1.0.01

Post by **Graf Zahl** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 18:43

If anything regarding USE and PICKUP state breaks this WAD then I'm sorry to say that I won't change it back. These are features that ZDoom will never support the same way as .96x did and I agree with Randy's decision.

But I have to admit that I never played the thing.

TheDarkArchon · Post by **TheDarkArchon** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 19:00

Sounds like a user error problem. I can't say for certain because I'm sticking with 0.9.28.

Alter · Post by **Alter** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 19:20

then WRW in future will be changed completely?

Post by **Graf Zahl** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 19:55

TheDarkArchon wrote:Sounds like a user error problem. I can't say for certain because I'm sticking with 0.9.28.

If you do that I won't be able to fix any bugs for you in the future.

Blade Nightflame · Post by **Blade Nightflame** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 20:03

Graf Zahl wrote:If anything regarding USE and PICKUP state breaks this WAD then I'm sorry to say that I won't change it back. These are features that ZDoom will never support the same way as .96x did and I agree with Randy's decision.

But I have to admit that I never played the thing.

Couldn't you just HAVE GZDoom support it the way .96x did? I'm sure there are many people who want to play the older wads or current, using the latest GZDoom and not having it break.

Post by **Graf Zahl** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 20:18

No. The way .96x did it was problematic and it won't come back.

Blade Nightflame · Post by **Blade Nightflame** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 21:25

Graf Zahl wrote:No. The way .96x did it was problematic and it won't come back.

Okay, not our problem anyone won't really use 1.0.0.1 much. Your loss.

Post by **Graf Zahl** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 22:11

Do you really think that one stupid WAD is such a deciding factor? You should rather think about making it compatible so that ZDoom mappers can use it as well. Randy made it quite clear that he has no intention of making CustomInventory items compatible with .96x.

Do you really plan to keep the WAD incompatible with ZDoom for one item? I'm surprised that it hasn't been changed already. It has been known for 4 months or more now that the way it is done now will limit this to .96x forever. GZDoom's current parser is precisely the same as ZDoom 2.0.99 (except for expressions in code pointer parameters) so to make the WRW future proof it might be a good idea to change the WAD, not the EXE.

BTW, with your attitude all you will get here is being ignored.

Blade Nightflame · Post by **Blade Nightflame** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 22:45

Graf Zahl wrote:Do you really think that one stupid WAD is such a deciding factor? You should rather think about making it compatible so that ZDoom mappers can use it as well. Randy made it quite clear that he has no intention of making CustomInventory items compatible with .96x.

Do you really plan to keep the WAD incompatible with ZDoom for one item? I'm surprised that it hasn't been changed already. It has been known for 4 months or more now that the way it is done now will limit this to .96x forever. GZDoom's current parser is precisely the same as ZDoom 2.0.99 (except for expressions in code pointer parameters) so to make the WRW future proof it might be a good idea to change the WAD, not the EXE.

BTW, with your attitude all you will get here is being ignored.

Actually, not just one wad, possibly most other ones who use that state too. Besides, they aren't exactly stupid in most senses. =/

EDIT: Anywho, I'll stop with this now anyway. Sooner the better.

Deathlike2 · Post by **Deathlike2** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 22:59

I believe Graf made a post many versions ago (months ago) stating this move...

I can understand the need for backwards compatibility, but sometimes that conflicts with future progress and limitations.

I don't think 96x was ever meant to be the solution for the future... just a stopgap (I know not the actual reason for 96x, but I think lots of hints have been dropped as to why that is)

Post by **Graf Zahl** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 23:24

.96x was the result of the frustration caused by Randy's inactivity last year. And yes, some of the features in there weren't the brightest ideas. That inevitably happens when you act on a whim - which occured more than once. The inventory states were such a thing. The idea itself was ok but the implementation was not. Randy found it would be better to move them into a subclass and I have to agree with this decision because it allowed me to remove a few things from the code I never liked. I won't go back because nobody except a handful of lazy modders wpuld profit from it It will reintroduce some inconsistencies into the code that can be problematic. Changing your definitions to use CustomInventory properly can't really be that hard.

As soon as Randy said how he intended to implement this I changed it as well - and made an announcement in the News thread. That was 2 months ago in v0.9.22. At that point the WRW was the only WAD available that uses this feature - and it still hasn't been adjusted accordingly. When ZDoom 2.0.99 is released it won't work with that either so in the end I think that people rather discontinue using the WRW than refuse to upgrade their engines.

TheDarkArchon · Post by **TheDarkArchon** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 23:59

ATTENTION .96X USERS

Skin this and your CustomInventory woes will go away.

Post by **Enjay** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 0:19

That allows Custominventory mods to work in 96x but I don't think it enables normal inventory mods in GZdoom and newer Zdooms, does it?

Anyway my Â£0.02, I fully agree with Graf's stance on this issue. Graf is keeping GZdoom in step with Zdoom. In fact, from a certain point of view, he's a step ahead. Graf has explained why the code has changed and a backwards compat catch-all seems pointless for the small number of mods that are actually affected by it.

It was always the case that 96x was an unofficial build and basing anything on it was always going to be a gamble. We are lucky that the only real problem is this very minor change to inventory handling - and it's easy to fix. The number of released mods that it affects (AFAIK) can be counted on the fingers of one... well one finger. There are still occasional contributions seeping in for the WRW so (I don't know, but I suspect) it will be updated at some point anyway, presumably the inventory code will be fixed then.

I can understand a bit of a delay in making the change to the WRW because there will be a reasonable number of people resisting moving to GZDoom for various reasons, so 96x is still a suitable target for the WRW. However, as soon as Randy releases a version that includes all the 96x stuff, 96x becomes obsolete. The two up to date engines at that point will be Zdoom and GZdoom - neither will support the old inventory handling.

Let's also not forget that the WRW is a resource wad. It's not intended to be used as a mod itself. You are supposed to copy the weapons you want and their code into your own mod. If you're using the WRW as intended, it will be easy to add the fix yourself because you're going to have to edit the decorate lump anyway.

Side issue: Does anyone know if there are plans for the "community builds" after Randy releases his new version? I see little point in them myself, once that happens, but I just wondered if they were going to, I dunno, be used as test-beds for possible features or something?

Deathlike2 · Post by **Deathlike2** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 0:32

Looking at the point at which we are, I think the community builds are a terrible concept because it fragments the ZDoom base. I'm not a mapper and I don't claim to know what they think, but as a user I think that's a terrible problem. With Sourceforge now using SVN (which I think will be invaluable in future for ZDoom), I think there can be some "special builds" that play around with new features and can test them to see if keeping such a feature is worthwhile... (SVN to my understanding has better code control...)

Then again.. I think the infamous "floating point" version of ZDoom needs to be out first.. since there's been numerous times this has been mentioned and has probably hindered progress of other things that mappers want implemented.

DoomRater · Post by **DoomRater** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 5:23

Fixing inventory to custominventory isn't that bad a move anyway- When Grubber finishes that Class implementation I'll be using CustomInventory like nuts to make sure that each player gets the proper weapon.

(A side note: Remember that TDA and Enjay joke like this a lot)