+- Renegade Projects Network Forums (https://forums.renegadeprojects.com)
+-- Forum: Inject the Battlefield (https://forums.renegadeprojects.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=60)
+--- Forum: Old RockPatch Discussions (https://forums.renegadeprojects.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=59)
+--- Thread: Rock Patch 1.10 development thread (/showthread.php?tid=741)
RE: Rock Patch 1.10 development thread - Bobingabout - 28.04.2007
Renegade Wrote:@bob: How do you like the current mapping? It goes against the CE - 1.09 rule, but I thought if it's officially unofficial anyway, we might as well discard the official rules and go with logic instead.looks better.
RE: Rock Patch 1.10 development thread - AlliedG - 29.04.2007
First I do NOT hate Rock Patch, I just said I wasn't using it for the moment, because there are still a lot of updates, patch fixes.
I was kind of waiting for a more stable version, which just had one or two bugs and after this flame war between Renegade/VK and random supports is adding to this thread had ended.
I only asked for this thread to be locked, so you can concentrate on coding instead of getting angry from other people's posts. I have no problem with how you behave, even this bullshit thing doesn't effect me now.
The majority of modders, just want a nice stable version of RP with documentation instead of hearing about OMG this version must be named this and that or that RP must use a bink video, etc, etc or this person said something bad.
At the end of the day, the most important thing is a STABLE and WORKING RP.
If its stable and working and people aren't complaining I am fine.
This is not a DEVELOPMENT thread at the moment, its just a immature FLAME WAR which is boring.
RE: Rock Patch 1.10 development thread - Renegade - 29.04.2007
The fact that this is not a development threat atm may be due to the fact that VK has halted development due to dubious reasons, but can't be arsed to give logical explanations or signs of cooperation so far...
About your waiting for a stable RP...
CnCVK Wrote:I always test only basic things; I assume that other bugs will be found by community.
RE: Rock Patch 1.10 development thread - Mevitar - 29.04.2007
Renegade Wrote:You yourself, TheMan, MadHQ, Mevitar, /-\G@/\/\...
...because as much as you all claim to despise VK for doing this, you all act exactly as he wishes: You attack me, after he stopped the patch. You all live in fear he might stop coding RockPatch and would do anything for him to continue, no matter who's right and who's wrong.
The thing i had in mind was: you're BOTH the same, you and CNCVK:
it is HIM who suspended the patch
it is HIM who ignores the community
it is HIM who started all this
but it is YOU who is pointlessly arguing with him (you know he will ignore you, but still, you argue and try to convince him) and everybody who do not accept YOUR attitude as well.
Why do you think most of the politicians are constantly arguing? because they don't know how to ignore someone dumber (but i'm not calling dumb anyone on this forum). Don't say it's different, because it's not.
So simply ignore him, unless you want to be like him (this is the last thing i'm gonna say about this situation, as i believe my posts won't change anything anyway... and sorry for spamming)
RE: Rock Patch 1.10 development thread - IcySon55 - 29.04.2007
Many of you are missing something about Ren's posts. All his arguments are on the side of logic. Logic is not propaganda, terrorism, or in any way manipulative. Logic is straight to the point, yes and no, black and white. If you can't realize and/or understand that, you're as blind as Ren says. What C&CVK is doing is in no way logical.
CnCVK Wrote:1)the coders of patch don't need any demandsDoes that give him the right to make demands of the community? Like these:
CnCVK Wrote:so now King Ren should:I don't think so. What's the problem with the current page containing both version lists? None.
1)return my page back
2)put his page as "Ren's Versions"
CnCVK Wrote:2)King Ren is free to do that he want (and he do this).That part "who allow you to do this?" is really arrogant. Does he think he can control the content on the wiki? If he does, then he missed the whole point of a wiki. Anyone is free to add information. Ren added a logical list of the versions of RockPatch and never said it was official. The lite slander was not needed of course, but it's gone now on the current page.
3)about new versions page:who allow you to do this?
RE: Rock Patch 1.10 development thread - VK - 29.04.2007
so I start ... comment your posts.
Quote:Does that give him the right to make demands of the community? Like these:to King Ren, who start this, not to community.
Quote:First I do NOT hate Rock Patch, I just said I wasn't using it for the moment, because there are stilllook into your posts, it always have anything bad about RP, also you put not right information about RP.
a lot of updates, patch fixes.
Quote:I was kind of waiting for a more stable version, which just had one or two bugs and after this flameFantastic...Look into Bug Tracker - where only one bug,
war between Renegade/VK and random supports is adding to this thread had ended.
and this isn't my lie, it was already said by several community members, that RPCE is very stable.
