Keep 3do model support
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Posts: 916
- Joined: 27 Jun 2009, 01:32
Re: Keep 3do model support
Ah I see - thanks for clarifying...
Re: Keep 3do model support
Ares wrote: ↑01 Apr 2021, 16:08viewtopic.php?f=1&t=39689Hoi wrote: Nobody prevents you from using an old release of spring
So, again, nobody prevents you from using an old release of spring. The thread you linked even proves it. The issue about the lobby server is another issue, unrelated to removing 3do model support.Well this "goal" was not achieved, it was a resounding failure. The BA community has simply moved to play on Mando's private lobby-server instead.
Re: Keep 3do model support
Hoi:
when people talk about being able "to use old engine" and similiar, they obviously mean the official lobby server.
It obviously has to be about the old official server because it is the only server with such restrictions.
What is the point in pointing out that they are able to use old engine on their own server?
Obviously they know that.
when people talk about being able "to use old engine" and similiar, they obviously mean the official lobby server.
It obviously has to be about the old official server because it is the only server with such restrictions.
What is the point in pointing out that they are able to use old engine on their own server?
Obviously they know that.
Re: Keep 3do model support
It is important to be accurate and not make statements overly dramatic. It prevents people from wasting their time with discussing things which are untrue.saturnV wrote: ↑04 Apr 2021, 03:04 Hoi:
when people talk about being able "to use old engine" and similiar, they obviously mean the official lobby server.
It obviously has to be about the old official server because it is the only server with such restrictions.
What is the point in pointing out that they are able to use old engine on their own server?
Obviously they know that.
I really think 3do model support should be removed for the future. The people who disagree say their games will not be playable (ignoring the fact that there will be convertors available to convert the 3do's into s3o's, and nobody is just going to remove 3do without a viable alternative). It is then said nobody prevents them from using the old engine. They then said that actually, someone did prevent them from this. Turns out, that in fact, that is not true. Is it only the lobby server which tried to stimulate people to update.
If you care to see a much improved spring it should be possible to move the engine to the future. Let's treat this lobby server issue as a separate issue. Don't use it as an argument to halt progress. You already get a free engine. You get free services like spring files and the lobby server. Nobody is obliged to keep offering servers for free.
On the other hand, I don't see a reason to deny people from using the lobby with older engines if it can be made safe and stable. So if that's your issue, let's try and see what can be done to fix that issue. Don't use it as an excuse to halt progress and kill the project.
Re: Keep 3do model support
Those statements are not "untrue", they are simply shortend because from context everybody knows what we are talking about.
People should not need to write really long-winded sentences just to waterproof their post against any intentional misunderstandings.
Everyone knew what was meant.
Re: Keep 3do model support
He didn't even make a statement, he only linked to a thread.saturnV wrote: ↑04 Apr 2021, 16:07Those statements are not "untrue", they are simply shortend because from context everybody knows what we are talking about.
People should not need to write really long-winded sentences just to waterproof their post against any intentional misunderstandings.
Everyone knew what was meant.
Saying "lobby server doesn't support old engine correctly" takes just a couple words more than "old engine doesn't work anymore". Doesn't require a long-winded sentence. It's important because it creates the impression of a very different scenario. A choice of words because it is rhetorically convenient to make the situation sound more severe and dramatic.
You didn't respond to the rest of my post and focused only on this detail... let's focus on being constructive, shall we?
Agreed, yes or no?Let's treat this lobby server issue as a separate issue. Don't use it as an argument to halt progress.
I don't see a reason to deny people from using the lobby with older engines if it can be made safe and stable. So if that's your issue, let's try and see what can be done to fix that issue.
Re: Keep 3do model support
"stimulate people to update" is just a euphemism for the word ban
Every developer is in favour of keeping 3do, apart from the game which has already deleted 3do entirely from their project and now runs at 20fps. The only people disagreeing are BAR devs and people with nothing to lose.
The community has spoken clearly in favour of 3do model support. BAR's choice to exclude and drop compatibility strongly requested by other games is intentional and a warning that they should not lead Spring engine development.
Felony 2. (Beherith)
Re: Keep 3do model support
It's not that the games will not be playable, it's a matter of motivation to surpass obstacles and how big they are for each party. When the motivation is low, every little obstacle matters.Hoi wrote: ↑04 Apr 2021, 14:50 Hoi:
(...)
