Duke4.net Forums: Where are the Duke Nukem Forever Modding Tools? - Duke4.net Forums

Jump to content

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Where are the Duke Nukem Forever Modding Tools?  "A discussion to talk about modding tools for DNF."

User is offline   Tea Monster 

  • Polymancer

#31

View PostHendricks266, on 10 November 2014 - 10:23 PM, said:

Nah, I've got them right here.

Posted Image


Favourite post of 2014.
2

User is offline   Hank 

#32

This is depressing. :)

After three years and four month people still have not given up the search for mod tools. :) Yes, yes, move on, or down vote the dreamer or what ever, nah, I disagree here. :woot:

To the fist post, there will not be any mod tools from Gearbox. Just make your own mod using your choice of free engine out there. Call it what ever and say "It's like Duke Nukem only 69 times better."
1

User is offline   Tea Monster 

  • Polymancer

#33

Sorry, but no. That was tried earlier this year on the gold source engine and the team leader got a C&D order.

Any modding has to be done on eduke and pretty much all of eduke's development is focused on sprite-based mods.

If you want to make a modern looking Duke mod, you are f*cked.
1

User is offline   Hank 

#34

That's not what I was trying to say.
The Duke community made a lot of super TCs. GoD, SST, Zero Hour and what not. There are free models, buildings and textures out there, just like you would normally use from a game. Throw it together, name it something and sneak in the heavily protected Duke Nukem name as a slogan. AND, if it turns out to be a fine game you might even be able to sell it for a little. Meanwhile, you do something, and if your are really lucky, you piss-off Gearbox a bit. :)

p.s. Yes, you cannot use Duke stuff from DNF, but why should this be the end of modding, or I still don't understand the term modding.
1

User is offline   OpenMaw 

  • Judge Mental

#35

Modding = to modify.


What we really need is someone to strip down Eduke32 and build a NEW Duke game on it from the ground up. I'd strip out everything and build up from scratch.
0

User is offline   Micky C 

  • Honored Donor

#36

View PostTea Monster, on 14 November 2014 - 08:09 AM, said:

If you want to make a modern looking Duke mod, you are f*cked.


What about Duke Nukem Eternity?
1

User is offline   OpenMaw 

  • Judge Mental

#37

View PostMicky C, on 14 November 2014 - 04:57 PM, said:

What about Duke Nukem Eternity?


Eternity is very very good, and I would never besmirch DanM's work on it, because it's awesome. However, it's really not quite "modern." It would have held up against games like Doom 3 and Butcher's Bay back in the mid/early oughts, and it's still the most impressive looking Eduke32 mod we've ever had.

What we really need is to take Eduke32 down to the frame, and eliminate all the 8-bit stuff entirely. Have a branch of the engine that runs solely on the high res assets, and enhanced scripting features. Get the lighting and texture loading as optimised as possible, get the multiplayer functionality working. Then we'd need a good particle effects system, a physics system of some sort. A lot of the con code in particular, taken down to basics and reworked to suit model replacements instead of just covering over the sprites, which is what is going on now with the HRP(and it shows quite a bit.) Also, more dynamic and "understanding" AI.

That's what i've been thinking about doing with Cataclysm for quite some time since it was C&D'd, but it's a LOT of work. However, it's the only way we could get a "new" Duke game, by the community, without violating any such copyright. Because, at the end of the day, it would be a standalone mod of Eduke32.

The alternative that people always bring up. Of making a game that is "like Duke Nukem" really kind of misses the point. If it's a game that is "like" Duke Nukem in every way but having Duke in it, then it's still missing that one magical ingredient. The above scenario I describe also includes the possibility of contacting Jon St John to actually do voice work for the character. Posted Image
0

User is offline   Kathy 

#38

Jon St. John would voice anyone you want if you pay. But I doubt you'll have a legal ground to make Duke Nukem game without using Duke3d's assets even if you're using EDuke32. WGRealms of course is an interesting example, but it hardly applies if your goal is to make a modern(graphics) game with Duke Nukem vibe and featuring Duke Nukem.
0

User is offline   Jblade 

#39

I don't think you understand that the 8bit mode isn't some boogey man that is holding the Engine back (it IS the engine) - in any case all of the stuff you said needs to be done is an insane amount of work and would only happen if you managed to win the lottery and hire a bunch of people to do it for you.

