| Author |
Message |
lucius
DarkXL Developer
Joined: 17 Feb 2008
|
 Posted: Apr 15, 2008 01:43 Post subject: Alpha Demo 1 |
    |
|
I think people would like an update regarding the Alpha Demo and why it's not ready yet, so here it goes:
There were some important issues that have been recently resolved that took longer than I expected, this happens sometimes. So looking at what is left to accomplish for the alpha demo, I'm expecting to have it finished by Fri. or Sat., and allowing some time for internal testing I expect to make a release either at the end of the week (Sunday perhaps) or early next week (Mon. or Tues.) - depending on how the testing goes.
[In case anyone is wondering, I do test as I implement new features, but general pre-release testing includes running it on multiple different machines and stress testing]
Let me know if you have any questions or comments.
_________________
DarkXL....http://darkxl.wordpress.com |
|
Burning Gundam
Kell Dragon
Joined: 28 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Apr 15, 2008 18:33 Post subject: |
|
|
Hey don't sweat it! 
As I've said before, I'm just happy that someone is actually doing this. Please by all means, take your time with it.
_________________
I don't think outside the box... I customize it. |
|
lucius
DarkXL Developer
Joined: 17 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Apr 15, 2008 20:23 Post subject: |
|
|
Burning Gundam wrote:
Hey don't sweat it!
As I've said before, I'm just happy that someone is actually doing this. Please by all means, take your time with it.
Thanks.
It's not so much that I'm in a hurry, though I do want to get a build out as soon as possible, but that I want to keep the community updated as to when to expect the demo. I never liked waiting for something and having no idea when I'd see some progress, so I try to keep that in mind when I develop something
_________________
DarkXL....http://darkxl.wordpress.com |
|
ACE
Ree-Yees
Joined: 10 Nov 2007
|
| Posted: Apr 17, 2008 05:20 Post subject: |
|
|
But as Burning gundam said take your time. We know how hard it is to wait. All we ask is for quality to and really push this project to the limit. 
|
|
BlazingPhoenix
Ree-Yees
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Apr 19, 2008 00:45 Post subject: |
|
|
This will be one hell of an epic weekend if you do get it released on sunday.
|
|
lucius
DarkXL Developer
Joined: 17 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Apr 23, 2008 09:27 Post subject: Demo Update |
|
|
Alpha Demo Update: There have been some delays, but progress is being made. Just a few more things and it'll be ready.
All the floor and ceiling textures are aligned, the switches are aligned, the sky is rendering - the level geometry is all rendering correctly (as far as I know - testing required upon release).
The character/camera "physics" have all been implemented such as head wave, weapon motion, weapon "y" movement when looking up and down, motion when the character hits the ground (kind of like crouching), acceleration when starting/stoping and so on. Falling, walking, running, crouch walk, crouch run, walk jump, run jump, crouch walk jump, crouch run jump and so on have been adjusted to match Dark Forces values. Blaster fire now moves at Dark Forces speed (they were too slow before). And probably stuff I'm forgetting 
Only a few rendering tasks remain: flashes when picking up items, flashes when getting hit (color depending on what is damaged), "puffs" when blaster fire hits something solid and proper DF fonts for the HUD and text displays.
I'm also reworking the visibility/portal system. The new system handles all the subsector floor/ceiling issues, now I only have to triangulate based on the outter counter of a sector and holes - not subsectors. So even moving subsectors with floors lower then than main sector will work without any extra work or retriangulation. This simplifies the rendering and all the DF portal stuff is handled with one system without any special cases or re-triangulation.
In addition, the only "hard coded" portal limits will be the level of recursion. If you can see through a portal then it's recursion is "1", if you can see a portal through that portal then that is "2", and if you see a portal through that portal that's "3" and so on. And all these portals must be visible through all the previous portals in the "recursion." Since the limit will be 255, I don't think it'll be realistically hit do to the portal clipping... Of course there are practical limits based on performance, but these are much harder to predict. And fortunately clipping screenspace portal projections is the only geometry clipping I need to do, everything else is handled by the stencil buffer and z buffer. This system should be finished tomorrow.
As a side note, it won't be too hard to extend this system to handle double adjoins and vertical adjoins as mentioned before (extended features - see the initial post in this thread). I could even extend it to handle non-spatially adjacent portals (like the game "Portal" or "Prey" but with any adjoin) - that could be an extended feature for the future perhaps...
