Warzone 2100 Forums

Posted: **12 Dec 2006, 13:27**

I dont understand english very well, but I have a thing that WRP is going to do not a new WZ and > Just a mod like total wz or wz2120.. .

first Q > 1) WRP is a project that modifining old eng. only & no any mods ?

this Q. pointing to other Q. (not depending of answer)

2nd Q 2)If this project so must be a leader (TL). Who is a leader ?

If I all understand right so TL must to control other (giving them tasks on witch they must to consentrat or something like that) .

3rd Q 3) Every project has a good basic (good engine) . We dont have it. So I dont understant thing like a 3 weapons on on tank , or dividing wz on classic or ... . ?
Dev told right course > new scripts, new file format for models , more flexible engine for developing.

Sorry may be i'm not a gentelman but I see that only Dev doing right things. If they realy are .

Posted: **12 Dec 2006, 21:08**

Puh... Can someone help me understand? (NO pun intended...)
Please: If you know your english is not perfect (mine is not, either, I know...) please don't use that many abbreviations as this makes it even harder to understand...
Writing too much is better than not writing enough.

You don't need to write as much as kage, though.

I think with "Q" you mean "Question"?
Assuming this (What's the "Q project" then?), I'll try to answer:

Answer to question 1:
Yes, we are modifying the old engine and don't plan to release any mods by ourselves. We change some things, even in the gameplay or wherever we think it fits and the plan is to try to provide enough functionallity for modders.
Nevertheless there are some ideas by some persons to do more radical changes, which they would put into a mod, because the intention is not to have a total conversion of the Warzone game.

Answer to question 2:
There is no leader. We are a open source, community project. Everyone does what he likes to do and if the rest of the team likes the changes they go into the game. If they don't like them one can see if he can add the possibility to put it into a mod.
There is certainly no kind of control or assignment of task to anyone.
What we try to do is leading the project into what we think is the right direction, by trying to push the discussions into our direction or to create discussions about things we think are important.

Answer to Question 3:
The code may not be as good as it could, but we try to improve it.

3 weapons on a tank were introduced, because the author of that patch (Watermelon) liked to have 3 weapons. Nothing more, nothing less. Basically everyone can think about what he would like to have in Warzone and send us his patches. If the code is good (read: not hacky/ugly, but flexible, maintanable and understandable) we will include it. And I think I can't remember rejecting any patch because of any other reason than code-quality. (If you would send a patch that turns WZ into a First Person Shooter, I'd certainly give my veto, though.

)

Actually I am doing nothing at the moment. Actually I am currently more one of those who talk but don't do. (I have not much time, so I try to review patches whenever I can, but I don't have time to implement what I am talking about.)
So we should rather say I am "saying the right things".

And there we are again, at answer Nr. 2: Trying to guide to what I think is "right"...

Posted: **12 Dec 2006, 21:38**

I think 'TL' stands for 'Team Leader' in Terminator's post.

DevUrandom wrote: Answer to Question 3:
The code may not be as good as it could, but we try to improve it.
3 weapons on a tank were introduced, because the author of that patch (Watermelon) liked to have 3 weapons. Nothing more, nothing less. Basically everyone can think about what he would like to have in Warzone and send us his patches. If the code is good (read: not hacky/ugly, but flexible, maintanable and understandable) we will include it. And I think I can't remember rejecting any patch because of any other reason than code-quality. (If you would send a patch that turns WZ into a First Person Shooter, I'd certainly give my veto, though. )

It's not my original idea to add multiple weapons to a 'tank' in wz,you can do a search with keywords 'can only have one weapon now' in wz source and look at the number of results returned,you will know what I mean.The multi-turret idea was a 'dead' wish of the wz game itself when it was firstly released imo.

Actually I am doing nothing at the moment. Actually I am currently more one of those who talk but don't do. (I have not much time, so I try to review patches whenever I can, but I don't have time to implement what I am talking about.)
So we should rather say I am "saying the right things". And there we are again, at answer Nr. 2: Trying to guide to what I think is "right"...