This post has been edited by Jblade: 15 November 2014 - 02:24 AM

2

User is offline   Tea Monster 

  • Polymancer

#40

Even creaky old Doom 3 has a sophisticated particle system, programmable shaders and a flash-based menu creation system. It's also really easy to get 3d meshes and turn them into level geometry.

If you have a Duke port that won't read old maps, then GBX's legal team may legitimately argue that it isn't a Duke port. It may be easier (I'm not a coder) to add a large chunk of one of the open source Doom 3 ports into EDuke32 or Megagton.

As Jblade says, that is a Herculean effort right there.

Jblade - It's the attitude of the community - the hostility shown by most of them towards anything that dosen't fit into the original 90's style of Duke - which is often perceived to be a problem for people who want to do modern stuff. We can ask for improvements in model handling and mesh imports and we are usually fobbed off. If a request is made to improve sprite handling or con code, it's far more likely to get done.
0

User is offline   Jblade 

#41

Quote

Jblade - It's the attitude of the community - the hostility shown by most of them towards anything that dosen't fit into the original 90's style of Duke - which is often perceived to be a problem for people who want to do modern stuff. We can ask for improvements in model handling and mesh imports and we are usually fobbed off. If a request is made to improve sprite handling or con code, it's far more likely to get done.

I can sympathize with you here, but I think it's just because the latter is much much easier to implement than the former. I think both classic and HRP players are guilty of snark towards the other 'side' at times (I've been guilty of this myself) I just feel that most people don't really understand the level of work required to make new engine features and also don't realize that the LUA/CON things we have now already let you add in a bunch of stuff, it's just difficult and requires proper coding knowledge.
1

User is offline   OpenMaw 

  • Judge Mental

#42

View PostKathy, on 15 November 2014 - 01:29 AM, said:

Jon St. John would voice anyone you want if you pay. But I doubt you'll have a legal ground to make Duke Nukem game without using Duke3d's assets even if you're using EDuke32. WGRealms of course is an interesting example, but it hardly applies if your goal is to make a modern(graphics) game with Duke Nukem vibe and featuring Duke Nukem.


I'm pretty sure Jon would be willing and able to do it. Here's very good to the community.


There's nothing in the legal agreement that specifically disbars the option as far as I know. It's still an Eduke32/Build engine mod at the end of the day. Just as 3D Realms could never claim they really created a "new" engine for DNF, because it was still running on Unreal tech at the end of the day. No matter how far removed from UE1 it feels in places. Posted Image

View PostJblade, on 15 November 2014 - 02:24 AM, said:


I don't think you understand that the 8bit mode isn't some boogey man that is holding the Engine back (it IS the engine) - in any case all of the stuff you said needs to be done is an insane amount of work and would only happen if you managed to win the lottery and hire a bunch of people to do it for you.


I've looked at the source a few times. I can see that Eduke32 is essentially Frankenstein's monster. It's a very impressive Frankenstein's monster, though. I am not besmirching the hard work of TX, Hendricks and the rest. Also, I understand entirely the difficulty of such a thing. There's a contradiction at the core. Maintaining as much compatibility with the game while also offering up features that extend the game in virtually every way. What i'm, mostly frankly just fantasizing about, is a titanic mountain to climb, but it's the only way to do what some in the community want to do. We have an agreement that secures us the ability to make mods for Duke Nukem 3D. Those mods can be as extensive as we like via Eduke32. I've never seen it written or said anywhere that such a project would violate the agreement.

View PostTea Monster, on 15 November 2014 - 02:43 AM, said:

Even creaky old Doom 3 has a sophisticated particle system, programmable shaders and a flash-based menu creation system. It's also really easy to get 3d meshes and turn them into level geometry.

If you have a Duke port that won't read old maps, then GBX's legal team may legitimately argue that it isn't a Duke port. It may be easier (I'm not a coder) to add a large chunk of one of the open source Doom 3 ports into EDuke32 or Megagton.


See, that's where the tricky distinction has to be made. You can't mod another engine to suit these needs. It still has to stem from the original game in some manner, unfortunately. Otherwise it would be as simple as picking up one of the id tech engines, or UDK, or Unity, and going to town.

View PostTea Monster, on 15 November 2014 - 02:43 AM, said:

Jblade - It's the attitude of the community - the hostility shown by most of them towards anything that dosen't fit into the original 90's style of Duke - which is often perceived to be a problem for people who want to do modern stuff. We can ask for improvements in model handling and mesh imports and we are usually fobbed off. If a request is made to improve sprite handling or con code, it's far more likely to get done.