Anyway feel free to post any questions or comments
_________________
DarkXL....http://darkxl.wordpress.com |
|
CoinCollector
Dianoga
Joined: 10 Nov 2007
|
|
The MAZZTer
Death Star
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Apr 23, 2008 17:08 Post subject: |
|
|
Did you buy the entire Orange Box? It's a great deal. It includes five games, but the price is worth Team Fortress 2 alone (Portal alone too, although it's a bit short).
I can't get enough of TF2. A big patch is coming out sometime this week that'll add more achievements and unlockables for the Medic as well as a new game mode and level.
_________________
http://www.mzzt.net/ | I am a respectable admin with a respectable sig. |
|
TheBowerbird
Dianoga
Joined: 16 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Apr 24, 2008 00:03 Post subject: Awesome. |
|
|
Sounds like you're making great progress! The villagers are awaiting this expectantly. : )
|
|
CoinCollector
Dianoga
Joined: 10 Nov 2007
|
|
The MAZZTer
Death Star
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Apr 24, 2008 02:02 Post subject: |
|
|
There is no demo. It doesn't need one. It's TEAM FORTRESS 2.
Here's some gameplay footage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynrF2es08ds
The guy sorta sucks though. But then again it was the beta... everyone sucked back then.
_________________
http://www.mzzt.net/ | I am a respectable admin with a respectable sig.
Last edited by The MAZZTer on Apr 24, 2008 02:25; edited 1 time in total |
|
sheepandshepherd
Trandoshan
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
|
| Posted: Apr 24, 2008 02:14 Post subject: |
|
|
I can't believe I've still never played any of the Orange Box games. I should be ashamed of myself  . But anyway, I've played Prey, and its portals are amazing. I remember this one maze-like part near the end of the game where you could actually see yourself walking around through one of the walls and shoot yourself. If lucius decides to add those non-adjacent portal adjoins, someone'll have to come up with a wax or something for Kyle so we can do that . . . can't wait for the demo, it sounds like good progress to me. Just don't rush, I'd rather wait a few more days than feel like I'm playing a game with half the files missing.
|
|
klasodeth
Trandoshan
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
|
|
Burning Gundam
Kell Dragon
Joined: 28 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Apr 24, 2008 02:40 Post subject: |
|
|
I know this is getting far too much off topic, I have to ask if you guys play the Xbox 360 version. I haven't played TF2 yet because I can't find anyone I know to play with (And who wants to play with all the Halo 3 jerks anyway?)
_________________
I don't think outside the box... I customize it. |
|
The MAZZTer
Death Star
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
|
|
klasodeth
Trandoshan
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Apr 24, 2008 05:34 Post subject: |
|
|
I had no idea that DarkXL was planned to support Orange Box.
|
|
Burning Gundam
Kell Dragon
Joined: 28 Sep 2003
|
|
The MAZZTer
Death Star
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Apr 26, 2008 02:56 Post subject: |
|
|
The stormtrooper is a spy!
Need a Dark Trooper here!
Need a Dark Trooper here!
Need a Dark Trooper here!
Need a Dark Trooper here!
_________________
http://www.mzzt.net/ | I am a respectable admin with a respectable sig. |
|
lucius
DarkXL Developer
Joined: 17 Feb 2008
|
|
The MAZZTer
Death Star
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
|
|
GreggD
Gamorrean
Joined: 05 May 2008
|
| Posted: May 06, 2008 00:48 Post subject: |
|
|
I just wanted to say that DarkXL is going to justify my purchase of Dark Forces. I bought it recently through Amazon, but haven't been able to get it working on my system(bad Dell model with XP Home from 2001). I can't wait to see this project when it's fully realized. Keep up the good work, Lucius. Oh, and by the way, this got a mention on my Gamespot blog.
_________________
----------------------------------------
"If they were created by man, then we can solve them by man." -Tim Sabien
 |
|
lucius
DarkXL Developer
Joined: 17 Feb 2008
|
|
The MAZZTer
Death Star
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: May 06, 2008 01:53 Post subject: |
|
|
GreggD: The easiest way to get old DOS games running is with DOSBox.
_________________
http://www.mzzt.net/ | I am a respectable admin with a respectable sig. |
|
sheepandshepherd
Trandoshan
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
|
| Posted: May 06, 2008 02:08 Post subject: |
|
|
The_Mega_ZZTer wrote:
GreggD: The easiest way to get old DOS games running is with DOSBox.
