Hard Light Productions Forums
Hosted Projects - Standalone => The Babylon Project => Topic started by: Flipside on February 13, 2009, 10:18:31 am
-
Ok, I'm opening this thread to get feedback on ideas for an update to TBP in order to keep compatability for 3.6.10.
Firstly, some ground rules:
1: No Flaming, this is for reasonable discussion, things got a bit heated last time, so lets all try to state our cases here, and respect other people's points of view without getting heated.
2: This update will NOT BE SUPPORTED BY THE OFFICIAL TBP TEAM. They've done their work, now it's up to the fans to maintain the project they love.
3: The primary purpose of this project is to remove problems with the current model set-up that are causing errors and problems for the SCP Team whilst debugging the Source Code related to it. It is not an 'upgrade' or a 're-make', the models themselves will remain the work of the people who worked so hard to create them.
From the feedback I have recieved, the following problems have so far been resolved:
* Several MOI settings that were problematical have now been fixed (but not all so far)
* VE Dreadnought model stability improved.
* Shipset split so that there are two versions, one compatible with the 'standard' build, and an extended shipset which is compatible with the Inferno build.
* Fixed objecttypes entries that were creating warnings.
* AI Profile priority repaired.
* Missing eff frame issues repaired.
* Missing texture issues repaired.
Work still to be done includes:
* Rebuilding MOI entries for ships this has not currently been done on.
* Some LOD issues to be corrected.
* Some turret set-ups to be re-calibrated
IMPORTANT NOTE:
I have been modding Freespace 2 for several years, and people should bear in mind that TBP was one of the first Total Conversions for Freespace, so a lot of these problems are NOT caused by 'bad modelling' or anything else of that ilk, I know from experience, the problems that sometimes arose with older versions of PCS and other conversion programs around at the time, sometimes Lods would swap themselves for no reason, turrets would refuse to work, MOI's would delete themselves for no reason etc, so please no throwing blame around for these problems, it is NOT the intention of this thread to throw aspersions at the vast amount of work done by the Team, it is merely a fact that the SCP, and Freespace 2 is changing, and it is up to the fans, who have supported and loved this mod for so long, to continue to help TBP remain the definitive Freespace 2 experience.
My intention is that this patch will be available in the TBP Forums, thus keeping the entire TBP experience together, but I will re-iterate that this is NOT an official patch, the standard TBP will continue to function as normal under 3.6.9.
Please post any feedback/thoughts/suggestions.
-
Hi Flipside. The rules for modding The Babylon Project are listed in this (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,56303.0.html) thread.
Please let me quote the first of those rules (the one in the enormous font):
1. TBP is FINAL and the core is to remain as is and not to be modified in any way.
Please let me tell you why this rule exists:
- TBP Final was extensively beta tested to produce an end user experience which was as stable as possible. Every time you change the core files you risk introducing new bugs into the game. Even if the original change was intended to fix a bug. There's no reason fixing bug A) shouldn't introduce bug B) and bug C). The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
- Changes to the core files might result in broken backward compatability with existing missions and campaigns written for TBP Final. Presently it's simple. Someone downloads TBP Final. They can play any campaign and write campaigns knowing everyone can play them. If you're patch breaks that you add a whole new layer of complexity and headache to the proceedings. With the potential to create a support nightmare for campaign writers and us here in the TBP public forum alike.
So you see, these rules exist for very good reasons.
That said, let's look at your suggestions:
2: This update will NOT BE SUPPORTED BY THE OFFICIAL TBP TEAM.
Who would support it if the patch were to backfire?
3: The primary purpose of this project is to remove problems with the current model set-up that are causing errors and problems for the SCP Team whilst debugging the Source Code related to it.
Ok so this offers no benefit to the end user.
It is not an 'upgrade' or a 're-make', the models themselves will remain the work of the people who worked so hard to create them.
It would not be a continuation of "The Babylon Project" in any way. That project has finished. This is very important. The TBP team have no intention of handing over development of TBP to another team. This is fundamentally against the team's wishes.
* Several MOI settings that were problematical have now been fixed (but not all so far)
Harmless fix.
* VE Dreadnought model stability improved.
Explain. Feel free to be technical. I was "technical manager" of this mod before I was "project leader".
* Shipset split so that there are two versions, one compatible with the 'standard' build, and an extended shipset which is compatible with the Inferno build.
I am vetoing this. The beauty of the present setup is that the end user doesn't need to think about installing a particular shipset. They just run the appropriate build. If there are too many ships it silently throws warnings. Good for the end user. Bad for you. I care about you, but not as much as I care about the end user.
* Fixed objecttypes entries that were creating warnings.
Again, please explain.
* AI Profile priority repaired.
Again, please explain.
* Missing eff frame issues repaired.
Harmless.
* Missing texture issues repaired.
Harmless.
* Rebuilding MOI entries for ships this has not currently been done on.
This has the potential to cause all kinds of damage. We are to assume that the new version of PCS won't introduce new problems? Sorry but I've used too many versions of PCS. Most of our models were saved using old versions of the program and god knows what problems that might cause.
* Some LOD issues to be corrected.
Table entries or model recompiles?
* Some turret set-ups to be re-calibrated
Again, what exactly will change.
and it is up to the fans, who have supported and loved this mod for so long, to continue to help TBP remain the definitive Freespace 2 experience.
Let's get this straight. The TBP team is not handing the project over to the fans for further development. That is expressly against the wishes of the team who worked so hard on the TBP Final release.
Please can you clarify the work you are suggesting where requested above and we will discuss further. Also please can you tell me why since this patch mainly benefits the SCP team and nobody else, the SCP team cannot simply create their own internal patch for their own use? Thanks.
-
Ok, I'm opening this thread to get feedback on ideas for an update to TBP in order to keep compatability for 3.6.10.
* Shipset split so that there are two versions, one compatible with the 'standard' build, and an extended shipset which is compatible with the Inferno build.
Please post any feedback/thoughts/suggestions.
Probably Inferno build is not required any more. Is needed some time to find out it.
-
Another good point made by Den5. I thought the ship limit had been raised in 3.6.10.
-
Apparently not. An Inferno build is still required to access the entire shipset. (Using the latest Knightly build, anyway)
-
all senseless posts will be (and have been) removed.
I already stated in various discussions with FUB that I would accept (and like) an "update" VIA A MOD simply because it's a mod not an update. The game was released with the possibility to mod it, so anybody can mod anything he or she wants. TBP is and stays final, the core is left untouched. Easy as that. We refused making patchs (and a mod was out of the question for the SCP for some reason) or a new release. But this would have nothing to do with us, it would not be supported by us, it's just a mod somebody else made. :)
Now a personal statement:
Of course I'd like to continue the multiplayer support, especially with lobby and all this. Of course I'd like to benefit from neat new updates. The end user would like that too.
