+- 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 - TheMan - 22.04.2007
FIND A FUCKING SOLUTION FOR THIS!
RE: Rock Patch 1.10 development thread - Nighthawk - 22.04.2007
Err... that's what these essay-long posts have been trying to do. But why should we find a solution to something which isn't technically a problem in the first place. It's only seen as a problem because VK is making it a problem.
RE: Rock Patch 1.10 development thread - blackheartstar - 22.04.2007
Nighthawk200 Wrote:It's only seen as a problem because VK is making it a problem.Very true.
I re-ask VK why exactly is Rockpatch 1.10 still paused? If it really is RENs opinion on versioning thats bothering you to the point of pausing argue with or ignore him, but dont take it out on us the end users. In disscussing it if you go that route it seems you get further with him if you explain yourself instead of simply putting "bull shit" on anything you disagree with. Just a tip
or is it related to the comment you made "So wait RPCE #0052 & RPCE74 #0104". I find this more plausable and understandable. If its this you should let us "in" on it.
RE: Rock Patch 1.10 development thread - Blade - 22.04.2007
Why does everyone have to be so obstinate and insist their way is the only right way? The way I see it, VK can call the patches whatever he wants, but at the end of the day they CAN and DO map to a version number. Despite VK's insistence to the contrary, RPCE is to all intents and purposes the v1.09 release, 1.08SE is the final stable 1.08 release and he has been running BETA tests despite saying he hasn't because clearly that's what the revisions actually are, whether they are called BETA tests or not. That said, stop making such a big issue over what to call something, at the end of the day it isn't really important if its called RPCE or RP 1.09 just as it isn't important if its windows xp or windows 5.1. The average user doesn't care about the version number or the history, they just care it works so lets focus on making it do that shall we?
RE: Rock Patch 1.10 development thread - VK - 22.04.2007
Quote:That was your name for the #0050 exe, before it conveniently disappeared from the server just now. I could, of course, get out the full-server backups to restore it, but I'm not gonna take the whole server down for your lame coverups. You're not worth the effort.And where a problem?
It just filename
Read the title: RPCE #0050
or you want that I upload files like :
03ABF53E-348912-22-04-07.exe
Quote:Was that directed at me? 'cause I have no idea what your point is.to community: In other words: RP 1.05 you must use DomRed=, DomGreen=, DomLight= tags,  but in RP 1.08 you must use LightRed, LightGreen, Light=.
another non-my uncompatible things, isn't?
Quote:or is it related to the comment you made "So wait RPCE #0052 & RPCE74 #0104". I find this more plausable and understandable. If its this you should let us "in" on it.it just:
1)find RPCE #0051 and RPCE74 #0104 exe files
2)change one byte
3)copy it to E:\Program Files\RP-Gen\DATA
4)change rpinfo.txt file
5)Run rpgen.exe, change revision number and press the button.
5)wait until it working
6)rename it
7)copy to ftp
It will be done today.
Quote:So, basically...the quote is right? Revisions are bugfix versions? What's your point?revisions it's a part of patch development; in other words it can be called [test,beta,alpha,pre-release] (please select what your brain want) versions.
I always test only basic things; I assume that other bugs will be found by community.
Quote:that pd only needed one or two bugfix releases, while you need dozens?
..and after one mounth we have got a new version with 1-3 new features, fixed some bugs and and a lot of new bugs again: if you don't like revision system, you can wait while final revision is released or next RP comes.
What's problem here?
Quote:Oh, and by the way: While I was peacefully discussing here, uncovering VK's weak attempt at manipulating the evidence showing how crazy his numbering scheme is, he was over at ModEnc and vandalized RockPatch:Versions...again.however it not "vandalized" , It changed to officially information.
and how you can prove it?why me?
Code:
(diff) (hist) . . RockPatch:Versions; 20:49 . . 195.131.85.52 (Talk)RE: Rock Patch 1.10 development thread - DCoder - 22.04.2007
One line below that, we see...
