Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Doom Editing Digest Vol. 01 Nr. 191
1
From: owner-doom-editing-digest
To: doom-editing-digest@nvg.unit.no
Subject: doom-editing-digest V1 #191
Reply-To: doom-editing
Errors-To: owner-doom-editing-digest
Precedence: bulk
doom-editing-digest Tuesday, 28 February 1995 Volume 01 : Number 191
Oops
Some questions...
Theme
Doom textures to Heretic
TAKE NOTE________
Re: ** DCK 2.1B PUBLIC RELEASE **
Re: DCK 2.x and its "DEU Roots"
Last note about DCK vs. DEU
Re: DCK 2.x and its "DEU Roots"
[none]
[none]
[none]
[none]
Re: "The WAD" Counter
Re: "The WAD" Counter
[none]
Re: "The WAD" Counter
Things stuck in walls
Forget it...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: hsimpson@unixg.ubc.ca (Enigma)
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 17:23:37 -0800
Subject: Oops
I said 5:00PM PST, I meant 8:00 PST on #thewad, or #wadbase. Whichever you want.
***************************************************************************
enigma <hsimpson@unixg.ubc.ca>
***************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Daayve@AOL.COM
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 00:07:07 -0500
Subject: Some questions...
Hi! I have a couple questions about Doom2 and Quake. About Doom2: I
don't know if you're the one to ask about this, but I've found a group of
levels that have 0% secrets on them. I'm not sure whether it's because I
haven't found the secrets, or whether these levels have no secrets. The
levels that I've found no secrets on are levels 14, 21, 25, 29, 30, 31, and
32. I've heard something about 14 having no secrets. I've also noticed that
levels 31 and 32 don't have any secrets when you finish the level, but there
are 4 that show up on Deu2 (doom editor). I'm publishing a review on the
game in a game magazine, and would very much appreciate it if you would let
me know about these levels.
About Quake: I've heard that there's a beta version of the game. I
highly doubt these rumors, but had to ask. Do you know if there will be a
demo out of the game, or if there already is? I'd very much like to know.
Thanks!
Daayve@aol.com
------------------------------
From: hsimpson@unixg.ubc.ca (Enigma)
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 20:54:21 -0800
Subject: Theme
Trials and Tribulations Level Editor Bulletin Number One
********************************************************
dsquid had the kindness to fill me in on what happened at the IRC meeting
tonight. Here's an excerpt of what he had to say:
- ---------------------------------------------------
First of all, a transcript will be on Ross's page
soon. We are going with "Trials and Tribulations" for
the name. TNT for short. The theme will be a moonbase.
This is where it gets funky, and I think, cool. Somewhere
in the moonbase, a 'gate' has been uncovered. This gate
opens up to alternate dimensions. By going through this gate,
players enter different author's levels. THe moonbase itself
will be small -- very small. The reason is this -- it'll be
included in each person's wad! At the end of the level, they
will be teleporting back through the gate!
Then the next level will pick up where that left off.
There is no need to establish much more of a story line than
that right now. Just whip through the gate, kill everything
in the alternate world that the author has concocted, and whip out.
I'll be designing the small base. If others would rather do it,
let me know. It'll be 3-4 rooms, maybe a few more. The gate
room will have door, so the entire level won't have to be used
if the author doesn't want it.
Also-- we decided on Doom ][ as the platform, and individual
pwads instead of an IWAD (texture replacement issues.)
Whew. The transcript will probably tell you more that I
left out. Look for it tomorrow on http://together.net/~setc/thewad.html.
- -------------------------------------------
Thanks for that, Bill. I don't think anyone could have said it any better.
So, here's your assignment: start dreaming up alternate realities that:
a) Are based on DOOM II:
- I don't know how the decision came about to use DOOM ][, but there
it is, no arguing. It's DOOM ][ or nothing.
b) Have good architecture:
- Nooks and Crannies are important
- When you walk through the level, it should look like it was built
with a purpose in mind.
c) Conform to the original theme of doom:
- We're not out here to make an Indiana Jones moonbase or hell-spawn.
- Everything must feel like a smooth progression of DOOM
d) Conform to the theme we have made:
- Start designing now, keeping in mind that you must at some point
include the mini-moonbase as part of your map.
- Remember: there are 31 level editors (give or take) = COMPETITION
- This must be the best work you have ever ever done
- This isn't just a wad project, this is THE wad project.