DOSBox may be hard to use at first . . . but you'll get used to it pretty quick if you've ever used DOS. Running it without the CD will save you a lot of trouble in DOSBox - read the section about how to do that in this article.
|
|
GreggD
Gamorrean
Joined: 05 May 2008
|
| Posted: May 06, 2008 15:53 Post subject: |
|
|
sheepandshepherd wrote:
The_Mega_ZZTer wrote:
GreggD: The easiest way to get old DOS games running is with DOSBox.
DOSBox may be hard to use at first . . . but you'll get used to it pretty quick if you've ever used DOS. Running it without the CD will save you a lot of trouble in DOSBox - read the section about how to do that in this article.
Come on, guys. I use DOSbox all the time. It doesn't work with Dark Forces, that's all. I've recently been snatching up a lot of old DOS games, and this is one of them. Believe you me, I've tried extensively to get it working.
_________________
----------------------------------------
"If they were created by man, then we can solve them by man." -Tim Sabien
|
|
The MAZZTer
Death Star
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: May 06, 2008 18:35 Post subject: |
|
|
Works fine for me.
Try my dosbox.conf:
| Code: | # This is the configurationfile for DOSBox 0.72.
# Lines starting with a # are commentlines.
# They are used to (briefly) document the effect of each option.
[sdl]
# fullscreen -- Start dosbox directly in fullscreen.
# fulldouble -- Use double buffering in fullscreen.
# fullresolution -- What resolution to use for fullscreen: original or fixed size (e.g. 1024x768).
# windowresolution -- Scale the window to this size IF the output device supports hardware scaling.
# output -- What to use for output: surface,overlay,opengl,openglnb,ddraw.
# autolock -- Mouse will automatically lock, if you click on the screen.
# sensitiviy -- Mouse sensitivity.
# waitonerror -- Wait before closing the console if dosbox has an error.
# priority -- Priority levels for dosbox: lowest,lower,normal,higher,highest,pause (when not focussed).
# Second entry behind the comma is for when dosbox is not focused/minimized.
# mapperfile -- File used to load/save the key/event mappings from.
# usescancodes -- Avoid usage of symkeys, might not work on all operating systems.
fullscreen=false
fulldouble=false
fullresolution=original
windowresolution=original
output=ddraw
autolock=true
sensitivity=100
waitonerror=true
priority=higher,lower
mapperfile=mapper.txt
usescancodes=true
[dosbox]
# language -- Select another language file.
# memsize -- Amount of memory DOSBox has in megabytes.
# machine -- The type of machine tries to emulate:hercules,cga,tandy,pcjr,vga.
# captures -- Directory where things like wave,midi,screenshot get captured.
language=
machine=vga
captures=capture
memsize=63
[render]
# frameskip -- How many frames DOSBox skips before drawing one.
# aspect -- Do aspect correction, if your output method doesn't support scaling this can slow things down!.
# scaler -- Scaler used to enlarge/enhance low resolution modes.
# Supported are none,normal2x,normal3x,advmame2x,advmame3x,hq2x,hq3x,
# 2xsai,super2xsai,supereagle,advinterp2x,advinterp3x,
# tv2x,tv3x,rgb2x,rgb3x,scan2x,scan3x.
# If forced is appended (like scaler=hq2x forced), the scaler will be used
# even if the result might not be desired.
frameskip=0
aspect=true
scaler=normal3x
[cpu]
# core -- CPU Core used in emulation: normal,simple,dynamic,auto.
# auto switches from normal to dynamic if appropriate.
# cycles -- Amount of instructions DOSBox tries to emulate each millisecond.
# Setting this value too high results in sound dropouts and lags.
# You can also let DOSBox guess the correct value by setting it to max.
# The default setting (auto) switches to max if appropriate.
# cycleup -- Amount of cycles to increase/decrease with keycombo.
# cycledown Setting it lower than 100 will be a percentage.
core=dynamic
cycles=max
cycleup=500
cycledown=500
[mixer]
# nosound -- Enable silent mode, sound is still emulated though.
# rate -- Mixer sample rate, setting any devices higher than this will
# probably lower their sound quality.
# blocksize -- Mixer block size, larger blocks might help sound stuttering
# but sound will also be more lagged.
# prebuffer -- How many milliseconds of data to keep on top of the blocksize.
nosound=false
rate=22050
blocksize=2048
prebuffer=10
[midi]
# mpu401 -- Type of MPU-401 to emulate: none, uart or intelligent.
# device -- Device that will receive the MIDI data from MPU-401.
# This can be default,alsa,oss,win32,coreaudio,none.
# config -- Special configuration options for the device. In Windows put
# the id of the device you want to use. See README for details.
mpu401=intelligent
device=default
config=
[sblaster]
# sbtype -- Type of sblaster to emulate:none,sb1,sb2,sbpro1,sbpro2,sb16.
# sbbase,irq,dma,hdma -- The IO/IRQ/DMA/High DMA address of the soundblaster.
# mixer -- Allow the soundblaster mixer to modify the DOSBox mixer.
# oplmode -- Type of OPL emulation: auto,cms,opl2,dualopl2,opl3.
# On auto the mode is determined by sblaster type.
# All OPL modes are 'Adlib', except for CMS.
# oplrate -- Sample rate of OPL music emulation.
sbtype=sb16
sbbase=220
irq=7
dma=1
hdma=5
mixer=true
oplmode=auto
oplrate=22050
[gus]
# gus -- Enable the Gravis Ultrasound emulation.
# gusbase,irq1,irq2,dma1,dma2 -- The IO/IRQ/DMA addresses of the
# Gravis Ultrasound. (Same IRQ's and DMA's are OK.)
# gusrate -- Sample rate of Ultrasound emulation.
# ultradir -- Path to Ultrasound directory. In this directory
# there should be a MIDI directory that contains
# the patch files for GUS playback. Patch sets used
# with Timidity should work fine.
gus=true
gusrate=22050
gusbase=240
irq1=5
irq2=5
dma1=3
dma2=3
ultradir=C:\ULTRASND
[speaker]
# pcspeaker -- Enable PC-Speaker emulation.
# pcrate -- Sample rate of the PC-Speaker sound generation.
# tandy -- Enable Tandy Sound System emulation (off,on,auto).
# For auto Tandysound emulation is present only if machine is set to tandy.
# tandyrate -- Sample rate of the Tandy 3-Voice generation.
# disney -- Enable Disney Sound Source emulation. Covox Voice Master and Speech Thing compatible.
pcspeaker=true
pcrate=22050
tandy=auto
tandyrate=22050
disney=true
[joystick]
# joysticktype -- Type of joystick to emulate: auto (default), none,
# 2axis (supports two joysticks,
# 4axis (supports one joystick, first joystick used),
# 4axis_2 (supports one joystick, second joystick used),
# fcs (Thrustmaster), ch (CH Flightstick).
# none disables joystick emulation.
# auto chooses emulation depending on real joystick(s).
# timed -- enable timed intervals for axis. (false is old style behaviour).
# autofire -- continuously fires as long as you keep the button pressed.
# swap34 -- swap the 3rd and the 4th axis. can be useful for certain joysticks.
# buttonwrap -- enable button wrapping at the number of emulated buttons.
joysticktype=auto
timed=true
autofire=false
swap34=false
buttonwrap=true
[serial]
# serial1-4 -- set type of device connected to com port.
# Can be disabled, dummy, modem, nullmodem, directserial.
# Additional parameters must be in the same line in the form of
# parameter:value. Parameter for all types is irq.
# for directserial: realport (required), rxdelay (optional).
# for modem: listenport (optional).
# for nullmodem: server, rxdelay, txdelay, telnet, usedtr,
# transparent, port, inhsocket (all optional).
# Example: serial1=modem listenport:5000
serial1=dummy
serial2=dummy
serial3=disabled
serial4=disabled
[dos]
# xms -- Enable XMS support.
# ems -- Enable EMS support.
# umb -- Enable UMB support.
# keyboardlayout -- Language code of the keyboard layout (or none).
xms=true
ems=true
umb=true
keyboardlayout=none
[ipx]
# ipx -- Enable ipx over UDP/IP emulation.
ipx=true
[autoexec]
# Lines in this section will be run at startup |
Then you just need to work around the CD requirement, which is easy enough if you poke around files on the CD root and in the DARK dir.
_________________
http://www.mzzt.net/ | I am a respectable admin with a respectable sig. |
|
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: May 20, 2008 06:33 Post subject: |
|
|
A belated reply here, given that I forgot about DF-21 for quite some time... Of course, I suppose that's par for the course of this site, no? 
The_Mega_ZZTer wrote:
Only problem there is I don't think any major browser supports it. At the very least I am quite sure IE doesn't, which is a major deal breaker right there.
I'd note that that did a lot to stop .PNG adoption as well, and THEN I.E represented over 80% of the market, and closer to 95%; PNGs, for quite some time, didn't work in versions of I.E. 6, the newest at the time. JPEG-2000s have perhaps four times the market share that they'd be compatible with now compared to what PNGs were compatible with then.
The_Mega_ZZTer wrote:
My Firefox 3 beta is fast enough thanks. It's beating every other browser in every benchmark I've seen including Opera, although Opera is still good and I would easily recommend it over IE any day. I just prefer Firefox.
Fast enough for you, perhaps, but I've yet to see evidence that FF 3.0 is faster than anything *BUT* FF 2.0... And showing it being slower than 1.5. As someone who'd used FF all the way from 0.8, I *DID* really start noting a very strong, downward trend in performance from 1.0 to 1.5 and then especially 2.0. I've also seen zero evidence that 3.0 is faster than Opera. All the benchmarks I've seen show that it absolutely smokes everything at running Javascript, and still holds a lead in program launch time and page load times.
The_Mega_ZZTer wrote:
If you took IE and removed ActiveX support you'd have removed most of IE's exploits. Firefox has this going for it and much more.
Yes, it has something you can have an option to do in IE... Disabling ActiveX doesn't "cripple" IE any more than FireFox is "crippled" by not having it in the first place... Which is to say, not really. And once you take that out of the question, and pay attention, you find that you've removed somewhere around 80-90% of all the holes that Microsoft has to keep patching, which brings the security level of IE *FAR* closer to that of FireFox... And FireFox, as you've certainly noticed, has not been perfectly secure at any point, having its own share of exploits that need patching.
In other words, outside of the issue of ActiveX, (which can, I repeat, be READILY disabled in Internet Explorer) the claims of Internet Explorer's security problems are vastly over-stated when compared to competitors such as FireFox.
The_Mega_ZZTer wrote:
Firefox is not bloatware, the only way I see you could have gotten that false impression is the reports of memory leaks going around, which in itself shows the lack of understanding of how a web browser works.
This is a laughable statement; do you think that I'm NOT intelligent enough to measure my own system's resources? (I at least will readily acknowledge your level of intelligence as respectable) When it consumes double the RAM of even a slighty-less-featured alternative, that's bloatware. Unless you'd like to argue that Windows Vista isn't bloatware, and knowing your predispositions, I'd think that you wouldn't care to argue that...
The_Mega_ZZTer wrote:
When you view web pages, they have to be stored somewhere. This somewhere is usually memory, hence why you get high memory usage sometimes. Even when you close a page the page is usually cached in memory still in case you come back to it. Those who play the memory card also conveniently forget to mention memory usage of OTHER browsers... in my personal tests IE consistently used more memory than Firefox.
Then you must have an adulterated version of I.E, or a version of FireFox that, say, was set to block images. Also, high memory usage would be contributed to by the fact that the memory LEAKED for FireFox; it wouldn't entirely free up memory once it was no longer necessary for caching anything, but it failed to properly clear it up, and would still consider those addresses occupied.
The_Mega_ZZTer wrote:
I'm sure there are also some extensions for Firefox that eat memory, and since it's impossible to tell an extension is eating memory, Firefox is blamed. Firefox 3 has a more intelligent cleanup for some types of objects which helps this, IIRC.
For the record, I did all my comparisons with an un-altered version of FireFox 2.0, purely what was installed by their official installer from Mozilla.com. So this becomes a moot point; I'm comparing FireFox at its CLEANEST, which should be the BEST thing in its favor as far as comparing memory footprints.
The_Mega_ZZTer wrote:
Despite this there have been some memory leaks in Firefox... just not as bad as has been conveyed by naysayers. I accept this because Firefox 3 has fixed over 300 leaks.
There's a problem if there were 300 leaks to fix... Which would indicate that FF 2.0 was one quite leaky ship.
The_Mega_ZZTer wrote:
Another argument against bloatware is the whole add-ons model... install the features you want, don't install the ones you don't want. Keep your Firefox lean and fast or install a few extensions for added functionality. Your choice. Firefox 3 has less of a speed penalty for extensions, thankfully.
Well, again, as I said, my testing was done with NO add-ons present. None. Nada. None of them have ever appealed to me as doing something that I couldn't do myself and arguably faster, especially when I considered the additional program launch times.