Code:
23:44 (cur; last) . . 195.131.85.52 (Talk | block) (-the VK here)RE: Rock Patch 1.10 development thread - Renegade - 22.04.2007
Blade Wrote:[...] That said, stop making such a big issue over what to call something, at the end of the day it isn't really important if its called RPCE or RP 1.09 just as it isn't important if its windows xp or windows 5.1. [...]But as I noted above, things like Windows only get released once every few years. You know Vista is newer than XP, even without the numbers, because XP has been around for five years or something, while Vista was just released three months ago.
You don't have that kind of long development cycle with RP. As long as there's a new major version every few months, it's important to be able to tell them apart. Without version numbers, that's not easily possible.
CnCVK Wrote:It's the filename used on the official download server, so it represents that version of RP.Quote:That was your name for the #0050 exe, before it conveniently disappeared from the server just now. I could, of course, get out the full-server backups to restore it, but I'm not gonna take the whole server down for your lame coverups. You're not worth the effort.And where a problem?
It just filename
[...]
Argumenting "It just filename" is like releasing RP 1.10 as RP107c.exe and then saying "So what? It's just a filename. Quit whining and download already.".
In a worst case scenario, people don't even make the connection, and look where the 0050 exe is/was.
But hey, what am I talking. If you were able to understand the problem of unclear naming, we wouldn't even have this discussion.
CnCVK Wrote:Yes, community: Because a change over three versions (five releases) is absolutely equal to a sudden change within revisions of the same version. Didn't you know? So what, "your release was CE compatible"? Now it's not anymore! Quit whining, update already.Quote:Was that directed at me? 'cause I have no idea what your point is.to community: In other words: RP 1.05 you must use DomRed=, DomGreen=, DomLight= tags, but in RP 1.08 you must use LightRed, LightGreen, Light=.
another non-my uncompatible things, isn't?
I mean, come on...if he knows there were such problems in the past, why would he do it better? If we've done it once, why shouldn't we do it again?
CnCVK Wrote:...Quote:So, basically...the quote is right? Revisions are bugfix versions? What's your point?revisions it's a part of patch development; in other words it can be called [test,beta,alpha,pre-release] (please select what your brain want) versions.
I always test only basic things; I assume that other bugs will be found by community.
May I just repeat that, so it doesn't get overlooked?
C&CVK: I always test only basic things; I assume that other bugs will be found by community.
...don't ever claim one of your version is stable or bug free again. Seriously.
CnCVK Wrote:So wait...you ridicule pd for carefully crafting his releases, while you need a dozen revisions to get it half-way stable, because (as you just publically admitted) you don't do anything more than basic tests?Quote:that pd only needed one or two bugfix releases, while you need dozens?
again: if you don't like revision system, you can wait while final revision is released or next RP comes.
What's problem here?
Dude. Seriously. I have seen modding n00bs showing more care for their code. The very fact that you apparently put rapid releases and new features before thorough beta-testing explains a lot about the current state of RockPatch. And I think with that quote up there, you have lost any chance that those who didn't update to CE yet will ever do it.
But you don't care about that anyway, do you? As long as everybody bows, everything is fine. Fuck the patch - where are the asskissers?
CnCVK Wrote:however it not "vandalized" , It changed to officially information.How useless...you want me to delete that page anyway...
CnCVK Wrote:and how you can prove it?why me?Well, it might just be the fact that you just posted under the same IP from which the latest vandalization came...or the fact that it did exactly the same changes as the ones you signed with "-the VK"...or Apache's logs showing your IP accessing ModEnc's editing pages...
Code:(diff) (hist) . . RockPatch:Versions; 20:49 . . 195.131.85.52 (Talk)
Or maybe just the fact that you just admitted to editing the pages...
Idiot.
RE: Rock Patch 1.10 development thread - VK - 22.04.2007
Quote:I mean, come on...if he knows there were such problems in the past, why would heYou start to accuse me, althought PD did the same things
do it better? If we've done it once, why shouldn't we do it again?
