Talk:Linedef type


I was hoping for descriptions longer than a couple of words. Would it be helpful to put them into tables, with columns for type (S,W,G), reusability (R,1), description, etc? Fraggle 15:08, 18 Jan 2005 (PST)

These short descriptions are just what I had handy, pasted out of a level viewer I wrote. Additional detail and/or formatting would be most welcome. radius 15:22, 18 Jan 2005 (PST)
Ok :-) I might see if I can write a script to generate Wiki tables from the tables in the Doom Specs. Fraggle 01:23, 19 Jan 2005 (PST)

Engine linedefs[edit]

This is nicely done, but it would be consistent, less huge, and less confusing to have the standard linedefs listed without the additional Boom stuff inserted in, maybe an article called Doom linedef type, giving this one the name Boom linedef type. Any links could be directed to the appropriate article, and more articles added (Heretic linedef type, ZDoom linedef type, &c). Linedef type would disambig them all. This can be done for other technical types allowing for references of any such data in an orderly and complete manner. Who is like God? 20:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

>10 years later, but I agree with you — Shambler (talk) 08:56, 17 April 2019 (CDT)

Boom deviations[edit]

Various deviations from the specs in Boom were discovered during Eternity's rebuild of the linedef actions system and are documented in its source code. This information needs to be brought over into this article IMO. An example is the fact that all walkover generalized crusher types are *NOT* in fact implemented by Boom, because Jim Flynn forgot to add in the call to them in P_CrossSpecialLine. Ultra-purist ports like PrBoom+ still refuse to implement these types even in their most modern compatibility levels. --Quasar (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Rewrite the non-table sections[edit]

Looks like googling "Linedef type" brings up wikia first, doomwiki not even on the first two pages. Something might need to be done about that. ConSiGno (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2016 (CST)

I just rewrote the intro paragraphs, but frankly, I feel this article should be restructured completely. By "based on ... boomref.txt", it means "copied directly from boomref.txt", line breaks and all. More than that, though, I feel this section should be split into different articles such as "Doom linedef types", "Heretic linedef types", "Strife linedef types", "source port linedef types" and so on. It would be a more organized listing that would allow users to look up linedef types from specific games for easier reference, and thus make it easier to map for those games. After all, linedef type numbers don't always mean the same thing between Doom, Heretic and Strife, just based on that table of types from all games near the start. What do you think? —The Green Herring(talk) 19:03, 7 February 2016 (CST)
Addendum: I see above that similar ideas were already proposed on this page on earlier dates. It might be time to actually implement them. —The Green Herring(talk) 19:05, 7 February 2016 (CST)
I believe a split into subarticles is probably called for given this amount of content. This should be a hub explaining the general concepts that then links to the subpages. I would avoid a general "source port linedef types" however, that will lead to a similar mess of an entirely different nature. Any source port we're going to document should have its own subpage, and this includes Boom in particular - a huge bulk of the info here right now is about Boom's generalized special system. --Quasar (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2016 (CST)
FWIW I agree.  When we've done such splits before, I thought it helped convey a sense of the "big picture" in each game/port – for people like myself who will never hack the code, but are interested in how stuff is organized on the back end.  (E.g. port parameters, Strife bugs.)  And of course it will rank higher in searches including a port name.  :>    Ryan W (talk) 06:55, 8 February 2016 (CST)