Search the Community

As I explained above, if I would split my patch into pieces, most of it would be similar to your mod where you can do this already ;). Also I see this as a small personal project so to me it's enough to extract everything into the TDM folder and be ready to go! I made an installer for my Bloodlines patch and I also had this be modular some time ago, but in the end it proved to be a nightmare for finding bugs because everybody could have a different combination of installed features.

Open questions for all. As a mere player, have you ever modified other games? Have you installed unofficial fixes, patches, updates, upgrades, expansions, mods? Were you happy it all was well documented? Were you happy that you could control what was being installed? Were you happy that it worked? Were you happy that you could install other stuff alongside without problems? Were you happy that you could uninstall it? Did you care about the authors or flame wars going on in obscure places of the internet? Players download stuff, sometimes read the instructions, install it and judge it. ---------------------------------- My friend Wesp5, Listen to the feedback. As a start, I would like to see the patch, or parts of it, in pk4 format. If you were to split your patch into standalone mods, which mods would you produce?

My impression was that the unofficial patch has become a large collection of various tweaks and features by various authors, or at least that's what it was being marketed as. Making it modular has significant advantages for those who might want certain parts, rather than the exact same combination as the one you endorsed. It also makes your patch collection more futureproof in case you add stuff that not everyone wants to have. In any case, it's advisable to at least adapt the file structure to the new addon conventions so that players are able to install other addons alongside yours.

I really don't see a need for this. The two core features of the patch are removing the K.O. immunity and extinguishing of oil lamps. If you don't want the former you don't need the patch at all and if you don't want the latter, just don't do it. The rest are smaller changes and some new skills from Snatcher's mod, so if you only want those you better install his mod :)!

I think the ask from datiswous and perhaps dragofer is that you split your patch into different parts so users can install the ones they like from both you and other mod authors. The new 2.12 feature is designed to allow this.

@wesp5 You have a couple of def on the loose in the script folder in version 20(.8) Thinking of players, and players alone, it is time to re-think the Unofficial Patch, yes.

I figured this was only done to avoid missions breaking if they add their own stuff. Checking out the link above it doesn't seem to work with init scripts where most of the changes of the patch are. If I rename the tdm_user_addons file I get an redeclaring user_addon_init error and if I rename that, all the patch scripts are gone. So what am I doing wrong here?

I have updated the patch for 2.12, here is the changelog: v2.0 04.03.2023 ---- Added names being shown on frobing bodies or items, thanks Snatcher. Resorted mission list including "A" and "The" in alphabetical order. Updated to version 2.12 and removed several fixes that are included. Moved helper options from the gameplay page to the difficulty page.

I took a quick look at the training mission and I didn't notice many changes in the first place. Some new windows on walls that didn't have them, but was something gameplay related changed? I found there are still a lot of unique items missing in the object handling section which I added in my patch for example. The main issue I have with the TDM training mission hasn't been tackled, namely that it isn't a mission at all, just a loose collection of tutorial areas. Which is fine when you want come back and re-train something, but bad if you want new players to have fun discovering TDM! Yes, the two campaign missions try to do the latter, but in other games the training/tutorial is done much better in a linear fashion (e.g. Half-Life and Opposing Force) or is even integrated in a story (Bloodlines and many others). It would probably be a lot of work, but maybe it would be possible to modify the training mission, so it represents a linear sequence in which you learn one basic principle after another while actually playing a mission that is has a story and is fun! If you really think people are going to replay it, maybe shortcuts could be added to the single areas. Right now all areas start from a central room, maybe they could be connected so that there is one way where you enter a door and go around the whole room to exit at the end? (If people agree, that the training mission should be changed, maybe we should open a new thread for this discussion.)

Welcome to the forums Ansome! And congrats on making it to beta phase!

"...to a robber whose soul is in his profession, there is a lure about a very old and feeble man who pays for his few necessities with Spanish gold." Good day, TDM community! I'm Ansome, a long-time forums lurker, and I'm here to recruit beta testers for my first FM: "The Terrible Old Man", based on H.P. Lovecraft's short story of the same name. This is a short (30-45 minute), story-driven FM with plenty of readables and a gloomy atmosphere. Do keep in mind that this is a more linear FM than you may be used to as it was deemed necessary for the purposes of the story's pacing. Regardless, the player does still have a degree of freedom in tackling challenges in the latter half of the FM. If this sounds interesting to you, please head over to the beta testing thread I will be posting shortly. Thank you!

