dsda-doom v0.27.1 [split - zoom removal / endoom again]

I agree, it's easy. But printing text to stdout is even easier, and there are plenty of programs that can display it. Even the current version of cmd.exe can do it, and offers nice features like modern fonts.

I don't necessarily mind this thread being split, as tbh my first post was only half about ENDOOM. I'm actually a little disappointed that the second point has been overshadowed tbh.

I do find it a little disingenuous that it is labeled as a "panic" thread though, since I've been respectful and calm this entire time. I'm a little surprised that having a simple discussion would lead to it being perceived as "panicking"... but that is neither here nor there.

7 hours ago, dsda-dev said:

If someone doesn't like to tinker and also doesn't want to use the launcher, then endoom doesn't exist for them.

I would to clarify that this isn't in my best interest necessarily. As I said, personally I could just create a BAT file as I'm well acquainted with them. Yeah I'll agree I'm not crazy about the implementation. In fact, if you've read the entire thread I even say that I just currently have the ENDOOM feature disabled entirely.

I brought this up because of the comments that people make on like every DSDA Doom thread about ENDOOM. You can ignore the casual users that don't wanna tinker, but they are going to constantly come back and complain about it... So the next time this topic comes up, it won't be me, and it won't be my fault as I have suggested solutions to avoid ENDOOM ever being talked about again in association with DSDA Doom.

2 hours ago, Redneckerz said:

This is absolutely amazing. @Arsinikk get in here!

I'll check this out, though a viewer in of itself isn't that much of use. It's only if it was tied with the closing of a program funneling the ENDOOM information, that it would become useful imo.

1 hour ago, rfomin said:

I agree, it's easy. But printing text to stdout is even easier, and there are plenty of programs that can display it. Even the current version of cmd.exe can do it, and offers nice features like modern fonts.

You are a Linux user, aren't you?

12 minutes ago, Arsinikk said:

I do find it a little disingenuous that it is labeled as a "panic" thread though, since I've been respectful and calm this entire time. I'm a little surprised that having a simple discussion would lead to it being perceived as "panicking"... but that is neither here nor there.

16 hours ago, Arsinikk said:

2) This was actually done in the latest major release of DSDA Doom, but I'm not really a fan of removing features from the port that were in the original Doom. To this point, I am specifically talking about the screen zoom being removed.

 

You'd expect source ports to generally keep features included in the original game, and expand features on top of it. It seems strange to me, for original features to be stripped out (just to clarify, I am not talking about ENDOOM here, as ENDOOM is technically outputted after the program is closed, so you could see it as not part of the original game in a way).

 

I'm not saying I actually use this features (I don't), but it's more about what removing this features means for the future. It means that you have no problems stripping out other stuff from the game that was there originally, and that honestly concerns me. What other features will you decide to strip out of the port, since original features such as that have been removed? I often tend to joke about this with other Doomers, but I do find it a bit worrying... I can't wait to see the HELP screen get removed in a later update.

I will remove the "panic" from the split title but I'm highlighting why I labeled it as such here, it's just a slippery slope argument. I apologize that it comes off as disingenuous, perhaps I am a bit jaded from the routines of "DSDA-Doom release -> split out noise from main thread" and "DSDA rules discussion -> split out noise from people who don't even run the game or use the port".

I agree. Legacy features SHOULD NOT be stripped out of the game like this. It's just hacky design. If this is being done to "de-clutter" the options menu or something, then maybe pursuing a more robust way of organizing the menus would be the best choice going forward. This is something that Build engine ports like EDuke32 excel with because it prioritizes a good user experience and makes important stuff easy to find.

7 minutes ago, OpenRift said:

maybe pursuing a more robust way of organizing the menus

That also sounds like a way to open up a lot of complaints :)

9 minutes ago, GarrettChan said:

That also sounds like a way to open up a lot of complaints :)

People are already complaining about the removal of features. That is just objectively worse than reorganizing the menus.

Just now, OpenRift said:

People are already complaining about the removal of features. That is just objectively worse than reorganizing the menus.

