[Community Input] Use 2.3.x or 3.0 for Campaign 4?

Goth Zagog-Thou · Post by **Goth Zagog-Thou** » 11 May 2011, 19:01

We're at a point in development where decisions need to be made concerning the version of Warzone 2100 that we use for Campaign 4. I want the Community to vote on this and decide it for us.

Please chime in with your opinion. Thanks!

Post by **NoQ** » 11 May 2011, 20:18

I seem to have a similar confusion from time to time. The only thing that will help us decide is knowing how soon will 3.0 actually appear (at least in beta stage).

Post by **Jorzi** » 12 May 2011, 09:56

I think it's a good idea to use trunk. That way, new models can be added using the pie 3 format, allowing for better model definition and possible future support for the art revolution models (including normal map support).

Post by **MaNGusT** » 12 May 2011, 10:54

Jorzi wrote:I think it's a good idea to use trunk. That way, new models can be added using the pie 3 format, allowing for better model definition and possible future support for the art revolution models (including normal map support).

As you may remember, we haven't even completed the models for the campaign 1 yet.

Post by **Jorzi** » 12 May 2011, 11:38

I am painfully aware of that

That's why I said "possible future support".

Post by **effigy** » 12 May 2011, 23:55

NoQ wrote:I seem to have a similar confusion from time to time. The only thing that will help us decide is knowing how soon will 3.0 actually appear (at least in beta stage).

Also, it would be helpful to get your best guess as to when Campaign 4 will be finished.

<1 year: stick with 2.3.x imo

Goth Zagog-Thou · Post by **Goth Zagog-Thou** » 13 May 2011, 00:33

Campaign 4 is working under the"no fixed release date" approach. There's a ton of things to be taken into account, and since we're an open community working all of this as a labour of love, it'll get done when the time is right.

Post by **effigy** » 13 May 2011, 00:40

Hmm, well that sounds like over a years worth of work to me

Iluvalar · Post by **Iluvalar** » 13 May 2011, 18:40

2.3.x because that's the one i can play right now, but of course by keeping in mind the transition to futur release as much as possible in developpement.

milo christiansen · Post by **milo christiansen** » 13 May 2011, 19:37

Scripts are going to have to be ported to JavaScript eventually anyway, so all that will need to be done is to transition to different data files, and I've done THAT once already

Sticking with 2.3.x for now just means that I'll need to keep a copy installed for cam testing

It wont be that much extra work to transition later.

Goth Zagog-Thou · Post by **Goth Zagog-Thou** » 13 May 2011, 19:47

It's decided then. We're going with 3.0. Mods, please lock the thread. Thanks for the input, everyone.

milo christiansen · Post by **milo christiansen** » 13 May 2011, 20:03

Actually I figured out a way to support both version with no extra work

I'll just make 4 packages:

3.0 specific data files
2.3 specific data files
Scripts
Maps/wrfs/lev file

It wont be any extra work because I have the 2.3 data files ready to go and I need to (re)make the 3.0 data files anyway. I'll just split it up. As long as no 3.0 features are used that have no 2.3 equivalent it'll work fine. the 2.3 version might end up a little crippled compared to the 3.0 version but that will mostly be looks not gameplay

Goth Zagog-Thou · Post by **Goth Zagog-Thou** » 13 May 2011, 20:08

Ok Milo, whatever works best for you.

Rman Virgil · Post by **Rman Virgil** » 14 May 2011, 15:31

milo christiansen wrote:Actually I figured out a way to support both version with no extra work

I'll just make 4 packages:
3.0 specific data files
2.3 specific data files
Scripts
Maps/wrfs/lev file
It wont be any extra work because I have the 2.3 data files ready to go and I need to (re)make the 3.0 data files anyway. I'll just split it up. As long as no 3.0 features are used that have no 2.3 equivalent it'll work fine. the 2.3 version might end up a little crippled compared to the 3.0 version but that will mostly be looks not gameplay

Excellent all the way around, for 2 fundamental reasons.

1.) As reasoned 2 months ago, v.3.x is, & will remain for some time to come, a moving target - & all that entails vis-a-vis development & maintenance (ever onward) of this project, .

2.) Since there will never again be a software renderer for folks who cannot run v.3.0 in the HW (for whatever reason), the v.2.3.x series can stand in for most of those folks who would otherwise be left out in the cold & not be able to enjoy this project (I do not think these folks should be considered negligible anytime on the horizon).

- RV

.

Warzone 2100 Forums

[Community Input] Use 2.3.x or 3.0 for Campaign 4?

[Community Input] Use 2.3.x or 3.0 for Campaign 4?

Re: [Community Input] Use 2.3.x or 3.0 for Campaign 4?

Re: [Community Input] Use 2.3.x or 3.0 for Campaign 4?

Re: [Community Input] Use 2.3.x or 3.0 for Campaign 4?

Re: [Community Input] Use 2.3.x or 3.0 for Campaign 4?

Re: [Community Input] Use 2.3.x or 3.0 for Campaign 4?

Re: [Community Input] Use 2.3.x or 3.0 for Campaign 4?

Re: [Community Input] Use 2.3.x or 3.0 for Campaign 4?

Re: [Community Input] Use 2.3.x or 3.0 for Campaign 4?

Re: [Community Input] Use 2.3.x or 3.0 for Campaign 4?

Re: [Community Input] Use 2.3.x or 3.0 for Campaign 4?

Re: [Community Input] Use 2.3.x or 3.0 for Campaign 4?

Re: [Community Input] Use 2.3.x or 3.0 for Campaign 4?

Re: [Community Input] Use 2.3.x or 3.0 for Campaign 4?