Having 'developers' to review every single patch is probably a bit ineffecient and give them too much pressure,something like quality assurance team which consists of the most acknowledgeable members who are very familar with wz source might be a good workaround while developers are busy/mailinglist is not working very well lately...

Posted: **12 Dec 2006, 22:31**

DevUrandom wrote: Writing too much is better than not writing enough. You don't need to write as much as kage, though.

hey now... that's a medical condition.

also, terminator has posted on this board a whole lot of times, and as far as i've seen, it's always been considerably more comprehensible... are we sure this is the same person posting under that name?

Posted: **13 Dec 2006, 02:40**

Watermelon wrote: Having 'developers' to review every single patch is probably a bit ineffecient and give them too much pressure,something like quality assurance team which consists of the most acknowledgeable members who are very familar with wz source might be a good workaround while developers are busy/mailinglist is not working very well lately...

Well, I don't have any time to do more than looking at patches and say "ok, looks good, I'll commit" or "no, looks ugly, back to author"...
The quality assurance team is a good idea, it just has 2 minor problems:
1. We probably don't have many people who are technically be able to review patches.
2. We have even less people who are "very familiar" with the sourcecode. Even I wont say I am very familiar with it. Should I stop reviewing now?

If we could manage to get someone who we believe can check code for the conditions stated above, it would be good of course.
He would not only need to check if the patch compiles and runs and does this without any malfunctions or sideeffects, but also need to keep the overall picture in mind and look at the patch for (eg) redundant/unused parts, for being flexible towards further additions/changes (in sane borders) and if the patch also improves/cleans/documents the code in its context. Otherwise we need another cleanup team which walks through the whole code and improves function by function.
The last part can be a huge task, so it is merely optional, but very much prefered. (At least by me.)

There is one guideline which I set to myself when developing (read: not reviewing patches as currently) the Warzone code:
Add a comment describing the function in detail (from an API point of view), for every function I get to know. (Means: I found out what it does, why, in which context, and how it achieves it's goal.)
For those interested: I use the DoxyGen syntax, because I hope that some day we will get a full API reference which is a valuable ressource for every WZ dev.
Looks like this then:

Code: Select all

//! Do this and that (short)
/*! more descriptive description in a new block like this, if needed
 *  incl. purpose and context and the next lines should allways be included:
 *  \param p1 The object to operate on
 *  \param p2 What to do...
 *  \return True if we succeeded, false otherwise
 */
bool myFunction(Object* p1, Action* p2);

(No intend to highjack this thread.

If someone wants to discuss the use of DoxyGen or whatever: Please open another thread, I'll read it.

)

Posted: **13 Dec 2006, 08:55**

DevUrandom wrote: Puh... Can someone help me understand? (NO pun intended...)
Please: If you know your english is not perfect (mine is not, either, I know...) please don't use that many abbreviations as this makes it even harder to understand...
Writing too much is better than not writing enough. You don't need to write as much as kage, though.
I think with "Q" you mean "Question"?
Assuming this (What's the "Q project" then?), I'll try to answer:

ok . I'll try to write without abbreviations. :-[

DevUrandom wrote: Answer to question 1:
Yes, we are modifying the old engine and don't plan to release any mods by ourselves. We change some things, even in the gameplay or wherever we think it fits and the plan is to try to provide enough functionallity for modders.
Nevertheless there are some ideas by some persons to do more radical changes, which they would put into a mod, because the intention is not to have a total conversion of the Warzone game.

This all what I wanted to hear.

DevUrandom wrote: There is no leader.

It should be anyway. Its better for wz.

kage wrote: are we sure this is the same person posting under that name?

As I know all topics are my.( I remember that I posted them.

)

Warzone 2100 Forums

Q project ?

Q project ?

Re: Q project ?

Re: Q project ?

Re: Q project ?

Re: Q project ?

Re: Q project ?