How about just reorganizing the peoples? :D

Just now, GarrettChan said:

How about just reorganizing the peoples? :D

huh

21 minutes ago, OpenRift said:

If this is being done to "de-clutter" the options menu or something, then maybe pursuing a more robust way of organizing the menus would be the best choice going forward.

The feature in question doesn't even have an entry in the game's options menu, I'd suggest reading the rest of the thread before making a post about something you're obviously uninformed about.

Do not make me have to split this thread again, thanks.

38 minutes ago, Maribo said:

The feature in question doesn't even have an entry in the game's options menu, I'd suggest reading the rest of the thread before making a post about something you're obviously uninformed about.


Do not make me have to split this thread again, thanks.

The feature in question also wasn't mentioned by name either, so I wasn't sure what feature Arsinikk was referring to specifically. I was just talking about in general the removal of features such as PC speaker emulation (which was in fact removed in 0.27.2) just isn't a good design practice. I don't think that's off-topic or spreading misinformation.

1 hour ago, Maribo said:

Do not make me have to split this thread again, thanks.

I can't wait for the Dsda-doom v0.27.1 Expanded Universe, featuring over 50 threads for dedicated fans of the Dsda-doom v0.27.1 Lore.

I personally like playing with the screen small sometimes because it reminds me of how i played as a kid. I dont really care about it being removed, though, and I think dsda-doom is pretty rad and I'd love to offer my endless gratitude for kraflab and co. for their work on the port. I think a dsda-doom-like port more for non-runners is something someone should take up, though, because there's an obvious gap in the market as these threads seem to demonstrate. (not it)

DSDA-Doom is so good. I wish we had it when I was a kid! 

1 hour ago, OpenRift said:

The feature in question also wasn't mentioned by name either, so I wasn't sure what feature Arsinikk was referring to specifically.

19 hours ago, Arsinikk said:

2) This was actually done in the latest major release of DSDA Doom, but I'm not really a fan of removing features from the port that were in the original Doom. To this point, I am specifically talking about the screen zoom being removed.

Maybe it would have been easier to grok if the thread didn't immediately veer off into an ENDOOM discussion for the umpteenth time. Never said anything about misinformation though, there's a difference between simply being uninformed and actively spreading misinformation. As to whether it's good design practice to remove old features - this is definitely arguable, and is in no way "hacky" as you suggested before. DSDA-Doom hasn't had multiplayer support (a core feature of vanilla Doom) since very early versions (edit: since 0.22 actually. not exactly "early", but removed 2 years ago), yet no one is clamoring over that removal and calling it "hacky" or "not good design".

54 minutes ago, Mr Masker said:

I can't wait for the Dsda-doom v0.27.1 Expanded Universe, featuring over 50 threads for dedicated fans of the Dsda-doom v0.27.1 Lore.

Did you know that I discovered the bug in DSDA-Doom v0.27.1 where -dsdademo format demos would desync within a few seconds of recording? There's some fresh lore for the dedicated DSDA-Doom v0.27.1 followers.

20 minutes ago, Andrea Rovenski said:

I think a dsda-doom-like port more for non-runners is something someone should take up, though, because there's an obvious gap in the market as these threads seem to demonstrate. (not it)

I agree. I'd love to see a port  that has the same focus of QoL options that Woof and it's daughter Nugget-Doom have, but with DSDA-Doom's hardware renderer, smooth light fade, and high resolution options (altho recent Nugget versions do have options for 800p and 1600p scaling, those options do reveal Woof's renderer still being far less efficient in performance as DSDA's)

46 minutes ago, No-Man Baugh said:

(altho recent Nugget versions do have options for 800p and 1600p scaling, those options do reveal Woof's renderer still being far less efficient in performance as DSDA's)

How did you test this? DSDA-Doom's software renderer has nearly identical performance to Nugget's at matching resolutions. A classic test case is Eviternity MAP26 where the opening scene is 55 fps in DSDA, 53 fps in Nugget, and 51 fps in Eternity Engine (multithreading disabled) at 2844x1600.

I'm guessing you were using the OpenGL renderer and not the software renderer which is roughly the same among every source port with optimizations by Killough and others over the years. The only exceptions to this are Rum&Raisin and more recently Eternity Engine's experimental multithreading in test builds.

