Spring 94.0/1 - Page 4

Spring 94.0/1

Discuss Spring news, such as fresh releases and press coverage, here.
klapmongool
Posts: 843
Joined: 13 Aug 2007, 13:19

Re: Spring 94.0/1

Post by klapmongool »

So this does not auto update through lobby to latest version?
0 x

zerver
Spring Developer
Posts: 1358
Joined: 16 Dec 2006, 20:59

Re: Spring 94.0/1

Post by zerver »

94.11 is an unofficial release so definitely not. I think the lobbies provide major releases only (95.0 --> 96.0 etc) but the bugfix releases have to be manually downloaded.
0 x

fruehling
Posts: 17
Joined: 24 Nov 2010, 20:49

Re: Spring 94.0/1

Post by fruehling »

zerver wrote:
fruehling wrote:Under which circumstances should I decide for APATH or not-APATH versions?
MT (APATH) is much faster. The other one is simply 94.1 + bugfixes. I recommend you get both versions.

If you play single player setup the lobby to start spring-mt to get the performance boost.

If you play online the correct version will be started automatically, so you must join an MT host to enjoy the added performance.
Aye, thanks -- I didn't see the no-APATH-version was not an MT version.
0 x

klapmongool
Posts: 843
Joined: 13 Aug 2007, 13:19

Re: Spring 94.0/1

Post by klapmongool »

zerver wrote:94.11 is an unofficial release so definitely not. I think the lobbies provide major releases only (95.0 --> 96.0 etc) but the bugfix releases have to be manually downloaded.
So you can play with this version with people who didnt download it?
0 x

zerver
Spring Developer
Posts: 1358
Joined: 16 Dec 2006, 20:59

Re: Spring 94.0/1

Post by zerver »

On a normal host, yes. MT or not does not matter there.

On an MT host, all users must first download MT.
0 x

abma
Spring Developer
Posts: 3566
Joined: 01 Jun 2009, 00:08

Re: Spring 94.0/1

Post by abma »

zerver: please create a dedicated thread about your release somewhere else. It is really confusing and annoying to have one thread about bugs/questions about your "fork" and about spring 94.1.
0 x

Google_Frog
Moderator
Posts: 2443
Joined: 12 Oct 2007, 09:24

Re: Spring 94.0/1

Post by Google_Frog »

Can we have a syncing bugfix release with LogFlush defaulting to 0 and fixed Ceg spikes?
0 x

Kloot
Spring Developer
Posts: 1865
Joined: 08 Oct 2006, 16:58

Re: Spring 94.0/1

Post by Kloot »

ZK is still happy and content using 91.0, so why should we bother making a 94.2 and why do you even care?

Unless your position is that those two minor issues are the only reason ZK has not upgraded yet, which would be ridiculous.
0 x

User avatar
Silentwings
Moderator
Posts: 3613
Joined: 25 Oct 2008, 00:23

Re: Spring 94.0/1

Post by Silentwings »

A mod-side hotfix for LogFlush could be done using SetConfigInt.
0 x

Google_Frog
Moderator
Posts: 2443
Joined: 12 Oct 2007, 09:24

Re: Spring 94.0/1

Post by Google_Frog »

Why do you think we are happy with 91.0? We cannot update while doing so would break the game for a portion of our current playerbase. It's the trouble with using features of fragile compatibility (often ATI related) and the arguments in lua tend to shuffle around. If we switched to a new engine every time it was released we would have no playerbase. The serious issues with this release can be fixed modside but it doesn't happen instantly.

There is even a list here http://code.google.com/p/zero-k/wiki/NewEngineTodo

Most important fixes that I can think of just now:
  • Aircraft attack order brokenness.
  • Pathfollowing is much better in 94.1. Units bounce on terrain instead of slowing down. I don't care how unphysical this is, it makes the pathing good.
  • Apparently sim is much faster.
  • More callins.
LogFlush is a serious issue. Even if we can reset springsettings with ZKL there will be many players without the reset. SetConfigInt could fix this.

Cegs are not vital and 94.1 is good enough that I would switch if they were the only problem (I don't speak for everyone but I haven't asked them either).