I really think 3do model support should be removed for the future. The people who disagree say their games will not be playable (ignoring the fact that there will be convertors available to convert the 3do's into s3o's, and nobody is just going to remove 3do without a viable alternative). It is then said nobody prevents them from using the old engine. They then said that actually, someone did prevent them from this. Turns out, that in fact, that is not true. Is it only the lobby server which tried to stimulate people to update.
(...)
By asking for 3do compatibility we're trying to avoid a future obstacle : a possible need to upgrade for miscellanous reasons unrelated to the new rendering features being bundled with the need to do the 3do->s3o conversion and adjust the workflow.
Keeping 3do compatibility is probably possible, but the people developing the engine for free aren't motivated to handle that obstacle (it's probably harder than adapting the games).
I'm almost certain that, a year or so from now, a tired Abma will not be motivated to handle the obstacle of cherry picking the code and maintaining compatibility with 3do (and possibly GL compatibility changes) so it's better to assume that it'll be gone from the next release.
It's not 2017 anymore, 105.0 is out and has proven stable so far.
From my end this is a case where I state that "I'd rather have 3do compatibility in" but i'll accept the "no, too much work" response and say "go ahead then". It's more productive in the current context. I'll keep using 105.0 and adapt to the new requirements eventually.
Re: Keep 3do model support
I am not interessted in discussing choice of words. Everyone knows the situation, as do you when you have tried to play online or read any relevant thread.
What to say to rest of your post?
And a cheater-widget exploiting a bug in engine/BA. (made by a BA10 teammember who tried to share it in chat and forum, in hope that BA9.46 would collapse under cheaters. Did not happen because the only person interessted in cheats, was him.)
There are no real issues.
Well, except for the engine developers who simply wanted these restrictions. Read any of the dozen older threads.
Converter tools are announced but not functional yet. See the other posts about potential problems, resulting textures and so on.
Converting hundreds of models by hand with Upspring sounds insane.
Should 3do support ever be removed then that might become a reason for several games to stay on old engine.
However, using old engine is not possible. (yes yes, it is possible only with fewer players or on a different server blablabla hurr durr)
So these two things are connected.
How does it hurt Spring if a handful of players enjoy to play their old game on old version?
Are zero-K and BAR not enough projects for advancing Spring to the cutting-edge future?
At this point, it would be good if engine developers could join in.
Is engine development as dead as ivand claims?
What are the plans regarding 3do support?
Will the BAR-forked engine be playable on spring server? (if official engine dev is dead)
What to say to rest of your post?
It was considered "safe and stable" for many years. The problems are: A way to close battlerooms. (supposedly was abused a few times, but not very often or relevant)I don't see a reason to deny people from using the lobby with older engines if it can be made safe and stable.
And a cheater-widget exploiting a bug in engine/BA. (made by a BA10 teammember who tried to share it in chat and forum, in hope that BA9.46 would collapse under cheaters. Did not happen because the only person interessted in cheats, was him.)
There are no real issues.
Well, except for the engine developers who simply wanted these restrictions. Read any of the dozen older threads.
Converter tools are announced but not functional yet. See the other posts about potential problems, resulting textures and so on.
Converting hundreds of models by hand with Upspring sounds insane.
Should 3do support ever be removed then that might become a reason for several games to stay on old engine.
However, using old engine is not possible. (yes yes, it is possible only with fewer players or on a different server blablabla hurr durr)
So these two things are connected.
How does it hurt Spring if a handful of players enjoy to play their old game on old version?
Are zero-K and BAR not enough projects for advancing Spring to the cutting-edge future?
At this point, it would be good if engine developers could join in.
Is engine development as dead as ivand claims?
What are the plans regarding 3do support?
Will the BAR-forked engine be playable on spring server? (if official engine dev is dead)
Re: Keep 3do model support
Pray tell which category I fall into.Ares wrote: ↑04 Apr 2021, 17:18"stimulate people to update" is just a euphemism for the word ban
Every developer is in favour of keeping 3do, apart from the game which has already deleted 3do entirely from their project and now runs at 20fps. The only people disagreeing are BAR devs and people with nothing to lose.
The community has spoken clearly in favour of 3do model support. BAR's choice to exclude and drop compatibility strongly requested by other games is intentional and a warning that they should not lead Spring engine development.
You are so frustrating as you can be reasonable but here are choosing not to be.
The facts:
- Spring 105.0 supports 3do
- Spring 105.0 is (probably) the last 'official' release
- ivand can do as he pleases as he is (essentially) the only person continuing engine development in his own branch
- You can benefit from his work or not as you choose
- There's no guarentee that ivand's work will even end up on the spring rts 'main' server
- There's no guarentee that a 'main' server will continue to exist
- You have your own server anyway.