-> End Personal statement.
But of course, I refuse making any patch.
However, anybody can make a mod. Has nothing to do with me... ;) You get me right?
Still, discussing what will be part of the mentioned mod should benefit a potenially released 3.6.10 upgrade mod. I like to compare it to the mediaVPS mod for FS2.
-
Yes there is a significant difference between a "patch" which modifies the default installation without giving the user any say in the matter, and a mod implemented using the mod system which gives the user the option of running a modified installation or not. Obviously I would lean towards the latter. This also fits with our rule #2.
2. Anything not already included in the installation should not be placed in the main TBP folder or under it's data folder. A Mod folder should be used for all changes and additions including but not limited to models, campaigns, sounds, missions, tables, weapons, animations, etc. The only exception to this is for multi player missions and campaigns using the default tables since they have to be there. Also keep in mind that there is a 32 character limit (that's name with extension) in FS2 when naming files.
Let us not forget though that we would still be waiving rule #1 with all the risks that poses, as discussed. The question remains: why? You must look at everything on a risk vs reward basis. One thing I disagree with you about Vidmaster is that implementing the SCP team's fixes is in some way a pre-requisite for TBP running with 3.6.10 and you getting the lobby and all the nice multiplayer goodies I would also like to partake in. The simple fact is, TBP works fine with 3.6.9. It should also work with 3.6.10. So we must drop this false assumption that these fixes are required from the conversation and analyse them on their own merit on a risk vs reward basis.
I need to see the details of the changes to do that. So I await more infomration.
-
Who would support it if the patch were to backfire?
Depends how or why it backfires really, the whole purpose of the Mod is to repair stuff, so any 'backfires' as you call them, should be code problems, not model problems. That is part of the reason behind the patch, to define which problems are genuinely being created by the code, not by strange values/missing information in models.
Ok so this offers no benefit to the end user.
It offers considerable benefit to the user, it is a repair, the reason behind that statement is to point out that the intention is not to recreate hi-poly models etc, it is purely to repair the current problems on the models. You could have asked this kind of question when I PMed you a copy of the original post to make sure you were ok with the wording,
Explain. Feel free to be technical. I was "technical manager" of this mod before I was "project leader".
I can't explain in detail, I didn't do the fixes, but apparently the VE Dreadnought would cause crashes, the objectypes, I'm not sure about, and the AIProfile was set to a lower priority to the standard FS2 AI.
This has the potential to cause all kinds of damage. We are to assume that the new version of PCS won't introduce new problems? Sorry but I've used too many versions of PCS. Most of our models were saved using old versions of the program and god knows what problems that might cause.
These are ones that would not open in the newer versions of PCS, I'm not sure what is planned for these yet.
Table entries or model recompiles?
Recompile for most models by the looks of things.
With the turrets, there are apparently some problems, and one model has managed to get one of it's own LODs assigned as a turret model.
Please can you clarify the work you are suggesting where requested above and we will discuss further. Also please can you tell me why since this patch mainly benefits the SCP team and nobody else, the SCP team cannot simply create their own internal patch for their own use? Thanks.
Because of the possibility for creeping errors caused by problems with models, the chances are high that 3.6.10 won't be able to support them unless they are repaired, the debug errors are there for a reason, even if it is moderately safe to ignore them on most occasions, the odds are high that 3.6.10 will have a much lower tolerance of model-setups, since this will help reduce those creeping errors. This is as much to help people to continue playing TBP on 3.6.10 as about the SCP Team fixing stuff. As I stated in my original post, 3.6.9 will continue to work as always with the original files, but for it to be compatible with 3.6.10 onwards, it will have to be patched.
With regards to the Patch vs Mod thing, well, that's up to the guys who create it, I don't see any reason why it couldn't be put in a VP of it's own and selected as a mod, but it's been a while since I modded FS2, so they'd know better than me.
-
Okay. IPAndrews, Vidmaster, would you support a patch if it was deployed as as mod?
-
I've already stated my opinion on this many times. I have nothing against fixing bugs as a mod. This is the way I think of it:
TBP 3.4b = FS2 Retail
Mods are fine. I have even stated a willingness to have a MediaVP style mod that would both contain fixes and new material. It would also be validated for multiplayer. It's something I wanted to put off for the future (Like 3.7) when more ships and the new pilot file code was implemented but if we have to start it sooner then I don't have a problem with it.
-
Fantastic. FUBAR, would you be willing to speak to the other team members and see if they'll agree?
What about the SCP side of things? Is a patch-as-mod for multiplayer support acceptable, Goober/Karajorma?
FUBAR, in the other thread I floated the idea of doing a 'TBP Director's Cut' or special edition at some point in the future. Maybe that would be a good reason to make an exception to your (otherwise excellent) commitment to keeping 3.4b final?
EDIT: to centralize discussion, I'll repost my suggestion from the other thread:
Okay, at the moment it looks like there mayyy be the potential for a consensus to emerge.
1) Would both parties be willing to work with an update if it was delivered as a mod, rather than a change to the core engine?
2) Would both parties be willing to consider the option of a 'Director's Cut' or 'TBP Special Edition' in the future, updating the core engine to 3.4c? This could come much later.
It would be great if TBP could continue in its position as one of the SCP's flagship total conversions. Although I think your commitment to finalizing TBP springs from the same commitment to reasonable milestones that made TBP so successful in the first place, we shouldn't let it stand in the way of a final step towards perfection.
As IPAndrews said, we've got to weigh the risks and rewards, and if at some point it seems like a rerelease of the core files wouldn't be too much of an issue -- it might even drum up new publicity! -- maybe the TBP team should do it.
In the mean time, we can deliver the patch as a mod in order to maintain multiplayer support.
Is that generally reasonable?
-
As far as I've ever understood it while 3.4b is final the DVD's will continue. New content and the mod could be included in the next DVD.
-
As far as I've ever understood it while 3.4b is final the DVD's will continue. New content and the mod could be included in the next DVD.
Awesome, I like the way this is headed.
IPAndrews and Vid, what do you think of this?
As for the SCP guys, I know that a patch-as-mod is not as ideal for you as something placed with the core files, but would it be an agreeable compromise for now?
-
Awesome, I like the way this is headed.
General Battuta. You're avatar says BP. Unless I'm mistaken that's Blue Planet. You are not the UN. We do not need your help to "move things along". Your comments are not helpful. I respectfully request that you leave us to it. Thanks.
-
Actually I think he's doing a heck of a job mediating. An impartial 3rd party might be a good thing.
-
I tend to agree. A 3rd party not connected with either project is useful. I can't mediate cause I'm on both projects. :)
Patch as a mod makes absolutely no difference to the coders from a straight patch for FS2 and only a minor difference for FRED. It's perfectly acceptable to me
I've already told FUBAR over a week ago that I supported a mediaVPs style patch.