Quote:About your waiting for a stable RP...Community already found a lot of bugs, which I fixed immediately
However, PD rarely had tested basic things: look into status page for example
Code:
Fix of the green chronobeams [pd]and version later:
Code:
Fixed chrono & radbeam colorCode:
SuperAnims now work for custom SWsand also RP 1.08 which have IE at start up if you add some SW,
Where here basic tests?
Quote:(Actually, that's not even necessary...I myself am a great fan of code names, too. "Feisty Fawn" ftw.However, Good name for RP version.
But not as a replacement for proper versioning. A simple "RockPatch 1.09 ('Celebration Edition')" would do
the trick. But nooooooo - "CE IS NOT 1.09!!! BURN IN HELL!! YOU GET NO SUPPORT!!! RAH!! RAAAAAAAH!!!". :roll:
)
RPFF
Quote:Then resume 1.10 development? After all, you don't need that page to be deleted, righYou can save this page, of course.
Quote:I can see now why you went with the Offline Help...you're totally not understanding the concept ofHowever Why a lot of normal programs have offline help?
wiki.
It's more easy to create offline help, than to edit ModEnc immediately after release, writting there a lot of bullshit.
Easy to copy later parts from offline help.
Quote:Just like the dozens of _I and _II pages we have, your page was a useless duplicate, a topical overlapStupid argument
that shouldn't even have existed in the first place. I left it standing purely for the sake of the
discussion, as it might have calmed you to have your own versions page - since not even the very clear
link-renaming ment anything to you, I see no further reason to clutter ModEnc with two seperate versions
pages instead of one page explaining them all. And I assume who ever actually saw the current version will
agree with me that there's no need for a second one.
One page is my, official, and other page(s) is non-offical.
and "Non-Offical" isn't equal "Traditional".
so return my page back.
However, who start this?
King Ren of course.
0)King Ren go and create page, where he start to offend me a lot.(look into first his version)
1)I replace this page by my, official, content.
2)King Ren return all back without any word.
3)I replace it again.
4)King Ren protect his page and ban me.
5)I go and create my own page and put it into Template:RockPatch as official
6)No, King Ren go and return all back and delete any links to my page.
7)Later DCoder go and add Versions A and B
No, King Ren go and delete my page; he merge it with his page and change information from my page also.9)Now.
Quote:if you look at the changes, 1.08SE should have been 1.08b, 1 new feature and bugfixes. most of PD's
letters added 1 new feature and bugfixes. the fact that its name was 1.08SE is just VKness.
Code:
New Features:
PDominator new tags: DomCaptureAll and DomCaptureBuildings
AlternatePrerequisite and NegativePrerequisite first revision
Drop Ship Loadout Screen now work more correctly
AACombat on aircrafts for "Air to Air combats"
DestroyableCliffs now is working correct
IsPermaControlled on warheads for permanent mind control
New upgrade system
Quote:and like i said, when VK said "RPCE is not RP1.09", well, he must have changed his mind. maybe he justDo not call RPCE RP 1.09 and RPCE isn't RP 1.09.
meant "Do not call RPCE RP1.09". you know he has bad english. i mean, he used ABSOLUTE instead of OBSOLETE,
which atleast in a programming sence are 2 words that mean the exact oposite.
However Why you think that PD's way of developing is only one true/good style?
I had checked AIGenerals:
This is bullshit because:
0)Strings AIGenerals don't present in EXE file (also AI.TLB string to)
1)EXE haven't this CLSID.
2)Never CoCreateInstance use this CLSID.
3)This code simple don't exist
4)I play with it and have no effects.
As I see, noone really ,except me, know that is TLB files really is, isn't it?
I can explain this if you want.
RE: Rock Patch 1.10 development thread - Guest - 29.04.2007
I really want to know what is TLB is. >_>
Regards, Gangster.
RE: Rock Patch 1.10 development thread - IcySon55 - 29.04.2007
It's not pd's way. It's LOGICAL. What sense does it make to use a numberless version name? There's no way in hell to tell which is newer!
RE: Rock Patch 1.10 development thread - Renegade - 29.04.2007
CnCVK Wrote:to King Ren, who start this, not to community.I kinda don't remember taking RockPatch hostage and making demands, but hey...whatever you have to say to believe it yourself...
CnCVK Wrote:Fantastic...Look into Bug Tracker - where only one bug,Hehe, yeah, we've seen your ways to get the bug count down...how many bugs did I have to re-open because you just closed them without a word as wontfix? Ten? Twenty?
and this isn't my lie, it was already said by several community members, that RPCE is very stable.