(Spyplane -> SpyPlane, SpecialColor, SpyPlane on [General], Dom tags and another)
Quote:Well, it might just be the fact that you just posted under the same IP fromThis don't prove anything at all.
which the latest vandalization came...or the fact that it did exactly the same changes
as the ones you signed with "-the VK"...or Apache's logs showing your IP accessing
ModEnc's editing pages...
Or maybe just the fact that you just admitted to editing the pages...
Quote:you want me to delete that page anyway...I want that this page contain my official text.
Quote:So wait...you ridicule pd for carefully crafting his releases, while you need aHowever I don't want to offend PD in any way, although his code sometimes isn't good.
dozen revisions to get it half-way stable, because (as you just publically admitted)
you don't do anything more than basic tests?
Look into RP 1.08. It was released by PD three times! and the result?
Totally shit - error on load screen!
Where "basic tests" here?
You shouldn't compare my releasing style with PD's style.
I write again: you can still use old style - simple ignore all revisions until next RP comes.
Quote:I always test only basic things; I assume that other bugs will be found by community.you see here anything fun?
I always test only basic things; I assume that other bugs will be found by community.
Quote:Yes, community: Because a change over three versions (five releases) is absolutely equal to a sudden change within revisions of the same version. Didn't you know? So what, "your release was CE compatible"? Now it's not anymore! Quit whining, update already.again: this the first version which really use revisions, so I can have errors.
Quote:It's the filename used on the official download server, so it represents that version of RP.I am sorry, I thought that people go to RP home page and see last release and press download link.
Now I will use:
RP_<version>_<revision number>.exe format.
Quote:But as I noted above, things like Windows only get released once every few years. You know Vista is newer than XP, even without the numbers, because XP has been around for five years or something, while Vista was just released three months ago.also Delphi: Delphi 6, Delphi 7, Delphi 8, Delphi 2005, Delphi 2006
also Intel: Pentium, Pentium 2, Pentium 3, Pentium 4, Pentium D, Core Duoand others.
Quote:Without version numbers, that's not easily possible.my page allow do it very simple.
RE: Rock Patch 1.10 development thread - Renegade - 23.04.2007
CnCVK Wrote:You start to accuse me, althought PD did the same thingsDid not. pd not release 14 versions in rapid succession which were all officially incompatible to each other. He also didn't rename stuff just for fun. pd tried to maintain compatibility as long as possible, and only broke it if it was impossible to maintain it. Unlike you, who just decided compatibility sucks, and declared everything incompatible.
(Spyplane -> SpyPlane, SpecialColor, SpyPlane on [General], Dom tags and another)
CnCVK Wrote:This don't prove anything at all.Riiight...because there are so many other people trying to remove that page using your computer.
You're either retarded, arrogant without bounds.
CnCVK Wrote:I want that this page contain my official text.Your propaganda goes against the express purpose and reason for the creation of that page. And so far, you did not bring any logical arguments to change it.
CnCVK Wrote:However I don't want to offend PD in any way, although his code sometimes isn't good.Oooh...it still had bugs after three releases...how often, again, did you release CE?
Look into RP 1.08. It was released by PD three times! and the result?
Totally shit - error on load screen!
Where "basic tests" here?
You shouldn't compare my releasing style with PD's style.
I write again: you can still use old style - simple ignore all revisions until next RP comes.
CnCVK Wrote:I always test only basic things; I assume that other bugs will be found by community.I have nothing to add to that.
CnCVK Wrote:again: this the first version which really use revisions, so I can have errors.How the fuck is the way you name your versions an excuse for your total disregard of compatibility issues?
CnCVK Wrote:I am sorry, I thought that people go to RP home page and see last release and press download link.As long as you stick to it.
Now I will use:
RP_<version>_<revision number>.exe format.
But that doesn't change the fact that
RP_Summer_Edition_0050.exe
RP_Celebration_Edition_0050.exe
RP_Hells_Edition_0050.exe
still doesn't tell the user which one is the latest.