41 minutes ago, ceski said:

 

How did you test this? DSDA-Doom's software renderer has nearly identical performance to Nugget's at matching resolutions. A classic test case is Eviternity MAP26 where the opening scene is 55 fps in DSDA, 53 fps in Nugget, and 51 fps in Eternity Engine (multithreading disabled) at 2844x1600.

My point being is that Woof and Nugget only has the software renderer and that could be a big deal breaker for people who would prefer OpenGL either for performance or aesthetics without playing on lower resolutions (altho even comparing DSDA's opengl and Nugget both on 1600p I got way closer fps counts than I was expecting on my macbook m1, with an average of 28 or so on Nugget and 30 on DSDA opengl)

2 hours ago, Maribo said:

DSDA-Doom hasn't had multiplayer support (a core feature of vanilla Doom) since very early versions (edit: since 0.22 actually. not exactly "early", but removed 2 years ago), yet no one is clamoring over that removal and calling it "hacky" or "not good design".

This is a fair point, in that Vanilla did have multiplayer support. I don't think there was any blowback to this because the casual audience doesn't really care for multiplayer support. In general, if you are going to play multiplayer, you'd go towards a multiplayer centric port such as ZDaemon, Odamex, or Zandronum. I think that there is a bit of a difference between the singleplayer and multiplayer "players", and DSDA Doom with an emphasis on new features would appeal much more to singleplayer, than multiplayer.

2 hours ago, Andrea Rovenski said:

I personally like playing with the screen small sometimes because it reminds me of how i played as a kid. I dont really care about it being removed, though, and I think dsda-doom is pretty rad and I'd love to offer my endless gratitude for kraflab and co. for their work on the port. I think a dsda-doom-like port more for non-runners is something someone should take up, though, because there's an obvious gap in the market as these threads seem to demonstrate. (not it)

I agree that these threads seem to stem from DSDA Doom trying to serve two audiences: speedrunners and non-speedrunners, and it's sorta causing a divide when some features are removed for the casual audience of the port. These threads are evidence of that.

I realise that the port was initially created for speedrunners, but it would be a mistake to ignore that DSDA Doom is the main port used by many casual users. It is the only source port with rewind and an Indexed OpenGL render mode. It makes sense that it would draw in many casuals in general with the technical advancements it has made. I am very grateful to Kraflab and what DSDA Doom has become, but it's also clear that his focus is only towards the speedrunner group, with casual features being pushed to the side (or just straight up removed).

I think alot of these threads could be avoided if a specific fork was made that focuses more on QoL aspects and non-runners to make casual players more happy, that pulls in the updates made from the main DSDA Doom branch. Tbh I haven't pushed very hard for a new port or fork, because I am not a programmer that has the ability to make such a port. Plus, it feels a bit hypocritical to me to push for something that I cannot attribute any programming skills to.

Honest question: what are the casual players features that DSDA lacks or removes? I am one of those "casuals" and I don't find anything "exclusive" in the program's offer. It's extremely comfortable instead for simple pick-up and play sessions, and all the options for speedrunners and TAS users that are there... well, I simply ignore 'cause I'm not interested in those but I don't feel my experience being dimished by any means, even if these options are supposed to be the "philosophical" core of the port. I can actually get their benefits in a lateral way - incredibly smooth and precise mouse movement, rewind, level table, etc... Features very pleasant and useful for casuals as well.

Could you explain what a person being a speedrunner has to do with either of the features you mentioned in the op? Explain to me how my focus is only on speedrunners. Anyone can see in the patch notes that it's not true. Do you think speedrunners were clamoring for new mapping tools or finite height?

The philosophical core of the port is more about compatibility and consistency than speedrunning in particular. That core happens to be important for speedrunning, but it also ends up being relevant for mapping and casual play as well. I pretty much implement any feature I think is interesting and they come more often from mappers and casual players than from speedrunners.

18 minutes ago, dsda-dev said:

Could you explain what a person being a speedrunner has to do with either of the features you mentioned in the op?

It's honestly really simple. In a general sense, if you are speedrunner, you care about how fast the program runs and make sure to focus on un-bloating a program with unnecessary stuff that could lead to slower load time.