-
He's not mediating Kara. He's not impartial in any way. He's already stated he's happy with the way things are headed which has revealed his preferred outcome. Besides we are all grown ups here we don't need to be hand held by some random bloke off the street. Now stop encouraging him.
-
* Several MOI settings that were problematical have now been fixed (but not all so far)
Harmless fix.
Harmless it may be but the fact that the sheer amount of ships which were/are lacking MOIs makes it unlikely that anyone with a debug build would run tbp given the amount of warnings
* VE Dreadnought model stability improved.
Explain. Feel free to be technical. I was "technical manager" of this mod before I was "project leader".
Stock VE Dreadnought crashes the game as soon as game tries to load it. So there kinda seems to be a problem in it...
* Fixed objecttypes entries that were creating warnings.
Again, please explain.
Several of the used objecttypes were referring to objecttype names which were via hardcoded compatibility fixes (fs1/fs2 compatibility) changed. In effect making several of the TBP objecttypes unused. (repair_rearm vs support, super cap vs supercap)
Again, please explain.
..
Harmless.
..
Harmless.
All causing warnings to appear when trying to load a mission with the models in question in it. And as they are rather trivial to fix then why shouldnt they?
* Rebuilding MOI entries for ships this has not currently been done on.
This has the potential to cause all kinds of damage. We are to assume that the new version of PCS won't introduce new problems? Sorry but I've used too many versions of PCS. Most of our models were saved using old versions of the program and god knows what problems that might cause.
* Some LOD issues to be corrected.
Table entries or model recompiles?
Problems vary greatly.. Some fixes will require reconverting the models while others may be fixeable with various pof file editors.
* Some turret set-ups to be re-calibrated
Again, what exactly will change.
For example... Ï presume drakh mothership is not supposed to use the main ship model as the 2nd turrets base submodel... which may be fixeable with pof file editor or it may yet require model reconversion.
-
Patch as a mod makes absolutely no difference to the coders from a straight patch for FS2 and only a minor difference for FRED. It's perfectly acceptable to me
I don't agree. A patch as an (inofficial) mod may be good for the SCP, but is not as good as a real patch for all the players.
To be blunt: A half-assed solution, that mainly helps the SCP isn't good enough imho.
We shouldn't forget that this isn't just about helping the coders making the debugging easier, but more important, about fixing problems/crashes for TBP players.
No "optional" and "inofficial" mod, will ever be spread as far as an official patch.
And how would you handle multiplayer once the 3.6.9 server is down?
Drop the official TBP version from the support and only support the inofficial patch?
-
...
And how would you handle multiplayer once the 3.6.9 server is down?
Drop the official TBP version from the support and only support the inofficial patch?
Good question.
Would a "unpatched" version of TBP be compatible with a patched in multiplayer?
While the models shouldn't affect anything, my guess is that different tables could cause some problems
( hacked tables for instance ).
-
Having read flipsides response I can declare my position.
I remain very much opposed to this mod in it's full form.
My reason for being opposed is simple. As far as I am concerned there is an enormous risk involved in this work with little or no reward for the end user.
Let me quantify the risk:
- Introduction of arbitrary pof bugs due to the "recompile of most models" as stated by Flipside. Recompiling a model is a huge undertaking and it took us long enough to find a stable version of PCS when we did it the first time. The potential for damage here literally cannot be underestimated. It's enormous. And the bugs won't always be easy to spot either. This statement alone by Flipside catapults this from being s small patch mod/fix mod/repair mod (whatever your chosen terminology is) to a major update.
- Loss of backward compatability due to table changes. As there is little detail about the table changes backward compatability cannot be guaranteed. Leading to the possibility of campaign/mission problems and support hell as discussed earlier
- Lack of accountability of the patch makers should something go wrong. Such a major update requires a full time team, and I will not sanction handing over TBP to a new full time team. The team decided to finish TBP. It must remain finished.
Weighing against this we have the positives:
"It offers considerable benefit to the user" says Flipside but I still haven't read any quantification of this past mention of "creeping errors". Hardly convincing. In the SCP forum their team talks about crashes and bugs, but when pressed Karajorma admits TBP isn't really buggy. There really is nothing here to fix. Except the SCP getting some warnings when they try to debug that annoy them. Is it worth all the risks above to remove some warnings for the SCP team? Especially when they are quite capable of implementing their own internal update which would solve their problems whilst not exposing TBP to the risks listed above. I think not.
I appreciate this won't make me popular but I think it's the sensible choice. It has nothing to do with ego, or control, it has to do with maintaining the quality of the work my team spent to much time on, and affording them and their decisions the respect they deserve.
-
Well, there aren't so many problems for the players at the moment. Our 3.6.9 game mostly works fine. Multiplayer wouldn't be officially supported I guess. What doesn't mean of course that we wouldn't try to help people getting it running.
*moderator hat on*
Regarding Battuda:
IP, I agreed on the last post but this one is different. We are all grown ups here remember? :)
If you dislike his attitude, you may of course ignore him. As I said silly posts with no good reason behind them will be removed, NO MATTER THE AUTHOR. That previous post wasn't. Let's discuss the matter at hand.
*moderator hat off*
-
Having read flipsides response I can declare my position.
I remain very much opposed to this mod in it's full form.
My reason for being opposed is simple. As far as I am concerned there is an enormous risk involved in this work with little or no reward for the end user.
Let me quantify the risk:
- Introduction of arbitrary pof bugs due to the "recompile of most models" as stated by Flipside. Recompiling a model is a huge undertaking and it took us long enough to find a stable version of PCS when we did it the first time. The potential for damage here literally cannot be underestimated. It's enormous. And the bugs won't always be easy to spot either. This statement alone by Flipside catapults this from being s small patch mod/fix mod/repair mod (whatever your chosen terminology is) to a major update.
- Loss of backward compatability due to table changes. As there is little detail about the table changes backward compatability cannot be guaranteed. Leading to the possibility of campaign/mission problems and support hell as discussed earlier
- Lack of accountability of the patch makers should something go wrong. Such a major update requires a full time team, and I will not sanction handing over TBP to a new full time team. The team decided to finish TBP. It must remain finished.
Weighing against this we have the positives:
"It offers considerable benefit to the user" says Flipside but I still haven't read any quantification of this past mention of "creeping errors". Hardly convincing. In the SCP forum their team talks about crashes and bugs, but when pressed Karajorma admits TBP isn't really buggy. There really is nothing here to fix. Except the SCP getting some warnings when they try to debug that annoy them. Is it worth all the risks above to remove some warnings for the SCP team? Especially when they are quite capable of implementing their own internal update which would solve their problems whilst not exposing TBP to the risks listed above. I think not.