The_Mega_ZZTer wrote:
The main program used for DirectX under Linux is ironically called Wine, which stands for Wine Is Not an Emulator. It's not an emulator, if you didn't catch that. I played a bit of Team Fortress 2, a very recent game, at a very nice speed under Linux... perhaps even better than Windows, and I've tweaked my Windows performance whereas with Linux I don't really know how to do that. I was actually shocked at how well TF2 ran, especially that its cheat detection worked perfectly (IE I didn't get b& for life for using Linux). I think I also tried HL2 which crashed but other people have gotten it to work... I need to try it again with the latest Wine.
I still consider a software wrapper an emulator, as it still creates an artificial environment to run a program in by inserting an abstraction layer to produce an effect that is mimicing resources that aren't actually present on the same level. That would be the very element that defines emulators. It's just that emulators come in a wide array of classes.
In that sense, WINE to me is equally as ironic as LAME... And seeing further parallels between Microsoft and DirectX and Fraunhaufer and MPEG layer-3, I think that my view has plenty enough to make it stand.
You also didn't get noticed by the "cheat detection" because very obviously, it didn't consider running it in Linux to be a cheat. Such programs focus more upon the calls that the program makes and it receives, and pays little attention to what happens any farther away from it, so it wouldn't detect Wine for the simple reason is that it wasn't even looking in its direction, not because it's flawless.
The_Mega_ZZTer wrote:
Even a few years ago the best FPSs used the Quake 3 engine, which was actually coded with Wine as a target platform (before they made a native Linux port). I've found the Quake 3 engine games for Windows I've tried work flawlessly.
You can technically only even HOPE of getting away with a statement as ludicrous as you make about the Q3A's engine by doing so on a Dark Forces board, among very few, where you can make a claim to it being used as late as 2003 with Jedi Academy... The other two games latest that could possibly make a claim to "best FPS" were still in 2003 with Call of Duty and Enemy Territory. And to insist that those WERE "The best" is rediculously subjective, and outright spitting in the face of slightly newer, DirectX-based engine'd games like Unreal Tournament 2004 and Half-Life2.
The_Mega_ZZTer wrote:
Not that gaming is perfect. Plenty of games don't work, but with each Wine release it gets better. I've had fairly good success with games I've tried, the only one I can think of is RealMyst, which crashes if you look at it the wrong way, though you can walk around the landscape. DirectX 10 games don't work either obviously, since IIRC Wine is still focusing on perfecting 6, 7, and 8 support ATM.
But in short, it's still a FAR cry from having a strong natively-supported software library. It still has to resort to an added software layer, which YES, acts as one form of emulation, in order to accomplish that, and is still far from perfect.
The_Mega_ZZTer wrote:
Yes it is. I have the command line EXE for Windows right here.
You can MAKE programs/modules to run in it, and you can HAVE programs/modules to provide support for it, but the point remains is that PHP is a LANGUAGE. C++, as an example, works in the same manner; it is NOT a piece of software even though C++ *COMPILERS* are pieces of software. And PHP differs here in that it is not compiled until runtime, rather than being compiled wll beforehand, but that is all; the modules that provide support for it are NOT what PHP is. THAT is my point.
The_Mega_ZZTer wrote:
What, you think anyone can stick a piece of code in encryption software and not have it checked? People protect sensitive data with software like this y'know! I'm not familiar with the specific license that TrueCrypt uses but I do like how it proves source transparency doesn't make a product insecure.
On the same token, can you possibly prove that source code opacity does NOT make that encryption scheme impervious to systematic attempts to crack it? In other words, any ability to successfuly decypher any such encrypted content through any method other than sheer luck? I'm afraid you cannot. And technically, while as such it'd be impossible to systematically break an encryption scheme without the key's source code, technically it becomes possible when you have possession of the source. I don't say it makes it easy, but it *IS* what makes it possible at all.
The_Mega_ZZTer wrote:
I only noticed lack of AA in SSBB when the camera was stationary, when moving there is no problem. But then I have a POS tv tuner card that cost $30 so whatever. Also doesn't SSBB/SSBM have some sort of "filter" option? That's gotta be similar.
Heh, "filter?" I'm afraid your knowledge in graphics is sorely lacking if you think that AA's effects can ever possibly be replicated through the use of a post-processing filter. They possess a filter for DE-INTERLACING, which is designed to tackle an entirely different problem.
