Re: server updates BA 9/10

[Silentwings]

As was announced in viewtopic.php?f=64&t=38922 no date was set yet and yes, it's planned that Spring 104 will become the minimal requirement for active games.

For reasons, see viewtopic.php?f=64&t=38922#p589683 and following

port BA9 to work on 104

Guidelines for forking games are on https://springrts.com/wiki/Licenses_Forking_Mutators
A port of BA 9.46 to Spring 104 was made a while ago, https://github.com/CommanderSpice/Phoenix-Annihilation
You may want to also talk to Shox, who is working on https://github.com/ShoX1988/Absolut-Annihilation and also leading on future BA versions.

[triton]

tell me more

[very_bad_soldier]

You should also talk to Shox, who is working on https://github.com/ShoX1988/Absolut-Annihilation.

Shox working on AA still? Thought that is over since he is now maintainer of BA, no?

So I guess Shox could be asked to allow to release a 104-compatible BA 9.50 or whatever if someone actually wants that. Forking and being forced to change name when it's actually just 100% BA does not seem to make alot of sense to me.

[Silentwings]

Afaik Shox plans to merge those AA commits back into BA (plus other stuff).

[MasterBel]

Afaik Shox plans to merge those AA commits back into BA (plus other stuff).

Afaik they had already been merged.

BA10 is very close to BA9, no big deal. BA9 is without devs since few years, better focus on BA10 anyway.

This is not true and i have argued this to you and other ba10 devs directly so many times that it a joke that your writing this here.

Curious, when did you last check? As of BA 10.20 vehicles move at the same speed as BA 9.46. Or at least are supposed to. According to what I've been told, Spring 104 introduced pathing changes, and that (possibly among other things) "fixed" vehicle movement in BA, making them faster and "OP". Thus if you look at the changelog between 9.46 and 10.22 (I have a copy of this if you'd like) vehicles have actually only been nerfed. But that's a little off topic, at that point. That's more explaining why just porting 9.46 to BA 10 isn't going to work. Check out Phoenix annihilation also – which is just 9.46 on Spring104 (and not a suitable solution to the problem, since the owner of the repo has seemingly disappeared.) The vehicle movement is broken too. So at that point, I highly reccomend that you talk with ShoX. Since he was uninvolved in a lot of BA 10 development, he's significantly more likely to be OK with reverting the changes that are deemed necessary, and so far that's mostly all that he's done. Please give him a chance.
I believe that in 10.22 the cost rounding has been fixed to be less severe, so again it is closer to BA 9. The only thing that remains as a major difference between the two, afaik, is sea.

Please @triton @doo correct me if I have details wrong?

[Silentwings]

@Angel: It does seem worth talking with Shox about the sort of issues you've listed.

Check out Phoenix annihilation also – which is just 9.46 on Spring104 (and not a suitable solution to the problem, since the owner of the repo has seemingly disappeared.)

Even if CommanderSpice can't be contacted (actually I suspect he could be) the Phoenix Annihilation repo can be forked, this isn't a barrier.

[Ares]

The only thing that remains as a major difference between the two, afaik, is sea.

wrong, you must not have looked at github or read forums in past 2+ years

Even the incomplete changelog you compiled was several hundred lines and that barely does the scale of change justice when a single change often touches every single unit in the game

Remember when decay tested slight buff to emp spider and it was undone after 2 months of testing? That's how it should be done not 200k changes every couple of months and 0 accountability. Or the classic ba10 tactic of ramming in as many commits as possible and then saying u resigned and acting like you did nothing.

Current attitude is banning people on discord for asking why players prefer 9.46 then deleting all the evidence. No wonder ba10 dev never interact on the forums. They prefer clandestine dev meetings behind closed doors which no player can see

[Silentwings]

See the link in second post of this thread.

[MasterBel]

Please explain how banning 103 engine is essential?

For love of god all mighty someone explain to me why banning 103 engine needs to be done? @triton @doo @MasterBel

It's an engine dev decision, not a game dev decision. You want to talk to @abma @Slientwings @Kloot. See this:

See the link in second post of this thread.

The only thing that remains as a major difference between the two, afaik, is sea.

wrong, you must not have looked at github or read forums in past 2+ years

Even the incomplete changelog you compiled was several hundred lines and that barely does the scale of change justice when a single change often touches every single unit in the game

Remember when decay tested slight buff to emp spider and it was undone after 2 months of testing? That's how it should be done not 200k changes every couple of months and 0 accountability. Or the classic ba10 tactic of ramming in as many commits as possible and then saying u resigned and acting like you did nothing.

Current attitude is banning people on discord for asking why players prefer 9.46 then deleting all the evidence. No wonder ba10 dev never interact on the forums. They prefer clandestine dev meetings behind closed doors which no player can see

Ares, #1 please read my post where I say remains not past.
Please also list just one piece of false information in this post, and I will start discussing with you again. What you say about Decay was right, I think. But the hyperbole elsewhere is really not appreciated, since it becomes unclear where the truth starts and stops. Please, please, be both more precise and accurate, and do your research.

Oh, and. Commits don't necessarily mean that the change was permanently there. I mean. Seriously. Don't look at what happened in between. Look at the before and after if you want a before and after picture.

[Forboding Angel]

Restricting 103 has less to do with "Screw BA 9x" than the fact that 103 has a very nasty engine exploit.

afaik 103.0 has a crashbug which allows spectators to crash the running game. I'm pretty sure this will lead to more players leaving than the few osx players we have.

Staying at 103.0 very likely will cause engine-developers to leave which is much more harmful.

I hope its understandable that we can't care about osx atm.

[PtaQ]

No wonder ba10 dev never interact on the forums.

Why do I see them writing in almost every single thread here tho :O

[raaar]

I'm not sure this is a good idea. 103.0 may have an engine exploit, but what % of games are actually affected by it?

For example, a new player has been trying to play the games and crashing while starting, and it seems it's caused by GL compatibilty requirement of 3.0 for engine 104.0:

[GR::CreateSDLWindow] using 0x anti-aliasing and 24-bit depth-buffer (PF="SDL_PIXELFORMAT_RGB888")
Warning: [GR::CreateGLContext] created GL2.0 core-context
Warning: [GR::CreateGLContext] created GL2.0 compatibility-context
Warning: [GR::CreateGLContext] created GL2.1 core-context
Warning: [GR::CreateGLContext] created GL2.1 compatibility-context
Warning: [GR::CreateGLContext] error ("Could not create GL context: GLXBadFBConfig") creating GL3.0 core-context
Warning: [GR::CreateGLContext] error ("Could not create GL context: GLXBadFBConfig") creating GL3.0 compatibility-context
Warning: [GR::CreateGLContext] error ("Could not create GL context: GLXBadFBConfig") creating GL3.1 core-context

He can play with engine 103.0 but not 104.0.

[Silentwings]

Looks like someone with very old hardware (or a broken driver, or both), ogl3.1 dates from 2009.

[raaar]

True, he did say so.