Talk:Static limits

I'd like to suggest some sort of merger between this page and this page: https://doomwiki.org/wiki/Vanilla_Doom_engine_mapping_reference?

Visplanes
May be worth keeping in mind that early versions of Doom had a lower visplane limit. In the Jaguar Doom source, which is based off a slightly later build of 1.2 than Heretic was (it has a BSP-based LOS check which Heretic does not), the MAXVISPLANES define is 64. MRJ may have been incorrect about quadrupling the limit (unless it was originally 32) and actually meant it was doubled, but, I would be tempted to believe his assertion that it was in fact increased from the then-current limit. --Quasar 22:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Bomb out
The term bomb out is not specific at all. It should be replaced by something more precise. --Kyano 14:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

SVE
I'd like to add info about SVE's static limits removal here somehow, but the table is too much of a mess to allow this. --Quasar (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about the current pending changes; I feel like the repetition of numbers that don't change is distracting and oddly hard to read/comprehend. --Quasar (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't like it either. Having a column for original value and another for raised values (and where) seemed enough to me. Can you explicit what you found messy about the previous layout? --Gez (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Needing to specify the name of the game in parentheses after every number. For the case of Strife: Veteran Edition, it's too long. It will break the table layout by causing most rows to expand to the width of two columns. This is especially the case since SVE *removes* many limits entirely, meaning it won't just be a number but some longer word of text. It's not a good way of organizing information. --Quasar (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * How about "removed (SVE)" or even "N/A (SVE)", is that really too long? --Gez (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Sortability
The table is not really sortable due to its structure and just breaks if you try. Should we change this to just be a regular prettytable? --Quasar (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)