CnCVK Wrote:also Delphi: Delphi 6, Delphi 7, Delphi 8, Delphi 2005, Delphi 2006Yes. Perfect examples. Delphi is understandable, because one can assume if there is a "2005", the "2006" is newer, and if there are "2005" and "2006" ones, chances are that's the current versioning scheme - and even if that failed, the simple reasoning that Borland probably hasn't released Delphi 6-8 within the past 4 months should be enough to conclude "2006" is the latest.
also Intel: Pentium, Pentium 2, Pentium 3, Pentium 4, Pentium D, Core Duoand others.
Not to mention that the Delphi part of Developer Studio 2006 is actually called "Delphi 10", but hey...who's nitpicking...
As for the Intel processors - yes. They are totally confusing. So confusing, in fact, that everytime I want to buy a processor, I need several webpages to find out which processor is the latest, and, from those, which core architecture is current. I'd appreciate it if they changed that, but I guess a brand marketing their shit to a billion potential customers has different needs than one lone madman releasing code for a dozen modders.
CnCVK Wrote:my page allow do it very simple.Your page does it just as well as mine, only with additional slander.
Thanks for the insight on your future planned version names, though. (This page, for those who haven't seen it yet.)
Now I'm absolutely confident RockPatch:Versions is needed.
RE: Rock Patch 1.10 development thread - MadHQ - 23.04.2007
BLA BLA! BLA!
Anyways... Are we gonna see drop pods back into RP?
Sorry if it was stated else were but i don't wanna read though all those pages of crap.
RE: Rock Patch 1.10 development thread - Bobingabout - 23.04.2007
i thought drop pods were still in there, just that they were buggy, and CnCVK wasn't going to fix 'em.
RE: Rock Patch 1.10 development thread - Nighthawk - 23.04.2007
CnCVK Wrote:Quote:Oh, and by the way: While I was peacefully discussing here, uncovering VK's weak attempt at manipulating the evidence showing how crazy his numbering scheme is, he was over at ModEnc and vandalized RockPatch:Versions...again.however it not "vandalized" , It changed to officially information.
and how you can prove it?why me?
Code:(diff) (hist) . . RockPatch:Versions; 20:49 . . 195.131.85.52 (Talk)
First off, it's not an official page, as has been stated several times, so therefore does not have to reflect official information.
Also, isn't it rather convenient that a week after having your ModEnc account temporarily banned, therefore causing you to go on strike, this vandalism starts.
And looking at your version of the Versions page, how on earth was CE a 'revolutionary' version of the RP. If anything is revolutionary, it's RP 1.00 for starting this all off, the only differences between CE and its predecessors were that a couple of bugs were fixed; a few things were added; and a few more bugs emerged, just like any other version. That and the real start of your 'joyful' naming scheme.
RE: Rock Patch 1.10 development thread - TheMan - 23.04.2007
This discusion isint leading anywhere. I am not on VKs side by pausing the mod, VK is stubborn as hell and he wont change anything. Just learn to accept his version system. It not hard at all to figure it out, those low iq guys can go back to scool and might get smarter.
RE: Rock Patch 1.10 development thread - MadHQ - 23.04.2007
Bobingabout Wrote:i thought drop pods were still in there, just that they were buggy, and CnCVK wasn't going to fix 'em.
Well they were removed from the help, and i couldn't find any sign that drop pods were even in RP anymore...
I coded Drop pods when it was first released then just yesterday i got around to testing it... and once the pods showed up and IE poped up... so thats when i went looking to see if i messed up codeing, but couldn't find anything... Then asked some one and they said VK removed it because it didn't work and he didn't want to fix it...
Would be very nice to see it back working...
RE: Rock Patch 1.10 development thread - Nighthawk - 23.04.2007
MadHQ Wrote:Would be very nice to see it back working...
We've tried to persuade him, no results.
Quote:Just learn to accept his version system. It not hard at all to figure it out, those low iq guys can go back to scool and might get smarter.We're not changing VK's system, sure we don't like it, but we haven't changed it. It's just being compared to a more 'normal' system, but for some reason VK can't handle that. So please read a bit more before saying we all have low IQs.