[ShivanSpS]

Yeah is a lot better as a Management of an already installed ap... An installer, well I just make one in 30 min which Setup Factory , but only supports windows... If there should any way to can make an .exe can be used by any platform... I have a  idea, but I not have the enoght knowloged for do anything.... I not even know if viable...

You are making the new the launcher? remember that the launcher should always display the mod.ini of the retail folder when no mod is selected, the problem happends when, you mave the entire folder to a new pc or load a new CVS which no mod selected, when you go to se the MOD tab, the mod.ini of the retail folder is not displayed... :S

[taylor]

mod.ini files will be usable with the new launcher, but will officially be depreciated.  It's neat, but was never a good long term solution.  And the new launcher won't look anything like the current one so don't make any assumptions about that until it's released.  It will be much more streamlined, the initial screen having only a few buttons on it, and all options will be sorted into two new screens, general and advanced.  A profile selector/creator will also be a seperate option off of the main window and will be where the mod.ini files can be referenced by the code.

The profiles thing is the new mod.ini deal, only far more advanced.  You will be able to create a profile for any of your favorite mods, retail, etc. and that profile will include the options that you prefer for that mod and even which exe to use for it.  After you have your profiles created (if you even choose to use them) then you will just select the profile from the main screen and hit "Play!".  Get done with that game, choose another profile, hit "Play!".  No reason to keep changing your active exe or current options.

You will even be able to just create a shortcut for something like Derelict which has this as the command line: "c:\games\freespace2\launcher.exe -profile Derelict -play" and you won't even have to touch the launcher to get all of your preferred settings for Derelict.  The game will just start will all of your prefered settings.  The -profile option will also be a cmdline option on the regular FS2_Open exe so that you can just call that exe directly with the profile you want and off you go.

[karajorma]

One point on that. Can we make it so that it doesn't record a default exe if we don't want it to? I don't want to have to update 5 different mods if I download a CVS build

[taylor]

One point on that. Can we make it so that it doesn't record a default exe if we don't want it to? I don't want to have to update 5 different mods if I download a CVS build

Yeah, there is a "<Current>" option for build selection.  Basically it just means blank, and the exe from the default profile will be used instead.  The default profile is created and maintained basically just like the currently launcher handles it's settings.  The main difference is that you'll have to click on the "Settings" button on the main screen to be able to set the build rather than it being right there in front of you.

So basically the "<Current>" profile is what is default.  Only when you save the current profile to another name and have it set as active are you not making changes to the "<Current>" profile anymore.  You can avoid using the saved profiles feature all together if you want, the active profile, the default one, will just give the same basic behavior as the current launcher.

[Kaine]

Well, even moders have a life too...

No disrespect, but lack of time really isn't an excuse for bad resource management. Sorting out a definitive and reasonably efficient priority and resource allocation system isn't as hard or time consuming as it sounds, and once done can save uncounted hours and frustrations in the future. even a simple list of priorities and goals (the official term is Project Milestones) to work towards can be amazingly helpful. It can effectively eliminate the "where do i start" and "what now?" questions.

The KISS* principle applies here, if you answer either of the above questions with "check Mantis" many people will take one look at the apparent mess it is (it still won't let me register, so i can't look at it myself) and either put it in the "too hard" basket, or pick some trivial thing they can do quickly. This means you end up with all the little bugs fixed and the big ones remaining. (which from people's conversations here, appears to be a common problem) Assigning priorities to bug reports can alleviate this somewhat, provided it is done to a particular standard, in this kind of situation that standard would probably be based around how many people each bug will affect, ie: if a bug affects everybody and have a major affect on playability and/or core features or design goals, that bug is a "show stopper" and is flagged to be fixed ASAP, before any further public release. If a bug is affecting a particularly cool feature, but not a core feature, that bug is prioritized below show stopper status because the feature could be dropped if it is holding up a critical or otherwise major release. Lower again are bugs that only occur in a specific situation and
only affect a small group of players (ie, features for supporting other mods/campaigns. if the creators want their mod supported they can push for the bug to be upgraded in priority or fix it themselves)

Even before looking at Mantis, having a "shortlist" of features and major bugs to be added/fixed for the next release can provide initial direction and give everyone an idea of where the project is at. As items on the shortlist get ticked off it gives the community a sense of progress, which provides a moral boost and gives vital momentum to the project. there's nothing better for a team to be able to look at a list of goals one day and realize that they are on the home stretch to a milestone. It boosts morale and gets people enthusiastic. Productivity goes up and before you know it, you've hit your target, get a new release, a new list of goals and a team raring to get stuck into them.

*keep it simple, stupid

Wow turned into a long post. Will wait for reaction to this lot before going too far into project management 101. I'm sure some of you have experience managing this kind of project and have some better suggestions. Please no shooting down or flaming anyone's ideas without providing some positive feedback, we all have FS2's future at heart, and negativity only makes things worse.