CnCVK Wrote:Nice trick, to edit out your very own quote in there...otherwise, people might have realized that there's a difference between trying to check for basic things, and failing, and not even trying in the first place...Quote:About your waiting for a stable RP...Community already found a lot of bugs, which I fixed immediately
However, PD rarely had tested basic things: look into status page for example
If he change beams logic why he didn't test it?Code:Fix of the green chronobeams [pd]
and version later:
Code:Fixed chrono & radbeam colorin RP 1.07 ... and this really fixed by me in RPCE revision.Code:SuperAnims now work for custom SWs
and also RP 1.08 which have IE at start up if you add some SW,
Where here basic tests?
CnCVK Wrote:However, Good name for RP version.You are aware that "Feisty Fawn" is the name of Ubuntu 7.04, right?
RPFF
CnCVK Wrote:You can save this page, of course.Why, thank you for the kindness of granting me to keep record of my very own creations! You're so kind, my Lord!
CnCVK Wrote:However Why a lot of normal programs have offline help?Of course it might just be due to the fact that "normal programs" are delivered on offline media as well...
It's more easy to create offline help, than to edit ModEnc immediately after release, writting there a lot of bullshit.
Easy to copy later parts from offline help.
CnCVK Wrote:Stupid argumentWhy? Because it made more sense than you like?
CnCVK Wrote:One page is my, official, and other page(s) is non-offical.No. There is one RockPatch:Versions page, showing everything there is to say about RockPatch versions.
CnCVK Wrote:and "Non-Offical" isn't equal "Traditional".That's true...because I didn't just make any fantasy shit up, but continued the versioning scheme that has been RockPatch's for eight versions, before you decided it was time for versions without versions.
CnCVK Wrote:so return my page back.Logical reason to create duplicate pages on purpose?
CnCVK Wrote:However, who start this?Still with the "King"?
King Ren of course.
You know, after failing to prove any dictatorial actions of me for half a dozen posts, it's becoming kinda ridiculous...
If I was trying to command people into doing things they don't want to do, purely because of my position, then, yes...
CnCVK Wrote:0)King Ren go and create page, where he start to offend me a lot.(look into first his version)I have already explained multiple times how all terms I used were absolutely accurate. It's not my fault your naming system is wacky, meaningless and repetitive.
CnCVK Wrote:1)I replace this page by my, official, content.No. You deleted half the content without explanation.
CnCVK Wrote:2)King Ren return all back without any word.
ModEnc:Policy Wrote:[...] omitting the summary and leaving us guessing why content was removed will probably lead to a rollback of your revision.
CnCVK Wrote:3)I replace it again....violating the rules not once, but twice.
CnCVK Wrote:4)King Ren protect his page and ban me.
ModEnc:Protected page Wrote:[...] This should only be used as a last resort method to end editing wars, to protect continuously vandalized pages [...]...and banning vandals isn't new, either.
CnCVK Wrote:5)I go and create my own page and put it into Template:RockPatch as officialYou created a duplicate, and, again without explanation, removed a previously established link from the template.
CnCVK Wrote:6)No, King Ren go and return all back and delete any links to my page.rofl. "delete any links". It was one link, and it was added as a vandalization. As mentioned multiple times before (and quoted above), it is standing policy to revert any edit that removes information without an explanation. So, especially after several of your violent removals before had been rolled back, you should've known that was coming.
CnCVK Wrote:7)Later DCoder go and add Versions A and BUnhappily named, but at least all information was present, and the version were still divided to be referencable in discussion.
CnCVK Wrote:
- Liar. I did not delete the page. I turned it into a redirect, so everybody who's going to the old address ends up where the information is.
- ...and I did not change "information" either. You had two things on that page - a list of versions, which I transferred and even marked up better, and a whole lot of slander against pd.
All I did was not transferring the slander, as it is hardly appropriate for an official page.
CnCVK Wrote:9)Now.Yeah, now. Where RockPatch:Versions shows official information, as you wished, but you've been banned from ModEnc due to constant vandalism on the way.
Had you just replaced the one or two words that were offending you (even though they were accurate), everything would be fine...but no, you have your great dictator complex and think it is your god-given right to disregard all rules, act against the community and command everyone around.
CnCVK Wrote:See guys? Even VK himself agrees that 1.08 SE is more of a new version than a "b".Code:New Features:
PDominator new tags: DomCaptureAll and DomCaptureBuildings
AlternatePrerequisite and NegativePrerequisite first revision
Drop Ship Loadout Screen now work more correctly
AACombat on aircrafts for "Air to Air combats"
DestroyableCliffs now is working correct
IsPermaControlled on warheads for permanent mind control
New upgrade system
And you complain that I mapped it 1.09...
