BZ2 1.3.6.4z28 - Open beta & testing

[Nielk1]

As I said before before RD insulted me, and then moved the posts out of the board.

sounds...familiar.

Yea, just like it did when you said it. Looking at changelogs for when certain AIP ideas came around can let you extrapolate the idea came far before you ever uttered it either. So don't be a dick to people for trying to make things, or rather, succeeding.

[MrTwosheds]

My idea (first implemented in G66 about 5 years ago) was to eliminate the second race requirement in the G66 MPI DLL so I could make what I called, "Generic AIP's", so that the number of AIPs would not balloon when adding another race.

Hmm, I also used this approach some time ago. It is the obvious way to make AIP's once you realize you can. I have no idea if I saw someone else doing it first or just reached the logical conclusion that it was the best way to do it on my own. But what is obvious is that GSH implemented it with the intention of modders using it.
I am, just in case some of you are not aware, in the habit of passing such useful bits of info around to new modders, I have just done so again this week, PM leaking one of my LOS aips to a dude who wants to make his own. He hasn't stolen my idea's, or anyone elses, it was just a gift of information.

[Red Devil]

I wouldnt know about that. Havent played G66 since you took it over. Heard you've been running it into the ground pretty hard where strat players who previously thought G66 to be fun and challenging are now turned off by all the extra RD crap being added to it, but I digress.

Yes, selecting options to turn them on and off can be so hard sometimes. Gosh, I never thought of that before; sorry. To help, what I do is to move my mouse pointer over the option buttons and click the left mouse button. If you have trouble with that, I'd be happy to walk you through it in the shell.

edit: But, not having even tried G66 lately, you would know that they are options, right?

As long as we're on the subject of crap, I tried your VSR mod a couple weeks ago and I can honestly tell you that the hovercraft physics are pure crap. They're probably some of the worst-handling ships I have used in BZ2..

Using generic targets is a natural answer to the problem of ballooning AIP counts as more races are added and in fact even for ISDF/Scion would cut the AIP count in half, even if no other attempt was made to amalgamate the AIPs, (mind the current system with the multiple AIPs, e.g., s,0,1,2,3,a,l does have its advantages), even though the triggers for anti-seige AIPs (in stock) can still be silly.

You are focused on generic ODF names, while I am mainly talking about removing the second race requirement in the DLL.

I reckon you have GSH to blame for that, right?

Don't know where you get that idea. I simply stated that stock AIPs are messy and unnecessarily tedious to write for. Has always been that way, even before 1.3. Assigning blame would be pointless.[/quote]

Well, if you hadn't turned your back on 1.3 for, what, about 10 years, maybe you could have helped with that, eh? But, no, you return after dissing 1.3 for 10 years and suddenly you are the resident expert on 1.3 - yet complaining that things are not the way you would like them.

There is a word for that: You are the ultimate hypocrite. Well, okay, there's another word for that, too, but I won't use it here.

[Red Devil]

My idea (first implemented in G66 about 5 years ago) was to eliminate the second race requirement in the G66 MPI DLL so I could make what I called, "Generic AIP's", so that the number of AIPs would not balloon when adding another race.

Hmm, I also used this approach some time ago. It is the obvious way to make AIP's once you realize you can. I have no idea if I saw someone else doing it first or just reached the logical conclusion that it was the best way to do it on my own. But what is obvious is that GSH implemented it with the intention of modders using it.
I am, just in case some of you are not aware, in the habit of passing such useful bits of info around to new modders, I have just done so again this week, PM leaking one of my LOS aips to a dude who wants to make his own. He hasn't stolen my idea's, or anyone elses, it was just a gift of information.

You did? First time I have heard about it. I've never seen it or heard about it in a mod before. Sorry I missed that. I too, leaked my AIP's - with Lua scripts - in the posted G66 mod, plus other mods. I'm thinking that someone will soon suddenly "discover" how to use Lua in their AIP's...

