ID24 - a new feature set standard

[msx2plus]

sam, that's raven's own post. please try to keep the conversation clear. [disregard, user updated post] and raven, in gunman's favor, they don't say OP, just "the thread" - i'm not going to dig through to find where that is stated by one of the authors, if it is, but again, clear conversation.

[Ravendesk]

4 minutes ago, msx2plus said:

sam, that's raven's own post. please try to keep the conversation clear. [disregard, user updated post] and raven, in gunman's favor, they don't say OP, just "the thread" - i'm not going to dig through to find where that is stated by one of the authors, if it is, but again, clear conversation.

Yeah it is not in the op, it's a short mention from Xaser among hundreds of other replies and it's first stated after the lot of concerns were already raised. He might have mentioned it in his other posts later, too. I think if you want to present your spec as a draft it should have a word "draft" in the title. And in the OP. And in the spec itself. It is weird to be surprised that people don't view it as draft.

 

I have no desire to dive into semantics about what constitutes "thread" but I think we can all agree here that the presentation of this spec as a draft is not clear at all. I am just asking for a very minimal respect and a good faith approach, because it's perfectly reasonable for anyone to not see this presented as a draft.

[esselfortium]

The OP does say that this is version 0.9.1, not the final 1.0 spec.

[Gez]

12 minutes ago, Ravendesk said:

Can you be so kind to point in the OP where it says "draft" or "request for comments".

It's not said that clearly, no. However:

On samedi 10 août 2024 at 6:13 AM, GooberMan said:

Most of the code exists in Rum and Raisin Doom right now. But not all of it. Xaser filled in a number of cracks and features that I didn’t have time to implement/bug fix/just plain do properly in the first place, and as such R&R actually isn’t ID24 compliant right now - and in fact is called RNR24 in there. Everything required for full compliance will be making it back into the Rum and Raisin Github in the near future (ie when I have the time).

 

We also didn’t get to finish everything before we had to upload our builds to consoles. So as it stands right now, even Doom + Doom II is not fully ID24 compliant. Check my github logs, you can see how close to the wire I was at getting things done (and full disclosure, this is not my day job and thanks to needing to travel to Australia for a couple of months for said job I didn’t have as much time as I would have liked to get everything in order with time to spare). My intention however is for Rum and Raisin to be ID24 1.0.0 compliant at a minimum.

So:

"it's not finished"

"I didn't have the time to complete it"

"not even D+D2 is fully compliant at the moment"

etc.

 

None of this sounds like "I have perfected a completely finished work in its definitive version".

 

Also note that "ID24 1.0.0" here.

On samedi 10 août 2024 at 6:13 AM, GooberMan said:

The ID24 0.9.1 spec is live on a Google drive.

What's that? This is 0.9.1, not 1.0.0?

 

Does that mean that it is a sort of... draft... of what the 1.0.0 specifications will be?

On samedi 10 août 2024 at 6:13 AM, GooberMan said:

We hope y'all like what we've got here.

To me, "we hope you like it" translates to "tell us what you think about it", which is a request for comments! Gasp!

[Antkibo]

9 minutes ago, esselfortium said:

The OP does say that this is version 0.9.1, not the final 1.0 spec.

Gunman said "literally" and, even if someone appended "draft" later on, his post was very disrespectful. Some people here are being snarky to those not happy with this development, but I believe, and there's 11 pages of discussion and one locked thread as proof, that there's plenty to be, at least, suspicious about, and that's nothing to mock others about--nothing to mock on both sides, really.

[Shepardus]

I assumed it was a draft by the link saying 0.9.1 (or 0.99.1, whichever one it is) and by the mention that the implementations in R&R and the NightDive port are not complete (so how could it be final), but considering how liberally people elsewhere tag "0.x" on things that are long past what one would consider a beta or draft, I don't blame others for not reading it the same way.

[Ravendesk]

14 minutes ago, Gez said:

"it's not finished"

"I didn't have the time to complete it"

"not even D+D2 is fully compliant at the moment"

All these statements are about source ports, not about id24 standard.

