<softcoder> any thoughts on this post: https://forum.megaglest.org/index.php?topic=6533.msg67087#msg67087Stickied and *quoted*! Good Luck! -Ultifd
<silnarm> hi, give me a moment..
<silnarm> ok... so how would you propose we went about a 'combined effort' merge ?
<softcoder> #1 do you want to
<softcoder> ?
<silnarm> Yes
<silnarm> _merge_
<softcoder> ok.
<silnarm> not port features to MG
<softcoder> ok, I understand
<softcoder> I think we then need to determine which parts to merge and which to drop
<softcoder> I'm sure on both sides there are redundant pieces so we determine which would be best.
<softcoder> other areas we simple take a file at a time and merge
<softcoder> now if possible.. we could plan it in pieces so that things are still playable and therefore testable
<silnarm> there are numerous architectural differences, that effect many different files.
<softcoder> sure, its not a small task, but like i said if there is a desire now is the time
<softcoder> and it would be worth having one umbrella and effort
<silnarm> so there would be many files that simply couldn't be merged in isolation
<softcoder> yes sections of the code
<silnarm> yes, absolutely
<softcoder> thats why i think we can take slices and detrermine in some cases to ditch some and take others
<silnarm> if we use git, we can put the data in a sub-module, so the core project is 'code only'
<softcoder> yes... we can use git
<softcoder> in the sense of what we are doing and going forward it seems to make sense
<softcoder> ok, an execercise then..
<softcoder> step #1
<softcoder> we need to look at both code bases to determine how to split
<softcoder> also.. would you have buy-in from GAE members?
<softcoder> and how would you want it hoated etc?
<silnarm> unknown
<softcoder> hosted
<softcoder> ok.. please do that first then
<silnarm> that is another good question
<silnarm> I'll mail hailstone and Yggdrasil to see what they think
<softcoder> ok.. talk to your guys.. I'll chat with titi and lets see what we come up with
<silnarm> what would you suggest in terms of hosting?
<silnarm> new proj?
<softcoder> I honestly don't care
<silnarm> ok
<softcoder> lets take ideas from all involved
<silnarm> yes, that would be ideal...
<softcoder> ok cool, its a long road, but if we work hard together it'll be awesome
<softcoder> the expertise would make a monster of an RTS
<silnarm> agreed
<softcoder> ok, I'm glad... will mail the MG guys now
<silnarm> ok, I'll do likewise.
The way I see it, the biggest feature to port is the Multiplayer. That is what makes MG so big. Without the master server and multiplayer upgrades, there wouldn't be much of a reason to play MG, so that should be the first thing to merge, abet the biggest. Other things include JPG support, faction/scenario unique loading screens, a few of the newest feature like the spawn attacks and a few new Lua codes, etc.Err... This is a merge, not a port project. :P You had me scared there, for a second.
[URL=http://img219.imageshack.us/i/ss30.png/][IMG]http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/5802/ss30.png[/img][/URL]Now we have to sign up or sign in to Imageshack to get direct links... -_-
Keep the chart! It shows that both of the forks are awesome in their own ways!Hmm, how would this work? I mean, we obviously can't skip any features, or we'll break existing mods (ie: skipping normal maps, water units, etc would break some mods that are already existing for GAE, which often has developers jumping the gun before a feature is even released). As well, GAE is many years old by now, and has hundreds of changes from years of work. That does not sound like something easy to merge. I just can't help but feel that it'd be so much easier to merge MG's biggest features (namely the master server and IRC) into GAE and rechristen it (after all, most MG features already have a GAE equivalent. The master server is the biggest that does not. JPG support was a planned 0.4 feature for GAE anyway, as was the faction/scenario unique loading screens).The way I see it, the biggest feature to port is the Multiplayer. That is what makes MG so big. Without the master server and multiplayer upgrades, there wouldn't be much of a reason to play MG, so that should be the first thing to merge, abet the biggest. Other things include JPG support, faction/scenario unique loading screens, a few of the newest feature like the spawn attacks and a few new Lua codes, etc.Err... This is a merge, not a port project. :P You had me scared there, for a second.Code: [Select][URL=http://img219.imageshack.us/i/ss30.png/][IMG]http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/5802/ss30.png[/img][/URL]Now we have to sign up or sign in to Imageshack to get direct links... -_-
But onward to the biggest matter: What would you call this? MegaGAE?That will be for later, we have to see what titi, hailstone, and Yggdrasil will say. (I asked Silnarm and Softcoder too)
Come on Omega, just think of an unified fork, OK? That's all you need to think about to understand...I'll go with that. ;)
If this was a port project, obviously the two teams would not work together. That's part of the reason why this didn't happen months ago.
