So,... what's the situation on the Dark engine source code? - by Cliftor
Displacer on 17/3/2009 at 19:53
Quote Posted by Brethren
As far as reverse engineering goes, someone once described it as trying to extract flour out of bread that's already been baked. In other words, impossible.
That's not to say that you can't create new methods to do the same (or similar) things - like Open Dark.
I beg to differ. I'm ass deep in reverse engineering dark as we speak. It is not impossible but extremely difficult, but in the end she
will give up all her secrets to me...
All the info is going to opde. (The description about extracting flour out of bread is close to how hard it is though) You can see some of the work (
http://systemshock2.wikispaces.com/) here, I'm currently working on the worldrep (WRRGB)
Ringer on 18/3/2009 at 05:12
Not wanting to be nasty but people would be better off putting their efforts into something like the dark mod rather then finding a prehistoric game engine...
Or you would be better off trying to find the half completed dark engine that was supposed to power Thief DS before they built that abortion of an engine called Flesh..
jtr7 on 18/3/2009 at 06:16
That point has been made before, and is noted, but if you don't understand why the preference to NOT work on the Dark Mod, here, then we can't help you. And if Sean Barrett would've been able to give us the code he had for the Siege Engine (R.I.P.) that the LGS devs were thrilled about, you bet that would take precedence.
Everybody could be doing something else that seems a "better" thing to do to somebody else. There are several projects going on, and they are all worthwhile to those doing them.
Volca on 18/3/2009 at 07:25
Too bad assisted or automated decompilation both are in too early stages. I think we could get a pretty readable code out of such program if there was enough effort - this is one pathway everyone seems to disagree with me :)
Dromed was compiled without removing some of the debug info (namely function names for example). It could be easier to extract the source code than to write it bottom up, although it would be in a bad shape. I presume we're talking about 500 000 lines of code approximately? Doing cleanup on automated decompile we could do 500-1000 lines of a code per man/day, that is I presume 2-4 years of one man's work. This is including the decompiler tuneup, etc.
I'm speaking pure theory here. There is no C++ decompiler I would know of, and the C decompilers are in a bad shape as well. Macro definitions could not be revived, etc. Also I'm not discussing any legal problems with such effort, but we're talking about a dead technology.
I think openTTD was created this way, correct me if I'm wrong.
Ringer on 18/3/2009 at 10:03
Quote Posted by jtr7
That point has been made before, and is noted, but if you don't understand why the preference to NOT work on the Dark Mod, here, then we can't help you.
Well really I cannot understand the preference to use the dark engine...An engine that is extremely hard to get get running on modern OS's, and in all probability will soon be impossible to run on the forthcoming Windows OS.
While we are building and playing Dark mod maps the "purists" will still be praying to the master builder for their legendary Dark engine source code.
Volca on 18/3/2009 at 11:31
It's either in you or not. It's like loving old cars even though new, shiny ones are available. There is nothing logical in it. I thought we're Thief fans here (that means also lovers of the old Dark Engine, no matter how dated it is).
There is nothing wrong with Dark Mod though - it's just it will never be the old Thief if you understand me.
jtr7 on 18/3/2009 at 12:01
Ringer will never understand, so I write my response with others in mind who read this thread.
By recreating it, we preserve it, and have greater control over its compatibility with newer machines and operating systems. Working on old cars, enjoying old music and movies, restoring centuries-old paintings, reading the classics, studying ancient languages, loving what came before, is very common and necessary. There are those for whom that is a passion.
This is not in conflict with enjoying the present endeavors or looking forward to what is coming. The Dark Mod looks to be incredible--in many ways it already is--and it's exciting to see it grow nearer to the official release. Those who are drawn to work on it are those who need to work on it. The others are compelled to work on projects that speak to them and come from who they are and where their heart is.
Although working together could get a project done faster, that's not necessarily better, and is more indicative of unhealthy impatience, understandable though it may be to desire to see it done today or tomorrow at the latest. The diversity of projects shows an inherent incompatibility of minds and personal goals, anyway.
Melan on 18/3/2009 at 12:47
Quote Posted by Ringer
Well really I cannot understand the preference to use the dark engine...
I bet you don't understand the people who enjoy Shakespeare's plays or Ethel Merman's music either. ;)
BrokenArts on 18/3/2009 at 13:18
Quote Posted by Ringer
Well really I cannot understand the preference to use the dark engine...An engine that is extremely hard to get get running on modern OS's, and in all probability will soon be impossible to run on the forthcoming Windows OS.
While we are building and playing Dark mod maps the "purists" will still be praying to the master builder for their legendary Dark engine source code.
You play what you want to, let the others play what they want to, then drop it. Thief 2 works on Vista for me, so far so good for this modern OS. People will ask about the source code, you can't stop them from asking.
Wille on 18/3/2009 at 15:14
Also if someone manages to make improvements like realtime shadows or other modern features to dark engine, we could probably use these in already released fan missions :D.