Speaking of ENDOOM, you said that you cut out the original implementation due to bloat. So I would assume that's why the new implementation is much lighter than the previous implementation. However you still get comments on every thread (not by me) about how they find the ENDOOM implementation unsatisfactory. It is true that DSDA Doom does implement ENDOOM in a different way than any other port that also has support for it. By casual audience, I am referring to non-speedrunners. Many non-speedrunners tend to not wanna dabble with BAT files and the like (speaking generally ofc, there are always exceptions). Keep in mind, the only reason I brought this up in the first place is because even before my post, someone asked about a fullscreen ENDOOM. It's clear for the amount of threads and posts that the feature is in demand.

Speaking of the removed zoom levels, the only reason I could think to cut that out would also be for bloat. The only players that would ever use that are players that use DSDA Doom casually. There's no reason to mess with that if you are recording demos. My concern is that what you may find unimportant, other players may enjoy that feature, and so it's strange to me that you'd cut something that most likely didn't affect the program in the long run, but just to cut it out (this can be seen as speculation... however I have not seen an explanation to counter it).

Perhaps I may be misguided when I say that the source port caters to speedrunners. However it's clear that the speedrunner group cares very little for the ENDOOM features as a whole, and probably cares very little about the zoom feature. Those features however would be something that casual players would be more interested in. The reason I mention speedrunning in general is because you specifically have hammered home that the port was created for the initial purpose of catering to speedrunners, so it would only make sense for decisions to be made to benefit that group. However I do think that some features you deem unimportant (possibly due to your own personal focus of speedrunning) and decide to cut out from the port make it a little harder for casual players to enjoy your port. I think it's much less about the features being removed, and more that they seem like minor things to remove in the first place.

I say all this in respect for you and your craft, so don't take this as an attack, but just cuz you find something unimportant doesn't mean other people do. It's a flawed assumption to expect players to just follow along how you think about things, and that's why I find it strange when you respond so harshly to the features that you may find unimportant, and since they keep cropping up, obviously are important to some people.

36 minutes ago, dsda-dev said:

Do you think speedrunners were clamoring for new mapping tools or finite height?

I'm glad that you are adding new features to port. It is true that the new features are for everyone. Tbh I think this further divides the audience as if they want rewind, UDMF, and indexed renderer, there is only one port that supports all of those. And yet this port doesn't support a fullscreen ENDOOM, vanilla zoom, nor classic opengl renderer. It's only natural that many players would ask for the features that have been removed from an advanced port that has features that no other port provides.

I'd rather not go into depth about the classic opengl renderer, however I will say that many early 2010 PWADs have been designed around that renderer's light modes. That seems like a valid criticism / ask from players. (even if say implementing the opengl renderer breaks some aspects of this renderer, it goes a long way telling people about why it is currently cut, instead of being abrasive against them).

49 minutes ago, s4f3s3x said:

Honest question: what are the casual players features that DSDA lacks or removes? I am one of those "casuals" and I don't find anything "exclusive" in the program's offer. It's extremely comfortable instead for simple pick-up and play sessions, and all the options for speedrunners and TAS users that are there... well, I simply ignore 'cause I'm not interested in those but I don't feel my experience being dimished by any means, even if these options are supposed to be the "philosophical" core of the port. I can actually get their benefits in a lateral way - incredibly smooth and precise mouse movement, rewind, level table, etc... Features very pleasant and useful for casuals as well.

Tbf not everyone is the same, and I'm sure there are going to doomers like you that are fine with how DSDA Doom is.

But with some of these threads, and some of the recurring complaints, obviously there are doomers that find parts of the program that bother them.

I mean, I'm not the only one that sees that it's just the DSDA Doom that ends up with these kind of threads. Other source ports do not end up this way because they either implement the features or the developers make an effort to communicate with players about why certain features are cut. So far regarding many features of this port, it seems things were just cut because DSDA-Dev didn't see them as important. Most of the time, when devs cut something it's because of a specific reason like it caused [blank] to break or something like that. Many people just feel like DSDA Doom features are getting cut just on a whim, especially minor things that seem to be cut for seemingly no reason.

