Re: [Warzone-dev] New roadmap suggestion

[Kevin Gillette]

i would never suggest going beyond opengl 1.4 as a requirement as that's
sort of a middle-ground for hardware support -- most people have that,
unlike 2.x.  honestly, we should poll users for their maximum
hardware-supported opengl version just to see where our average userbase
lies, and since this is an rts, and we're probably not counting on the
graphics to support gameplay (such as using shadows for stealth), i don't
think we should ever set minimum requirements... we could use ifdefs by
opengl version instead, and as such, the user could compile in as much or as
little is as needed to have decent looking graphics, yet still be able to
play.

additionally, if and when they do finalize the GL3 spec, depending on how
hardware support lies (if the internal 2.x compatibility layer for opengl
3.0 implicitly supports full hardware accel on all 2.x capable cards, then
we just switch to gl3, but if 3.0 only provides api-level compatibility
without the implicit hardware support, we should actually write the opengl
3.0 stuff as a seperate renderer, or provide a suitable make variable).
___
Warzone-dev mailing list
Warzone-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev

Re: [Warzone-dev] Replacing the scripting language?

[Kevin Gillette]

note: all of the below comments apply to any scripting language to be
considered as a replacement, not just lua.

On Dec 26, 2007 3:31 PM, Freddie Witherden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> > Please tell me what you think about switching to Lua as our scripting
> > language.
>
> I think this point is important as the only one who I would trust to
> edit the scripting language is Troman, who knows it like the back of
> his hand.


> One of the things we have been criticised for in the past is breaking
> backwards compatibility -- there is a lot of good stuff from the 1.10
> days that is currently succumbing to bit-rot on Kim's hard disk. So I
> am for switching to lua if an automated converter can be devised (and
> am willing to help -- sounds interesting).
>
>* We allow people who do not like lua/are not familiar with it to
> work with the classic scripting language.
>

that's not really true. i don't know what the state or quality of the
wzscript debugger is, but it would be next to impossible to debug after
conversion (for the conversion people, they just convert the wzscript, then
ignore it and debug the lua. for someone like troman to debug, he'd have to
figure out what the lua is doing, find out what part of his original code
that represents, and determine if the bug is a conversion quirk, a
lua-specific semantic bug, or a legitimate logical error. all of that would
take so long to debug that he'd just have to switch over to lua if he wanted
to get anything done.

furthermore, if the warzone team wants to add new script hooks (which they
eventually will), if they provide backwards compat hooks into the converter
(to provide those hooks for the original scripting language), then
maintainance actually gets worse. otoh, if they don't provide those hooks
into wzscript, then all scripters will be forced to switch to lua to take
advantage of the new functionality, or worse, use some kind of hideous "lua
embedded in wzscript" kind of thing.  either way, if we make this
switchover, eventually somebody is just going to deprecate the converter
anyways.  don't get any of this wrong: any progress in this discussion means
doom for our "homebrew" language; sure, i'd love to be able to use python (i
think it's overall syntactically much more elegant than lua, losing out in
some places, and winning in others, especially due to the lack of an "end"
token), however, i don't script for warzone, and not many people do... we
can't effectively say "yeah, tons of people will flock over to warzone
because it uses lua"... sure, we'll see some new modders, but they won't be
doing anything that hasn't been done, at least not for a few years, and many
of them will have the same problems as new modellers -- trying to push the
engine into doing things it just can't handle, just because they *can* get
away with it.

if we're already going to be using lua to control sequences, then i think
the best way to use it for scripting is to have it work *alongside* wzscript
(as in you can use either one), where each has the exact same available
engine hooks.  maintainance wouldn't be that bad... you just set up some
common include to describe the hooks, then have code generators create the
abi's for each language.


>
> What does everyone else think about creating a branch for this
> endeavour? That way we can track progress and test easily.
>
> Regards, Freddie.
>
> ___
> Warzone-dev mailing list
> Warzone-dev@gna.org
> https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
>
___
Warzone-dev mailing list
Warzone-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev

Re: [Warzone-dev] Replacing the scripting language?

[Freddie Witherden]

Hi all,

> Please tell me what you think about switching to Lua as our scripting
> language.

I am an all-in or all-out kind of guy. Duplication is not a good  
friend of mine. I like the idea of using lua, it would serve to  
reduce the barrier-of-entry to modding/scripting Warzone (a lot of  
commercial games use it) and require less maintenance on our part.

I think this point is important as the only one who I would trust to  
edit the scripting language is Troman, who knows it like the back of  
his hand.

One of the things we have been criticised for in the past is breaking  
backwards compatibility -- there is a lot of good stuff from the 1.10  
days that is currently succumbing to bit-rot on Kim's hard disk. So I  
am for switching to lua if an automated converter can be devised (and  
am willing to help -- sounds interesting).