How? Read the snippet of the quoted IRC Chat ;)
That will be for later, we have to see what titi, hailstone, and Yggdrasil will say. (I asked Silnarm and Softcoder too)Thinking about it, I agree. Viva la Glest 4. And what would be a better candidate to replace Glest 3.2.2 than Glest 4?
Ultimately, just "Glest" would be great. I suppose we do have a chance once all ther work is merged...
I'm just wondering though.....what about the MG website?Websites are easy. Most hosts give multiple domains for free, and can usually have unlimited domain names on a hosting plan, so just register a new page, if necessary, for our new unified project and keep the same host. Alternatively, try contacting the Glest team again (quick question: Has anyone actually contacted the Glest team about replacing Glest?, rather than just posting on the forums? Every time I contact the team, they reply, even if it's to decline my request).
If one's features were ported to another and the one ported to renamed, how would the end result be different from if they just mushed them together?True, that. Of course, what I really just want the most is one unified project being worked on by the community. No more "my mods for engine X so you can't play if on your favorite engine Y" and no more splitting the developers (of an already small community) apart. In short, I just want us working on a project together in the spirit that free software was created in. :thumbup:
If this was a port project, obviously the two teams would not work together.
Keep the chart! It shows that both of the forks are awesome in their own ways!The way I see it, the biggest feature to port is the Multiplayer. That is what makes MG so big. Without the master server and multiplayer upgrades, there wouldn't be much of a reason to play MG, so that should be the first thing to merge, abet the biggest. Other things include JPG support, faction/scenario unique loading screens, a few of the newest feature like the spawn attacks and a few new Lua codes, etc.Err... This is a merge, not a port project. :P You had me scared there, for a second.Code: [Select][URL=http://img219.imageshack.us/i/ss30.png/][IMG]http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/5802/ss30.png[/img][/URL]Now we have to sign up or sign in to Imageshack to get direct links... -_-
It wouldn't waste a lot of time OK? You just don't understand... I guess you'll have wait until after the merge project is finished, to understand. Wow, I thought all of this type of talk would end with the announce of this project...
Well whatever, I might be disappointed at the community, but I'm not with the developers anymore! Thanks for your time on GAE/MG and your future time on this project, developers!QuoteI just want to say to the devs though, just because YOU don't like something; does not mean it should never be in game. Glest should be an engine as flexible and feature-heavy as possible. Of course things may need compromise, but open-mindedness to anything will be extremely importantOmg...really? :-X If you guys really continue this type of way of thinking, we might as well just scrap this project!
What way of thinking is that? I'm sorry but all I said was for the devs to be open-minded for the better of the engine :S Sorry if I seemed bias... Which I don't think I am, I think I'm less bias for trying to use reason and facts instead being scared to offend everyone. I mean I don't want to offend anyone, I'm just a bit sick of everyone trying to say whats more important.Oh, sorry, I guess I misunderstood. Hehe, aren't you happy that more people will try Constellus out later? :O Not to mention: Militiary, Sun and Moon, Malv...
I can see where you're coming from though ultifd, I understand. But I still think we should be as maturer as possible.I'm just being too angry. :P Thank you for understanding.