Well, clearly the community has chosen to remain predominantly old school. Most of the mods fit the 8 bit mold. I think this is both because it can be very aesthetically pleasing, and it's infinitely easier for a smaller group/an individual to develop such a thing. Between AMC, DNF 2013, and WG Realms this is very obvious. All of incredibly high quality, developed in what I think is a relatively short time comparatively. To do the same thing with "cutting edge" would take many years for an indie team. I never once claimed it was a short haul. It would have to be done by truly dedicated people, and by dedicated I mean people who would dedicate their goddamn time to it above everything else except for real-life obligations.
0

User is offline   Kathy 

#43

View PostCommando Nukem, on 15 November 2014 - 10:05 AM, said:

There's nothing in the legal agreement that specifically disbars the option as far as I know. It's still an Eduke32/Build engine mod at the end of the day.

It doesn't allow it either. Duke Nukem 3d source was released under GPL, Build was released under its license. Neither of those tackle Duke Nukem IP. Once you detach duke3d.grp it might become a problem if you're gonna use Duke Nukem character. And once you have an advanced engine Gearbox will C&D it.
1

User is online   Hendricks266 

  • Weaponized Autism

  #44

It's funny to see non-programmers debate technical details. Pats on the head all around.

TX is already working full-time on the codebase, and I will be joining him when I complete my Computer Engineering degree (as well as in the off-season until then, so to speak).

Posted Image
2

User is offline   Tea Monster 

  • Polymancer

#45

I rest my case.

This post has been edited by Tea Monster: 15 November 2014 - 03:00 PM

0

#46

Quote

I can see that Eduke32 is essentially Frankenstein's monster.


The only thing I hate about the eduke32 codebase is the makefiles, I understand why the team choose make files(probably for portability), but make files still make me cringe :).
0

User is online   Hendricks266 

  • Weaponized Autism

  #47

View Posticecoldduke, on 18 November 2014 - 08:47 AM, said:

The only thing I hate about the eduke32 codebase is the makefiles, I understand why the team choose make files(probably for portability), but make files still make me cringe :).

Have you looked at them lately? I cleaned them up considerably over the summer. Granted, Makefile.common still has a long set of rules, but now it's just that and Makefile (and Makefile.deps).
0

#48

View PostHendricks266, on 18 November 2014 - 09:26 AM, said:

Have you looked at them lately? I cleaned them up considerably over the summer. Granted, Makefile.common still has a long set of rules, but now it's just that and Makefile (and Makefile.deps).


Make files just makes it cumbersome to add files to the solution, or modify the solution in any way, so even a clean makefile just adds more steps to do something that should be easily handled by an IDE. The simple solution would be to just make proper project files but then you loose portability, the long solution would be to implement something like the UnrealBuild utitlity.

I'm a picky engineer :).

This post has been edited by icecoldduke: 18 November 2014 - 11:24 AM

0

User is online   Hendricks266 

  • Weaponized Autism

  #49

View Posticecoldduke, on 18 November 2014 - 11:11 AM, said:

I'm a picky engineer :).

Posted Image

View Posticecoldduke, on 18 November 2014 - 11:11 AM, said:

Make files just makes it cumbersome to add files to the solution,

Diff from r4639:

@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ else
   endif
 endif
 ifeq (1,$(USE_OPENGL))
-    ENGINE_OBJS+= mdsprite glbuild
+    ENGINE_OBJS+= glbuild voxmodel mdsprite
     ifeq (1,$(POLYMER))
         ENGINE_OBJS+= polymer
     endif


View Posticecoldduke, on 18 November 2014 - 11:11 AM, said:

or modify the solution in any way,

I don't think this is hard to understand.

ifeq (0,$(NETCODE))
    COMPILERFLAGS+= -DNETCODE_DISABLE
endif


View Posticecoldduke, on 18 November 2014 - 11:11 AM, said:

so even a clean makefile just adds more steps to do something that should be easily handled by an IDE.

>more steps
>should

View Posticecoldduke, on 18 November 2014 - 11:11 AM, said:

The simple solution would be to just make proper project files but then you loose portability,

Our GNU Make system can build for every platform we support (except iOS and Android, for now at least). We have a full Xcode project, a full (private) Eclipse project, and a partial VS project which TX is looking at making work without Makefile.msvc.

