25:00 -0500
Subject: Re: BSP for unix
- -> I believe that there may be a bug in EMU387. I have used the
- -> nodebuilders on a machine with a co-processor and they work fine but
- -> on my machine without a co-processor they generate bad wads.
- -> I suggest that anyone with this problem try getting the file
- -> wmemu112.zip which is a replacement emu387 which works fine in my
- -> experience. The file is available in the DJGPP directory on simtel-20
- -> mirror sites.
That's correct. I found the same problem. Use WMEMU112.ZIP.
Mark
------------------------------
From: matt.tagliaferri@pcohio.com (Matt Tagliaferri)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 18:05:00 -0500
Subject: Re: DEU 5.3 Beta
DO>oh yes... in order for me to take a look at these other editors, I need
DO>to know their latest version numbers...
DO> Doomcad?
Version 6.0 is beta, see message 3 days ago for data...
matt tag
- ---
þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Intel Inside: Smoke on the outside
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
PC-Ohio PCBoard pcohio.com
The Best BBS in America Cleveland, OH
DATA: 216-381-3320 FAX: 216-291-2685
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: Robert Forsman <thoth@cis.ufl.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 10:35:06 EST
Subject: Re: almost objective editor comparison
"Jason Hoffoss" <hoffo002@gold.tc.umn.edu> ,in message <55127.hoffo002@gold.tc.
umn.edu>, wrote:
> All the editors seem to be getting better, making it possible to use them
> without reading the docs, really. At least if you want to check it out
> and see if it's anything you'd be interested in using. Usually you can
> figure most of the stuff out, but not all of it.
I diddled with DCK the other day. It took me a while to figure out that
double-click was insert. They should put that on the "keys" help window.
------------------------------
From: "Jason Hoffoss" <hoffo002@gold.tc.umn.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 95 10:31:36 CST
Subject: Re: almost objective editor comparison
On Wed, 15 Feb 95 18:53 PST,
Ben Morris <bmorris@islandnet.com> wrote:
>> 2) Node generator is 100% reliable now. I challange anyone to find a map
>> it cannot build nodes for. It is also 'the fastest node generator on
>> the face of the planet!' Since WARM made this claim of it's node
>> generator, and mine beat it, I guess it's my title now.. :)
>>
>> Node generator build times for E1M1
>>
>> WARM DMapEdit
>> 11 seconds 9 seconds
>>
>> Anyone else want to compare theirs?
>
>DeePBSP (although I almost hate to admit it) compiles E1M1, including the
>blockmap, in 2.97 seconds.
>
>Crazy, eh?
Geez. I've never even heard of this one. Oh course, I don't know how
this time compares to my times, though, since it's from another computer.
I use a 486dx/33.
Blockmap generation can almost be ignored anymore, though. It was
generated too fast to even really time with both DMapEdit and WARM (and
DeePBSP it seems).
One thing I'd like to point out, though, is the reliablility and
optimization issue. I could probably write up a node generator that
builds node in under a second, and would probably work fine, but I think
that they should strive for best cases of least splits/even balance.
Doing this is what takes the most time. If DeePBSP is running that fast,
I for one wouldn't trust it to be optimizing the bsp tree very well. My
code uses math is about it's fastest form, thanx to help from Robert
Forsman (math god :) and the guy who wrote WARM even. I learned about the
Ax + By + C = 0 form of a line he was using in his earlier project RBM. I
have a hard time figuring out his code very much, but I think that we both
use pretty much the same ideas and methods actually. Probably the same
math formulas anyway.
Hmm, maybe I could write up a little program to test the optimization and
reliability of bsp trees, so we can rate node generators better. Ya,
think I will. :)
-Jason
------------------------------
From: "Jason Hoffoss" <hoffo002@gold.tc.umn.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 95 10:48:56 CST
Subject: Re: editor comparison/3D preview
On Thu, 16 Feb 1995 13:19:08 +0100,
Bernd Kreimeier <Bernd.Kreimeier@nero.uni-bonn.de> wrote:
>> 3D preview: Either none, or what methods of viewing a map your editor
>> supports. W=Wireframe, s=Solid walls, S=Solid walls and floors/ceilings,
>> t=texture mapped walls, T=texture mapped walls and floors/ceilings.
>
>Ask b= uses BSP. You could render a map with LineDefs, SideDefs,
> Vertices and Sectors, without using Nodes & Cie.
>Ask h= height determination, i.e. determine current sector,
> use floor height += 56.
>Ask o= things, supports Things (at least A0 and A1 sprites :).
>Ask l= z/sector dependend lighting.
>Ask w= walkthrough, instead of jump-on-mouseclick (on automap).
>Ask d= limited look up/down (walls still treated as vertical).
Well, all these are closely related to a viewer that would use a
'walkthrough' method, such as zambony. I would probably rather call this
'walkthrough' instead of '3D preview'. Have them seperate or whatever.
For example, a 3D preview would ignore the sky, since it views the map as
an object, that you can turn around in your virtual hands and view from
any angle. More like the Descent automap, or something you'd see in
AutoCad. That's 3D preview. Walkthrough is actually walking around
through the map like you would in Doom. What's everyone think?
