[taylor]

What? You want us to start deleting ships we're actually using now? Hell why don't we delete everything. Then the problem will certainly go away.

  Of course not.  But some compromises can be made on the subject.  Like I said though, I only have older tbls to go by and I'm not sure exactly how many new ships have been added.  At least in the tbls I have you have numerous EA fighters which differ only in textures, so just have one ship and use texture replacement on those.  There were asteroids which could do the same thing.  I assume that TP has already culled these out however.  With those gone, and with the tbls that I have (from 3.3a), that gives you around 107 or so ships.  I'm not sure how many new ships you've added since then however.

The species updates allow more than 8 species to be in use, that's all the update did.  If support ships for each species are the problem then make a dual species or two in order to cut down on the number of extra ships needed.  This isn't the optimal solution, but it wouldn't require Inferno builds and should hold you over until the new pilot file code is ready (if TBP ever updates again at that point, it would likely stop working in those future builds otherwise).

I hurried to complete the species code updates for 3.6.9 just for TBP.  I'm not the least bit happy that all I've gotten is **** about it so far.

Not from me you didn't.

Not from the code update itself, but as a result of it.  Hence this conversation.  All I've heard about is the problems that using the updated multi species code presents to TBP.  Compromise with the species setup and fix the tables to make it work, use an Inferno build and don't worry about it, wait for the new pilot code, don't use muti species support.  Four possibilities to deal with this, none of them perfect, but those are the choices.

Look. We'll use "The Inferno build". That said. Pretty please will sugar on top can the Inferno builds actually get built? For example I just downloaded the 3.6.9 RC7 archive and, lo-and-behold, no Inferno build. Also Taylor please try and bare in mind I'm not out on a one man mission to make your life a misery. i'm just trying (operative word) to develop a decent mod for this game engine of yours. I would have thought that was a good thing.

It's up to each developer as to whether they make Inferno builds or not.  I don't make Inferno builds.  Not trying to be mean or anything, I don't like making Windows builds in the first place and I don't intend to make any more than I absolutely have to.  It's a pain in the ass for me to make a set of regular builds for Windows users, and making Inferno builds too just doubles that work.  Plus you have to remember that Inferno builds are extra builds, which means that I also have to make them for Linux/32, Linux/64, and OS X, in order for those users to play TBP if you switch to Inferno builds.  This means a total of 8 different builds that I'd have to build, test, and maintain ... which pretty much ensures that I shall never have a life.

I know that you aren't trying to be difficult (that status is reserved for those bastard multi people who refuse to report multi bugs in FSO, but then complain about them ), and TBP is easily one of my favorite mods.  But I have limited time, I'm only working on stuff that will go into 3.6.9 for now (ie, bug fixes), and after that I'm only working on my new stuff (no bugs, no mod requests, just my own stuff).  With that in mind, and with the new mods that are just starting to make serious progress, plus the fact that TBP is likely dead after 3.4, I have little time and even less patience for dealing with things like this.  I'll happily enjoy playing the next version of TBP, as will many other people, but there is only so much that I'm willing to give any particular mod for the 3.6.9 release, and TBP has hit it's mark already.

[Prophet]

TBP is likely dead after 3.4

It won't be dead. The team will just cease making updates. There will be campaigns made and TBP will be played around the world. Possibility exists that new ship will be made. And who knows, maybe JMS manages to resurrect B5 in a grand scale.

You understand the desire to make 3.4 as good and final as possible. All available ship must be released to the fans so that they won't be lost when the team closes the shop.

Currently the ship count is pretty much full 130. Without any goofy clone auroras. Sacrificies cannot be made because of the reasons above, and to maintain backwards compatibility. Inferno build would work, if we only had a new working build.

Inferno builds will work perfectly well in multiplayer now. Like I said the only issue is that you can't mix Inferno build pilots with standard multiplayer ones.

This one is now confused. Why is there a seperate inforno build and a normal one? You can't switch pilots between builds. Ok. What if everyone would start using Inferno builds and dumb the old pilots? Could someone explain this to a stupid finnjävel?