 

And yes, I see the 0.9.1 version, it can mean absolutely anything. This is fully fleshed-out spec, it doesn't look like a draft. There are no blanks or author's comments in the spec. And either way there was no request for comments, "we hope you like it" doesn't count at all. For what it's worth the change between 0.9.1 and 1.0.0 could have been planned to be done behind closed doors as well. It doesn't tag people who should be most relevant to give comments either.

 

I don't understand how you can in a good faith say "it's unreasonable to see this as a finished spec". Especially since most of it is already implemented, which makes all amendment much more difficult to get through. And then you defend people who leave sarcastic mocking comments without bringing anything useful to the conversation and expect any kind of reasonable discussion afterwards, idk. 

[Trov]

I have a question about something not really defined, in GAMECONF spec's "executable" selection:

Quote

bugfixed - A limit removing mode that fixes well known bugs that outright break demo compatibility with doom1.9.

What are the bugs that are expected to be fixed in this complevel?

[Xaser]

Quick question of the moment while I'm bouncing between places IRL: I'm serious about getting a libre version of id24res.wad made, in case CC-ing the current id24res.wad isn't viable. How would folks feel about the spec if that were to exist?

 

[Shepardus]

1 minute ago, Xaser said:

Quick question of the moment while I'm bouncing between places IRL: I'm serious about getting a libre version of id24res.wad made, in case CC-ing the current id24res.wad isn't viable. How would folks feel about the spec if that were to exist?

 

FYI the Freedoom project is also working on an "FD24":

 

[Gez]

2 minutes ago, Ravendesk said:

All these statements are about source ports, not about id24 standard.

And? It seems unlikely to me that on this project, public documentation would have had priority over actually getting the new expansion ready to ship before the deadline. If he didn't have the time to implement everything he wanted, then he also didn't have the time to write all the specifications.

 

4 minutes ago, Ravendesk said:

This is fully fleshed-out spec, it doesn't look like a draft. There are no blanks or author's comments in the spec.

I did find a blatant blank earlier. "Tracker" is not a format.

7 minutes ago, Trov said:

What are the bugs that are expected to be fixed in this complevel?

Another blatant blank!

 

5 minutes ago, Ravendesk said:

Especially since most of it is already implemented, which makes all amendment much more difficult to get through.

Yes, most of the features are mostly how they're going to remain. We're not going to get to replace JSON with XML or otherwise bikeshed things.

[Ravendesk]

7 minutes ago, Xaser said:

Quick question of the moment while I'm bouncing between places IRL: I'm serious about getting a libre version of id24res.wad made, in case CC-ing the current id24res.wad isn't viable. How would folks feel about the spec if that were to exist?

 

You are just taking all the effort upon yourself, which is admirable, but I don't think it really changes anything in principle whether you personally do it or if community does it. To me CC-ing id24res.wad and changing the spec accordingly seems like the only way to satisfy both parties, and in my personal opinion that's the only good way for doom to proceed forward. But of course I don't see this being realistic either. If you can make it happen, you are a magician.

[SleepyVelvet]

19 hours ago, Xaser said:

The ID24 spec was a pitch _from_ long-time community members _to_ Bethesda. We could've hardcoded the new features into the port, or kept it all closed-source, but instead chose to do it in a way that gives maximum flexibility to modders _and_ hands over the keys to the kingdom to the community when we're all done. If this was profit-motivated, it sure would be a strange way to show it.

 

re: control of the standard, a lot of folks here are expressing concern that id or Bethesda and might pull out the rug _in the future_ by introducing some bad, conflicting thing. If that happens, I think we all trust the community to go "hell no" and reject it, regardless of precedent

 

19 hours ago, Xaser said:

When I talk about the "intent" of the spec, what I mean is that the current wording in the spec is inadequate and needs revision. The spec will be fixed to reflect the intent, once we get some time to sit down and make edits.

 

Respect.

The spec still looks fishy though from a mid-wit cynic like me, and its timing lined up with the new release hype and was dropped out of nowhere as with "new standard" in the title, which looks pushed giga hard.  Thus, people are going to be bearish.