I appreciate this won't make me popular but I think it's the sensible choice. It has nothing to do with ego, or control, it has to do with maintaining the quality of the work my team spent to much time on, and affording them and their decisions the respect they deserve.
I don't agree with this either.
There are issues that cause problems for the end user.
The important thing is to make sure the patch doesn't break anything that worked before.
At worst, I expect some minor tweaks in a few missions need to be made. Still a dedicated tester crew needs to be found and has to give the patch a go before it can be released to the public.
In my eyes, the whole mod idea is a way too dirty solution, causing a lot of new problems, an official patch would not.
A mod might seem better than having bugs in TBP and loosing the SCP support, but it certainly isn't the best solution for the end-user.
I'll repeat myself, but keep in mind that the patch needs to be primarily made for the end user.
@Angelus
I don't think there is a good solution for this, which works for the SCP* and TBP equally well...
That's why I oppose the whole mod idea.
*That's just me guessing here. Not any kind of SCP statement.
-
First is there any reason this couldn't be done in stages? Fix the simple table stuff first and worry about the big stuff down the road. I agree with IP that trying to recompile all that stuff isn't just a patch but a major change. If it is to be done lets take it in small chewable bites. Start with anything that can be done via .tbm.
3.4b and 3.6.9 will always be there and always be playable the way it is. People can still develop and play with 3.6.9. We already have a disclaimer that 3.6.9 is the last supported build for single. 3.6.10 is only going to be officially supported for multi. The patch could be the same. Only officially supported for multi. The mod is on a use at your own risk for single just like 3.6.10 is on a use at your risk basis now.
BTW I have used the VE Dreadnought and it didn't crash 3.6.9 single. It does however crash multi but only when a client respawns. Haven't tried it in 3.6.10 multi but I'm pretty sure I've tried it in 3.6.10 single.
-
BTW I have used the VE Dreadnought and it didn't crash 3.6.9 single.
You're talking about one bug FUBAR, which manifests half the time, and it's in the FAQ under known issues. The model came from 3D Studio max and the geometry was dodgy. It's always been unstable. It wouldn't even compile until I'd done significant work on it. You're lucky it works in single player mate :).
-
In the SCP forum their team talks about crashes and bugs, but when pressed Karajorma admits TBP isn't really buggy. There really is nothing here to fix.
Actually I said that there are bugs, especially in multiplayer. I said they're not common which means you can't claim that the game is buggy because you can't be certain which bugs are SCP and which are TBP and I don't much like blaming someone else for mistakes that are mine.
That however is from an end user point of view. For a FREDder there are a whole lot more problems. Things like the Vorlon Dreadnought being basically unusable don't affect the end user because they'll never see a mission with one in.
-
He's not mediating Kara. He's not impartial in any way. He's already stated he's happy with the way things are headed which has revealed his preferred outcome. Besides we are all grown ups here we don't need to be hand held by some random bloke off the street. Now stop encouraging him.
I said I was happy with the direction things were headed. I didn't mean that I favored one side over the other.
I meant that I was happy we seemed to be moving towards agreement, rather than disagreement; i.e. FUBAR suggested an arrangement can be reached.
I don't particularly understand why you're lashing out at me; I love TBP, I was glad to hear it had been finalized, and I'm eager to help however I can. In this case, it seems like most people want a neutral third party involved, and I happened to stumble into that role.
However, I can definitely understand why you wouldn't want some random individual trying to tell both sides how to behave; that can certainly be irritating. I'll try to avoid that.
ANYWAY.
It seems like these are the problems on the two sides right now:
The SCP can't troubleshoot any problem with TBP right now because all the various minor errors are cluttering things up. There's no way to tell if an issue is caused by models or by code.
TBP (IPAndrews, in particular) has reached a point where the game is stable for the end user under 3.6.9, and sees no profit in potentially introducing further bugs by delving back into the models. Additionally, I get the sense IPAndrews put a ton of work into the game and feels that his efforts largely weren't appreciated or supported by the SCP crew.
If that's generally correct, I'm not really sure how to proceed. Maybe the SCP guys should simply leave TBP alone, since they can't troubleshoot problems, and trust that the 3.6.9/3.4b combo really is stable.
On the other hand, a mod-patch doesn't seem like it would be wildly difficult, since it appears that it could be made by fans for free, and if it caused problems, people could simply not use it.
It seems like there's a lot of bad blood out there between the two parties. Is there any way we can step beyond it?
-
The solution is simple.
IPAndrews has stated his reasons why he doesn't want a patch. We only need to make sure none of these things happens.
All that need to be made sure is that the patch doesn't break anything, which is in the best interest of the end users.
Which means the patched version needs to be tested extensive to make sure it works the same way the previous version did.
IPAndrews also made clear that he doesn't want the patch to make any "improvements" to the actual game, so everybody involved in the work for the patch needs to restrain themselves to bugfixing(!)
Finally the SCP should try to keep the virtually bug-free TBP compatible with new build as long as possible.
Btw, this is my last comment on this. I hope you guys pick a solution that is best for the players, TBP and SCP in the end.
I'm off to fix some problems in SoL now.
This would mean full multiplayer support for TBP, even less crashes and problems and a longer lifetime for TBP. It also means the SCP coders can fix TBP-related code bugs in Mantis way easier.
This should be the best solution for all parties. And I hope this patch will be declared official, if doesn't change the actual game.
-
The biggest problem I'm seeing is that the lack of compatibility with the TBP 3.4b core and SCP 3.6.10 essentially means the dropping of multiplayer support for an unmodified TBP 3.4b, because of the shutting down of the multiplayer support for 3.6.9 itself. Obviously we can't un-support TBP in 3.6.9, it's already released and finalized as well, but when the FS2NetD servers stop working for 3.6.9, TBP-3.6.9 multi will die. That leaves using 3.6.10, somehow, as the only real solution (and hopefully it will be preferred because of all the multiplayer enhancements). I don't want to see TBP multi die with all the recent effort that's been put forth by some prominent members.
-
This is over people.
I gave the SCP team a fair opportunity to state their case. I considered it on it's merits and gave you a fully justified decision. I am happy it's the correct decision. You all know that it's my call to make. If you have any honour you'll respect it.
What's more I don't want this to be raised again. Plenty of times I've been in a position where a decision has been made, respected for a short while, and eventually respect has been conveniently forgotten and the debate has been restarted. So for that reason I am stating now that I do not give permission for any of my work to be used in any patch, fix, repair, upgrade or any other form of continuation of TBP, and I've touched every part of TBP. I'm sure there are many slippery ways of circumventing my wording there but in the end it's down to honour. You know what I'm saying.
As for future support for TBP from the SCP team... TBP works fine for the end user in 3.6.9. All we expect from 3.6.10 is that it will work no worse than it does in 3.6.9. Hopefully you are taking backward compatability seriously so that should not be an issue even if TBP is not officially supported by your team. In the end it's the SCP team's choice.