Send me mail in copius quantities explaining your ideas. If you want to send
me a wad, go ahead, but keep in mind that I have to get DOOM II installed
before I can test it (I think that's a priority now...).
Till hell freezes over,
Enigma
TNT TNT TNT TNT TNT TNT TNT TNT TNT TNT TNT TNT TNT TNT TNT TNT TNT TNT TNT
enigma <hsimpson@unixg.ubc.ca> * Coming to you from Vancouver, Canada
Organizer of "Trials and Tribulations", _the_ Doom .WAD project.
TNT TNT TNT TNT TNT TNT TNT TNT TNT TNT TNT TNT TNT TNT TNT TNT TNT TNT TNT
------------------------------
From: DTeeter@AOL.COM
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 02:21:56 -0500
Subject: Doom textures to Heretic
Hello,
Sorry if I should be sending this to "The Wad" mailing list, but I haven't
recieved anything from it yet.
>your ideas for theme sound more like Marathon than Descent :> >...robot
theme
>could be cool though..one question I have is: Is it cool w/ iD to use >Doom
I shareware textures in a Heretic PWAD? ..I don't see why it >wouldn't be..
On the subject of patch conversion from Doom to Heretic: Doom and Heretic use
different 256 color pallettes.
Many of the colors in the two pallettes are simular, but Doom has some
different dull red (low intensity) and dull green colors. After using
photoshop to convert 7 randomly choosen Doom textures to the Heretic
pallette, I found that about 4 converted fine, and three had problems.
The textures with problems became more patchy and generally lost the smooth
color transitions found in ID's well constructed textures.
Anyone thinking about converting the Doom textures to Heretic needs to
realize that this may be a problem...
Later,
dteeter@aol.com or inchq.com
PS If you have access to Adobe Photoshop and are interested in the Doom or
Heretic pallette, I can send you a Photoshop .act pallette file in a
uuencoded attachment
------------------------------
From: D.Casali@rea0808.wins.icl.co.uk
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 09:35:30 +0000
Subject: TAKE NOTE________
THE WAD. WE NEED TO: CREATE A FORM ON THE WWW PAGE. SUGGEST A
CHOICE OF FIVE THEMES FOR VOTING, VOTE ON AN ENGINE, VOTE ON THE
SCALE OF THE PROJECT. WHEN WE KNOW WHAT IS THE MAJORITY VOTE,
BEGIN TO ALLOCATE WORK - TEXTURES/SPRITES COME FIRST (HA HA),
THEY ARE THEN POSTED TO THE LEVEL CREATORS, LEVELS AND FRONT END
ARE THEN MADE. GET IT STARTED!!!
------------------------------
From: Raphael.Quinet@eed.ericsson.se
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 95 10:59:09 +0100
Subject: Re: ** DCK 2.1B PUBLIC RELEASE **
On Fri, 24 Feb 95, bmorris@islandnet.com (Ben Morris) wrote:
> New features for 2.1 include:
> o UNDO FEATURE - a first!
Hmmm... Well, not really, since I have this in DEU 5.3. Oh well, it has not
been released yet, so I think you win there. Except that... I think that
PFME had it before. So Robert wins! Sorry, you're not the first one anyway.
Since lots of people suggested that I try DCK so that I can compare it with
DEU, I gave it a try last week. Well... First, I have a suggestion: please
use brighter colors for the map display, like the ones that DEU uses. I have
a very dark (old) monitor and the map display looks a lot crisper in DEU than
in DCK. I also have some problems with the dialog boxes, in which dark grey
appears as black.
Now, a gripe... a big one! I looked in the program and documentation, and
I saw no credit to the DEU team. It is clear that DCK is based on DEU, but
there is no mention of it. This is not very fair. Of course, the user
interface has been rewritten and improved (and nicely, I might add). But
the engine is mostly DEU. This is obvious if you compare the two programs:
same map display, same principle for selecting the objects, same principle
for highlighting the objects, same basic routines for creating new objects,
same basic operation in the "Misc." menu, same keyboard shortcuts, same bugs
with sector references when adding a new sidedef (fixed in DEU 5.3), and so on.
Maybe some of the functions have been rewritten too, so that they are a bit
different from DEU's routines. Fine, they are probably even better. But it
is obvious that 90% of the engine (not the user interface) was taken from DEU
and modified later.