 

Per "fishy-ness" that I think I see in my deluded eyes, not even as a port developer, there's:

• Suggests the "optional" commercial resource wad be given special treatment and tangled into the load order in a weird way (even if it can be filled with a freedoom one); 🤔
  • (would a port developer paint themselves in a corner if they do otherwise?)
• The ID24HACKED format, which is already generously fleshed out as is, somewhat handles load orders and conflicts anyways;
• The ability to be reversioned at will by scuffed forces. (even if not corrupt, developers people don't like being pressured and kited);
• Apparently people care about the reserved id ranges too (lol, 'id' ranges, no pun intended ; same thing regards to kiting too);
• maybe other stuff.

There is (at least it feels that way) a lot of cynical sandbox gray-zone area and degrees of freedom in the above for "things to go wrong", whether rug-pull or gradual creep.

 

Besides the contents of the spec, one side sees the format being pushed and thus being bearish, the other thinks it's innocent and "it's just optional, bro".  Both sides have parties that are apparently conniving and slandering.  Personally, I loosely follow DSDA stuff but am out of the loop everywhere else for the most part.  As a mountain lion looking down from the hill into the meadow:  I see the pro id24 folks dunking any chances it gets adopted elsewhere even further than when it started.

 

IMO At this point, people should just chill and go their separate ways.  If Bethesda and pals go off and do their own thing with ID24, cool.  It doesn't sound like the format's gonna get traction elsewhere at this point.  But the spec is still there, which is cool.

[msx2plus]

12 minutes ago, Ravendesk said:

the only good way for doom to proceed forward

i'd love to pick your mind on this phrasing in particular; the suggestion of doom not being able to move forward in a healthy way otherwise (regardless of id24 adoption) seems to be baked into it, but i'd like to hear the full take if that's cool with you. try as i might (and i have played the copyright/license game extensively for many years), i can't perceive the potential associated threat in an otherwise very free and very open ecosystem.

[Trov]

1 hour ago, Gez said:

Another blatant blank! 

I would have to argue that it isn't really presented that way. You'd have to fully read each line to see that it is a bit vague on the subject. And really the same is true for all of the other complevels it specifies as well as the behavior of the "option"s GAMECONF is supposed to support. Yes, reading line by line is what should be done, but the reality is people just don't do it. I think a lot of the vagueness in MBF21/UMAPINFO behaviors probably happened because the vagueness wasn't blatant enough and slipped by most people who skimmed them over, and eventually they became codified. That kind of vagueness in what from a birds eye view otherwise looks like a pretty full spec is the sort of thing Gooberman disliked about MBF21/MAPINFO.

 

To me to be a "blatant blank" it would have a gap there or a line explicitly acknowledging that it needs more specification; something you'd be able to tell "this needs more info" without fully reading it. It has to be catchable in the bird's eye view.

 

I'm not saying this to be pedantic, I think it's a real practical problem. I think to be blatant it has to draw attention to itself, but it doesn't really stand out in any way compared to everything else specified in the specs. So to prevent that it's important for the author to delineate exactly where they feel something needs more work.

 

Without that, with a scattershot "Comment on anything you want in the entire spec" approach, I don't think the "community" could focus enough to have meaningful discussion about what to change. But that's just coming from my experience working as a firmware developer in just a small team; kicking it between voices of multiple loosely linked projects probably just makes the phenomenon even worse.

 

edit: sorry for editing my post so much if you were writing a reply, I really need to think through my arguments further before hitting send.

Edited August 14 by Trov

[Shepardus]

39 minutes ago, Ravendesk said:

Especially since most of it is already implemented, which makes all amendment much more difficult to get through.

Right, this is a concern I have too. Regardless of how much the spec is intended to be a draft (I don't want to get into semantics arguing whether it looks enough like a draft), the fact that an implementation already mostly exists calls into question how much it realistically can change, versus being a "take it or leave it" situation. If this were a small change I think it'd be fine, maybe even all the better to avoid bikeshedding since oftentimes these things simply don't get done until someone pulls up their sleeves and just does it. The ID24 spec, however, makes some sweeping changes and attempts to shape future direction with its reserved ranges and what not, which makes it less comfortable to simply accept what someone's already done, whether they have the backing of a megacorporation or not.