If you wanna know about the features that DSDA Doom lacks, it's some of what I mentioned before: fullscreen ENDOOM, vanilla zoom, classic opengl renderer, etc.

Keep in mind, this would be fine if there was another port with similar new features like rewind, UDMF in a classic doom port, opengl indexed renderer also in it. The problem is that if you want those features, especially rewind, DSDA Doom is your only option.

3 hours ago, dsda-dev said:

Could you explain what a person being a speedrunner has to do with either of the features you mentioned in the op? Explain to me how my focus is only on speedrunners. Anyone can see in the patch notes that it's not true. Do you think speedrunners were clamoring for new mapping tools or finite height?

 

The philosophical core of the port is more about compatibility and consistency than speedrunning in particular. That core happens to be important for speedrunning, but it also ends up being relevant for mapping and casual play as well. I pretty much implement any feature I think is interesting and they come more often from mappers and casual players than from speedrunners.

While that is true, remember what subforum we are in here?

As long as DSDA is hosted in the 'demos' section that misconception will continue to hold on. Why not sticky the main development thread in the 'source ports' section? That'd send a clearer message.

Concerning ENDOOM, I am actually a bit surprised how popular it still is, so to satisfy your users and put this ever recurring discussion to rest, would it really be too much work to add a simple in-engine ENDOOM display? It'd obviously make lots of people happy and done right won't be a drag on the engine either.

10 hours ago, Arsinikk said:

It's honestly really simple

You know next to nothing about speedrunners or source port development but have decided to take up strong opinions about how everything works and why decisions are made. You also decided to ignore the flaws in your argument that I brought up and instead doubled down on them. Your assumptions about why I make decisions are wrong and your assumptions about speedrunners are wrong. Your assumptions about casual players are wrong too. Why do some people feel the need to be so loud with their ignorance? Is it the lure of the spotlight?

By the way you can't just say all respect and then repeatedly attack my character and intelligence. I do consider being told I ignore most of the players, as well as saying I'm too dumb to realize other people think differently than me to be personal attacks. There is no other way to take that.

12 hours ago, Arsinikk said:

This is a fair point, in that Vanilla did have multiplayer support. I don't think there was any blowback to this because the casual audience doesn't really care for multiplayer support. In general, if you are going to play multiplayer, you'd go towards a multiplayer centric port such as ZDaemon, Odamex, or Zandronum.

Well, I have to say something about this. This shows that you only care about specific feature *that you have a chance to use somehow* removal instead of keeping the integrity of whole basic game thing... You think there's no blowback, but in reality it has. We probably just don't go to the DSDA-Doom thread and argue that whatever it should be kept. I'm also a bit disappointed that DSDA-Doom doesn't support multiplayer, but oh well, it's what it is. These ports you mentioned, they changed the game a lot, so I don't enjoy playing any multiplayer on any of these ports.

12 hours ago, Arsinikk said:

It is the only source port with rewind

PrBoomX

12 hours ago, Arsinikk said:

I think alot of these threads could be avoided if a specific fork was made that focuses more on QoL aspects and non-runners to make casual players more happy, that pulls in the updates made from the main DSDA Doom branch.

From DOOM With LOVE was created with that in mind, but it was quickly abandoned - that tells me that the demand for such a fork is diminute at best.

11 hours ago, Arsinikk said:

I'd rather not go into depth about the classic opengl renderer, however I will say that many early 2010 PWADs have been designed around that renderer's light modes.

^{[citation needed]}

11 hours ago, Arsinikk said:

UDMF in a classic doom port

The Eternity Engine

52 minutes ago, Andromeda said:

From DOOM With LOVE was created with that in mind, but it was quickly abandoned - that tells me that the demand for such a fork is diminute at best.

My experience about such projects has always been that they come fast and go fast - the only way to have something lasting is to convince the parent project to integrate these, i.e. make a pull request out of them.

16 hours ago, Andrea Rovenski said:

DSDA-Doom is so good. I wish we had it when I was a kid! 

Yes yes exactly. 💯💯💯💯

Screenblocks (viewport size) code is very messy and I am totally on board with any port that wants to either turn it black or remove it altogether.