Lets say, now no one supports MG and no one supports GAE. Now we're all one big, happy community that supports Glest 4 :D or whatever it will be. :thumbup:True that! ;D :thumbup:
True that! :DLets say, now no one supports MG and no one supports GAE. Now we're all one big, happy community that supports Glest 4 :D or whatever it will be. :thumbup:True that! ;D :thumbup:
It will be great!!!! :archer:Lets say, now no one supports MG and no one supports GAE. Now we're all one big, happy community that supports Glest 4 :D or whatever it will be. :thumbup:True that! ;D :thumbup:
[img]http://planetsmilies.net/sport-smiley-5537.gif[/img]What? Hospital? Another Hockey accident? CryWhatever it is, it sounds like he'll live. :D
Eh, MegaGAE is kinda too long. Lets just try asking the Glest Team if we could call it Glest...4.0:thumbup:
Also, wouldn't the pathfinder have problems once everything is merged?
I think the GAE pathfinder was perfect, I don't remember having any problems, I think that one should be used. :)It's not perfect, but it is a bit better than the MG one. Also, we've been trying to implement the pathfinder to MG for months; for some reason it always got out of synch. (https://forum.megaglest.org/index.php?topic=5777.0)(Now the work on that is even delayed more, because we have our own problem for now...or maybe its fixed. (morph feature was buggy) :-X
[URL=http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=3dqgh8khotaydx9&thumb=5][IMG]http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/2dfb9b9d75f2e95512bb739f811f0bc7bb694f3363cb3fa05dc5effdf7736a932g.jpg[/img][/URL]I agree to a merge but I think both projects should still exist. By name GAE is an engine so why not have the target audience be modders and the MG project can focus on players. The teams would combine and we work together on both projects or GAE team creates a project for FPM as a total conversion. From an outsider's view not much would have changed but we still get the benefits of a merge.I disagree with this. I want one unified project, and the two separate old ideas to be completely scrapped to ensure we have only one engine. This means no experimental branch either, as mods would certainly try to take advantage of new, experimental features, causing the community to once more become split between different branches, even if of the same type.
I think there is no single current suggestion at this point.
Before details of the merge are discussed, it may be a good idea to define the process of how an agreement will be reached.
I think the current modus of open discussion will do more harm than good in the long run, and make the whole process much more time intensive and a much more frustrating experience than it needs to be. With so many voices speaking out directly this process is less likely to become constructive, reaching compromises (which will be neccessary) will not be easy, and thus coming into agreement will be, too.
So a different approach may be better. I think an approach which is based on representatives makes most sense.
I therefore suggest that both projects name 2 or 3 people who will act as project liaisons, gathering and representing a condensed point of view of the projects' core developers and contributors. The next step would be to setup a place/utility where only these people can meet and discuss, taking into account input provided by each projects' communities.
The most suitable liaisons for MegaGlest are surely titi_linux and softcoder. I think it would be helpful if GAE could also name two or three people who will directly take part in future talks regarding the merge. Everyone else can use the influence they already have within the projects to have their opinions represented within the talks.
Softcoder already suggested an IRC meeting. I am happy to set this up for you if all liaisons agree. If the liaisons of the GAE project think another way of having the discussion is more suitable, please say so, too.
If the core developers of both projects consider my suggestion to be flawed and you have constructive criticism, please also let it be heard.
I'm not really sure what's going on here. Is the current suggestion to have the new merged engine stand alone as GAE, and then have Megaglest (including the megapack, server, IRC channel, etc.) bundled as a complete game using that engine? If so, I think that works quite well.I suppose the future discussion will determine that.
well, on these representative teams, we should have a person or two who is not a programmer, to represent the general public. maybe one person who is MG and the other who is GAE?But just one person isn't enough. If we're going have people that are not programmers, then everyone might as well be included... After all, I guess it's not that hard to be considerate. Hopefully, if so.
We had a nice 3 hour discussion today. :thumbup:
will the source be publicly available for this project?Yes, all the Glest forks are licensed under the GNU General Public License.
MG already has selectable resources.
Also If you want only tech and magic use them only, I like to play tech vs Egypt, and having tech and magic in two tech-trees will take too much space.
I think clickable resources are not in 3.4.0, but they are in SVN HEAD (development version...).
I like the ones in MG more than the ones in GAE, and they're less buggy here :)Hmm, what's the difference? And how are the GAE ones buggy?