-
I just want to note that the SCP has always, so far as I can tell, been concerned with backwards compatibility above all else -- 'not breaking retail' has been their watchword since day 1.
So I don't think you have any concerns on that front.
-
[edit]removed useless text[/edit]
I totally support the 'no improvement' mantra, I can accept treating TBP as the retail release, equivalent to the box we all bought that had FS2 in it. as you may remember Volition released two patches for there final product, and I don't even know how many for FS1.
it makes perfect seance that no improvements to the content be made, that can be done in a mediaVP style mod, it's a totally separate issue. what needs to be addressed is fixing the problems.
I would also be fine with staged fixes, but it seems getting one patch out the door is going to be hard enough, so a whole stream of them seems unlikely.
-
Well it seems we've come to an impasse. There will be no patch as we have no rights to modify the data needed for there to be one.
Personally I'll be finishing up a mission on two and will continue to try to answer questions. I can't see continuing the development of multiplayer missions at this point.
-
it might seem that way, to the untrained eye, but somehow I have a feeling this isn't the end of this. he wasn't the only person who put a lot of work into this project, I don't see how he can make unilateral decisions like that.
-
This thread will not degrade into personal attacks. I've deleted several posts already and am getting tired of it. Keep it civil or take it elsewhere.
-
Just an ignorant impartial view on the matter here.
If someone uses TBP Final (3.4b) with a 3.6.10 executable instead of the provided 3.6.9 executable, isn't it changing the game significantly from the Final version already?
If fixes are needed for 3.6.10 (single or multiplayer) to work, they should be offered as a mod for people who want to play with 3.6.10 build.
If there are things that would need fixing with the 3.6.9 build as well, I can not see any reason why a modfix shouldn't be done, even though I can understand some reluctance regarding "unofficial" patch, but 3.6.10 is not part of the Final release anyway, correct?
Dropping 3.6.9 multiplayer (which will eventually happen if I have comprehended correctly) will mean that TBP final as it's distributed form (with 3.6.9 build) will not work in any case. Anyone who wants to play multiplayer will need to use a 3.6.10 build to begin with, unless they just play IP games, or someone puts up a TBP lobby server separate from the FS2netD... Changing the executable is the first thing that will change the configuration of the game, and that alone in my opinion is a LOT more radical change from the Final version than applying a mediaVP style patch.
I dunno, this argument just doesn't feel like it makes much sense. As far as advantages and disadvantages for a mod patch go, I can see these:
+Improved chances of using a debug build. This might not be a direct advantage for end users but it sure as hell is that for anyone who FREDs or makes any add-on mods for TBP, and after the fact it would benefit end users as well since they would be more likely to get bug-free campaigns and missions faster since it would be easier for their authors to debug them.
+Improved stability and accuracy (no fractal-style turrets etc.) for certain models, which would definitely be a benefit for the end user as well as mission designers and modders.
+Multiplayer compatibility (after 3.6.9 support goes away) and stability.
-A risk of losing backward compatibility for some user-made content or even official campaigns, if something that was configured to use broken model in an incorrect way to produce a right result will not produce a right result with a fixed model.
The way I see it, the pros are substantial and cons are manageable provided that the fix is tested properly, preferably with some user-made campaigns as well as the official two campaigns and multiplayer missions. Feel free to correct any wrong information in this post or ignore it.
-
From a impartial observers perspective without a vested interest in the project, I might make a suggestion.
If there is no current need to mod/fix/patch whatever in the immediate future it probably would be worth tabling the issue for a couple weeks even a month if time allows. Right now it seems everyone is wound up tighter then a drum. I have observed two rather vitriolic threads dealing with this issue which was quickly followed by this thread exploring the further options. Exploring options is always going to be a bit tricky but the fact that there has been no time to cool down means both sides have entered this process with frayed nerves. Given time to loosen up and mull over the possible options returning to this discussion might be more productive.
Have cessation on discussing this issue on the boards for two weeks, discuss the situation with your respective teams and open up the discussion again with a fresh start. Quite frankly it seems both sides have the best interest of the project at heart but have came at the problem in the most frakked up angle possible and its spun out of control. If you give it a little time you can probably come up with a compromise that preserves the work that has already been accomplished and secures the compatibility and end user experience of the game in the future. However, if you folks continue this debate in the fashion it has been without a break then your not going to be able to reach a solution that will benefit the legacy of TBP.
Even if you think its a stupid idea and I a nosy wanker who should mind his own business, right now if no compromise can be met the legacy of this project is going to be tarnished by this little FUMTU argument and both the project and the HLP community as a whole will be lesser for it.
-
I think that's an excellent idea.
-
I'll throw my two cents as a "TBP ending user" which is reasonable because I mostly play and record TBP.
As a fan of TBP I'm ofcourse sad of the recent events and I'm not happy about the "option" of dropping TBP multiplayer. I'll guess I'm not the only one here as I've read other replies very carefuly. Yeah I can be confident that the stable 3.6.9 will work for singleplayer as always, but it will only work for the campaigns that were done in the past (which most of the TBP fans have already played). But I'm also looking forward for campaigns that will rise up in future using new 3.6.10 features. So in short, if there's no 3.6.10 support anymore, there will be (most likely) no multiplayer, no new (mostly multiplayer but also some singleplayer because of lack of support) campaigns. That's almost like pulling out the plug from the ever growing TBP (mainly fan) community.
I can understand both parties however, everyone has their own reasons and their fixed policies to preserve.
But anyway, let's think what's best for TBP and basically for everyone involved. Let's be realistic. Let the good proposals and compromises rise again and let's discuss what's good and what really is the bad or just leave the bad out of it.
TBP has still the big potential of becomming of something greater than it is. There are still many B5 fans out there and many FS2 fans that doesn't know about TBP yet. And the majority of fans that do know about TBP still have their faith about what can still be done to their favourite game. TBP team knows it, fan community knows it and also SCP team knows it. Let's think of it this way. Let's not burn down bridges between the good and let's look into a future a little.
I'm still hoping that a solution will be made because there are many clever and resourceful developers around in HLP. If you need time, take it, if you need privacy take it. This discussion doesn't need to be completely public and doesn't need to be resolved asap. What StarSlayer proposed.
Anyways whatever the final resolution will be, I personally have faith that the multiplayer and new campaigns for TBP will continue, for the sake of the fan community and for the sake of the TBP's potential. Multiplayer is the key to bring up a new live community to support your work and play your game.
-
In my current drunken state one thing just occurred to me that I feel is appropriate:
"The Babylon Project was our last, best hope for peace. It failed"
With that I lock the thread until 2261 or at least until Vid wakes shows up to unlock it and moderate.