 

All this to say that IMO the spec ought to be trimmed; reduce the scope and it'd be much less contentious.

[Ravendesk]

50 minutes ago, msx2plus said:

i'd love to pick your mind on this phrasing in particular; the suggestion of doom not being able to move forward in a healthy way otherwise (regardless of id24 adoption) seems to be baked into it, but i'd like to hear the full take if that's cool with you. try as i might (and i have played the copyright/license game extensively for many years), i can't perceive the potential associated threat in an otherwise very free and very open ecosystem.

My concerns are about id being able to influence the course of community due to having in a powerful "official" position. By influence I mean setting how the are standards being developed, what source ports people use, what dehacked people use. And a conflict of interest associated with their desire to commercialise doom mods and how this leaks into e.g. standards and potentially results in decisions that benefit id but not the community.

 

These three posts (second one is not mine but I agree with the sentiment) probably summarise my pessimistic view on the grow of commercial resources and id's involvement the best:

https://www.doomworld.com/forum/post/2833041
https://www.doomworld.com/forum/post/2833132
https://www.doomworld.com/forum/post/2833497

 

It is a bit difficult to explain all the problems I see here in short because they lie in multiple angles and it's not just a single straightforward problem in the spec.

If you want you can dm me, and I can explain in detail, as fast running forum thread might not be best suited for such a dialogue.

[Blast_Brothers]

It's a shame that circumstances got in the way of running the spec past port developers before 0.9.1. With that said, it seems like everyone recognizes the problems that caused, so am I safe to presume that key community members will be involved in the process going forward, in a way that allows them to raise objections to decisions, and considers their input sincerely?

 

I think something that would put more people at ease is if the roadmap from here to the spec being "done" was more out in the open. So I ask anyone with the ability to control what happens next to please say as much as you can about how things will be done in the future and where things are going from here. I know y'all are busy and can only say so much and whatever. But I think an explicit (even if vague) roadmap from 0.9.1 to 1.0.0 and beyond would stop some people from philosophizing so much about the developers' "true motives". The more detail the better, because the way to stop people from asking unhelpful questions is to answer them.

 

I would see such a post/thread as a nice bonus - I'm choosing to believe in the team, for now - but other people have made clear that they see it as the bare minimum.

[Redneckerz]

1 hour ago, esselfortium said:

The OP does say that this is version 0.9.1, not the final 1.0 spec.

No attack on you but are still debating this?

 

Holy heck, most of the virtriol is on the basis of a unfinished spec. Therefore most of the critique is based on non-final facts.

 

Seriously folks, take a step back and reflect on what you are arguing against. This whole back-and-forth spiel reads as insanity to the sane person.

3 hours ago, dsda-dev said:

This isn't a personal attack because it's not a question of anyone's character or intent.

If that's the case i have to wonder why you started this off on such a personal note.

[Bobby :D]

I think one thing people forget is that someone is gonna hold the IP, and as long as Doom can have any viability as a product, it will be. Maybe I'm a fumbling capital brain, but this situation, even with the relative secrecy of it's development (let alone it's spec) and the pretty fair apprehension for the property holders to do the right thing for the community, still has blooming flowers, flowers that will only grow if we set the proper boundaries here and now as a community together.

[roadworx]

what a corny way to say "shut the hell up and work together already"

 

i do agree with it regardless. instead of sitting here debating over ideals, you guys need to focus on telling the devs how they should rework the spec, what stuff to add, what to cut, what boundaries need to be in place, how to separate corporate from community, etc. id24 is here, we can't travel back in time and stop it from being developed, we need to figure out how to go forward from here and how to reach some sort of compromise instead of endlessly bickering.

[Bobby :D]

As far as I can tell, most of the people working on this project are atm either sick of not touching grass or literally sick, or a mixture of both and just want some rest. I raised my own concerns with Goober and received some comments but I know and he knows that none of it would matter if nothing is done. I'm gonna rest this one out for the most part, and I hope to see some people's concerns addressed with swiftness once the team pulls back in.