[Ded10c]

Yes, selecting options to turn them on and off can be so hard sometimes. Gosh, I never thought of that before; sorry. To help, what I do is to move my mouse pointer over the option buttons and click the left mouse button. If you have trouble with that, I'd be happy to walk you through it in the shell.

That's not what he meant and you know it.

As long as we're on the subject of crap, I tried your VSR mod a couple weeks ago and I can honestly tell you that the hovercraft physics are pure crap. They're probably some of the worst-handling ships I have used in BZ2..

Funny that you're the first person to have said that.

There is a word for that: You are the ultimate hypocrite. Well, okay, there's another word for that, too, but I won't use it here.

An irony that speaks more words than your entire post.

[General BlackDragon]

I'm thinking that someone will soon suddenly "discover" how to use Lua in their AIP's...

What does this even mean?

[Zero Angel]

As long as we're on the subject of crap, I tried your VSR mod a couple weeks ago and I can honestly tell you that the hovercraft physics are pure crap. They're probably some of the worst-handling ships I have used in BZ2..

You're welcome to your opinion. However, a lot of people who play VSR love the physics. It obviously isnt perfect because are a few bugs that have forced me to compromise on handling (e.g. its impossible to eliminate 'bounce' without exposing worse bugs) but it's as good as it can possibly get. But the physics that VSR units use are unsupported, so I can't really ask for those bugs to be fixed and everyone's just gotta deal with the fact that it's as good as it's gonna get.

I reckon you have GSH to blame for that, right?

Don't know where you get that idea. I simply stated that stock AIPs are messy and unnecessarily tedious to write for. Has always been that way, even before 1.3. Assigning blame would be pointless.

Well, if you hadn't turned your back on 1.3 for, what, about 10 years, maybe you could have helped with that, eh? But, no, you return after dissing 1.3 for 10 years and suddenly you are the resident expert on 1.3 - yet complaining that things are not the way you would like them.

There is a word for that: You are the ultimate hypocrite. Well, okay, there's another word for that, too, but I won't use it here.

It's not often that I whine or cry over spilled milk. A lot of what I do is report information, state facts and make observations. Complaints are a necessary part of improvement. If you can define the problem *clearly* then you are at least a third of the way to solving the mental aspect of the problem.

Several bugs languished in 1.3 for the longest time and were complained about (well, 'whined about', which is a less constructive form of complaining) by players who didnt have the analytical skills to report them properly. I did, and provided as much data as I could. And as a result GSH was able to address them and make everyone happier. And how much of that stuff was specifically or majorly for my mod? I dunno, maybe 5% of it?

And what's the anti-1.3 sentiment like now? You know that even though there are tons of people playing 1.3 because its the only game in town, theres always some grumbling and complaining in the background and anti-GSH sentiment that leads to undeserved disrespectfulness towards GSH and people that certain other people see as the 'modders' (someone once likened them to little insects, whispering in GSH's ear). But that sentiment has been reduced in a big way. It's been reduced by my efforts, and by GSH's efforts. Sure i'm not developing the next greenheart recycler variant and heavy sabre VI for it, but I am doing what needs to be done. Stuff that I might complain about but have the ability to do for myself, i've taken into my own hands, with the help of General Blackdragon, who is an extremely competent DLL programmer. Stuff that I can't do anything about is usually core engine stuff that affects everyone even those who arent playing mods, that's what I complain about, and I complain constructively, respectfully (usually), and don't ask for things unless it's for the good of all or most players.

[Ded10c]

I'm thinking that someone will soon suddenly "discover" how to use Lua in their AIP's...

What does this even mean?

He means you can't possibly have thought it up by yourself if he did it somewhere before you. A bit like with oxygen, decimals and the theory of evolution.

[Jabbapop]

iono. just a general observation. as a longtime fan of the game i don't mind persay if you harbour grudges towards your fellow "modders." as long as you can make a better finished product than the next guy. then all will benefit.