-
Woke up, ate breakfast, logged on.
Holy crap. Now this got out of control. And I fail to see the wisdom behind IP's refusal because a mod could break whatever it wants, nobody would have to play it since we have a working game. I would see it as a chance, an alternative. And you (and me) could still develop for good old 3.6.9.
If sb gave me a perfectly working update out of nowhere, I'd see no problem using it. And as unlikely that may be, according to IP, nothing would be harmed with somebody (whoever) started working on one in some internal group or forum. You all could still play standart 3.6.9.
However, I am not Asprin. If IP refuses his permission to work with what's his work to a large degree, I won't ignore such a veto.
Simply because I wouldn't want anybody ignoring a veto of my own for something I made.
So that's it. I don't like it. It may have consequences in the future.
But as long as IP doesn't change his mind, I can't even do something :sigh:.
-
Quite frankly, I'm more than convinced that no matter what I had suggested, or how I had suggested it, IP would have ended up denying his official position.
As was stated before, this has become about ego now, not common sense.
-
But as long as IP doesn't change his mind, I can't even do something :sigh:.
Why is that anyway? IP has not been officially a project leader for quite some time. As a matter of fact, it is you and FUBAR who currently are. Is that title for show only?
Denying permission to use TBP material for a different project is not same as denying permission to produce compatibility and bugfix patches to TBP. The two are completely different situations.
I agree that for now TBP needs a stable platform to produce missions and campaigns on, since that's what TBP needs now. But there is nothing wrong with fixing bugs and maintaining compatibility with fs2_open and FS2NetD. It is not SCP's responsibility to make their code work around issues that are caused by bugs in TBP data.
I'm sure we all agree that IP has done stellar job so far in bringing TBP to where it is now. It is also clear that he has no intention to work on TBP anymore which is perfectly understandable. But I don't understand why he won't let others to work on it. To be honest, personally I do not even believe he has the authority to prevent others from keeping TBP up-to-date.
-
yeah if that's the case than any of the many dozens of people who have worked on this project could at any time come in and deny use of materials and then you'd be boned because this is the 'final' version and you can't replace them.
just because one or two team members is being a jackass and saying you can't make a bugfix patch doesn't mean you have to listen to said crazed members. I mean I don't recall there ever being a vote on this matter, just IP and Tomcat saying it was the case and everyone else just sort of being ignored when they raised doubts as to the idea.
I know agreeing to following this insane policy was a term to many of the currently active member's acceptance, but the fact is you are the ones in charge now and you have to make the choice on what is the right thing to do.
-
yeah if that's the case than any of the many dozens of people who have worked on this project could at any time come in and deny use of materials and then you'd be boned
Doing that won't serve the interests of the mod's fanbase and the community at all.
-
which is why I said this position is crazy.
-
Ok, it took me longer to get around to posting this than I had intended, but here it is.
What's going to happen if no action is taken by either side:
- TBP 3.4b is finalized, no official updates or enhancements will be released. TBP works fine with FSO 3.6.9, providing a good user experience. (ok this already happened)
- 3.6.10 is released, FS2NetD for 3.6.9 clients is shut down due to numerous bugs solved in 3.6.10 that could not be backported to just the server for 3.6.9
- TBP users move to 3.6.10 for their multiplayer and FREDing needs
- Many issues are encountered, much to their chagrine
- Some SCP team members still help with TBP related issues out of sympathy to the many users who still wish to carry the torch
- Someone at some point realizes that there are some issues that need to be dealt with and decides to take action
- Patch is created by community to address many of these issues so that TBP can continue to be enjoyed to its fullest extent and retain compatibility with future SCP releases
- Eventually, unofficial patch becomes the de facto standard version (look at the Falcon 4.0 Superpatch pre-Allied Force, and I'm sure you can think of more examples where a community patch has become dominant over the 'official' version)
I'm sorry if you don't agree, but this really is the way things are already going, and the predictions are based on what tends to happen with any software with a large online following like TBP has. People start to take matters into their own hands. TBP won't be any different if things continue down the current path. Some of those items are already in various stages of fulfillment even.
-
Why has this thread been reopened. I can only assume this is certain SCP team members abusing their admin privileges again. All you people discussing overruling my decision should be ashamed. You are basically talking about theft of my work. All you people talking about overruling the original decision of the TBP team to finalise TBP which I am simply upholding should also be ashamed. You are talking about theft of a team's work. This attitude shows a level of brazen disrespect, arrogance, and megalomania the likes of which I have rarely seen. Even on the internet.
Deal with the decision like honourable adults and stop being so pathetic. If the work the TBP team did, if the work *I* did is not good enough, create your own!. You are behaving like a pack of vultures and petty thieves. The moderators should lock this thread before you demean yourselves any further. Grow up. It's sad to see that Vidmaster is the only person here with the character to accept a decision he doesn't agree with like an adult.
-
I reopened it. I only closed it to quell the arguing for a few hours while I got some sleep.
At this point the arrogance and disrespect seems to be coming from one person around here.
-
At this point the arrogance and disrespect seems to be coming from one person around here.
Well don't be coy?
-
maybe the team is reevaluating it's decision IP just deal with it.
-
This isn't the team. This is one caretaker moderator of a forum for a dead project whose real team made it's decision to make their game "FINAL" last year and clearly demonstrated their intention by adding the word "FINAL" in big letters to the end of the release name. Not that your opinion interests me in the slightest Bobboau.
-
Caretaker? I think you mean lackey. If we were caretakers we could actually take care of things not just be expected to bend to your will like mindless drones. The first time we decide to have an open mind about something you pull the plug by denying use of anything that's yours in the project and shutting us down that way.
Fine take your toys and go home. Just remember that when you hand someone a loaded gun make sure you know which way it will be pointed in the end.
-
Fine take your toys and go home. Just remember that when you hand someone a loaded gun make sure you know which way it will be pointed in the end.
Oh so that's what this is about. You feel slighted? You should have stuck to your original promise not to try and revive the project. Thankfully I am the most senior member of the team here and everyone knows it. Though those with less self respect than Vidmaster wish to ignore that for personal gain. What they can't ignore is that so much of TBP Final is my work that I can withdraw my permission to use my work and that means basically You are finished. You want to talk about guns? That's my gun mate. It's a bloody big one.
As I said earlier though, if you want to start up your own brand new Babylon 5 total conversion without my work then feel free. I'd love to see it.
-
IPA:
Out of curiosity, on what grounds do you believe to possess such total control over TBP? Certainly not a legal one I hope.
Also, I just like how this whole time you've been blaming the SCP team for everything and the SCP members who have posted recently in this thread haven't even done anything you've accused everyone else of. In fact, most of them seem to have TBP badges instead. This has changed from a disagreement with some SCP members to a disagreement between various TBP staff it would appear. So please be careful where you direct your rebuttals.
