GZDoom 287-ga72b94e isn't what it is

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) :( :o :shock: :? 8) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :wink: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :angel: :angry: :beer: :bfg: :chaingun: :cheers: :blergh:
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

If you wish to attach one or more files enter the details below.

Expand view Topic review: GZDoom 287-ga72b94e isn't what it is

Re: GZDoom 287-ga72b94e isn't what it is

by Blzut3 » Wed Oct 09, 2013 21:52

I will do so once the other issues are sorted out.

As a side note there, tag pulling isn't automatic on the command line tools either. (Builds are entirely automated.)

Re: GZDoom 287-ga72b94e isn't what it is

by playerlin » Wed Oct 09, 2013 17:35

Also, someone maybe should take care this problem...

http://forum.zdoom.org/viewtopic.php?f= ... 83#p714657

It may cause confusing some users, even the date of file still a valid method for know it's new or old. :p

Re: GZDoom 287-ga72b94e isn't what it is

by Blzut3 » Tue Oct 08, 2013 13:19

If we have to start taking down unstable development builds because they're unstable... :P

I guess I will do so in this case however.

Re: GZDoom 287-ga72b94e isn't what it is

by Blue Shadow » Tue Oct 08, 2013 6:01

I was wondering, since build 288-g759139e is unstable, wouldn't be better to take it down? Considering it's the latest build, people will go for it when updating, (mostly) not knowing that there are some problems with it.

Re: GZDoom 287-ga72b94e isn't what it is

by Tiger » Mon Oct 07, 2013 14:19

Yes, Visual Studio 2012 && 2013 well run just fine on Windows 7 (or any Windows Vista foundation OS). However, because of the updated .NET foundation, Windows XP is incompatible.

Re: GZDoom 287-ga72b94e isn't what it is

by Blzut3 » Mon Oct 07, 2013 13:18

Graf Zahl wrote:That's not quite true. You need Windows 8 to run the 2012 compiler
What? Visual Studio 2012 runs fine on Windows 7/Windows Server 2008R2. As far as I can tell the requirements for VS2013 will be the same.

Re: GZDoom 287-ga72b94e isn't what it is

by Graf Zahl » Mon Oct 07, 2013 11:22

Blzut3 wrote: A note about VS versions, there basically no point in using 2008 or 2010 since 2012 is compatible with XP. 2008 technically will give you compatibility with WIndows 2000 as well, but I don't hear too many people complaining about that. All versions past 2005 drop 9x targeting support.

That's not quite true. You need Windows 8 to run the 2012 compiler, as stupid as it is. I'd like to switch over to 2010 but I'm having problems getting the project to convert so unless I manage, it'll remain on 2008. Sadly, the 2008 version is rather buggy but it's still better than the constant fight I have with 2005. For some reason it just doesn't want to play nice with my system so I just gave up and switched compilers.

Tiger wrote: Perhaps I am not getting the picture, but why not use Visual Studio 2012 (or even 2013, soon to be released)? Is it just because of compatibility with ancient Operating Systems?

No, it's because I do not have Windows 8 (outside of a VM for Windows Phone development) and I'm not particularly interested in screwing up a well working computer by installing a broken OS.

Blzut3 wrote:That argument only applies if we're talking primary computers. Some people, such as myself, have retro gaming rigs you know. ;) While it's irrelevant for GZDoom since I don't believe Graf supports GeForce 3/4/FX hardware, a high end Pentium 3 + GeForce 4 seems to be a fairly common build to play old DirectX games on Windows 98. (Geforce 6+ removed support for some feature and all ATI cards have issues with some DOS games like Commander Keen.) These machines are capable of running ZDoom or Zandronum, but they're not Internet browsing machines. Still good enough for an extra player in LAN games.
I don't think there is anything preventing GZDoom from running on such old hardware - but it's clearly not an intended target. If it wasn't for the shitload of Intel GMA based systems I'd have already scrapped all pre 3.x GL support by now because it's a major pain in the ass to keep all that compatibility crap in.
So while I won't intentionally break it, don't expect me to invest any time in that old code.

(At least I'm not like the Doomsday devs who probably killed off half of their user base when ditching XP for some questionable 'convenience'. :P)

Re: GZDoom 287-ga72b94e isn't what it is

by Blue Shadow » Mon Oct 07, 2013 2:17

Blzut3 wrote:As for the crashes. Hopefully Graf will come by this thread and comment if this is my problem or if the VS2008 builds do the same.
A crash has been repoted in GZDoom's bug forum while running the problematic build.

http://forum.drdteam.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=6186

Re: GZDoom 287-ga72b94e isn't what it is

by Blzut3 » Mon Oct 07, 2013 0:34

That argument only applies if we're talking primary computers. Some people, such as myself, have retro gaming rigs you know. ;) While it's irrelevant for GZDoom since I don't believe Graf supports GeForce 3/4/FX hardware, a high end Pentium 3 + GeForce 4 seems to be a fairly common build to play old DirectX games on Windows 98. (Geforce 6+ removed support for some feature and all ATI cards have issues with some DOS games like Commander Keen.) These machines are capable of running ZDoom or Zandronum, but they're not Internet browsing machines. Still good enough for an extra player in LAN games.