As one who only plays the AI I think that MegaGlest 3.40 AI is much harder to beat that Advance Glest AI. So I hope that the AI in MegaGlest 3.40 wont be hurt by this merger.
I like the ones in MG more than the ones in GAE, and they're less buggy here :)Hmm, what's the difference? And how are the GAE ones buggy?
If this is true then I wont be using the merge version I will stick with MegaGlest 3.40. With two sided attack for the AI and setting of the multiplier for each faction is much harder than Glest Advance Engine. So good luck with the merger but I will be bowing out of any new versions after the merger.
You realize that part of MG will most likey be in Glest 4?You're still really missing the point. :P
We're hoping to call the merge Glest 4.0 :thumbup:
Glest: Clash of Empires
Epic Glest
Glest Evolved
Glest Forever (Four-ever)
Glest Revolution
Glest Kingdoms
Glest: Clash of Empires
Epic Glest
Glest Evolved
I don't think you should call it Glest 4.0 or anything 4.0; christen it a new project. Perhaps even ditch the Glest moniker.
Also, if it will take a year, and it probably will - encourage the content producers (and there are many here) to create a good (at least 10 maps) single player campaign with story line. Perhaps have it based on some kind of journey (faction A must fight faction B, but travel through the lands of factions C, D, and E first) so you can make use of some of the many cool mods which you should surely cherry pick for this epic game.
I don't think you should call it Glest 4.0 or anything 4.0; christen it a new project. Perhaps even ditch the Glest moniker.The whole problem and reason why nobody plays MG or GAE is because they're not Glest per se. Glest is an established and known game, and there's no need to go reinventing the wheel by trying to rebuild that.
The whole problem and reason why nobody plays MG or GAE is because they're not Glest per se. Glest is an established and known game, and there's no need to go reinventing the wheel by trying to rebuild that.
If it would help the merge being faster, I run and update MegaGlest from SVN, and can test anything there for stability. I used to have GAE from SVN as well, but it stopped compiling at some point, although I still have and update the repository. So if I can test anything to make things go faster safely, please let me know.GAE has moved to git since then. Is that the problem?
The whole problem and reason why nobody plays MG or GAE is because they're not Glest per se. Glest is an established and known game, and there's no need to go reinventing the wheel by trying to rebuild that.
+1 and fully agreed.
BTW, I had a question about something I forgot to ask. There was a chat on IRC, and someone said that the merge will only begin next month. Is there a reason to wait 15 days, and preparations that take so long? I'm thinking things could go faster if they begin ASAP... though on the other hand, no one would want things to go bad due to being done in a rush.Both teams are currently busy...and the merge would be hard to start without the two stable releases of MG and GAE.
If it would help the merge being faster, I run and update MegaGlest from SVN, and can test anything there for stability. I used to have GAE from SVN as well, but it stopped compiling at some point, although I still have and update the repository. So if I can test anything to make things go faster safely, please let me know.As people have said...including myself, GAE uses GIT now. (Future Glest will too.)
I suppose you could help test GAE Git-Master, make sure all the features work and no bugs...etc.
http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/glestae/wiki/CompileGuideWin
Glest was an unknown game itself at one point. GAE and MG never got to that level of popularity because they never had their own establish, promoted brand. Just as MG gets that (lovely website) the merger is announced. Given 6 months, 2 solid releases, a tasty website, and GameX will be as popular as Glest ever was.If Glest and GameX continue to exist as separate entities, then every download that Glest gets is a download that GameX didn't get. That's bad for GameX because it gets fewer players, and bad for the players because they get an older game that is never going to be updated or maintained. If we make it a continuation of the old Glest project, then the publicity is combined, and everybody who has a copy of the old 3.2.2 version and decides to update, instead of finding out that the project was discontinued and won't ever be updated, they find out that the project lives on in the hands of the community that drives it and they get a massive upgrade.