[neoterran]

The problem is, it takes new blood to keep a project going and exciting. I see that of the original "movers and shakers" of previous years that have created and updated of material have either left or have much less time (probably because they're not as interested in Freespace 2 as they once were) This is a shame, but you can only combat this by bringing new people in who get excited by it.

[Mars]

*sighs*
*Pulls holy water armed flame thrower from beneath seat*

I personally think that the programmers are doing an excellent job, and if you try a build from a year or two ago you'll realize how much they have done. I don't know of any other game MOD community that has progressed to the point of this one (besides that of Doom 3), and in the end, this progress has been carried on the shoulders of the programmers. If you really care about new blood in the programming department, why don't you try it? And when you get down to it, the thing that really kills a community such as this, is negitivity.

[neoterran]

I'm not talking about the programmer department (as i get more familiar with the code I will be joining it, spare time depending) because it seems like there are some good programmers involved, but more on the modelling / campaign mission end. We have several "big" campaigns that have been in the works for many years without solid SCP versions released to the public. (Blackwater, Inferno) These campaigns would add a LOT to the appeal of the SCP but they've suffered from not enough people working on them.

I don't think it's a good idea to dissuade people from constructive criticism of the SCP if it can lead to improvements.

[Scuddie]

I dont know why it took me so long to reply to this (perhaps because I have a short attention span), but Taylor has inadvertently brought something else up.  The new launcher is going to be re-done and almost unrecognizable...  But you're calling it launcher 5.4?  Why not launcher 6 if it's gonna be re-done?  The same gripe applies to versions of FS2Open.  At the current rate of builds, and system, it would take 16 years before we see FS2_Open 4.0.  With that, Dec 29, (insert other releases here), Mar 23, and Apr 21 were good CVS builds.  Why weren't these 3.x.1, 3.x.2, 3.x.3, etc respectively?  As far as I know (which I could be wrong), the first number applies to major version, the second applies to minor version, third to revision version, fourth to build number.  So why is it that every six months, FSO is incremented by one revision version?  That doesnt make of sense.

[taylor]

The new launcher is going to be re-done and almost unrecognizable...  But you're calling it launcher 5.4?  Why not launcher 6 if it's gonna be re-done?

Umm, don't remember saying that the new launcher was going to be versioned as 5.4.  At least it wasn't me.  Currently I have no intention of keeping with the same launcher versioning.  I may end up doing that (though in that case it would be at least 6) if it's ultimately decided that it's the best thing.  Honestly though, I don't give a damn about the launcher version at this point.  It's currently 0.8, but what it is when publicly released is not a concern for me right now.  The new launcher isn't just a launcher, it's a significant upgrade to FS2_Open as well.  Profile support has to be integrated into the game, ini file support has (or "had" I should say) to be added for Windows, and the cmdline options had to be completely gutted.  The new builds of FS2_Open with those changes will be totally incompatible with the old launcher.  The new launcher will support old builds (though the launchers new feature set will be crippled) but the old launcher will basically become junkyard scrap.

The same gripe applies to versions of FS2Open.  At the current rate of builds, and system, it would take 16 years before we see FS2_Open 4.0.  With that, Dec 29, (insert other releases here), Mar 23, and Apr 21 were good CVS builds.  Why weren't these 3.x.1, 3.x.2, 3.x.3, etc respectively?  As far as I know (which I could be wrong), the first number applies to major version, the second applies to minor version, third to revision version, fourth to build number.  So why is it that every six months, FSO is incremented by one revision version?  That doesnt make of sense.

The version corresponds to the number and type of changes since the previous build.  Though it usually goes x.x.1, x.x.2, it doesn't always.  Case in point, the 3.6.5 release which followed the 3.6 release.  That's the first one which had the new pilot file formats so it got a larger bump in version to identify it as a larger change.  I doubt it will take 16-years to hit 4.0, but I do know for sure that when we do get to 4.0 it will have a ton of new features in it.  But we do have to work towards that point, before we have to start that stupid FS2_Open XP, and FS2_Open XP² crap that would happen when we do major versions without true major version feature sets.

[Scuddie]

I think you misunderstood.  What I'm saying is that instead of calling the next one 3.6.8, it would be 3.7, the following big release would be 3.8, and all the smaller stable CVS builds would be revision versions.  And don't forget, you dont have to worry about reaching 4.0 just yet.  It is perfectly viable for 3.11.4 to exist.  It's been done many times before .

I just think it's easier to give a version than to give a CVS date.

[neoterran]

who cares what the version numbers are, as long as there ARE new versions....... i'm amazed we're still have a coder like taylor who is adding so much to the game this late...

[karajorma]

I think you misunderstood.  What I'm saying is that instead of calling the next one 3.6.8, it would be 3.7, the following big release would be 3.8, and all the smaller stable CVS builds would be revision versions.  And don't forget, you dont have to worry about reaching 4.0 just yet.  It is perfectly viable for 3.11.4 to exist.  It's been done many times before .

I think you're missing something rather subtle. Ask not why the version number isn't 4 yet. Ask why it started at 3