So, here is a request to Ben: before you release the final version of DCK 2.1,
please add this in the opening screen and in the "about" box:
"DCK is partially based on DEU 5.21 by the DEU team"
This shouldn't harm your ego too much, and this will give due credit to the
members of the DEU team. Thanks in advance, on behalf of all members of
the DEU team.
> Code and design
> Ben Morris bmorris@islandnet.com
>
And what about adding the members of the DEU team? :-)
> Node builder
> Colin Reed colin@argonaut.com
>
Hmmm... And maybe you forgot that this Nodes builder (BSP) was built from
DEU's Nodes builder? Colin Reed and Dylan Cuthbert did a great job by
fixing the bugs in the original source and improving various parts of
the algorithms, but maybe you should credit the DEU team too? Maybe...
I hope I didn't sound too negative here. DCK looks great and it proves that
people like Ben can write nice programs when they have enough spare time.
But when you take some code, algorithms or even ideas from someone, common
courtesy implies that you credit the original author. I did this in DEU.
Why don't you do it in DCK?
- -Raphael
------------------------------
From: eedraq@eed.ericsson.se (Raphael Quinet)
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 95 11:26:04 +0100
Subject: Re: DCK 2.x and its "DEU Roots"
In article <3io391$ih1$2@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>, Ben Morris <72361.1552@CompuServe.COM> writes:
|> DEU was the only doom editor I'd seen when I wrote DCK. So, some
|> of the look and feel of DCK comes from DEU - it's only natural.
|> There are consistencies throughout any series of software
|> products, but that does not automatically mean that code has been
|> stolen or replicated throughout the series. DCK is such an
|> example - I freely admit that some of its style is based on DEU,
|> as are many of the editors'.
|>
I didn't want to take part in this debate, but since I am obviously
concerned, I might as well add my two cents...
I do not accuse you of having "stolen" anything from DEU. You cannot
"steal" something from a public domain program that comes with the
sources, since you are allowed to use any part of it in your own programs.
But it is obvious that you have used some parts of DEU when writing DCK.
More than one month ago, in a posting on the doom-editing list, you wrote
that you had improved some routines from DEU (and gave a few pieces of code
as an example). Even without this evidence, anyone can see that you are
using the same routines for the map display, highlightinh, creation of new
objects, etc.
I have no problems with that: the license in DEU explicitely alllows you to
use any part of the code for free. But it also says that it would be nice
to give credit to the original authors. Well, even if it's a bit unfair, I
can understand that you didn't want to credit another editor in your program.
But what I cannot stand (and this is the reason why I'm writing this) is that
you explicitely deny that you have taken any code from DEU. This is a lie!
Of course, you have written a new user interface, better than DEU's. But the
engine is the same. Even if you have re-written several routines (and maybe
most of them by now), you cannot deny the fact that you have taken the source
code from DEU as a basis when writing your program.
|> The accusation that I have stolen any of DEU's code to write any
|> part of DCK is completely false and unfounded; the fact that
|> nobody but myself has ever seen the code and therefore would not
|> be able to tell is irrelevant - DCK contains enough originality
|> to override any of its conceptual roots. I hereby state that not
|> one line of DCK was written by anyone but myself, excluding the
|> Borland libraries and the node builder, which was written by
|> Colin Reed.
|>
Well, first I should add my pinch of salt: the nodes builder by Colin Reed
was itself partially based on DEU's nodes builder. Colin Reed and Dylan
Cuthbert improved it a lot, of course, but still...
But I cannot stand your statements about you having never used any code
from DEU. This is an outright lie! I tought you played fair and you simply
"forgot" to credit DEU in your program. But you've gone too far... If you
want to prove that you haven't used any code from DEU, then send your source
code to a third party who will compare DCK 1.0 and DEU 5.21. I'm sure that
anybody with a little knowledge in C will find may similarities. Oh, and I
proposed to compare DCK 1.0 instead of DCK 2.x, because I'm sure that it will
be easier to spot the similarities in your first version, instead of the
latest one in which you might have re-written more routines. I propose that
you send your old source code to someone like Robert Forsman or Matt Fell, who
are well-known on this list (if they agree, of course).
By the way, even without the source code, a disassembly and comparison of
the EXE file already reveals several large chunks of code that are identical
or very similar in DCK and DEU. Conclusion?
- -Raphael
- --
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Finger: finger quinet@finger.montefiore.ulg.ac.be for some useless info. |
| WWW: http://www.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/~quinet (with preview of DEU 5.3) |
| E-mail: Raphael.Quinet@eed.ericsson.se or quinet@montefiore.ulg.ac.be |
| S-mail: Raphael Quinet, 9 rue des Martyrs, 4550 Nandrin (Belgium) |
| --* Send your questions about DEU to: Deu_Help@boblab1.bobst.nyu.edu *-- |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
------------------------------
From: Raphael.Quinet@eed.ericsson.se
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 95 12:55:47 +0100
Subject: Last note about DCK vs. DEU
I had to let out some steam in my two previous messages. Now that
I have cooled off a bit, I will try to make things clear. :-)
It is clear that DCK has a brand new user interface with dialog boxes
and lots of nice features. It is clear that the program is a great
improvement over DEU 5.21 (we will see later how it compares with 5.3).
A lot of time and efforts have been put into this editor. But it is
also obvious that some parts of the program have been borrowed from
DEU, even if they have been changed (improved) a bit.
I do not want to start a war between us, especially since I released
the source code from DEU so that everybody can have a look at it and
improve their editor or programs. I beleive that releasing the sources
for one program makes the development of other programs faster and
easier, and ultimately profits to everybody. I only wish that more
people made their source code available...
Since someone suggested that I "credit Ben Morris for something" in
order to ease things the other way round, I will add a credit line
for the suggested fix of my GetSectorForThing() function (even if
I used another -faster- way to fix the problem). I hope you will
be pleased with that.
Now, I only wish that the final version of DCK 2.1 will display the
following message in the opening screen and "about" box: "DCK is
partially based on DEU 5.21 by the DEU team". Then everything will
be fine.
Now, let's get back to more interesting things... :-)
- -Raphael
------------------------------
From: "Walter Meyer (CIP88)" <wrmeyer@immd3.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 14:15:09 +0100 (MET)
Subject: Re: DCK 2.x and its "DEU Roots"
concerning:"DCK 2.x and its "DEU Roots"
Please don't post your personal arguments to the list.
Bye, Walter
- --
It is better to be hated for what one is, than loved for what one is not.
A. Gide
------------------------------
From: owner-doom-editing@nvg.unit.no
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 14:37:39 +0100
Subject: [none]
------------------------------
From: owner-doom-editing@nvg.unit.no
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 15:35:29 +0100
Subject: [none]
------------------------------
From: owner-doom-editing@nvg.unit.no
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 15:59:02 +0100
Subject: [none]
------------------------------
From: owner-doom-editing@nvg.unit.no
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 15:57:32 +0100
Subject: [none]
------------------------------
From: tom@vmark.com (Tom Rauschenbach)
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 10:04:21 +22306404 (EST)
Subject: Re: "The WAD" Counter
>>1) - Do we split the project in two?
>>2) - If we split the project, what engine will be used for the first WAD?
>>3) - And what engine will be used for the second WAD + DeHackEd patches?
My votes are:
1) Yes.
2) Doom 1
3) Doom 1
At one point, the executables for Doom 1 and and Doom 2 were the same.
However, it was necessary that all parties in a Deathmatch had the same
release. Shouldn't the question be not one of Doom1 or Doom 2, but 1.666
or 1.7 or 1.9 ?
- --
Tom Rauschenbach "That is more complex than what I want. What I want IS
computable. I didn't ask for the moon. I asked for a set
tom@vmark.com of cheesy glow-in-the-dark ceiling stickers."(rob forsman)
------------------------------
From: Raphael.Quinet@eed.ericsson.se
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 95 17:29:33 +0100
Subject: Re: "The WAD" Counter
On Mon, 27 Feb 1995, tom@vmark.com (Tom Rauschenbach) wrote:
> At one point, the executables for Doom 1 and and Doom 2 were the same.
> However, it was necessary that all parties in a Deathmatch had the same
> release. Shouldn't the question be not one of Doom1 or Doom 2, but 1.666
> or 1.7 or 1.9 ?
>
What's wrong with 1.2 or 1.1? :-)
Seriously, I think we should go for the latest version (1.9). There are
not too many differences between 1.666 and 1.9, so the PWADs should be
compatible: same LineDef types, same Things, etc.