That said I would not want to do without these Cegs for the next year.
0 x

raaar
Metal Factions Developer
Posts: 824
Joined: 20 Feb 2010, 12:17

Re: Spring 94.0/1

Post by raaar »

Why was CEG broken in the first place? I Made lots of effects based on glowy spikes, and now they don't show up..

There's also the ship transport bug

EDIT: added the CEG problem to mantis
0 x

Kloot
Spring Developer
Posts: 1865
Joined: 08 Oct 2006, 16:58

Re: Spring 94.0/1

Post by Kloot »

Google_Frog wrote:Why do you think we are happy with 91.0?
http://zero-k.info/Forum/Thread/4713
GoogleFrog wrote: There are a lot of new bugs in 94.1.

91.0 works for everyone and 94.1 doesn't seem to have many improvements.
Now you are praising the "important fixes" and even asking for a 94.2 (which would still be full of those same "new bugs" as a syncing release), so which is it?
0 x

User avatar
Jools
XTA Developer
Posts: 2805
Joined: 23 Feb 2009, 16:29

Re: Spring 94.0/1

Post by Jools »

The biggest drawback with spring 94.0/94.1 seems to be that it's very heavy on the cpu. People can't play bigger maps, some people must connect using the 'safe mode', and some people can't play at all.

Is this due to the new pathfinder or is it because of the new multithread thing?
0 x

User avatar
Silentwings
Moderator
Posts: 3613
Joined: 25 Oct 2008, 00:23

Re: Spring 94.0/1

Post by Silentwings »

The biggest drawback with spring 94.0/94.1 seems to be that it's very heavy on the cpu.
It's true that 94+ is slightly heavier on the cpu than 91.0, but I think its a small effect and I've not seen any big change of the types of maps large games are being played on, or to the number of people who's computers can handle it. Overall, big improvement over 91/2/3 imho.
0 x

raaar
Metal Factions Developer
Posts: 824
Joined: 20 Feb 2010, 12:17

Re: Spring 94.0/1

Post by raaar »

spring 91 had some nasty problems with units colliding with factories and displacing transports or making them get stuck.
0 x

zerver
Spring Developer
Posts: 1358
Joined: 16 Dec 2006, 20:59

Re: Spring 94.0/1

Post by zerver »

Silentwings wrote:It's true that 94+ is slightly heavier on the cpu than 91.0, but I think its a small effect
I wrote earlier that 94.0 is faster but I have changed my mind. In synthetic tests it may appear faster but in a real game 94.0 is quite a bit slower than 91.0.
Jools wrote:Is this due to the new pathfinder or is it because of the new multithread thing?
Changes to the pathfinder + the pathfinder is being used more heavily. I didn't touch this code so I leave it to others to say whether it is worth it or not in terms of improved unit behavior.
0 x

User avatar
Silentwings
Moderator
Posts: 3613
Joined: 25 Oct 2008, 00:23

Re: Spring 94.0/1

Post by Silentwings »

I leave it to others to say whether it is worth it or not in terms of improved unit behavior.
My experience is that the overwhelming consensus is it's worth it.
0 x

User avatar
danil_kalina
Posts: 505
Joined: 08 Feb 2010, 22:21

Re: Spring 94.0/1

Post by danil_kalina »

Sping 94.1, Mac OS X: Spring-Multithreaded GML Crash
http://pastebin.com/ar4m6Gvy
0 x

User avatar
danil_kalina
Posts: 505
Joined: 08 Feb 2010, 22:21

Re: Spring 94.0/1

Post by danil_kalina »

Spring 94.1, Mac OS X: rendering artifacts

Square Bordes

http://pbrd.co/ZG6RL3
0 x

Google_Frog
Moderator
Posts: 2443
Joined: 12 Oct 2007, 09:24

Re: Spring 94.0/1

Post by Google_Frog »

Kloot wrote:
Google_Frog wrote:Why do you think we are happy with 91.0?
http://zero-k.info/Forum/Thread/4713
GoogleFrog wrote: There are a lot of new bugs in 94.1.

91.0 works for everyone and 94.1 doesn't seem to have many improvements.
Now you are praising the "important fixes" and even asking for a 94.2 (which would still be full of those same "new bugs" as a syncing release), so which is it?
Clearly something changed my opinion so it is the most recent one. Do I have to make a snap decision whether to like something and then stick to it while ignoring future evidence?
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “News”

cron