 

[Cacodemon345]

9 hours ago, General Roasterock said:

So just to recap how id Software has handled promises in the past five years:

• Doom Eternal was promised to not have purchasable microtransactions, then added them not two years after launch.
• Doom Eternal shipped without Denuvo Anti-Cheat and then had it applied in a patch months after launch without warning, only removing it after extensive pushback from the community, leaving Anti-Tamper for another several years.
• Doom Eternal had core features included in its marketing campaign with promises of development that were either cancelled years later or were outright misrepresented in their functionality.
• id Software maintains that Mick Gordon's Testimony regarding his mistreatment is false, supported by their parent company Bethesda.

So knowing this, and knowing the state of the extremely rushed together mod uploader that has received near unanimous pushback, I think it's entirely reasonable to not trust that asking for this space is where the sidewalk ends for id Software's continued monetization plans, no matter how many good buddies, who could easily be stepped over by a corporate mandate, are saying that the intentions are right. This is beyond us.

1. That I can't disagree with, but it was purely skins, and only 2 packs at that.

2. Sure, adding the Anti-Cheat like that was not acceptable, but it was never a promise that they wouldn't use some form of anti-cheat here (and they historically did since Quake 3 days) since it is pretty standard practice for FPS multiplayer games.

3. That's ultimately just a consequence of the developers not finishing the features while the game was still relevant. Who's going to try appealing to an audience that has largely faltered along with the game's relevance? I can't particularly imagine a large audience being sustainable for any primarily non-live-service games.

4. That I definitely agree with.

 

id Software isn't going to be able to influence source port development in any significant manner because of the FOSS nature of source ports. 25+ years of history dictates that the priority of source ports will still remain on historical community standards that mapsets are generally developed for. And considering that fact, I don't see why I should be very concerned about the potential monetization problems.

 

The only promise that I want from the folks at id Software and Nightdive is to set the final ID24 1.0.0 spec in stone, and to ensure no less than 5-7 years' time before a new one has to be developed.

[Lemon King]

On 8/13/2024 at 12:26 AM, Xaser said:

Warning: Big wall of text incoming!

 

[Disclaimer: There's still a bunch of recent posts I haven't replied to just yet, but this is getting long enough already.]

 

 

The ID24 spec was a pitch _from_ long-time community members _to_ Bethesda. We could've hardcoded the new features into the port, or kept it all closed-source, but instead chose to do it in a way that gives maximum flexibility to modders _and_ hands over the keys to the kingdom to the community when we're all done. If this was profit-motivated, it sure would be a strange way to show it.

 

Basically a spec from the community, sponsered by id. Which should not be an issue. The only real thing this means is those playing on official ports ala console users can now experience a vast sum of maps available. Rather than be limited to vanilla features.

[Cacodemon345]

Is it possible to re-license the DECOHACK file in the LoR expansion to be at least MIT-licensed? It seems to contain code that would be a blocker for ID24 support in GZDoom due to resembling DECORATE.

[Mr. Freeze]

It's not id Software the community would have to worry about, it's Bethesda and their legal team. While I don't put Bethsoft on the same level as Nintendo, we gotta recognize that id and Nightdive don't have final say on anything if the lawyers decide to start turning the screws. 

[Gez]

3 minutes ago, Cacodemon345 said:

Is it possible to re-license the DECOHACK file in the LoR expansion to be at least MIT-licensed? It seems to contain code that would be a blocker for ID24 support in GZDoom due to resembling DECORATE.

???

 

Yes, the entire point of DECOHACK is that it's very similar to DECORATE.

 

DECOHACK is not part of the ID24 specs. It's part of DoomTools. It's not actually used by the game; what's used is the DEHACKED file resulting from using DoomTools with that DECOHACK file.

 

Something looking like something else is not a blocker for anything?

 

Relicensing the DECOHACK source code for the LoR expansion would have no effect on anything. Not on DoomTools, not on the ID24, not on GZDoom.

[Kinsie]

14 minutes ago, Gez said:

???