[MrTwosheds]

You did? First time I have heard about it. I've never seen it or heard about it in a mod before. Sorry I missed that. I too, leaked my AIP's - with Lua scripts - in the posted G66 mod, plus other mods. I'm thinking that someone will soon suddenly "discover" how to use Lua in their AIP's...

Yes. My mod lies sad dusty, unpublished (I just don't get the time to work effectively on it these days). Not trying to attack you RD, just trying to point out that as modders we are all building on the work of others. Idea stealing is not something any of us should be talking about.

[Nielk1]

LUA conditionals have been understood from the start. As soon as they were implemented I posted an example of how they could be used to generate branching AIPs within the same AIP file by making large sets of AIP blocks be skipped (and set to continue on fail) using a test in lua on a "is doing A" type variable/object. Of course, you wouldn't remember that because it goes against your narrative that you are the one and only source of all ultimate modding. I mean, I made just enough of a modern AIP editor to abstract such branch generation to pass a project in my graphics class years and years ago now, it's far from not understood by anyone but you.

I'm still waiting for you to take credit for 1.3 while you're at it.

[GSH]

Been getting a lot of reports of 'ZwWaitForSingleObject' AV's recently. This one was reported to me on z28+VSR right after players deployed their recyclers.

As much as possible, I'd like the full log files from each and every crash. This may be a stuck D3D driver somewhere, or a threading problem, and the more patterns (e.g. OS, 3D card family, # of cores, etc) I can see from all the logs would help. Thanks.

-- GSH

[Red Devil]

I just want to take some time and acknowledge the unsung hero of 1.3 and that is Commando.

Commando can - and has - run circles around me and the rest of us backwards and blindfolded.

He is responsible for many of the feature requests that we use and which GSH and Ken then kindly implemented. His powers of observation of detail that most overlook are unmatched, except maybe for Daylight.

I'll be playing a game with him, testing something, and he'll make this observation that just completely floors me. He also has an excellent "what if" imagination, which is where the features originate. He is also excellent to bounce ideas off of. I've had some ideas I had thought about implementing and mentioned them to him and he would instantly and correctly tell me why that would not be a good idea, which I accepted.

So, if anybody deserves credit around here - and rarely gets it - it is Commando.

[GSH]

EDIT: I I'm able to produce this effect just by picking any scrap pool and driving towards it. The closer my screen is, the lower the fps, until I'm sitting on it and am chugging along at 15fps.

Taking particles to "low" pretty well fixes the problem. But I like pretty things! /whine

Can you provide me a dxdiag log or a battlezone.log file to show your system's specs? Fullscreen transparency is a worst-case for slower graphics cards, as it involves a read-modify-write over and over again. Particles on low can cap the number and/or size of the transparent items drawn, which

Just so we're talking about the same thing, see this savegame (unzip and place in MyDocuments/My Games/Battlezone II/Saved). That's a savegame on bridges2i.bzn (IA:Bridges). I get 700+ fps (min 300-500, max 900-1900) on my system (Core i5-2405S, AMD/AYI 6950 2GB), running fullscreen 1920x1200, vsync & triple buffer off, all options max'd except for local fog off, lighting: no headlights, shadows: medium. And the profiler callstack shows nothing too out of the ordinary:



Terrain rendering is most of the top functions; the number at left is the percentage of time spent in BZ2 in that function. Not a single particle system (only) function appears in that -- I optimized that down a lot earlier this year. I didn't upload a screengrab, but in the tests, it spends more time (5.87% of all samples) in the ATI driver than in bzone.exe (4.22% of all samples), much more if all the DirectX DLLs get added to driver.

-- GSH

[Commando]

No credit needed. I contributed with testing when i had the time. There were also a few specific testers i could count on to help test.

I reported bugs as i saw them, and worked to reproduce what i could. I made feature requests based on what i thought would renew interest, at least mine, in the game.