GAE has moved to git since then. Is that the problem?
https://docs.megaglest.org/GAE#Compiling (https://docs.megaglest.org/GAE#Compiling)
I fully agree. It sucks having bug reports from people or those asking for feature requests when MG/GAE already fix/have that, simply because the main game is well known while the forks require you to browse the forums a bit more to find out about. Still, why are we arguing about the name? Let the devs decide. After all, as Silnarm put it, He who codes, decides.Glest was an unknown game itself at one point. GAE and MG never got to that level of popularity because they never had their own establish, promoted brand. Just as MG gets that (lovely website) the merger is announced. Given 6 months, 2 solid releases, a tasty website, and GameX will be as popular as Glest ever was.If Glest and GameX continue to exist as separate entities, then every download that Glest gets is a download that GameX didn't get. That's bad for GameX because it gets fewer players, and bad for the players because they get an older game that is never going to be updated or maintained. If we make it a continuation of the old Glest project, then the publicity is combined, and everybody who has a copy of the old 3.2.2 version and decides to update, instead of finding out that the project was discontinued and won't ever be updated, they find out that the project lives on in the hands of the community that drives it and they get a massive upgrade.
The whole problem and reason why nobody plays MG or GAE is because they're not Glest per se. Glest is an established and known game, and there's no need to go reinventing the wheel by trying to rebuild that.
+1 and fully agreed.
All of you are wrong. ;)
Glest was an unknown game itself at one point. GAE and MG never got to that level of popularity because they never had their own establish, promoted brand. Just as MG gets that (lovely website) the merger is announced. Given 6 months, 2 solid releases, a tasty website, and GameX will be as popular as Glest ever was.
@John: Most of the downloads MG has ever gotten come from people that have already downloaded Glest. Basically most download Glest, all download Glest/MG/GAE, and few download only MG/GAE. You can't split them apart that's not simply unrealistic.Actually, that isn't really true anymore...
i was thinking, should the devs make the game work before adding multiplayer? i think that multiplayer should be on the end of the list.....
Anyways, if you want to speed the merge up, help test GAE Git-Master...I should too but I've been busy recently :/ I'll try to do that in my free time next week.
I would be happy if someone could make GAE compile just like MG (checkout the GIT / SVN repo, unpack the dependencies in a folder, open the sln file, and all compiles). If anyone can do this, I would appreciate it, and it would be easier to help test it as well.So in short, you want a solution with the source code and dependancies included? I don't think the most recent version of GAE has that, though a rare occasional version did get that before. It has the big disadvantage of being very hard to keep up-to-date though, and you wouldn't be able to use it with the master, as every time some one commited something... Of course, you can always try the Wiki page for learning how to compile GAE easier. https://docs.megaglest.org/GAE/Windows_Compiling
If GAE GIT's cmake setup was better, I gladly would. I tried getting it to compile last night, and cmake asks for dependencies not in the deps package for GAE, and that I can't find anywhere. They're not mentioned on the Windows Compiling wiki of GAE either from what I seen.Well, you are using this page right?
I would be happy if someone could make GAE compile just like MG (checkout the GIT / SVN repo, unpack the dependencies in a folder, open the sln file, and all compiles). If anyone can do this, I would appreciate it, and it would be easier to help test it as well.
I suppose you could help test GAE Git-Master, make sure all the features work and no bugs...etc.It is a bit more complicated and everything...but you can just post a thread with a screenshot of the exact error and the GAE team/others will help you.
http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/glestae/wiki/CompileGuideWin
Well, let's see...doesn't look like it. I think we need more people to test GAE, and maybe MG too... :| I'm beginning to have doubts because it seems we only have a few people who help testing...excluding the developers, of course.Hi guys. I like Glest very much and I wish to help MG and AE to unite in one big powerful MegaGlestAE or Glest 4. I will test both engines on Linux, just tell me what do you need to be tested. I had a look at https://docs.megaglest.org/Engines#Comparison_of_the_Engines (https://docs.megaglest.org/Engines#Comparison_of_the_Engines) and I think that every line must be "Yes" in united project, especially feature of saving/loading the game. Good luck! I`m waiting for testing instructions. My jabber is toney@jabber.org.