For Windows 2000, I'm not sure if there's a reason anyone would actually stick around on that OS compared to running XP. At least as far as gaming is concerned, whatever small system requirement difference there is, that retro machine would probably run more games on 9x than on 2000 due to not having to emulate DOS.

I'm not aware of a feature we're dying to use atm that isn't available on 9x. So it doesn't make sense to drop support for the sake of dropping support. The new compiler makes only a few fps difference on low resolutions. Unless we're looking to start using C++11 features, which would require VS2010+ anyhow. If ZDoom gets unicode support that'd be another reason to drop 9x support, but it's not looking like we're going there in the near future.

Re: GZDoom 287-ga72b94e isn't what it is

by Rachael » Sun Oct 06, 2013 21:26

Who in the Doom community still uses Windows 98 as a primary operating system, anyway? I can understand 2000 but 98 is about as stable as a 200 year old airplane that has seen one too many dust storms and absolutely no maintenance.

At any rate, the minimum that anyone should be using is XP.

Re: GZDoom 287-ga72b94e isn't what it is

by Blzut3 » Sun Oct 06, 2013 19:49

Enjay wrote:Interesting side effect. The progress bar is now one of these:
This was CMake's doing. It's fixed now in the ZDoom repository.

As for the crashes. Hopefully Graf will come by this thread and comment if this is my problem or if the VS2008 builds do the same.
Eruanna wrote:Ending the nightly builds would be disappointing. Would it not be possible to use MinGW instead? Hell in that case you could probably just compile on the mac system itself natively with that, and the binaries should work just fine for Windows. Although that might make a problem with Graf being unable to use crash reports anymore.
Cross compilers are a pain to set up. :P I'm not sure if anyone uses MinGW to compile (G)ZDoom these days so it might not even compile anymore. Plus it will generate larger, slower binaries.

I've found out that CMake allows files to be grouped in project files, so I'm working on seeing if I can get the CMake path close enough to the hand made project file. This way we can support VS2005 and up without these kind of problems.
Tiger wrote:Perhaps I am not getting the picture, but why not use Visual Studio 2012 (or even 2013, soon to be released)? Is it just because of compatibility with ancient Operating Systems?
According to the commit log, Graf has a full version of VS2008. Over 2012/2013 the only OS you gain compatibility with is Windows 2000 which doesn't have nearly as strong of a following as Windows 98.

Re: GZDoom 287-ga72b94e isn't what it is

by Tiger » Sun Oct 06, 2013 19:31

Blzut3 wrote:Apparently Graf decided to convert the project to VS 2008. This is a problem since my build VM only has 2005 and 2012 and I don't have a whole lot of space on the machine for yet another VS installation.
Perhaps I am not getting the picture, but why not use Visual Studio 2012 (or even 2013, soon to be released)? Is it just because of compatibility with ancient Operating Systems?

Re: GZDoom 287-ga72b94e isn't what it is

by Rachael » Sun Oct 06, 2013 14:25

Blzut3 wrote: I'll either have to make sure CMake is capable of generating a working VS project for GZDoom or end GZDoom nightly builds.
Ending the nightly builds would be disappointing. Would it not be possible to use MinGW instead? Hell in that case you could probably just compile on the mac system itself natively with that, and the binaries should work just fine for Windows. Although that might make a problem with Graf being unable to use crash reports anymore.

Re: GZDoom 287-ga72b94e isn't what it is

by Kappes Buur » Sun Oct 06, 2013 7:35

288 also crashes ....

.... when quitting Stronghold (strnghld_v1.pk3) by Tormentor
.... after selecting a difficulty setting in Paranoid (Paranoid.pk3) by Rex.

Unfortunately I cannot find the crash reports after I click on Save Report to Disk.

Re: GZDoom 287-ga72b94e isn't what it is

by Blue Shadow » Sun Oct 06, 2013 3:42

Hmm, it seems to crash with ZDCMP2 upon starting the map (not sure if this has to do with something that went wrong with the compiling process of the build, or a change in GZDoom).

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/o21 ... -_b015.pk3 (latest available build - it'll also crash with build b014, so if you already have that and you don't want to bother with downloading b015, try that instead)

Crash reports of both builds of the project:
CrashReport_b014.zip
CrashReport_b015.zip

Top