This one has nothing to do with the change. It happens in 2.11 too. I have no idea what is wrong here, and why one patch casts shadow while the other similar one does not. There is even auxilliary surface with "shadow" material inside the stairs, which should also cast shadow but it does not.

It seems the unsnapped vertices were a bit of a red herring. The cause was simpler: the textures just don't align. When copying a shader from a receding/slanting surface to another one, the texture is tilted/rotated (like the side of an inclined wall made of bricks: it will "point" downwards) and this, I assume, happens to the patch too. If you "unrotate" it so the side of the bricks stays parallel to the ground, there's a seam as the textures are misaligned. It became obvious when using a tiling surface. I have managed to align the slanted surfaces at eye level, but the farther up or down you go, and the more sides you add to the object, the more misaligned they get. With a flat texture like plaster and some trimming, it could be hidden quite well I think. In case this is useful to someone, or for any future noob, here are a few pictures:

Hi, I'm messing around with patches to see what can be done with them, and I have a couple of questions. None are critical issues, as a matter of fact, I doubt I'd notice them or cared if I were playing someone else's map, but as I'm learning, knowing what can't be done is sometimes as important as what can be done. Here's the thing: is it possible to bevel a surface not parallel to one of the orthogonal axes, in other words, a slanted bevel? To be more specific: I'm having problems with snapping it to the grid; it doesn't want to. I mean, I have done the bevel, and it looks nice from a distance, but the slanted surface refuses to snap to the grid, which causes a visible, although small, seam (or at least I assume that's the reason.) And projecting the texture is also a bit of pain. Let's see if I can attach a picture... OK... [a few/lots of minutes later] messing around with it one side now looks much better (almost imperceptible seam, tbh,) but the other side still looks off. I still can't snap to the grid the four corners (interestingly, it's the main brush, the frustum, the one that refuses, not the bevel, which is perfectly snapped). I can snap three of the four corners, but there is always one that shifts on its own will, even when using the smallest grid. See the next two pictures, where I have the main brush and the patch selected; the dots overlap except that one. And if I snap that one, another will shift (clockwise? I think.) I mean, that's like... what, 1/3 of 1/8 of a Doom Unit? 1mm? Not game-breaking, really, and nothing that can't be hidden with some trim or just in shadows, but I wonder if there's a technique for this or what I did wrong. [Hmmm, after some thinking, I wonder if my issue was creating the original cube on grid X and then cutting the triangular corner for the bevel on a different grid size so the corners were weirdly placed... I'd have to test that out] And speaking of seams, is it possible to make a smooth texture transition from the surface of a cylinder (or ring or whatever) to its cap? See the third picture, which is the rounded base of a column. If it's not (or it takes a lot of effort or editing), then it's no big deal, as there are more important things to worry about. But if there's a quick & easy way (natural projection hasn't worked for me in this instance), it would be good to know. Thanks!

New script for mappers: my flavour of a fog density fading script. To add this to your FM, add the line "thread FogIntensityLoop();" to your map's void main() function (see the example in fogfade.script) and set "fog_fade" "1" on each foglight to enable script control of it. Set "fog_intensity_multiplier" on each info_location entity to change how thick the fog is in that location (practically speaking it's a multiplier for visibility distance). Lastly, "fog_fade_speed" on each foglight determines how quickly it will change its density. The speed scales with the current value of shaderParm3, using shaderParm3 = 1000 as a baseline. So i.e. if shaderParm is currently at 1/10th of 1000, then fade speed will be 1/10th as fast. Differences to Obsttorte's script: https://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?/topic/14394-apples-and-peaches-obsttortes-mapping-and-scripting-thread/&do=findComment&comment=310436 my script uses fog lights you created, rather than creating one for you. Obsttorte's script will delete the foglight if entering a fogfree zone and recreate it later more than one fog light can be controlled (however, no per-fog-light level of control) adding this to the map requires adding a line to your void main() script, rather than adding an info_locations_settings entity with a custom scriptobject spawnarg in my script, mappers set a multiplier of fog visibility distance (shaderParm3), while in Obsttorte's script a "fog_density" spawnarg is used as an alternative to shaderParm3 smaller and less compactly written script fogfade.scriptfogfade.map

Great take on it and solution from what I understand! Will the normal Beta 6 contain this patch? If so it's easier to wait till then, otherwise if it's important I can of course give the test build a try given it doesn't mess with my normal install.