Good lord man, I just read your last message. What is this about reviving? You expect TBP multiplayer to just die because no one is allowed to keep it working properly? After all the work other members have put into it? FUBAR has not said anything about releasing an official patch or making any changes to the core 3.4b release. Doesn't that fall within your definition of final?
-
I don't need to explain my credentials to you Chief. Besides this irrelevant. No permission. No continuation. The team made the decision last year. The team disbanded. Now that decision cannot be disrespected and overturned. Complain all you like but this is over. Good night.
-
I think I was a member of TBP at about the same time as you IPA, if not slightly before, and many of the people talking here are in a similar boat, so I don't think you have that big of a seniority handhold. if this was realy the will of the team, then why isn't there like a dozen rabid TBP people coming to your aid, why is it that you are so alone in this with only one other real supporter that i can think of? now you can ***** and complain and demand all you want, but in the end all you are going to accomplish is vilifying your involvement in this project. you will be seen as the Nero of TBP who wanted to watch it burn and had to be forced from power for the overall good of the project. is that what you want?
now the team might be thinking about rebanding and changing the decision and you as one single member do not have the authority to override them especially seance you seem to be of the opinion that there is no team. complain all you want you will be ignored, have a nice life.
-
I'm not asking you to explain yourself to me, I'm trying to help you help everyone else understand. Now, I don't expect you to really walk away from this, that would mean acknowledging that TBP is in the hands of those who might not fully agree with you. When a ****storm like this gets kicked up, nobody walks straight out of it smelling like a bed of roses, yours truly included. Cleaning it off is going to mean that some sort of agreement is reached that doesn't result in a death sentence for the entire TBP community, otherwise we're all going to stink for some time to come. Sorry for the extended metaphor there.
Oh, "Good Night, and Good Luck".
-
I've become slowly aware of the discussions going on here as they have started to spill over into my Private Message inbox. As some of you may be aware...I used to be the Project Leader for The Babylon Project back in the early days of the project. I believe I was the third or fourth member to join the project. Seeing as we're establishing credentials...those are mine. I still care very much for this project and I still feel very attached to it through all of the years and many hours of work I put into the earlier versions.
I hope it doesn't feel then that I'm sticking my nose into others business. I very much consider the reputation of this project as still being important to me. I'd therefore like to arbitrate some sort of direction forward that fits into the best interests of everyone involved if I can. In the meantime I'd very much appreciate it if all of you tone things down a couple of notches.
While this is a legitimate discussion it is not legitimate for things to get completely out of hand which is pretty close to where they are right now. So I'd like everyone to take a couple of steps back and lets try to approach this rationally. As I said...if you want to send me a private message about this go ahead. The more perspectives I can get the better I can do my best to sort this out.
I appreciate it folks.
-
'our' position is simple, there are content bugs in TBP, TBP should be willing to provide (an) official patch(es) to fix these issues. new or improved content is not on this table only fixing bugs with existing content, this would be tables, model hierarchy, model bounding boxes, things of this nature. nothing should be done that would constitute breaking compatibility with the existing content unless that content is completely unusable because of said issues (for example the vorlon dreadnought), and nothing should be done that would constitute an 'upgrade'.
the point of contention at this point is would this even be allowed.
if any of 'us' wants to change that or reword it better, do so.
-
That's pretty much the case. Except it would have been an unofficial patch via a mod. The only mention of additional content was the use of the patch mod to add the best of the fan made material for multiplayer validation.
-
I`ve been watchin the progress and up to the final release of the babylon project. i know i`m not well known, and have not been in any projects in a very long time.
The upkeep of this mod has been up to standard as for single player.... thats me.
Even though I do not do mulitiplayer I would still stand for it to be there, because that opens up a new fan base for this mod.
Isn`t it all about the fan base?
-
Isn`t it all about the fan base?
In a project such as this, that's exactly correct.
-
one would hope.
-
Then hope I will. :)
(edit) Sounds like a time out is in order.
That may give some perspective to the current issues.
-
well, if Icefire is willing to mediate this thing that brings things up a few notches, he's one of the best diplomats in HLP.
-
Yes he is very good at that indeed. :)
(edit) He probably has a full plate, at this time tho, and he does live a very active life.
I like to think outside the box, well, give it some time.. Its not as bleak as it may seem.
-
I'm not very up to date on TBP or SCP machinations anymore, but would this hypothetical patch be geared mainly towards extending multiplayer support or would it have a noteworthy impact on past, present, and future singleplayer material?
-
Mainly mutliplayer although it would help people wanting to develop in 3.6.10 and future builds. The point of making it a mod is that it could be turned off so any existing material would still work without the need to be updated. Again I give my though process of this like TBP 3.4b = FS2 retail. The patch mod would be like the MediaVPs except it's mainly bug fixes not graphical enhancements.
-
there are a number of issues with single player, but most of the more serious issues are more multi-player I believe.
and most of the changes are going to be so minor the end user won't notice them, i.e. they won't notice when the game doesn't crash.
TBP 3.4b = FS2 retail,
the patch = the FS2 1.2 patch made by volition shortly after they shipped the game,
some other mod that introduces higher poly models for ships = mediaVPs
this is a bugfix, not an upgrade, the only thing that might be a gray area would be something like fixing the shading on some of the models (some are fully smooth shaded or flat when they should be auto-faceted)
though there will likely be a large gross volume of data in the patch it will mostly have only minor changes from it's existing form. but these minor changes are enough to keep the game from walking off of arrays or other such things.
-
My position is set out clearly throughout this thread and I see no new evidence which makes me want to reconsider it. I have nothing more to add.
Also mediation has no baring on my decision to withdraw permission to use my work.
-
My suggestions:
The Icons. tbl should be edited. As far as I see that, we have in the Core already some Icons, among other things league base or that Ja' Dul station which are not in the Icons. tbl inside. That would be therefore only a tbl Edit.
The ruins of fields which alternatively to the asteroids fields made will can, should revise become. One does not see the ruins practically. One could the vasudan, terran and shivan ruins retexturieren and for that verweden, should be should found let none, that new ruins would do handicrafts.
Those would be two Dinger that could be managed quite simply.
I personally naturally would be happy about further ships. The Markaab, the Hyach, the Grome for example just as I think that it requires a few more Dilgar ships. If it should come to Dilgar War Camps, they would fall out in the moment with only two ship types very monotonous.
To be sure I know that new ships are a more difficult procedure, and because I myself have no idea of the Modelling, I can make here naturally nothing.
I can understand that the team has simply no more desire, on further official expansions. I look at some demands also as exaggerated.
I find to be sure that some Mods would be thoroughly valued it to be packed into an AddOn Patch. Especially such, that change at the Core now really nothing, (as long as it not totally turned off are, like for example an import of Freespace ships).