View Posticecoldduke, on 18 November 2014 - 11:11 AM, said:

the long solution would be to implement something like the UnrealBuild utitlity.

Which would do what for us, besides name-dropping something used by "the cool kids"?

Posted Image
0

#50

When I add a file to a project I should not have to sift through a makefile to add code, thats just my personal stance, especially since the guy that invented makefiles it thought it should have been deprecated shortly after it was created.

Quote

Which would do what for us, besides name-dropping something used by "the cool kids"?


The UnrealBuild tool allows for logistically easier setup for multiple project files, across multiple platforms and compilers and personally on the games I've worked on I like it a lot better then maintaining multiple projects, but I think that's kind of overkill for eduke32, but it would be nice to have. TX's Visual Studio project files will make me happy :).

Also I'm not going to start a flame war with someone who's only a college engineering student :woot:.

This post has been edited by icecoldduke: 18 November 2014 - 02:10 PM

0

User is online   Hendricks266 

  • Weaponized Autism

  #51

View Posticecoldduke, on 18 November 2014 - 01:56 PM, said:

When I add a file to a project I should not have to sift through a makefile to add code,

The simplicity of my design is no more difficult to work with than wading through a GUI, especially when all of the conditionals are laid out and well-defined. Ctrl+F for "_OBJS=" to tour all the objects that build unconditionally.

It's like arguing emacs or vim vs. gedit or Notepad++. Neither is objectively better, but the point I'm making is that it's incorrect to say the Makefiles are objectively worse.

View Posticecoldduke, on 18 November 2014 - 01:56 PM, said:

Also I'm not going to start a flame war with someone who's only a college engineering student :).

Posted Image
0

User is offline   TerminX 

  • el fundador

  #52

View Posticecoldduke, on 18 November 2014 - 01:56 PM, said:

Also I'm not going to start a flame war with someone who's only a college engineering student :).

Curious, which titles have you worked on that actually shipped?
2

#53

View PostTerminX, on 18 November 2014 - 02:17 PM, said:

Curious, which titles have you worked on that actually shipped?


Check your PM, sent you the last one I shipped.

Quote

It's like arguing emacs or vim vs. gedit or Notepad++


I like notepad++ personally :).

This post has been edited by icecoldduke: 18 November 2014 - 04:01 PM

0

#54

Back to the original subject; Hendricks, I was looking through DNF's files and I found a soundfile that had a strange voice saying "Die, Goldstein! Your shekels won't save you now!". It was named "vip_taunt_common43.wav". Based on the file name, I think it may be a part of the cancelled "Viper's Revenge" that was later retooled into Hatred. I'm not sure if it's legal, but you could share a few shots from Viper's Revenge? I mean, you have Wielder, Texas Ranger, so you have to have a working build of Viper's Revenge.
1

User is offline   DavoX 

  • Honored Donor

#55

View Posticecoldduke, on 18 November 2014 - 02:26 PM, said:

Check your PM, sent you the last one I shipped.



I like notepad++ personally :).




No PM I want to know!!! :woot:
2

User is offline   Sixty Four 

  • Turok Nukem

#56

Is there a way to make threads not show up ?
0

User is offline   The Commander 

  • I used to be a Brown Fuzzy Fruit, but I've changed bro...

#57

View PostDavoX, on 25 November 2014 - 06:18 PM, said:

No PM I want to know!!! :)

Toilet Shit Cleaner Simulator 2014
1

User is offline   dinwitty 

#58

Duke Nukem: I already have my Build tools, babe, are you ready to map?
-6

User is offline   Tea Monster 

  • Polymancer

#59

Just putting this here to note that during the recent Gearbox podcast,Fred has offered to put the DNF tools together if Randy can sort out the licensing/release issues.

Interesting to see how/if this pans out.
2

#60

View PostTea Monster, on 19 July 2017 - 09:53 AM, said:

Just putting this here to note that during the recent Gearbox podcast,Fred has offered to put the DNF tools together if Randy can sort out the licensing/release issues.

Interesting to see how/if this pans out.

I for one would love to see this happen. It sucks that it's probably going to cost Gearbox a fuck ton of money to get this resolved.
0

Share this topic:


  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic


All copyrights and trademarks not owned by Voidpoint, LLC are the sole property of their respective owners. Play Ion Fury! ;) © Voidpoint, LLC

Enter your sign in name and password


Sign in options