The_Mega_ZZTer wrote:
GeForce 6800GS, which is enough to handle the newer games, although I'm eying a 9200 I need direly to invest in a new CPU first since that's my performance choke point right now. And a minor drop in framerate means a minor boost in framerate if I turn it off, which sounds good to me.
A "mild boost to performance" isn't always a good idea when it comes at the expense of a more-than-mild decrease to visual quality. Aliased edges are a sight to behold. I argue that in pretty much any card that is new enough to support multi-sample AA, (they started appearing in the mainstream gamer market in 2002, as the GeForce 4 and Radeon 9 series) it provides a good enough visual boost for a small enough performance detriment that it is WORTH its cost to use... And if it would slow it down too much, dropping the resolution one step and enabling AA would, in most situations, produce comparable performance to the previous situation, but with a noticeable improvement to visual quality.
And as for a 9200... I've still not found conclusive information on it yet, but based simply upon my knowledge of whatinvariably happens with cards targetted toward the "entry-level" end, they tend to actually NOT be worth the money... In my experience, for someone who's actually a gamer, it doesn't often make sense to spend an amount of money that is NOT between $100 and $300 on a graphics card. In your case, if we were talking in the near future, I'd consider it well worthwhile to spend the $145 or so to get the GeForce 9600GT instead. Or if you wait until ATi/AMD gets the Radeon HD 4 series out, which should precipitate a frenzied price slash on nVidia cards, making them an even better choice. This year's a pretty good year for graphics cards, as you've been consistenltly been able to get top-tier performance for less than $200, when normally it commands closer to he $300 range.
The_Mega_ZZTer wrote:
I never said "significant" performance drop, so you pretty much agreed with me anyway.
I have no problem with agreeing with you if you make a true statement. If that is what you meant, then I'll take back my attack on that position and I apologize for it for the misunderstanding.
The_Mega_ZZTer wrote:
Until I have a solid 60+fps in the slowest sections of gameplay I don't turn extraneous stuff like AA which I usually won't notice anyway on.
Technically, even detail settings could be considered "extraneous." Just because they're "detail" doesn't make them any different as far as their purpose, to achieve the best visual appearance.
The_Mega_ZZTer wrote:
Ir probably uses an 8-bit video mode. Using such a mode would drastically limit options for new graphical features later on. Newer wrappers might even use 32-bit modes... although some wrappers I never got to work right. *sigh*
Um, yeah, it accomplishes that through an 8-bit video mode. That was kind of the whole POINT that was being discussed; accomplishing an "authentic" Dark Forces look through rendering the environment in an 8-bit color mode. The only limitations there would be that you couldn't have any overlays that weren't using the exact same palette. Since the goal of that mode was simply the look and feel of the original game, it's not much of a loss. And it was being discussed as an "optional" graphics mode anyway... Likely easily accomplished by adding a rendering path that would work in basic software reminiscient of the first releases of Quake.
The_Mega_ZZTer wrote:
I am aware how the difficulty system works, I was simply stating how one might add additional levels of difficulty that will work with all existing DF levels.
Fair enough, I suppose.
The_Mega_ZZTer wrote:
Nice trick with the player logic, too.
A lot of people seemed hate it when they played the mission. 
I originally wanted the difficulty to purely affect the damage the player received (double on medium, tripple on hard) but at the time was defeated because there is no possible bit for the difficulty flag that will cause an object to appear only on the medium setting, and not the easy or hard ones. Though thinking now, I just MIGHT have a way to make it happen...
_________________
Wake up, George Lucas... The Matrix has you.. |
|
Emon
Ree-Yees
Joined: 10 Aug 2007
|
|
Jon`C
Ree-Yees
Joined: 16 May 2008
|
| Posted: Jul 02, 2008 05:47 Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not sure what's being argued in this thread but it sounds pretty dumb.
Emon, I honestly haven't seen Firefox 3 using less heap space than IE but it's definitely more efficient than Firefox 2. The problem with Firefox is memory fragmentation (poorly-written extensions notwithstanding). It looks like they added an embarrassing pause every few seconds.
|
|
Patrick Haslow
Trandoshan
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Aug 06, 2008 19:51 Post subject: |
|
|
Okay I am going to be ignorant and ask a few things without reading much previously:
Will this engine play DF sounds properly? Will it eliminate the timing issues that plague DF on Windows XP? Will cutscenes and VOC files play at the proper speed and without clipping?
Will it be possible to capture movies easily from DarkXL using FRAPS?
|
|
|
