Engine Testing - 97.0.1-4-gebb704e (1. Jun 2014)

[abma]

release candidate #1 for 98.0!

97.0 contained a crashbug for some users at start, so sadly we have to skip 97.0 for public usage. 98.0 will/should follow soon because of this, so again a release candidate:

Changes

changes since 97.0

• fix crash at start
• added SetAlly(firstAllyTeamId, secondAllyTeamId, ally)
• added VFS.UnmapArchive(string fileName)

To make the next release post more interesting i need your help. i want to add screenshots & maybe a video to the release post, current screenshots/text snippets are:
http://springrts.com/wiki/ReleaseNotes:97.0


Changes in Detail:
changelog.txt (is currently the same as for rc1)
git diff last rc to HEAD

no breaking changes known atm since 96.0


Download
See the download page for how to get it.


Bugs

If you find a bugs, please report to Mantis.

Please attach infolog.txt as file, if you crash!

current release (known) blocking bugs no major bug.

[Jools]

What's the point of skipping 97.0 as it hasn't been still released? Why not name next release 97.0 instead of 98.0?

[gajop]

Because all 97.x versions must sync with each other, and this new release has some changes that would desync.

[abma]

What's the point of skipping 97.0 as it hasn't been still released? Why not name next release 97.0 instead of 98.0?

97.0 is already released... http://springrts.com/dl/buildbot/default/master/97.0/ as its broken i made no announce post as we have to release a new version anyway. replacing the existing version is somelike impossible, also i see no real problem with skipping a version number.

[Jools]

There is no problem other than I thought there was some kind of superstition of the number 97, and maybe that there is some kind of an agenda for version number inflation.

[gajop]

If it makes you feel better, think of it as 0.98. Version numbering in Spring has actual technical meaning.

[Jools]

I thought the whole reason for number appreciation reform was to avoid the thorny issue of number approaching unity.

[varikonniemi]

I think i managed to break this version. I start a BA7.99 game with +100 fps, then i spammed units and started getting assert errors while giving big commands.

[f=0033839] Error: assert(CTO <= 1.3f) failed (SF=33839 : DF=76062 : CTO=3.209409 : WSF=0.010452 : DT=307.067993ms : DLNPPT=113.657997ms | DLRPT=113.655998ms | DSFPT=338.048981ms : NP=0)

Then i ctrl-d all units except commander, and the FPS does not rebound from the ~20 it had deteriorated to with the huge unit count.

edit: there is noticeable fps drop when going from 96 to testing. 170-200 vs 200-250 when playing early game vs aai. 300 vs 250 at gamestart with nullai in tab overview mode.

edit2: i got it to hang once on loading. http://pastebin.com/ic3Z2QE3

edit3: after doing give 1000 corgol with nullai i get ~80fps on 96 vs ~50 fps on testing. The difference seems to be in avgdrawframe 9.5ms vs 16.5ms. And lua allocated memory 15mb in 96 vs 30mb in testing.

[Jools]

Did you reproduce it with luaui and luarules disabled, to discount the mod?

[varikonniemi]

With luaui and luarules disabled the fps is 400 vs 380 at gamestart with nullai. Assert error still happens when giving 1000 corgol. FPS drops to 100 in 96 vs 60 in testing.

avgdrawframe still takes twice as long in testing, but the previously doubled lua memory usage now stays at 0.8mb in both versions.

[abma]

next RC:

http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=32241

@varikonniemi:

demo would be useful. /cheat /give 1000 corgol will always lag, thats not some common case in a game.