And if you really want help pushing buttons in Upspring, I will offer my services. (Pretty sure Beherith has a python script that automates the process anyway?)
P.S. Nuke 3do from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. I'm still +1ing the annihilation of COB and the entire Spring.{Get,Set}UnitCOBState architecture, too.
Re: Keep 3do model support
Game developers and the last active engine developer have already explained why removing COB would not be worthwile.
What are your arguements?
Which game would have survived the removeal of 3do and cob in 2011? None.
-Does not play BA or Tech-Anni.Pray tell which category I fall into.
-Initially you thought your game was updated to work with 105.0 but by random chance you noticed: No, it did not.
-After years of defending the bans/restrictions you
had recently realized what they actually meant. In response you ragequitted as admin.
-S1944 has no playerbase anymore. (as far I see none at all, for certain not enough to reach the 8 player limit per room)
It seems you fall in the category of "people with nothing to lose".
There had never been a guaraentee for anything.Spring 105.0 is (probably) the last 'official' release.
There's no guarentee that a 'main' server will continue to exist
So is there talk about shutting down the main server?
Which dark discord channels does one need to join, to learn these things?
So engine developers banned usage of old engines under the threat to ragequit development otherwise.
They got their way....and still quit.
Also did anyone notice the irony of current situation?
zero-K uses a 104-testversion.
BAR uses a custom fork.
The only games to actually use 105 are Tech-Anni and BA. What a twist!
BA updated to 105 despite running their own server: the pressure and drama by engine devs was not necessary.
Yes. The part where....Did I miss anything?
.. the engine-restrictions killed community on main server.
.. BA-players repeatedly stated that they have no problem with 104/105 (except for losing some players to Mac and hardware requirements).
.. it was repeatedly said that the problem with BA-on-104 was not the engine but how the BA10 team did all those gameplay changes.
.. BA repeatedly said they would have prefered to stay on main server. And want to return there. Sadly statements like yours do not inspire trust in the Spring infrastructure.
Felony 1 for the continued harassment of a forum member. (Beherith)
Re: Keep 3do model support
Ares, you are mixing so many falsehoods here that this stops now.Ares wrote: ↑04 Apr 2021, 17:18"stimulate people to update" is just a euphemism for the word ban
Every developer is in favour of keeping 3do, apart from the game which has already deleted 3do entirely from their project and now runs at 20fps. The only people disagreeing are BAR devs and people with nothing to lose.
The community has spoken clearly in favour of 3do model support. BAR's choice to exclude and drop compatibility strongly requested by other games is intentional and a warning that they should not lead Spring engine development.
0. Do you realize the entire argument your crusade (drop of 103 engine support) is made entirely irrelevant by you moving to 105 (as your screenshots and post suggest you are doing). Do you also realize that this negates your entire casus belli had you done this earlier?
1. BAR does not lead spring engine development.
2. BAR does not run at 20 FPS on its recommended system configuration. The frame rate at which BAR itself runs at has nothing to do with the underlying architecture of the engine, but a function of graphical features used.
3. I tested 3do to s3o conversion, and they offer identical performance on CPU and GPU load. This script was written a decade ago, and I now got around to re-testing it.
BAR fork is ahead of 105. ZK 104.~1500 is almost on par with 105.saturnV wrote: ↑06 Apr 2021, 12:53 Also did anyone notice the irony of current situation?
zero-K uses a 104-testversion.
BAR uses a custom fork.
The only games to actually use 105 are Tech-Anni and BA. What a twist!
BA updated to 105 despite running their own server: the pressure and drama by engine devs was not necessary.
Yes. The part where....Did I miss anything?
.. the engine-restrictions killed community on main server.
.. BA-players repeatedly stated that they have no problem with 104/105 (except for losing some players to Mac and hardware requirements).
.. it was repeatedly said that the problem with BA-on-104 was not the engine but how the BA10 team did all those gameplay changes.
.. BA repeatedly said they would have prefered to stay on main server. And want to return there. Sadly statements like yours do not inspire trust in the Spring infrastructure.
I feel that the entitled attitude, toxic negativity and constant, unwarranted harassment by a select few did not help in retaining developers. Also, as we age, life gets different priorities.
".. BA-players repeatedly stated that they have no problem with 104/105 (except for losing some players to Mac and hardware requirements). "
".. BA repeatedly said they would have prefered to stay on main server. And want to return there. Sadly statements like yours do not inspire trust in the Spring infrastructure."
Nope, they were never even banned from there, engine 103 with 8+ players support was dropped to encourage new engine adoption.