This way:
* We retain backwards compatibility, when repackaging a mod in .wz  
format they can run the converter at the same time.
* We allow people who do not like lua/are not familiar with it to  
work with the classic scripting language.
* We get all of the benefits of lua, such as reduced maintenance and  
a wider user base.

What does everyone else think about creating a branch for this  
endeavour? That way we can track progress and test easily.

Regards, Freddie.

___
Warzone-dev mailing list
Warzone-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev

Re: [Warzone-dev] Release 2.0.10?

[Dennis Schridde]

Am Mittwoch, 26. Dezember 2007 23:10:49 schrieb Ariston Johnson:
> On Dec 26, 2007 3:59 PM, Dennis Schridde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Am Samstag, 15. Dezember 2007 12:47:46 schrieb Dennis Schridde:
> > > Hi everyone...
> > >
> > > We were just discussing whether to release 2.0.10 "now".
> > > I addition to the fix for libvorbis-1.2 from 2.0.9 this would contain
> > > the AMD-software-mode fix and the fix for libvorbis-1.1.
> > >
> > > If anyone has objections against this, or additional fixes we should
> > > incorporate, please speak up now!
> >
> > According to Fred branches/2.0 crashes on OSX with libvorbis-1.1 since
> > these fixes.
> > Fred is currently blocked by the netcode stuff, so if someone else (Ari?)
> > could look into this issue I'd be glad.
> > I don't want to ship a 2.0.10 which doesn't work on at least all of our 3
> > main OSes. (Or has known bugs which seem fixable within short time since
> > the exact issue is known.)
>
> I can try to look at this tonight after work.
PS: Fred says 2.0.8 worked, while 2.0.9 doesn't.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Warzone-dev mailing list
Warzone-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev

Re: [Warzone-dev] Release 2.0.10?

[Ariston Johnson]

On Dec 26, 2007 3:59 PM, Dennis Schridde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am Samstag, 15. Dezember 2007 12:47:46 schrieb Dennis Schridde:
> > Hi everyone...
> >
> > We were just discussing whether to release 2.0.10 "now".
> > I addition to the fix for libvorbis-1.2 from 2.0.9 this would contain the
> > AMD-software-mode fix and the fix for libvorbis-1.1.
> >
> > If anyone has objections against this, or additional fixes we should
> > incorporate, please speak up now!
> According to Fred branches/2.0 crashes on OSX with libvorbis-1.1 since these
> fixes.
> Fred is currently blocked by the netcode stuff, so if someone else (Ari?)
> could look into this issue I'd be glad.
> I don't want to ship a 2.0.10 which doesn't work on at least all of our 3 main
> OSes. (Or has known bugs which seem fixable within short time since the exact
> issue is known.)

I can try to look at this tonight after work.

___
Warzone-dev mailing list
Warzone-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev

Re: [Warzone-dev] Release 2.0.10?

[Dennis Schridde]

Am Samstag, 15. Dezember 2007 12:47:46 schrieb Dennis Schridde:
> Hi everyone...
>
> We were just discussing whether to release 2.0.10 "now".
> I addition to the fix for libvorbis-1.2 from 2.0.9 this would contain the
> AMD-software-mode fix and the fix for libvorbis-1.1.
>
> If anyone has objections against this, or additional fixes we should
> incorporate, please speak up now!
According to Fred branches/2.0 crashes on OSX with libvorbis-1.1 since these 
fixes.
Fred is currently blocked by the netcode stuff, so if someone else (Ari?) 
could look into this issue I'd be glad.
I don't want to ship a 2.0.10 which doesn't work on at least all of our 3 main 
OSes. (Or has known bugs which seem fixable within short time since the exact 
issue is known.)

--Dennis


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Warzone-dev mailing list
Warzone-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev

Re: [Warzone-dev] Replacing the scripting language?

[Roman]

I assume Lua has all the main functionality our current scripting engine 
offers. If so, the biggest issue is converting the existing scripts. If that 
can be done last thing to look into is to make sure that Lua (or whatever it 
will be) can really satisfy our scripting needs.
To be honest I don't want to get rid of a nice scripting engine that was 
developed for WZ and fits it perfectly and sarcify any important 
functionality needed for campaign and AI scripting, because that's the main 
application of a scripting engine after all.

So, also I do assume that Lua is at least as powerfull as the current engine 
(although from what I've seen the syntax isn't as nice and as clean, but 
that's a minor issue), please investigate this issue before ripping out the 
existing scripting engine.

If there are questions regarding the existing scripting engine feel free to 
ask.

Troman

- Original Message - 
From: "Gerard Krol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Development list" 
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 10:52 PM
Subject: [Warzone-dev] Replacing the scripting language?