[Herra Tohtori]

Perhaps there is some other performance cost from increasing the ship limit? I have no idea what it would possibly be, though.

[IPAndrews]

  Of course not.  But some compromises can be made on the subject. 

We did compomise. We've done as much juggling and deleting as we can without hitting campaign and mission designers. Now it's FSOpen's time to compromise. You should dump the old pilot files and move the limit. You have to change the pilot files at some point and now is the appropriate time.

Put a version header on the front of the pilot file so your game engine can recognise a new one. If you're worried about losing old pilot files, firstly... why?, secondly either convert them silently or provide a tool. Does anyone really care about losing a frickin' pilot file?

This means a total of 8 different builds that I'd have to build, test, and maintain ... which pretty much ensures that I shall never have a life.

Well we want you to have a life because we like you. So move the limit and save yourself the Inferno build hassle. You don't have to admit I was right. Just blame it on me nagging you, swear at me, and give in. There's a good chap.

[IPAndrews]

Perhaps there is some other performance cost from increasing the ship limit? I have no idea what it would possibly be, though.

No he's just worred about getting a headache from people saying "FOpen won't load, it's ****" and "My pilot file won't work. Wah, wah, wah". I don't blame him to be honest but it's well past time to bite the bullet. Tell you what he can forward every email he gets about it to me and I'll take the bullet for him.

[Prophet]

Well we want you to have a life because we like you.

Like it or not, that's the way it is.

[Goober5000]

Yes, there is a cost.  It's not as simple as bumping a limit; it cascades deeply into the multiplayer and pilot code.

I'm looking for a previous post on this because I'm sure taylor has had to explain this before, and I don't want him to burst a blood vessel by explaining it all again.  We need him too much for that.

The Inferno builds (although we should probably switch to calling them "bumped limit builds") are maintained precisely as a temporary solution until we can get the changeover done properly.  I understand your annoyance about not having an Inferno build, though, so I'll try to make one this evening.

[pecenipicek]

is it just me or is something borked with multiplayer in RC7?


i cant enter the campaign selection screen and the multiplayer battle room wont open, it says that there is no active campaign. i try to open the the campaign screen, nothing...


also, if i'm not mistaken, the mic test in the options isnt working...

[Shade]

Another possible option (though, a somewhat more cumbersome one) for getting around limits would be to split some of the less-used ships for each race into seperate mods, using modular tables to extend the originals instead of replacing them. Then each campaign can select which ship packs they need - up to the limit - and ship the campaign with a nice mod.ini that takes care of all the footwork for the user.

So the playing experience would not change at all, it would give you essentially no limits to worry about and it would allow using the normal builds, but it would require just a little restraint on behalf of campaign authors as they couldn't have every ship for every race in one campaign. Maybe from 80% of the races, but not all. But really, who needs every ship from every race in one campaign? And one can even get around that by having two or more chapters, so as long as they're not all in the same mission it could still work.

[Prophet]

I thought about that. But as you said yourself, it's a bit cumbersome. It is a possibility. But if we had something like 50 extra ships, it might be more appealing solution.

[IPAndrews]

Inventive but we can do better .

[taylor]

is it just me or is something borked with multiplayer in RC7?

Grab http://icculus.org/~taylor/fso/testing/rc7dot8.rar and try it again.  And yeah, the mic thing is probably broken.  Doubt it will be fixed any time soon however, it's just too low on the priority list.

We did compomise. We've done as much juggling and deleting as we can without hitting campaign and mission designers. Now it's FSOpen's time to compromise. You should dump the old pilot files and move the limit. You have to change the pilot files at some point and now is the appropriate time.

We have compromised, the species update got shoved into a closed tree so that you could have it for 3.6.9, probably the last stable release for quite a while.  But I'll be more than happy to remove that code if it's just causing too much trouble for you.

The current ships limit will not be changed.  Period.  So just drop it and move on.

And we are changing the pilot files, and now is NOT the appropriate time to do it.  I've been working on the new pilot file code since last year, and it's still not ready yet.  We aren't talking about a minor upgrade here, it's a total rewrite of pilot file handling, major rewrite of the input code, overhaul of all code which is currently set with any sort of limit.  It will be about as much new/changed code as was committed during all of last year.  And it's likely to take me a full day just to commit the changes, if not longer, when it's time to get them in.