-
I just read this entire thread and it is depressing to so so many with so much talent have such fundamental disagreements .
Any mod or patch update that breaks the previous install and missions is going to add to confusion. I am just a casual gamer and having a different install directory for each build and each mod is possable but not really the best solution. In the end we will all have 20 install directories for each update/mod/bug fix, all incompatible with each other. How do you explain that to new people that want to try TBP? The amount of effort and work put into currently finished campaigns will all be lost of if a new install brakes them. Beta testing is a time investment, every update/mod/bug fix will require someone to play through all existing campaigns and scenarios to see if they still work with the new code. It sounds like an endless cycle of beta testing.
-
You've clearly misread or misunderstood.
The patches/updates we're talking about do (should) not break anything, on the contrary. The patches would only fix existing TBP data bugs, which would in the end improve TBP's stability and future compatibility with fs2_open, fred2_open and FS2NetD (multiplayer). The said patch can be done as a single .vp file, which can be disabled/enabled easily should there be any need to. Also, the nature of fixes we're talking about here would rarely affect actual gameplay and thus require very little beta-testing. Beta-testing of which won't be TBP's responsibility, but whoever makes the fix.
The bottom line is that those bugfix patches that the community is supposedly not allowed to make, would make end-user experience better in the long run and allow a more stable platform for future campaigns and missions.
-
I guess I misunderstood actually,
So really we are talking more like 3.6.9a, 3.6.9b, etc.etc..
-
No PSI-KILLER has understood Exactly.
The members of the TBP team wanted to wrap up in order to move onto other things, because we had achieved what we wanted to do, but also for the reasons PSI-KILLER described. Having one FINAL release makes it very easy for the casual gamer. They download the game. They play it. They don't need to worry about patches which may or may not work, and may or may not break earlier content. They don't need to worry about figuring out how to work the mod system. They just play. Plus it gives mission designers a static target to develop for instead of a moving one. It's an enormous advantage.
The work Flipside suggested is an enormous update (see my comments on Flipsides specifics). Even hardcore TBP revivalist Bobboau has admitted the patch would be huge. I worked for TBP for years, as technical manager, as co-project leader, as solitary project leader - twice. I know what's involved. They are trying to pass it off as a minor tweak and it's simply dishonest. I would go as far as calling this TBP 4.0. It requires a development team and a ton of beta testing. A restart of the project.
In spite of my team's wishes - I actually gave them an opportunity to prove to me there was a damn good reason for this! Talk about going out of one's way to be reasonable. I asked Flipside to give me detailed specifics. I looked at the evidence with an open mind but saw nothing except vague responses. There are things that - might - potentially be a problem, multiplayer might not work, we can't give specifics but we'd d like to fix anyway. Karajorma has also admitted TBP isn't really buggy. The SCP team see warnings? So what! We know there were some warnings for programmers running debug. Not for end users running retail :). Sometimes it was a case of inconveniencing programmers instead of gamers.
The bottom line is the end user experience in 3.6.9 is excellent. The end user experience in multiplayer though it has some very minor game engine related (not TBP!) niggles is also excellent. All 3.6.10 has to do is maintain backward compatability and run TBP as well as it runs under 3.6.9!
Their justification for an update was so far outweighed by the negatives, the disrespect to the team's wishes, enormous risks with few guarantees about testing, support, or backward/forward compatability and so few concrete benefits... it was a very easy decision to come to. It was absolutely the right decision to come to. It's project management 101. Huge risk + negative or no reward = rejected project proposal
This whole affair has indeed been very depressing. The problem for me is that - for the most part - this thread seems to be only visited by die hard TBP revivalists whose longing to see TBP updated is overriding common sense. They simply aren't willing to accept anything except complete unconditional surrender to their demands. I even said I would not accept their patch in it's "full" form (check the quote!), suggesting room for negotiation? How was that received? Badly. This "my way or the highway" attitude and the utter disrespect they have shown me and my team as was has only served to further reduce my trust in these people. Trust being vital in this.
There is no way back now. Hence the decision I made to withdraw my work which Vidmaster in a display of real maturity has respected and I know Tomcat (responsible for most of the models in TBP) agrees with.
-
And that's that then. Continuing this topic does not seem to be fruitful, thus I'm closing it. Both sides of the argument will have to live with the current situation, unless new turn of events will be revealed later.
-
I'd just like to add one final thing. This was the last discussion by the TBP Team on the subject and what was stated to be done with it:
Well Fury persuaded me to post this. I was prepared to not bother and just get on with it. The plan at this time is as follows:
1) Wait for Mav to finish his nasty fluid dynamics exams.
2) Wait for Mav to clear his desk of any WIP models.
3) Wait for Mav to make a new Vorlon Dreadnaught. I'm not happy about that one :(
4) Fury and I will buiild a beta release.
5) Beta testing using a handful of diehard TBP fans from the forums.
6) Final release.
Provided there are no issues with the final release TBP will then be finished. A public development forum will be set up for those in the wider community who wish to work on TBP further. Which could include any of you guys who suddenly retake an interest sometime in the future. The private forums will be merged into one at least. I am tempted to do away with them entirely since they will have become redundant.
If anyone has a problem with any of this by the way please speak up. I'm assuming the deafening silence here is a green light.
Well there you go.
At this point I am going to ask that the new public development forum be set up for the purpose of continuing TBP by the public as was the wish of the TBP Team. Ironic that IP was then one who made that post in the first place.
-
Well folks...despite some kind words about my diplomatic skills I have failed everyone by not being able to reach any sort of agreement.
Basically the situation is unresolvable. Various groups threatening to remove their content from the project makes this an impossible situation as no matter what happens the project is going to be damaged or outright destroyed. This is not what I wanted when we started this but it doesn't rest in just one persons hands. It rests in all of our hands...it should not rest in the hands of just one person. But unfortunately a couple of you make this impossible to resolve.
I'm disappointed that there is ego and arrogance where there should be understanding and reconciliation. I'm disapointed that some people feel that the project is over and never to be started again. I'm disappointed that this is the result of many hard years of work.
This is unfortunately where things have lead us and unfortunately there is little more I can do about it. The accusations and arguments are unbecoming of the spirit of co-operation and co-ordination that we once had.
That leaves us with what steps to take next. I'd ask people to drop or hold your threats of removing your content from the project as to go any further on this path will tear the project apart no matter what state its in. I'd ask for cooler heads to prevail over time. Old wounds can be healed but right now they are too fresh.
For now I think the most appropriate action is to respect the wishes of the original TBP team.
I'd also like to ask that this thread be permanently locked. I apologise for re-opening it one more time but I felt that was better than opening a new thread and causing any further inflamation.
For now we'll let this one be.
EDIT: I had forgotten to copy in a paragraph that I had written...it has been added above.