> Hi everybody,
>
> You all know we are in the possession of our very own scripting
> language. From time to time the question has been raised if we'd want to
> replace the home grown language with something more standard. The
> advantages would be:
>
>* We don't need to maintain the old scripting language anymore
>* We would gain extra flexibility in the scripts
>
> The main disadvantage is however that we would need to convert all
> existing scripts to the new format. I believe this is possible using a
> modified version of the script parser that is used in Warzone.
>
> For the new scripting language to use the only competition was between
> Lua and Python. I am fan of Python as a language, but the ease of which
> Lua can be embedded amazed me. If we are going to switch I'd definitely
> recommend Lua. I'm currently writing a new sequence system using Lua,
> and I'm really pleased by the ease of working with Lua & the C API.
>
> Please tell me what you think about switching to Lua as our scripting
> language.
>
> Regards,
>
> Gerard
>
> ___
> Warzone-dev mailing list
> Warzone-dev@gna.org
> https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev 


___
Warzone-dev mailing list
Warzone-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev

Re: [Warzone-dev] Replacing the scripting language?

[Ariston Johnson]

On Dec 26, 2007 3:14 PM, Dennis Schridde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 26. Dezember 2007 21:59:40 schrieb Ariston Johnson:
> > On Dec 26, 2007 3:52 PM, Gerard Krol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hi everybody,
> > >
> > > You all know we are in the possession of our very own scripting
> > > language. From time to time the question has been raised if we'd want to
> > > replace the home grown language with something more standard. The
> > > advantages would be:
> > >
> > > * We don't need to maintain the old scripting language anymore
> > > * We would gain extra flexibility in the scripts
> > >
> > > The main disadvantage is however that we would need to convert all
> > > existing scripts to the new format. I believe this is possible using a
> > > modified version of the script parser that is used in Warzone.
> Personally, I am at most interested in Troman's opinion on this, since he was
> the one who did most of the scripting work, did some great AIs with it, and
> managed to bring the language itself up to current standards while
> documenting it all.
>
> > Even without being able to automate any part of the conversion
> > process, I feel that this is a worthwhile project.  The less
> > proprietary stuff we have to deal with in the long term, the better.
> > I say this particularly as the guy who had to convert our file storage
> > format loading and saving routines to deal with different endians, a
> > problem that still brings up bugs over a year and a half later.
> Yeah, that's one part were we currently still have problems with, afaik:
> Saving the interpreter state...
>
> > > For the new scripting language to use the only competition was between
> > > Lua and Python. I am fan of Python as a language, but the ease of which
> > > Lua can be embedded amazed me. If we are going to switch I'd definitely
> > > recommend Lua. I'm currently writing a new sequence system using Lua,
> > > and I'm really pleased by the ease of working with Lua & the C API.
> >
> > Python is too heavy-weight.  I don't know much about Lua other than
> > that it is popular and easily embedded.  GNU Guile (a Scheme
> > interpreter) is another option that we could explore.
> I'd had to do Scheme in my 1st semester and it was not really something I
> would recommend to everyone. It is a nice and logical language, but lots of
> brackets and a seemingly lack of standard constructs like arrays (caddr ftw!)
> reduced the fun a bit.

Most Scheme implementations, including Guile, have at least hash
tables and vectors.  Scheme and Lisp are feared only because
professors your first semester or thereabouts force you to learn some
tiny fraction of the language, which invariably proves to be
impossible to use the same way that C would be impossible if you were
only taught how to write 'if' statements and not function calls.

>
> > It may also be worth finding a language that can be
> > bytecode-interpreted, possibly even loading bytecode files from disk
> > instead of recompiling them each time the scripts are loaded by the
> > game.  This could improve both runtime performance and loading time.
> > (It appears that Lua may have this capability.)
> Indeed, Lua can do that.

Garbage collection is a real concern.  Lua 5.1 claims to have
incremental garbage collection, which is probably good enough.

___
Warzone-dev mailing list
Warzone-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev

Re: [Warzone-dev] Replacing the scripting language?

[Dennis Schridde]

Am Mittwoch, 26. Dezember 2007 21:59:40 schrieb Ariston Johnson:
> On Dec 26, 2007 3:52 PM, Gerard Krol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi everybody,
> >
> > You all know we are in the possession of our very own scripting
> > language. From time to time the question has been raised if we'd want to
> > replace the home grown language with something more standard. The
> > advantages would be:
> >
> > * We don't need to maintain the old scripting language anymore
> > * We would gain extra flexibility in the scripts
> >
> > The main disadvantage is however that we would need to convert all
> > existing scripts to the new format. I believe this is possible using a
> > modified version of the script parser that is used in Warzone.
Personally, I am at most interested in Troman's opinion on this, since he was 
the one who did most of the scripting work, did some great AIs with it, and 
managed to bring the language itself up to current standards while 
documenting it all.