Btw, my 3D preview will use a BSP tree if available. :)
Doing it this way, we would change 'ask w' under walkthrough mode to read
'allows you to move around environment, or just a stillshot of view'
>Note the sky texture handling differs a little from handling walls.
>But you may have sky ceilings (and floors) without having any
>other floors & ceilings. Gee, we are running out of chars.
>
>Hmmmm.....
>
>Ask g = gameplay :-).
Heh, ya. Can you display the arm holding weapons? Can you actually shoot
the enemies? Can they shoot back? But hell, if you get it this complex,
you might as well be writting your own Doom-like game instead.. :)
-Jason
------------------------------
From: S.Benner@lancaster.ac.uk (Steve Benner)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 95 16:34:30 GMT
Subject: (Not) DEU 5.3/editor comparison
At 12:06 am 16/2/95, Jason Hoffoss wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Feb 1995 12:43:35 +0100,
>
>I'm kinda curious how many people they have on their team as well. I
>remember something John Romero (I think) said, about how more people on a
>project won't get it out any faster. I'd have to say it's right. It's
>even seemed to slow they down a lot.
>
Seeing as all messages seem to off subject, these days...
.... if you're interested in this topic, read "The mythical man month" --
sorry can't remember the author's name: some-one who used to be high up in
IBM, though, I think. It explains that as you put more people on a project,
your inter-team communication links rise by a power law, while an
individual's output is only additive. The result is that you reach a point
where the team spends most of its time trying to communicate with itself,
and never produces anything.
That, of course, is a crude summary of a couple of hundred pages of
interesting reading... dig it out for yourselves, though.
- -Steve
------------------------------
From: Raphael.Quinet@eed.ericsson.se
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 95 18:11:41 +0100
Subject: Re: DEU 5.3/editor comparison
Hello everybody...
I finally managed to go through the huge amount of mail that I have received
while I was away. I read several interesting articles from this list (not
those about the Pentium!) and I had fun with all the peole complaining about
the first beta of DEU 5.3... You will understand why.
Jason Hoffoss (hoffo002@gold.tc.umn.edu) wrote, quoting bmorris@islandnet.com:
> >> Out of interest, have the DEU team been keeping up-to-date with any of the
> >> latest versions of the other editors? They're all far more sophisticated
> >> than the 5.3 beta is - FAR more.
>
Well, I think I should look at the other editors. So far, I have only seen
HFDE2 (because someone told me that it was a great hack of DEU) and DMDEEP2
(because someone told me that it was a lame ripp-off of DEU). In the past,
I also tried DoomCAD for a while and DMapEdit because their authors are nice
guys :-) but I haven't had the time to look at the latest versions. I know
I should...
> I'm kinda curious how many people they have on their team as well. I
> remember something John Romero (I think) said, about how more people on a
> project won't get it out any faster. I'd have to say it's right. It's
> even seemed to slow they down a lot.
>
You are right. Here is some info that might be a surprise for some of you:
currently, there are 53 people on the DEU developpers and beta-testers list.
Unfortunatlely, only 5 people are really contributing to the code. I keep on
asking for volunteers among the developpers to work on this or that part of
the code, but most of the time the work is done by the same people. Oh well,
maybe I should do a bit of internal cleaning among the developpers and only
give access to the latest source code to those who are really contributing.
And it's true: having more poeple on a project will not speed up the
development. Quite the contrary.
> >> DEU PFME (your editor here)
> >>
> >> Full Source Y ?
> >> available ?
> >>
> >> Unix/X11R6 ? Y
Answer: Yes.
But DEU-X has not been released, because I would like to integrate the code
directly into DEU 5.3 instead of having two different source trees (with 95%
of the code in common).
> DMapEdit also has the full source available (only with official releases,
> though. If you really want the current beta source, you can mail me,
> though). To the best of my knowledge, only DEU and DMapEdit have the full
> source available (map editors, anyway).
>
This is a very important point: having the source code for one program means
that you can tailor it to your needs, you can add new features, etc. And if
you play fair enough, you send your patches to the author so that your code
can be integrated in the next release.
Now, one final note for those who have read this far: the first beta version
of DEU 5.3 is buggy as hell and I know it. Actually, this is the first
version that I was able to compile after several months of work "in the dark"
(without ever compiling the program). Why? Because all the internals of
the program have been re-written and the source code is now very different
from DEU 5.21. Of course, this beta should never have been released. But
this was a kind of practical joke: I knew that some people were constantly
checking my ftp server to see if a new version had been released. On the
other hand, lots of people were complaining because they saw nothing new for
DEU. So I released a beta version for them, but without announcing it.
8 minutes after I put the file on my server, someone had downloaded it. 20
minutes later, it was on ftp.cdrom.com. People have no lifes. :-) This is
not meant to be a real beta version, because most of the new features have
been disabled. I released it mainly to show that DEU was not dead. And in a
few days I will release the second beta, which should be more like the real
thing. I know that some people will be disapointed by DEU 5.3 anyway, because
they have very high expectations and we spent 90% of our time re-writing the
internals of the program, not the user interface. But still, the new DEU will
have more features than you will think at first sight (and certainly a lot
more than the buggy beta). By the way, I _will_ announce the second beta
version.
That's it. Thanks for reading through my drivel... :-)
- -Raphael
------------------------------
End of doom-editing-digest V1 #162
**********************************