"BA updated to 105 despite running their own server: the pressure and drama by engine devs was not necessary."
All of this could have been done by Ares et al 3+ years ago, by just updating to 104.x at the time.
All this 'pressure and drama' was purely artificially made up by ares and co, hiding behind the guise of clinging to 103.
Re: Keep 3do model support
Mando is the only one who selflessly worked to protect every player without asking for a penny. Mando is the real hero because he gave everything to protect the people he loves.
Re: Keep 3do model support
Mental lapse?
That's the whole thing in one sentence: the small burden one can solve in a day, most solved in a week successfully, took someone 3 years and uncountable number of complains.
Now with 3do it's the same thing. Sane people run the converter, get the results, fix unitdefs with regular expressions and go outside to enjoy the weather. Insane ones would spam thousand hate threads, get hundreds felonies on their account and ... convert in one day to s3o/assimp years after
Re: Keep 3do model support
link to converter and unitdef fixer please
Re: Keep 3do model support
You'll get one once 3do will be about to be removed from the official spring.
The GPL license allows to use BAR fork whenever you want, but it doesn't mean I'm going to support you (this remark concerns only you personally, and doesn't concern BA) unless you sincerely apologize for every slander you said about me and my work and behave socially acceptable moving on.
https://bfy.tw/Qgbx
P.S. I've started implementing a subset of what's described here: viewtopic.php?p=598024#p598024
Last edited by ivand on 07 Apr 2021, 01:30, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Keep 3do model support
I'm asking for the benefit of other mods who were told this change will have no effect on them.
Re: Keep 3do model support
Other mods:
a) certainly don't need you to facilitate their needs
b) don't need to worry as for now BAR fork is not ready to become the next official spring yet. (*)
(*) If a game's rep will be willing to give a test to new technologies (which are yet to be coded in), I'm not hard to find.
a) certainly don't need you to facilitate their needs
b) don't need to worry as for now BAR fork is not ready to become the next official spring yet. (*)
(*) If a game's rep will be willing to give a test to new technologies (which are yet to be coded in), I'm not hard to find.
Re: Keep 3do model support
It is dissapointing to see the person leading the engine respond to valid concerns like this. Remember, BAR owes its entire existence to BA.
Instead of listening to developers' feedback to make Spring the best open source RTS game engine, you are more concerned with exploiting your position of power to continue a legacy of hatred against BA
gajop: 1 month banned issue for constant drama & trolling. next will be perma
Instead of listening to developers' feedback to make Spring the best open source RTS game engine, you are more concerned with exploiting your position of power to continue a legacy of hatred against BA
gajop: 1 month banned issue for constant drama & trolling. next will be perma
Re: Keep 3do model support
Your whole post is off the topic (reported) so as my reply (reported too).
Overall your thoughts jump randomly and you don't seem to be able to comprehend what I write. Are you feeling healthy recently? Give hint if not, this will explain a lot of things.
Here is a little reminder who you should be thankful to for BA development in the recent years: https://github.com/Balanced-Annihilatio ... ntributors and I don't see your name here mentioned at all.
Just for the reference here's how "normal" developers' day look like compared:
https://github.com/beyond-all-reason/Be ... r=Ruwetuin
https://github.com/ZeroK-RTS/Zero-K/com ... GoogleFrog
In any case BAR forked way before you could have any relation to BA development even in theory.
Overall your thoughts jump randomly and you don't seem to be able to comprehend what I write. Are you feeling healthy recently? Give hint if not, this will explain a lot of things.
I'm not leading the engine.
That is true. But you say it like you have any merit in that.
Here is a little reminder who you should be thankful to for BA development in the recent years: https://github.com/Balanced-Annihilatio ... ntributors and I don't see your name here mentioned at all.
Just for the reference here's how "normal" developers' day look like compared:
https://github.com/beyond-all-reason/Be ... r=Ruwetuin
https://github.com/ZeroK-RTS/Zero-K/com ... GoogleFrog
In any case BAR forked way before you could have any relation to BA development even in theory.
I listened to the feedback of developers very carefully and addressed their concerns. I have reasons to believe you are not a developer (as seen from the evidences above), but a troll (which is proved by the amount of forum rules violation you have on your record), so I don't consider your opinion seriously.
I don't have any power. If I had one you wouldn't be posting here.
I have no hate or hatred against BA. I never played BA except for maybe one or a few times accidentally, I don't play BAR, except for development purposes. I didn't even know who you were until you popped up in one of my topics and out of the blue started your vilification campaign against me and what I do.