> Even without being able to automate any part of the conversion
> process, I feel that this is a worthwhile project.  The less
> proprietary stuff we have to deal with in the long term, the better.
> I say this particularly as the guy who had to convert our file storage
> format loading and saving routines to deal with different endians, a
> problem that still brings up bugs over a year and a half later.
Yeah, that's one part were we currently still have problems with, afaik: 
Saving the interpreter state...

> > For the new scripting language to use the only competition was between
> > Lua and Python. I am fan of Python as a language, but the ease of which
> > Lua can be embedded amazed me. If we are going to switch I'd definitely
> > recommend Lua. I'm currently writing a new sequence system using Lua,
> > and I'm really pleased by the ease of working with Lua & the C API.
>
> Python is too heavy-weight.  I don't know much about Lua other than
> that it is popular and easily embedded.  GNU Guile (a Scheme
> interpreter) is another option that we could explore.
I'd had to do Scheme in my 1st semester and it was not really something I 
would recommend to everyone. It is a nice and logical language, but lots of 
brackets and a seemingly lack of standard constructs like arrays (caddr ftw!) 
reduced the fun a bit.

> It may also be worth finding a language that can be
> bytecode-interpreted, possibly even loading bytecode files from disk
> instead of recompiling them each time the scripts are loaded by the
> game.  This could improve both runtime performance and loading time.
> (It appears that Lua may have this capability.)
Indeed, Lua can do that.

--Dennis


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Warzone-dev mailing list
Warzone-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev

Re: [Warzone-dev] Replacing the scripting language?

[Ariston Johnson]

On Dec 26, 2007 3:52 PM, Gerard Krol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> You all know we are in the possession of our very own scripting
> language. From time to time the question has been raised if we'd want to
> replace the home grown language with something more standard. The
> advantages would be:
>
> * We don't need to maintain the old scripting language anymore
> * We would gain extra flexibility in the scripts
>
> The main disadvantage is however that we would need to convert all
> existing scripts to the new format. I believe this is possible using a
> modified version of the script parser that is used in Warzone.

Even without being able to automate any part of the conversion
process, I feel that this is a worthwhile project.  The less
proprietary stuff we have to deal with in the long term, the better.
I say this particularly as the guy who had to convert our file storage
format loading and saving routines to deal with different endians, a
problem that still brings up bugs over a year and a half later.

> For the new scripting language to use the only competition was between
> Lua and Python. I am fan of Python as a language, but the ease of which
> Lua can be embedded amazed me. If we are going to switch I'd definitely
> recommend Lua. I'm currently writing a new sequence system using Lua,
> and I'm really pleased by the ease of working with Lua & the C API.

Python is too heavy-weight.  I don't know much about Lua other than
that it is popular and easily embedded.  GNU Guile (a Scheme
interpreter) is another option that we could explore.

It may also be worth finding a language that can be
bytecode-interpreted, possibly even loading bytecode files from disk
instead of recompiling them each time the scripts are loaded by the
game.  This could improve both runtime performance and loading time.
(It appears that Lua may have this capability.)

> Please tell me what you think about switching to Lua as our scripting
> language.

It beats walkin'. :P

___
Warzone-dev mailing list
Warzone-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev

[Warzone-dev] Replacing the scripting language?

[Gerard Krol]

Hi everybody,

You all know we are in the possession of our very own scripting 
language. From time to time the question has been raised if we'd want to 
replace the home grown language with something more standard. The 
advantages would be:

* We don't need to maintain the old scripting language anymore
* We would gain extra flexibility in the scripts

The main disadvantage is however that we would need to convert all 
existing scripts to the new format. I believe this is possible using a 
modified version of the script parser that is used in Warzone.

For the new scripting language to use the only competition was between 
Lua and Python. I am fan of Python as a language, but the ease of which 
Lua can be embedded amazed me. If we are going to switch I'd definitely 
recommend Lua. I'm currently writing a new sequence system using Lua, 
and I'm really pleased by the ease of working with Lua & the C API.

Please tell me what you think about switching to Lua as our scripting 
language.

Regards,

Gerard

___
Warzone-dev mailing list
Warzone-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev

[Warzone-dev] [patch #908] New sequence code preview

[Gerard Krol]

URL:
  

 Summary: New sequence code preview
 Project: Warzone Resurrection Project
Submitted by: gerard_
Submitted on: Wednesday 12/26/2007 at 11:42
Category: Feature
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: In Progress
 Privacy: Public
 Assigned to: gerard_
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Discussion Lock: Any

___

Details:

Work in progess!

data/test.lua is the script for the movie.



___

File Attachments:


---
Date: Wednesday 12/26/2007 at 11:42  Name: newseq.patch  Size: 511kB   By:
gerard_



___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Warzone-dev mailing list
Warzone-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev