Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Doom Editing Digest Vol. 01 Nr. 528
From: owner-doom-editing-digest
To: doom-editing-digest@nvg.unit.no
Subject: doom-editing-digest V1 #528
Reply-To: doom-editing
Errors-To: owner-doom-editing-digest
Precedence: bulk
doom-editing-digest Saturday, 23 December 1995 Volume 01 : Number 528
Re: Dehacked 3.0 & Chainguns
Re: Proof of monster strafing
Fake Marine Debate
Re: Proof of monster strafing
Re: Dehacked 3.0 & Chainguns
Re: offset problem within pwad
Re: Proof of monster strafing
Re: offset problem within pwad
Re: Proof of monster strafing
Re: Re: Dehacked 3.0 & Chainguns
Re: Proof of monster strafing
Re: Proof of monster strafing
WinTex 4.1 officially released
Re: Proof of monster strafing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gene Franzen <gfranzen@tenet.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 19:15:57 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Dehacked 3.0 & Chainguns
On Thu, 21 Dec 1995 FrancisGA@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 95-12-20 21:36:31 EST, you write:
> >2. Troopers that move when they fire do indeed look unrealistic, as if they
> >are sliding. The problem is simple: their moving frames have animations that
> >make them look like they are walking, but when they're using their weapons
> >and moving at the same time, that's only 1 frame of animation. Hence, they
> >move, but there's no illusion that their legs are moving. I usually don't
> >make troopers move for this reason.
>
> You may or may not have noticed that player sprites are like this.
> I never heard anyone say that that looked unrealistic... (or perhaps
> it's because in deathmatch, no one has time to notice such things :-)
I was wondering the same thing myself. No reason that troopers who fire
while moving should look any more realistic than a player does who is
firing while moving.
------------------------------
From: Gene Franzen <gfranzen@tenet.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 19:14:13 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Proof of monster strafing
On Thu, 21 Dec 1995 FrancisGA@AOL.COM wrote:
> >These are diametrically opposed propisitions. We have one side,
> >attempting to make the marines as realistic as possible, and the other,
> >admitting that it is impossible to make the fake marines realistic enough.
>
> These are the SAME sides!! (they are not opposed!) Those attempting
> to make realistic marines admit that you can't make the fake marines
> realistic enough. The "side" that says it's impossible to make realistic
> marines still would like to use marines that are as realistic as possible
> for deathmatch games. It's just that both "sides" realize that you can't
> make fake marines that look smart enough so that a good deathmatcher
> can act normal and still get lost in the crowd.
Odd. It's amazing how people can come out of the blue and make a
statement that is totally contrary to what you just said except completely
absurd. Sigh. If you look at any of the messages of people who have
admitted that it is impossible to make the fake marines realistic enough,
then you notice that they all say the only interesting part about it is
seeing if you could act mechanical enough so that your opponent wouldn't be
able to tell the difference between you and a fake marine. They
obviously can't be saying two completely opposite things at once; they
can't say that it would be interesting to blend in with the fake marines
and at the same time have them act realistic unless they want one thing
or the other. And since we've seen that we CAN'T make the fake marines
to be realistic enough to be convincing, we rule that choice out! If we
could, why even bother talking about blending in with fake marines by
acting stupid unless we have two sides here?
------------------------------
From: Michael Gummelt <gummelt@pegasus.montclair.edu>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 03:48:46 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Fake Marine Debate
Gene,
Cut the crap and drop the issue. Obviously, you relish argument,
or at least have a problem not having the last word in an issue.
I only sent out the patch to show that you were wrong about the
monster stopping to attack even in a lost soul run. That's all.
The issue of the fake marine is a matter of preference. If you
don't like the way it plays, don't play it. That's all. Now
could we please stop this absurd argument and post some useful
letters instead?
Mike
PS Gene, you're so adamant about what CAN'T be done, what do
you think CAN be done? What have YOU done?
------------------------------
From: Michael Gummelt <gummelt@pegasus.montclair.edu>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 03:58:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Proof of monster strafing
Francis is right here, Gene. The word is "compromise" While you
can't make a marine act like a human, and you don't want to have
to act like a stupid monster, you can try to get the two as close
together to get a very nice and unique DeathMatch experience.
Mike
PS- Thanks for the plug in your last rebuttal- I hope i wan't too
rude in my last remark on this topic.
>
> These are the SAME sides!! (they are not opposed!) Those attempting
> to make realistic marines admit that you can't make the fake marines
> realistic enough. The "side" that says it's impossible to make realistic
> marines still would like to use marines that are as realistic as possible
> for deathmatch games. It's just that both "sides" realize that you can't
> make fake marines that look smart enough so that a good deathmatcher
> can act normal and still get lost in the crowd.
> --
> FrancisGA
>
------------------------------
From: Michael Gummelt <gummelt@pegasus.montclair.edu>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 03:55:29 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Dehacked 3.0 & Chainguns
Instead of replacing monsters, just make new ones. Change the lamp
into your new monster, for instance. Also, try to re-use frames
whenever possible. And all those "161620" (Doom 1.9) code pointers
are dummys- use those for more important and effective code pointers.
(Well, leave ONE frame with that code pointer in it- it's not
entirely ineffective). And monsters don't REALLY need TWO
initial frames. In other words, weed through the .exe and see which
code pointer frames you can free up to make your new behaviour
or monsters.
Check out Aliens Doom 3 to see how I made about 25 different
"monsters".
Mike Gummelt
On Thu, 21 Dec 1995, Erwen L. Tang wrote:
> According to MICHAEL HOENIE:
> >
> > I just picked up DEHACKED 3.0 and in editing the code pointers, if the
> > pointer is -0-, it won't let me change it. Is this normal? I wanted to
> > make the troopers fire rapidly using some of the techniques here, but I
> > can't get some of those code pointers changed. Also: I did manage to get
> > them to fire rapidly, but they moved across the ground in a "sliding"
> > manner (very unrealistic). DOOM also nearly ALWAYS crashes hard (screen
> > turns to mush) and drops back to DEHACKED.
>
> Do what I do, sacrifice some other guy. Check out COOLWPNS.DEH
>
> --
> Erwen Tang - Class of 1997 TJHSST \|/ ____ \|/
> Email: etang@pen.k12.va.us, @~/ ,. \~@
> etang@capaccess.org /_( \__/ )_\
> etang@lan.tjhsst.edu \__U_/
> http://www.tjhsst.edu/~etang
> ---
> Flame Shield operating 24hr. Flames will be deleted so don't bother.
>
------------------------------
From: Olivier <montanuy@lsun80.lannion.cnet.fr>
Date: 22 Dec 95 14:33:26+0100
Subject: Re: offset problem within pwad
>Well, Jim, I think Deutex IS Wintex. Wintex is just a windows
>shell for DeuTex.
USED TO BE.
WinTex 4.1 does not use DeuTex anymore, only a small part
of DeuSF (the one that crawls if coded under windoze).
------------------------------
From: "Brian K. Martin" <brian@phyast.pitt.edu>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 08:31:29 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Proof of monster strafing
>
>
> 1. The enemy suddenly makes a ridiculously dramatic speed increase.
>
> 2. How many people, when playing deathmatch, run directly at your fellow
> marines to attack them?
>
I do all the time. I usually get the frag too.
brian
------------------------------
From: "Brian K. Martin" <brian@phyast.pitt.edu>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 08:25:53 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: offset problem within pwad
>
> Well, Jim, I think Deutex IS Wintex. Wintex is just a windows
> shell for DeuTex. What I wanted to know was how to get the
> sprites to be offset correctly in a stripped pwad with
> wintex 3.41. Any suggestions?
> Mike
>
> > > Nevertheless, I assumed you might be able to give me an
> > >answer using WinTex 3.41- After all, what did pwad author do
> > >BEFORE WinTex 4.1? Use NWT?
> >
> > Hmmm, Deutex? <g>
> >
Wintex 3.41 is a shell for Deutex. You can see that it calls the
dos program. However, WinTex4.1 seems to have done away with that
messy directory structure and doesn't use deutex as it was used for
wintex3.41. Of course this doesn't help fix your offsets, but i
recommend you do what olivier says and use wintex4.1 to cut and paste
from the original wad to your new wad which got screwed. It is
a painless process for the most part. Just highlight with the mouse,
cut and paste.
brian
(inner_o.wad is out! zwoofpak.wad is on it's way!)
------------------------------
From: jh32322@ltec.net (Joel Huenink)
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 11:23:01 -0600
Subject: Re: Proof of monster strafing
>>
>>
>> 1. The enemy suddenly makes a ridiculously dramatic speed increase.
>>
>> 2. How many people, when playing deathmatch, run directly at your fellow
>> marines to attack them?
I charge my opponents constantly and keep them on the run! My frag ratio's
are always 25 or 50 to 1.