 

Yes, the entire point of DECOHACK is that it's very similar to DECORATE.

 

DECOHACK is not part of the ID24 specs. It's part of DoomTools. It's not actually used by the game; what's used is the DEHACKED file resulting from using DoomTools with that DECOHACK file.

 

Something looking like something else is not a blocker for anything?

 

Relicensing the DECOHACK source code for the LoR expansion would have no effect on anything. Not on DoomTools, not on the ID24, not on GZDoom.

At this point the thread has long since reached the point of intentional misunderstandings, flagrant lies and overt whataboutism try and keep arguments going for the sole purpose of having arguments. It's long past time to put the thread to bed, make adjustments to the spec based on the rare few fragments of usable feedback, and come back in a month or two to hopefully cooler heads.

 

And while there's a lot more I could say, I'll leave it at this: The community's behavior over the last week, in both public and private spaces, has been utterly disgusting.

[Canjul]

I'd like to prefix this by saying that I'm not a programmer. I have no technical knowledge, so I'll have to ask you to forgive anything I get wrong in my very layman's read of the situation.

 

As far as I can see there are two problems, broadly-speaking, people are having with the new id24 standard. One is practical, the other a question of ideals.

 

The question of ideals is that they're uncomfortable with a megacorp like Bethesda turning its Sauron-like gaze on Classic Doom. It's not that they've done anything horribly objectionable yet, but certain community members certainly feel more comfortable being ignored entirely by them. I sympathise and share this feeling myself, to a certain extent. The idea of "new" Doom content that is walled off behind a paywall is disconcerting in a 30 year old game that's been open source for decades.

 

The practical problem is that it will split the community if high profile or otherwise excellent mapsets or projects in future require this new id24 standard and that certain fans will be locked out of these experiences unless they use it. This is a scenario that already exists in the community: plenty of high profile projects require certain source ports, whether they are things like Heartland with its Eternity Engine portals or big fuck-off slaughtermaps like Sunder that are practically impossible to run in GZDoom. Or even something like Bastion of Chaos, whose monolithic scale and GZD requirement puts the full experience outside the realm of practical politics for anyone who doesn't own a hoss of a PC.

 

I hasten to add that I'm saying nothing against the creators of any of the above experiences: they're wonderful projects whose "exclusivity," such as it is, is born from artistic necessity. But they are more exclusive than the likes of Nostalgia or other simple LR or Boom wads that fit almost any container. I stick to GZD because of certain accessibility features its moddibility offers me.

 

id24 seems to me to simply be a new toolset that authors now have access to. Same as MBF21, same as GZD, same as vanilla. And it's one whose "exclusivity" is fairly loose, thanks in large part to the longtime community veterans who were instrumental to its creation. I ran LoR in GZD, day one. There were some incompatibilities (no fancy skies or intermission screens) and even some bugs (Banshees doing no damage), but it was still totally playable and enjoyable. And lo and behold, less than 48 hours passed before Xaser fixed the banshee bug, free of charge and in an engine Bethesda have no stake in. Bethesda was never going to ignore old Doom forever, but having a guy like Xaser in the room should temper anyone's natural apprehension about their involvement. Same for Goober, Kaiser, all these legends. I mean, the alternative was what, Bethesda pushes something out without any community oversight?

 

Finally, in the interests of community spirit: if you are a fan of Doom who legit can't afford the new version, whether because you're living paycheck-to-paycheck or because you're in one of those countries with fucking ludicrous Steam prices, PM me. First five people who need it, I'll gift you a copy on Steam. This game's community is way too good to fall apart over something like this.

 

...not when we could be directing all this energy at Bethesda, telling them to fix their shitty uploader anyway.

[Andromeda]

16 minutes ago, Canjul said:

The idea of "new" Doom content that is walled off behind a paywall is disconcerting in a 30 year old game that's been open source for decades.

Important to note that it's a "paywall" that affects a diminute percentage of active classic Doom players, since everyone that owns the game on Steam/GOG/etc. is eligible to a free upgrade to the new version (as has been repeated throughout the thread).