Warzone 2100 Fork: Legacy

Other talk that doesn't fit elsewhere.
This is for General Discussion, not General chat.
Originway
Trained
Trained
Posts: 412
Joined: 08 Aug 2012, 06:22

Re: Warzone 2100 Fork: Legacy

Post by Originway » 30 Oct 2012, 21:00

bendib wrote:Well, I got sick of it. The thought in the back of my mind of devs mocking me for going full QT, the few users who lag like heck with the new backend, well, I got so sick of it I did the unthinkable: I downloaded RC3. Not to play, I downloaded it to benchmark it against the latest of Warzone 2100 Legacy. Not much difference, but wasn't QT supposed to be slower? That's not what I found. Benched against two running copies of itself, Legacy loses like 10fps compared to RC3, but side by side with RC3, well, there you go.
running at the same time? that don't prove anything, and in both cases your fps is pathetic so you wouldn't notice issues.

User avatar
Rman Virgil
Professional
Professional
Posts: 3812
Joined: 25 Sep 2006, 01:06
Location: USA

Re: Warzone 2100 Fork: Legacy

Post by Rman Virgil » 30 Oct 2012, 22:57

.

Have to give you props bendib not only on your efforts with the Legacy fork but also in how you deal with the purely nasty comments.

Where do these peeps come from. They all seem to come out of nowhere, like zydonk noted the other day, and stamped out of the same cookie-cutter mold of pure vile and vitriol. I shake my head and bite my tongue to restrain my first immature impulse to wanna rhetorically squash them like blood-sucking bed bugs.

More power to your efforts and even tempered disposition. :3

.

User avatar
bendib
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1006
Joined: 29 Aug 2010, 05:22
Location: Imeuta
Contact:

Re: Warzone 2100 Fork: Legacy

Post by bendib » 30 Oct 2012, 23:04

Jorzi wrote:@bendib: shadows and shading are entirely different things, shadows have a significant impact on performance while terrain shading is (hopefully) precomputed and has no effect on performance.
That said, the lighting inconsistency in 3.1 really bothers me.

EDIT: oh wait, legacy has shadows on while 3.1 doesn't and legacy still runs faster? Although having them running at the same time might significantly alter the result.
They all had exactly the same things enabled and I observed the FPS rate for over a minute of them both. That's how I knew it was a fair comparison. I do know the diff between shaders and shadows, and both Legacy and RC3 had shaders disabled and shadows enabled.
Rman Virgil wrote:.

Have to give you props bendib not only on your efforts with the Legacy fork but also in how you deal with the purely nasty comments.

Where do these peeps come from. They all seem to come out of nowhere, like zydonk noted the other day, and stamped out of the same cookie-cutter mold of pure vile and vitriol. I shake my head and bite my tongue to restrain my first immature impulse to wanna rhetorically squash them like blood-sucking bed bugs.

More power to your efforts and even tempered disposition. :3

.
I sincerely appreciate your support. If you code, we'd be happy to have you on the team as a first-class developer. Otherwise, beep me if you would like other ways to help.
Last edited by bendib on 30 Oct 2012, 23:40, edited 1 time in total.
Image

User avatar
bendib
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1006
Joined: 29 Aug 2010, 05:22
Location: Imeuta
Contact:

Re: Warzone 2100 Fork: Legacy

Post by bendib » 30 Oct 2012, 23:12

Originway wrote:running at the same time? that don't prove anything, and in both cases your fps is pathetic so you wouldn't notice issues.
You fit the mold Rman Virgil was just talking about, however I must admit I'm not sure if this is how he would want me to handle this, (sry rman) You are not welcome in this thread or in the Legacy community, so your putrid negative attitude served you well, because since you hate Legacy, you won't mind being barred from it's resources. Grow up and learn how to say something nice that isn't sarcastic for once. We're all really sick of you, while you seem to think it's everyone else who is wrong. I know your origin and your way, and they're both synicism itself.
Image

User avatar
Rman Virgil
Professional
Professional
Posts: 3812
Joined: 25 Sep 2006, 01:06
Location: USA

Re: Warzone 2100 Fork: Legacy

Post by Rman Virgil » 31 Oct 2012, 02:25

.

Well bendib coding is something I stopped doing a long time ago cause that part of my brain ain't up to it anymore. I can only manage writing simple script triggers for my machinima work these days. Mostly I'm focused on creating cinematics and comics these days. I could help with testing Legacy and reporting results. I built a fairly high-end rig to render my cinematics in a reasonable time frame (play really resource demanding games too, of course ;) ). So any version of 3.x is very unlikely to put any sort of strain on the rig (WIN OS).

So if testing and detailed reporting on that type rig would be in any way useful, let me know and be glad to go foward with it. :3

.
Last edited by Rman Virgil on 31 Oct 2012, 23:43, edited 1 time in total.