The only difference is in the LMP's. If we include some demos in the WAD,
they should be for the latest version, IMHO, because we can hope that most
people will have upgraded by the time the WAD is ready.
By the way, I think this discussion belongs now to the "wad-team" mailing
list. Let's drop this topic on this list, because the increased traffic
was a problem for many people (and for the list server itself).
- -Raphael
------------------------------
From: setc@together.net (Ross Carlson)
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 12:19:47 -0500
Subject: [none]
Hey everybody!
Just a couple of things I want say:
First, check out the web page, it's been updated with the transcript of
the IRC meeting, and it also has the first bulletin from Enigma to the level
designers. Check the archives page for that.
Second, what is everyone using to view the web page. I only have Netscape
to test my pages.
Third, is everyone on wad-team now, I would like us all to stop posting to doom
editing if possible.
And lastly, do you guys want to hold another IRC meeting. We need to
co-ordinate the time a little better, and let the group know well ahead of time.
Let me know - talk to you all soon,
- -Ross
****************************************
* Ross Alan Carlson *
* setc@together.net *
* "THE WAD" Home Page: *
*http://together.net/~setc/thewad.html *
****************************************
------------------------------
From: tedv@geom.umn.edu
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 95 11:34:13 CST
Subject: Re: "The WAD" Counter
> At one point, the executables for Doom 1 and and Doom 2 were the same.
> However, it was necessary that all parties in a Deathmatch had the same
> release. Shouldn't the question be not one of Doom1 or Doom 2, but 1.666
> or 1.7 or 1.9 ?
There's no question there. PS: you might want to move this to the thewad
editing mailing list. I don't know the address though; I'm not on it.
- -Ted
- --
Ted Vessenes | "The only force stronger than fate is dramatic irony."
tedv@geom.umn.edu | "[William] Shatner couldn't direct his way out of the
tedv@cs.umn.edu | bathroom with both hands and a map!"
tjvessen@midway.uchicago.edu -Ryan Ingram (1st), -Kibo's .sig (2nd)
------------------------------
From: Raphael.Quinet@eed.ericsson.se
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 95 21:25:09 +0100
Subject: Things stuck in walls
While testing the new consistency checker in DEU 5.3, I came accross the
following problem: lots of monsters seem to be stuck in walls, but they
aren't.
I ran the consistency checker on MAP02 of Doom 2 and I found that several
monsters are partially inside a wall: a Trooper (#12) and eight Shotgun
Sargeants (#22, #32, #53, #85, #100, #136, #137 and #145). When you play
the game, these monsters have no problems. Note: the Sargeant #32 is an
interesting case, because it is partially in a closed door instead of a
one-sided wall.
On MAP03, the starting points for Player 1 (#0), Player 3 (#9) and
Player 4 (#10) are also partially in a wall (but by one pixel only, so
maybe this doesn't count). The Sargeants and Troopers #49, #50 and #51
sould be partially in a wall if you assume that all things are "square".
On MAP04, the Imp #72 is also clearly in a wall. But it is not stuck
at all.
The same happens in Doom 1: on E1M1, one Imp on the platform in the
zig-zag room and the Shotgun Sargeant in the hidden room (I forgot
their numbers) should also be stuck in the walls.
I don't want to display "false alerts" for these things, because they
work fine when you play the game. What is the real criterion for
"monsters stuck in walls"? Maybe I should use "radius - 7" instead
of "radius"? From what I can see, 7 pixels is the limit in the original
levels. And maybe this is one reason why most of the Things in Id's
levels are aligned on a 8x8 grid?
I haven't experimented a lot because I don't have much time now. But
maybe someone could do some experiments with WAD files and see when the
monsters are stuck and when they aren't?
Comments are welcome...
- -Raphael
------------------------------
From: Raphael.Quinet@eed.ericsson.se
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 95 23:38:01 +0100
Subject: Forget it...
Please forget what I wrote in my articles about "DCK vs. DEU".
I should have sent this to Ben only, instead of sending a copy
to the list. I'm in a very bad mood today, so I had to let
some steam go.
Actually, I posted a message like this one a few minutes after
having posted the three messages about DCK, but it came back
as an empty message (no subject, no contents). I guess there
was a temporary problem with the list server, because 4 messages
(one from me, the other ones from unknown authors) were not
delivered. That's why I am reposting this now.
- -Raphael
------------------------------
End of doom-editing-digest V1 #191
**********************************
Comments