CnCVK Wrote:Do not call RPCE RP 1.09 and RPCE isn't RP 1.09.[/code]Not the "only one". But the better one. Because pd worked with the community, not against it.
So what happened to 1.09?
[quote=CnCVK]However Why you think that PD's way of developing is only one true/good style?
CnCVK Wrote:I had checked AIGenerals:Have you added the .tlb?
This is bullshit because:
0)Strings AIGenerals don't present in EXE file (also AI.TLB string to)
1)EXE haven't this CLSID.
2)Never CoCreateInstance use this CLSID.
3)This code simple don't exist
4)I play with it and have no effects.
As I see, noone really ,except me, know that is TLB files really is, isn't it?
I can explain this if you want.
How many full-length, un-RP'd games did you play to "prove" that nothing happens?
Just because you can't find it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
And I think Marshall (was it him?) explained that the code can be added by the .tlb without having to exist in the .exe.
You still fail to give a logical explanation why DZ should make up pages of stuff about this, and multiple people report success with it.
To those who told me to stop...I'd love to, I really do. This is wasting a lot of my time. But if I don't reply to crap like this, next month, it'll look to other people like I didn't knew to respond to this shit, and his lies were the truth.
Sorry, but this cannot be ended without closure.
RE: Rock Patch 1.10 development thread - Bobingabout - 29.04.2007
its not PDs way, its the logical way. openTTD V0.5.1, or revision 7859 etc, we want numbers, not names, names can't tell you which is newest.
if this was startrek, ren would be a vulcan, and VK a klingon.
RE: Rock Patch 1.10 development thread - blackheartstar - 30.04.2007
CnCVK Wrote:to King Ren, who start this, not to community.Then why does the commuinty have to pay? Pausing the patch becouse of your dissagrement with ren makes little sence.
CnCVK Wrote:look into your posts, it always have anything bad about RP, also you put not right information about RP.I cant say Ive seen AlliedG say anything really negative about RP since he apollogised for his comments quite awhile ago. Maybe you over looked this?
CnCVK Wrote:and this isn't my lie, it was already said by several community members, that RPCE is very stable.I'll agree it is very stable as it currently is.
CnCVK Wrote:I had checked AIGeneralsI think that you should explain more.
I can explain this if you want.
I also think that someone who claims to have it working should post there exact results that to them shows the aigenerals working. Then give you the files so you can research from a "working" AIGENERAL. Thats the only way I see this issue being addressed fully.
RE: Rock Patch 1.10 development thread - DCoder - 30.04.2007
Renegade Wrote:the code can be added by the .tlb without having to exist in the .exe.Er, no. A TLB file is a by-product of the source code's compilation. It generates something akin to .h , containing prototypes of functions, data types, etc., that the source code exposes for outside use. TLB does not contain any function implementations or other executable code.
In certain circumstances (depending on the language, linking method, etc.), similar files are generated for DLL files, and projects wishing to use functionality from that DLL need that .lib to know the function signatures, data types, etc. that the DLL uses.
RE: Rock Patch 1.10 development thread - Renegade - 30.04.2007
Way to cut my quote short so it looks like an all-out claim -_-
Nevertheless, my point stands: Just because VK can't find it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Didn't he post his quota of 15% or 16% himself?
RE: Rock Patch 1.10 development thread - AlliedG - 30.04.2007
He hasn't fully decompile all of it yet.
Yes I did moan in the beginning, but honestly I gave up a long time ago and I hoped that the RP be better, e.g. not having 10+ versions which fix 1 or 2 bugs which were forgotten during basic testing (like that nuke launch animation trouble, minimise RA2 and reopen IE), etc, etc.
I even tried to apologise by making a Rock Patch SW mod and because I mention one small bug in RA2 engine (how the EMP sparkle animation, doesn't disappear when EMP paralyse effect goes away) you end up flaming me and saying RA2 is bullshit and RP is make EMP possible which is true by fixing/enabling code which already exist, but I was mention a ra2 game engine issue.
For the modders who understand me, I was trying to ask VK to work out what makes LoopCount=-1 animations disappear. E.g. like when you use chronosphere the teleportation anim in the sky stays there, until you activate the chronosphere.
RE: Rock Patch 1.10 development thread - Nighthawk - 30.04.2007
Quote:One page is my, official, and other page(s) is non-offical.And Traditional doesn't equal Official, does it? So what's the problem?
and "Non-Offical" isn't equal "Traditional".