Talk:Skulltag

monsters
Do the skulltag monsters deserve their own articles? Or an article "Skulltag Monsters", or maybe just sections in this article? I ask because they are wikilinked and somebody has created Dark Imp (the content of which should probably just go in here). -- Jdowland 19:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it was decided somewhere else (maybe) that custom monsters not in the original games went in their respective game/mod/source port articles. Bloodshedder 00:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. It was decided that custom weapons went in their respective game/mod/port articles, although IIRC some people thought that this discussion alone was not conclusive enough for a final decision.


 * The larger question here is: which new features in source ports deserve their own articles and which do not? Some, like scripting languages, seem to get their own articles without any debate.  I can believe that a scripting language generally takes more effort and is far less common than a new Thing, but is that by itself enough reason to confine the monsters/weapons to one paragraph each?  (Maybe it is.  I've never tried it so I don't know.)  Does a monster or weapon mod become more notable simply by being bundled with a popular source port?  (It certainly becomes far more widely known, as the Skulltag partisans here have pointed out.)  Are helper dogs new monsters or a new engine feature?


 * Maybe we can agree that anything reproducible with a DeHackEd patch is too minor to have its own article, but we may want to make exceptions for particularly infamous cases (the rocket trooper comes to mind).   Ryan W 17:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Cacolantern has been created also.   Ryan W 17:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Helper dog has enough information in it to deserve an article of it's own: also, it's present in all MBF derivatives, which includes Eternity and Prboom, so it's relatively widespread. Cacolantern and Dark Imp do not. -- Jdowland 19:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Aspect Ratio
It has been brought to my attention that someone here is repeatedly restoring some bogus report about an aspect ratio bug in Skulltag. This information is not correct. There is no aspect ratio bug in Skulltag which behaves exactly like all other source ports out there. Graf Zahl 22:17, 13. June 2007
 * [[Image:SkulltagAspect.jpg|thumb|right|640px|A demonstration of the lack of aspect compensation, with original pistol sprite for aspect comparison.]]

If everyone does it wrong, it's still wrong. Tangent 08:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The one on the left is actually correct, if you go by how Vanilla Doom behaves. Doom originally ran fullscreen in 320x200 mode.  Most monitors are a 4:3 aspect ratio, so to fill the screen the monitors does some vertical stretching.
 * Nowadays, some monitors don't support 320x200 or 640x400 properly any more. If you run in this resolution, you're likely to get black borders at the top and bottom of the screen because the monitor is actually running in 320x240 / 640x480 and the OS is compensating.
 * For Chocolate Doom I've actually written aspect ratio correction code that stretches the 320x200 screen so that you can run in 640x480 and have it appear how it appeared in DOS when Doom originally came out. Arguably this is how it's supposed to appear - the zombies look squashed down when running in a 1:1 pixel ratio, whereas when running with aspect ratio correction they appear tall and in the proportions that you expect a human to appear.
 * The image on the right shows how the status bar face should appear on your screen if the port is doing aspect ratio correction properly. Fraggle 16:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)