[IPAndrews]

Goober your offer to build an up to date Inferno build is very kind. We need it and we'll take it with gratitude. Any chance we could have FRED too?

[Mobius]

Goober your offer to build an up to date Inferno build is very kind. We need it and we'll take it with gratitude. Any chance we could have FRED too?

I want it!

[IPAndrews]

No ****  .

[karajorma]

Hmmm. On taking a look I don't think the Inferno multiplayer changes actually made it into the 3.6.9 branch. They're only in the HEAD branch.

Are you guys actively working on any multiplayer missions? Cause if not I can build you an Inferno build right now. If not I'll have to move the feature over to 3.6.9. If I do that I should probably change the folder that pilots save to like was done with singleplayer pilots.

[Trivial Psychic]

The Inferno builds (although we should probably switch to calling them "bumped limit builds") are maintained precisely as a temporary solution until we can get the changeover done properly.  I understand your annoyance about not having an Inferno build, though, so I'll try to make one this evening.

That would go a long way towards diffusing the point of tension... thanks for the offer Goob.  Its ironic, that for the longest time I continued to download the new Inferno builds, along with the standard ones, that Redmenace was compiling on almost a daily basis.  We often take them for granted, until he disappears for a while and we start complaining about the lack of new builds.  I was downloading the Inferno builds, even though I never actually used them for anything, but now that they have become the life-blood for TBP's continuing efforts to create the most feature-packed, definitive build of all, and the most critical update to this plan (Taylor's introduction of dynamic species code, at my urging) was made AFTER the Inferno build was compiled.

TBP's internal tables currently feature the commenting out of 6 out of the 9 asteroids, as well as 4 of the 7 Aurora types.  I was urged to remove an additional Aurora (the MK1), but like the PSI model, I chose to retain it to reduce the use of the sometimes-cumbersome texture-replacement system, for my ITB conversion work.  These tables are currently setup for 11 species, each with a support ship.  Now, there is potiental to remove one or 2 more ships, though either requiring new SCP features, or with objecttypes.tbl.  Before these however, and including all the new ships planned for release in 3.4, we just barely fit within the 130 ship limit.  Rather than constantly dibilitating ourselves by cutting back and removing more necessary content, I personally support switching to something with a higher ship limit.  Since Taylor has made it clear that the pilot code revision, and subsequently the dynamic limits, are a LONG way off (longer than I'd like, but that's life), Inferno builds seem like the only viable and least stressful alternative, for all involved parties (both TBP and SCP teams).

On a side note, another big thanks to Taylor for following up on my request to look into the code for swarming primaries, and finally fixing it.  Swarming primaries may now target from single-part turrets.  That bug has been plaguing TBP ballance for the better part of a year.

[Prophet]

On a side note, another big thanks to Taylor for following up on my request to look into the code for swarming primaries, and finally fixing it.  Swarming primaries may now target from single-part turrets.  That bug has been plaguing TBP ballance for the better part of a year.

Horay! I shall sacrifice some cookies and a flask of vorlon milk for the dark gods so that they shall shower their rewards upon you...

[karajorma]

http://fs2source.warpcore.org/exes/latest/October2006/3._6_9_Inferno_20061002.zip

All 4 Inferno builds for those of you who need them. Like I said multiplayer won't work with these cause the fix isn't in the 3.6.9 branch. If there is a demand for it to be in there it can be fixed.

[taylor]

Like I said multiplayer won't work with these cause the fix isn't in the 3.6.9 branch. If there is a demand for it to be in there it can be fixed.

I'm a little worried about FS2NetD compatiblity with this.  It didn't occur to me until I started working on the new FS2NetD code last week, but it did get me thinking.  Might be something to test out in a controlled environment to make sure it works before adding the code changes to the 3.6.9 branch.  Pilot files are obviously broken/incompatible until the new pilot file code gets here, and you fixed the general networking issues, but I don't think that either one of us actually considered FS2NetD in the compatibilty check for bumped limits.