Lord Apocalypse
Regular
Regular
Posts: 678
Joined: 29 Jul 2009, 18:01

Re: Warzone 2100 Fork: Legacy

Post by Lord Apocalypse » 31 Oct 2012, 04:21

Here is soemthing you might want to search for bendib. In game programming gems 3 I found this section: Real-Time Hierarchical Profiling. You should read over it and see if its something you might want to add in either in debug mode or as a console enabled command. The code listed from GPG3 was included (to some extent) in the bullet physics libray here though i don't know what other source pages may be needed.

I also found this (Multithreaded hierarchical realtime profiling) which is a C++ framework project on sf.net

In any case, I think this would really help in future testing.

User avatar
Staff
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 387
Joined: 27 May 2011, 04:08

Re: Warzone 2100 Fork: Legacy

Post by Staff » 31 Oct 2012, 04:41

Stop the personal attacks and trolling, or violators will be taking a vacation.
Sorry, this account has been deactivated.
Please post issues in Website feedback instead, only Moderators can read things there.

User avatar
bendib
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1006
Joined: 29 Aug 2010, 05:22
Location: Imeuta
Contact:

Re: Warzone 2100 Fork: Legacy

Post by bendib » 31 Oct 2012, 05:12

I don't have words to respond to the staff account's post, because I do try to be the civil one, but I will acknowledge it and note that I find it laughably ironic.
Image

User avatar
bendib
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1006
Joined: 29 Aug 2010, 05:22
Location: Imeuta
Contact:

Re: Warzone 2100 Fork: Legacy

Post by bendib » 03 Nov 2012, 17:26

I have released the biggest behemoth update to date, microwave snapshot 11-03-2012. This is a big game changer IMHO. Changelog.

Download page
Image

Jorzi
Regular
Regular
Posts: 2008
Joined: 11 Apr 2010, 00:14

Re: Warzone 2100 Fork: Legacy

Post by Jorzi » 03 Nov 2012, 20:29

I looked at the terrain lighting patch a bit and it was pretty straightforward. There's a reason, however, why it probably won't be included in current master. The problem is that, instead of fixing the bug that causes the lighting to be calculated incorrectly, it introduces new code that cancels out the effect of the bug.
I downloaded the warzone source and tried hunting down the cause of the bug, but there was quite a bit of code to look through so I didn't really find anything yet. I have a few ideas, however, about what might be causing the problem, among which are normal calculation and coordinate system inconsistencies (warzone has plenty of these and they cause quite a bit of trouble)
ImageImage
-insert deep philosophical statement here-

User avatar
bendib
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1006
Joined: 29 Aug 2010, 05:22
Location: Imeuta
Contact:

Re: Warzone 2100 Fork: Legacy

Post by bendib » 04 Nov 2012, 06:04

Yes, well, unfortunately it's not the first piece of code that's rather ugly I've introduced. The method for spectating, for example, is horrid, however it works quite well. My criteria usually requires that it do it's job correctly, compile without warnings, and not introduce new bugs. If it's an unusual way of fixing the issue, so be it.
Image

User avatar
bendib
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1006
Joined: 29 Aug 2010, 05:22
Location: Imeuta
Contact:

Re: Warzone 2100 Fork: Legacy

Post by bendib » 04 Nov 2012, 08:45

NOTE: The windows installer cuts off some text for the announcement and fails to show game banners. These bugs have been repaired in the latest few commits. The game will still perform as expected, but the installer will be ugly.
Wine users: The installer behaves as expected under Wine. Real Windows is where problems arise.
Image

User avatar
bendib
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1006
Joined: 29 Aug 2010, 05:22
Location: Imeuta
Contact:

Re: Warzone 2100 Fork: Legacy

Post by bendib » 09 Nov 2012, 06:59

Effects and features (excluding a few that did not work properly under PIE 3 format, which will later be recreated as PIE 3 only, e.g. anim. factories) are currently all that remains to convert Legacy to full PIE 3 compliance. The game is stable and the conversion causes no noticable changes. Many extra and lag-causing polygons that nobody can notice were deleted in conversion, and it makes a surprisingly large difference in framerate improvements. Effects and features will be converted over the next few days.

End of Legacy news..
Image

Jorzi
Regular
Regular
Posts: 2008
Joined: 11 Apr 2010, 00:14

Re: Warzone 2100 Fork: Legacy

Post by Jorzi » 09 Nov 2012, 20:07

I found some interesting news concerning the light direction bug: I recently installed warzone 2.0.10 and found out that in that version, shadows and ground shading had the same direction. It was, however, the shadow direction that has changed and not the terrain shading. This suggests that it is actually the other light calculations that are wrong and not the terrain shading.
ImageImage
-insert deep philosophical statement here-

User avatar
bendib
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1006
Joined: 29 Aug 2010, 05:22
Location: Imeuta
Contact:

Re: Warzone 2100 Fork: Legacy

Post by bendib » 09 Nov 2012, 20:32

The original game did not have shadows if I recall correctly. This means to me, that 2.x may have intended for inverted direction, but personally, I think it would be very ugly with inverted shadows. I like things as they are.

-Sub
Image

Post Reply