jermi on 23/10/2010 at 19:53
Just to put things into perspective, bloom is a poor example of bad priorities - I implemented that because at the time others "owned" the main line and I assumed those people were working on the important things. Also, I'm primarily interested in Thief, SS2 support happens mostly accidentally. No-one from the SS2 crowd has stepped up to work on ddfix - there's some bad priorities for you to complain about.
Furthermore, priorities may seem strange to you because you don't see the "cost" part of the cost/benefit ratio of implementing a given fix or feature in ddfix.
You can consider yourselves lucky that anyone is working on ddfix anymore, since it may be obsoleted theoretically any day now by the Dark source. If that happens, development of ddfix will cease, since I'm currently the only one working on it, and I'll be the first in line to start working on the Dark source. (Speaking of which, I should probably finally sign this petition, huh?)
By the way, currently I'm integrating the widescreen patch into ddfix - the SS2 inventory bug is next.
Brian The Dog on 23/10/2010 at 20:14
jermi, please do not take this the wrong way, but if the Thief source code is released, then it would be great if ddfix work were halted - because then you (and anyone else who was interested in helping) would be able to do the various fantastic things you have been doing via ddfix, on the original code rather than as a plugin, which would speed up development times. I'm sure you can think up more things than I can on what you'd be able to do with the code!
Anyway, keep up the good work on ddfix - it looks great on my PC :thumb:
ZylonBane on 23/10/2010 at 20:24
Quote Posted by Brian The Dog
jermi, please do not take this the wrong way, but if the Thief source code is released, then it would be great if ddfix work were halted
Why would he take it the wrong way, since that's exactly what he said he was going to do? :weird:
Brian The Dog on 23/10/2010 at 20:53
It's my English-ness making sure I don't offend people :cheeky: I didn't want him to think I was demeaning his work on ddfix, which I think is great.
d'Spair on 23/10/2010 at 21:15
Quote Posted by d'Spair
anybody can make whatever FMs he or she wants
I'm not criticizing jermi, not at all
Quote Posted by Thelvyn
Instead you criticize and complain about the things that other people are doing in their own free time and who are then giving freely to the community.
Quote Posted by Brethren
They seem more interesting in criticizing the community as a whole
Wow, some people here have real reading problems.
As for the helping part - tomorrow I'll definitely take a look into the ddfix source code and randomly rearrange some lines there in order to
do something. Nobody can really call me a coder, but that would be the contribution to the community and you will be very happy with it, right?
jermi, thanks a lot for your great work. It's great to know you're going to take a look at the SS2 inventory bug.
Volca on 23/10/2010 at 21:46
Quote Posted by d'Spair
What vorob is trying to say here (and I seriously second him in this regard) is that sometimes the community just makes unexplainable moves. Thief 2 Gold example is a perfect one, and it's been discussed over TTLG for many times. Nobody within Thief community is interested in finishing what remains from actual official LGS missions, while there are missions being done about absolutely non-canonical worlds and characters and everything. I mean, anybody can make whatever FMs he or she wants, but the complete ignorance about official, canonical things don't picture the community very well. It seems that nowadays most of FM makers are doing their mods because of better textures, more objects and the most awkward plots, and not because they want to enrich the classical Thief feel and experience.
While everyone here wants the source code to be released to the public (I'll be the first to scream in joy if this happens), nobody knows what will follow. Example with ddfix is relevant here. The System Shock 2 inventory rendering bug with ddfix is a
purely rendering issue, and I'm sure it can be fixed after messing with buffering settings. At least it worths looking into. However, jermi is currently bothered with bloom implementation and custom textures. Boy, these are the things that are extentions to the original game, and they are being worked on while we
still don't have SS2 working exactly as it should be working (inventory still unfixed). I'm not criticizing jermi, not at all, but there are some strange issues with priorities within this community.
