Project status?
#3
Wow, this is a lot of info, thanks a ton. Smile  A few questions, comments, and other musings:

Is the 0.60 stable branch the correct branch to look at for the 0.60 release code?

"Would you have expected that drawing part of the level can change the texture on a wall?"  Oh yes, Retro ran across something similar using a global rather than a parameter to a function, which resulted in fun effects such as energy powerups having an odd flash in their animation.  There's little I don't believe anymore when it comes to the Descent source code. Smile

Regarding your old branch of observer support, is that separate from Jinx's observer mode (which is now in Retro's source)?  If it's different, I'm somewhat curious as to how the implementations might differ.  Jinx's, for instance, slots all observers into player ID 7, rendering that unusable for actual play... and makes hosting while observing impossible.

"Even before that, teasing out Retro features from reviewing its commit log was a bit frustrating.  I got the sense that the people writing those changes weren't too concerned with making them easy to review in isolation"  You're telling me! Smile  The first three commits on Retro are essentially, "Here's Rebirth 0.58.1", "Let's update some READMEs a bit", and "Here's Retro 1.2.6!"  Trying to figure out everything that got added and updated serially will be a daunting task.  I know the big stuff... ie: sniper packets, homing missiles... but not the details.  For reference, I started working on Retro after 1.4x3, or around the time of the 20th anniversary LAN.

"I doubt Drakona and Zico will ever agree on homing weapons - I'm not sure anyone will ever agree on those, actually"  People still don't.  There's other frame-dependent issues as well, such as fusion shake, AI movement, AI pathing garbage collection, reactor-player detection, non-moving projectile deletion, and something called "obsolete stuck objects" that I haven't bothered to figure out what they are yet. Smile

"I'd like to have both implementations in one source tree, with a build time switch, so that the disagreement doesn't require other code to drift."  While that would certainly be good from a development perspective, I think it would be a long while before Retro would be willing to even consider that.  However...

"While I don't have much hope it will ever happen, I've always wished Retro would rebase forward so that Retro users could benefit from post-0.58.1 changes in Rebirth."  ...this would be the BEST place to start.  One of my pipe dreams is doing a Retro 2.0 that properly bases itself from Rebirth 0.60 for the very reasons you suggest, pushing the updates to Retro players.  I don't know if that's something I'd be willing to do (not because I don't want it to happen, but rather because of the massive time committment that would entail).
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Project status? - by roncli - 01-22-2019, 01:39 AM
RE: Project status? - by Kp - 01-22-2019, 03:37 AM
RE: Project status? - by roncli - 01-24-2019, 12:07 AM
RE: Project status? - by Kp - 01-24-2019, 03:13 AM
RE: Project status? - by roncli - 01-25-2019, 06:27 PM
RE: Project status? - by zico - 05-17-2019, 11:57 AM
RE: Project status? - by Blarget2 - 05-17-2019, 09:03 PM
RE: Project status? - by LightWolf - 05-24-2019, 03:03 AM
RE: Project status? - by zico - 05-29-2019, 07:59 AM
RE: Project status? - by Hunter - 05-29-2019, 10:55 AM
RE: Project status? - by Kp - 05-30-2019, 01:38 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)