As of v3.8 and as reported in 5467, DR only supports prefab tooltips for prefabs that contain a worldspawn entity (at least one brush or patch that's left as worldspawn) with an editor_description spawnarg. This is problematic because most prefabs don't contain such an entity, so if a prefab creator desires to include a tooltip something like a brush cube needs to be added to the prefab (see for instance 6267). This is a little messy as the mapper might not understand its purpose or forget to remove it after placing the prefab. It's also tricky to create a series of prefabs with descriptions in a single map because there can only be one editor_description spawnarg in the map at a time, so the creator has to store each tooltip in an external file like a Notepad .txt. I think an ideal solution to this would be that DR prompts for a description when exporting something as a prefab. The prompt window could already be populated if the mapper is overwriting an existing prefab with a description, or if the selection contains a worldspawn entity with an editor_description spawnarg. More flexibility in making tooltips for prefab would imo certainly be a valuable quality of life improvement.

Here's my first FM. A small and easy mission, inspired by Thief's Den and The Bakery Job, where you must find and steal a cook's recipe book in order to save a friend from going out of business. Download: Mediafire (sk_cooks.pk4) TDM Website's Mission Page The in-game mission downloader Thanks to: The people who helped me get this far, both in the forums and on Discord. The beta testers: MirceaKitsune, Mat99, Baal, wesp5, Cambridge Spy, jaxa, grodenglaive, Acolytesix ( Per the author in the beta testing thread. ) Skaruts has given permission to the TDM Team to add Subtitles or Localization Strings to this mission. (No EFX Reverb.) If anyone from the Community or TDM team wishes to create these we will gladly test them and update the mission database.

With TDM 2.12, after the credits finished, the "Mission Complete" screen did not display. I found that the screen was black and I could hear my footsteps when I tried to move around. I think the reason for the mission not completing successfully was that the "Do not kill or harm allies" objective was never marked as "1 = STATE_COMPLETE" instead it was left as "0 = STATE_INCOMPLETE". Note, I didn't use noclip throughout the mission. Same as: https://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?/topic/18054-fan-mission-the-accountant-2-new-in-town-by-goldwell-20160509/&do=findComment&comment=458491

How about using TDM automation framework (and maybe pcem/qemu)? More info see: https://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?/topic/19828-automation-features-and-discussion/

To cater to both audiences. I mentioned LibreGameWiki as one example. nbohr1more mentioned other uses. Explicitly allowing reuse and spread will help TDM reach a wider audience and would hopefully attract more volunteers. More volunteers which can help improve both TDM versions. There are several benefits for a project of being in the Debian repo. One is that TDM Debian-users can report defects on any package directly to Debian (no need to register on separate forums). Debian may then fix the issue themselves (in their "TDM-libre" package) and will offer the patch upstream to TDM, who can then choose to accept or reject the patch. I envision "TDM-libre" to have the same capability of downloading any mission as regular TDM. The only difference is that "TDM-libre" would come packaged with the regular engine (which is GPL+BSD) and an included mission that has libre media/gamedata. When I play TDM by myself, I want the unlimited-play and can accept commercial restrictions. But if I were to promote it somewhere, or charge for a stream when playing online, or make a video, I would want a version without commercial restrictions (and can temporarily accept limited-play) to make sure I don't violate anyone's copyright. Perhaps. That's what I'm trying to find out.

Hmm, I might need this patch some day..

I agree, which is the reason why I made mission sorting in my patch like this, which is also how missions are sorted elsewhere in the web.

I suggest you use the term "I", to make clear that it is something YOU want, and that you speak for yourself. But, as wesp5 mentioned, I don't really know what this is about, at all. And, I'm also wondering about all the newly registered people lately, who just arrived at this forum, and already want to revolutionize this mod. This is a thing I noticed 2 or 3 years ago, and which hasn't been present in the 15 years I play this mod and frequent these forums now. Really seems like a common thing these days, to not knock on the door, but kick it in, and stomp right in.