Okay, as it is said - the devil is in the details. It is easy to criticise, hard to do something useful. Discussions won't cause any difference here, will they? I say show the effort, let anyone follow.
I may understand your frustration, but the mere fact you label it won't make any difference, will it?
The release of the source code would (and hopefully will) cause many things - among others I foresee a collective preservation effort (let's call it a "movement of the minimalists" - i.e. a group of people preserving the Dark's nature without any great change besides the maintenance itself). I would try to be one of these people. I would also try to improve the Dark to be appealing on modern hardware. Does that seem like a contradiction? For me it is not ;)
Albert on 24/10/2010 at 03:34
An optimization committee then, as it stands, would presumably work to see what effective ways the Dark Engine can be made to look well in the modern world? After all, Thief fans have proven time and time again that although the Tech behind the system is by todays standards, rather limited, some very beautiful things can be mustered out of it. What then, would be effective means of bringing the Dark Engine to the modern era so that it can compete visually with modern standards?
More important still, what features do we as a community believe the engine should have? A few of it's most primitive features are considerable trend starters: It's physics system, though shamelessly robust than realistic, was far more impressive than the crate pushing seen in Half Life, and of course, some of the larger maps were capable, and of some fairly short (by 1998-2000 standards) loading times.
The committee will be tasked with answering: How can we improve upon an engine so advanced in some ways, but so aged in appearance? How can Improve large amounts of object renders on-screen and not sacrifice frame rate noticeably? What manner of a physics system can we implement, that will effectually replace the primitive one, and one that will require minimal processing power?
I know I'm just throwing some rather "When will we see this or that?!" examples, but these have been on my mind, and a few other peoples minds I'm sure. A committee will most likely have to come together and discuss briefly an effective plan of bringing the Dark Engine to modern standards.
Of course, I'm just getting ahead of myself. If what I've heard so far is true, wouldn't we just have the bare minimum of the Thief 2 Source? Then making sure we get the code resourcefully managed so that we can worm out any discrepancies, any part of the code that must be effectively fixed, as it will be a total mess when we get it, I'm sure, so that we may commence up-keeping and slowly building a fork to improve upon the Dark Eugine.
Then again, I'm just a tired fool who doesn't want to see mismanagement in the process of building towards that wonderful day when I can have an glorious excuse for abandoning Micro$oft once and for all!
But we are a strong community! I've seen it w/ DDFIX, so I'm sure I'll see it with the source code.
EDIT: I apoligize for my long winded debacle, but I've been sick with a terrible headache as of late, so the opportunity my brain got to think just moments before I wrote this, all the words just flowed out of my head and had to escape. I've brought my point across, so I guess that's good. I'm a bit of a chatterbox, at times.
BPS on 24/10/2010 at 10:16
Quote Posted by vorob
I know what sources can do. But trend of current modders is to add some silly features like bloom, hdr, create idiotic fm on Jupiter and other weird stuff.
I see no reason why community could not maintain two projects at a same time:
Project 1: code name OpenThief "Gold" - only make it run on modern computers, no graphics enhancements, no physics enhancements, no ai enhancements. Just provide original gameplay to old players.
Project 2: code name OpenThief "Platinum" - enhance everything, graphics (bloom, etc), physics, ai
Two projects would not absorbed much more time than one because if we want to make OpenThief Platinum we must make OpenThief Gold first, so
Source code
=> repair bugs
OpenThief Gold
=> enhance game
OpenThief Platinum
:angel:
Albert on 24/10/2010 at 15:15
Thanks BPS. What took me a night of rambling to bring about, you've brought about with some rather brief bullet-pints. :cheeky: :rolleyes: :thumb:
But wouldn't it be simpler to have it be one engine that handles all 3 games, and in one/later install(s)? Just saying...
Enhancements could also be modular. In that they function wholly separate from the engine, but pair up seamlessly so as to not wear on cpu or gpu processing load.
^ Yeh, I worded the above rather odd... More NyQuil, nursie!