Joel Huenink
jh32322@ltec.net
------------------------------
From: Jim Wraith <jim@kildare.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 08:52:27 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Dehacked 3.0 & Chainguns
In your message dated Thursday 21, December 1995 you wrote :
>In a message dated 95-12-20 21:36:31 EST, you write:
>>2. Troopers that move when they fire do indeed look unrealistic, as if they
>>are sliding. The problem is simple: their moving frames have animations that
>>make them look like they are walking, but when they're using their weapons
>>and moving at the same time, that's only 1 frame of animation. Hence, they
>>move, but there's no illusion that their legs are moving. I usually don't
>>make troopers move for this reason.
>>
>
>You may or may not have noticed that player sprites are like this.
>I never heard anyone say that that looked unrealistic... (or perhaps
>it's because in deathmatch, no one has time to notice such things :-)
Hmm, but if they were to put in sprites that look as though the player is moving
and firing, it might jump fromm one frame to another. Any ideas anyone?
------------------------------
From: Gene Franzen <gfranzen@tenet.edu>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 12:32:37 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Proof of monster strafing
On Fri, 22 Dec 1995, Brian K. Martin wrote:
> > 1. The enemy suddenly makes a ridiculously dramatic speed increase.
> >
> > 2. How many people, when playing deathmatch, run directly at your fellow
> > marines to attack them?
>
> I do all the time. I usually get the frag too.
I said how many people, not how few - I admit there are exceptions. =]
------------------------------
From: Gene Franzen <gfranzen@tenet.edu>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 12:47:29 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Proof of monster strafing
On Fri, 22 Dec 1995, Michael Gummelt wrote:
> Francis is right here, Gene. The word is "compromise" While you
> can't make a marine act like a human, and you don't want to have
> to act like a stupid monster, you can try to get the two as close
> together to get a very nice and unique DeathMatch experience.
As long as it is possible to make the fake marines intelligent enough to
be somewhat convincing (you may have to act somewhat mechanical if you
want to blend in), I agree that we should try to work on them. Let's
cease the previous conversation since it was going nowhere and allow me
to introduce a new point.
Should we REALLY have a whole bunch of marines running about? When the
real marines are killing the fake ones, they'll eventually run out.
We've heard how difficult it can be to stay alive when all of these fake
marines are after you, so we probably couldn't use -respawn then unless
we spread them over a large level. If the level wasn't particularly
large, we might just have a handful of fake marines, so we could turn on
- -respawn to get the effect that the fakes are coming back to life. Of
course, their bodies don't stay when they respawn like real marine bodies
do, but that's a small price to pay for added realism. This way, we
wouldn't have tons and tons of marines around - although we might lack
the diverse 'types' of marines that could be used.
> PS- Thanks for the plug in your last rebuttal- I hope i wan't too
> rude in my last remark on this topic.
Sure thing, Mike.
------------------------------
From: Olivier <montanuy@lsun80.lannion.cnet.fr>
Date: 22 Dec 95 21:11:25+0100
Subject: WinTex 4.1 officially released
Well I tried to hold it a bit more but it escaped. WinTex 4.1 is now
on ftp.cdrom.com, soon to be available. You may wish to take a look
at it, since it's the ultimate WAD file editor (until NWT pro gets
out of the wood). ;-)
My Christmas present for those of you who are still using DeuTex, DMAUD,
DMGRAPH, and anything of the sort.
Have fun!
Olivier (WinTex/DeuTex author)
------------------------------
From: "Brian K. Martin" <brian@phyast.pitt.edu>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 17:51:06 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Proof of monster strafing
>
>
> Should we REALLY have a whole bunch of marines running about? When the
> real marines are killing the fake ones, they'll eventually run out.
> We've heard how difficult it can be to stay alive when all of these fake
> marines are after you, so we probably couldn't use -respawn then unless
> we spread them over a large level. If the level wasn't particularly
> large, we might just have a handful of fake marines, so we could turn on
> -respawn to get the effect that the fakes are coming back to life. Of
> course, their bodies don't stay when they respawn like real marine bodies
> do, but that's a small price to pay for added realism. This way, we
> wouldn't have tons and tons of marines around - although we might lack
> the diverse 'types' of marines that could be used.
>
I think it would be OK to take out the attack of the fake marines.
Or is that against the original idea. I thought the idea was to spice
up death match. Or I think it maybe was to make a DM practice. Hmmmm.
> > PS- Thanks for the plug in your last rebuttal- I hope i wan't too
> > rude in my last remark on this topic.
>
> Sure thing, Mike.
>
I thought the plug sounded sarcastic.
brian
------------------------------
End of doom-editing-digest V1 #528
**********************************