Hi guys. I like Glest very much and I wish to help MG and AE to unite in one big powerful MegaGlestAE or Glest 4. I will test both engines on Linux, just tell me what do you need to be tested. I had a look at https://docs.megaglest.org/Engines#Comparison_of_the_Engines (https://docs.megaglest.org/Engines#Comparison_of_the_Engines) and I think that every line must be "Yes" in united project, especially feature of saving/loading the game. Good luck! I`m waiting for testing instructions. My jabber is toney@jabber.org.A good starting point would be to get the compile the latest SVN version of MG and the latest git master of GAE, play them both, and report any bugs that you find. Do you know how to use SVN, git, and cmake? If you find a bug in GAE, post a report on the GAE board. If you find a bug in MG, post a report on the MG board.
Yep, I think they will try their best to include all of them, except some that might have some conflicts I guess.
As well, I'd prefer GAE's folder structure and phsyFS.:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
so what's the status on the progress?They're still planning things out, some MegaGlest team programmers seem to be taking a look at GAE, and overly, they are deciding how best to proceed, bearing in mind that GAE 0.4 is still incomplete, and that will have to be done before they can merge. That, and they need to stop adding new features ;).
EDIT: Also, say I want to start a project now and move it to this theoretical G4. Would I want to do the coding on GAE or MegaGlest?Doesn't matter, the features of both will be supported. GAE has more features, MegaGlest has better multiplayer and AI, the merge will take the best of both engines. https://docs.megaglest.org/Engines
EDIT: Also, say I want to start a project now and move it to this theoretical G4. Would I want to do the coding on GAE or MegaGlest?Doesn't matter, the features of both will be supported. GAE has more features, MegaGlest has better multiplayer and AI, the merge will take the best of both engines. https://docs.megaglest.org/Engines
is there a way to port some of GAEs features to MG temporarily?The other way around would be far easier, though. The merge will be using GAE as the base, since it has the most changes and refactoring. In all honesty, there is no roadplan yet, no ETAs or anything... It could take anything from a month to a year to merge, depending largely on how much time the programmers have and how well they work together.
TBH I think its time that the Glest community give the devs a break and start working on a truly epic replacement for the aging magitech; pooling all the skills we have (combined with what has already been improved engine-wise) to create something that is a leap ahead. Theres little point asking for more and more features just to play re-textured magitech clones. Whilst I would love to do this alone its just not possible, a full scale TC needs a team.Well Project Red has to be finished first. Maybe that could be applied to Project Red too, but then it'll take even longer to finish...
If the code isn't compatible to be truly merged, do a "group" merge, where we simply all work together to rebuild MG's features into GAE, but unlike a direct port, both the MG team and GAE team would work together on this one project, starting with Multiplayer, then progressing to the MDC (preferably with a prettier layout and more room for information), followed by the rest of the changes.All of you do know, that this was the plan...right? :| This was, basically, the plan. What do you think the plan was, Omega? (It just seems like you thought something else was the plan.)
Now, this is just going to be a bigger rift in the community (very very bad) that will continue to grow until GAE implements an improved Multiplayer similar to MegaGlest's, in which case MG becomes obsolete, as, to be blunt, the multiplayer is the only feature actually big enough to make MG worth playing over GAE. Sure it has improved AI and cliffs, but those are small enough that GAE's mass features win hands down, and the cliffs would be simple enough to replicate, seeing there is less changes to the way the map is drawn than probably any other part of GAE from MG.I honestly doubt GAE will ever stabilize or implement multiplayer themselves any time soon. I hope they would "stabilize" GAE in general first anyways, after 4.0. That means making sure every single feature in GAE works correctly with no bugs or glitches, or almost every single one. And maybe documenting all the features too. When my resolution bug is fixed, I'll try to help test what I can myself. Although this will be limited as since GAE is more of an engine than a game, a lot of it's features is revolved around modding. That'll probably be the real area where testing will be needed.
I don't see the "different philosophies" to be so different, anyway.When Softcoder said that, I'm pretty sure he means in terms of coding.
Constellus needs the merge? Well, it's my turn to be blunt. Just release a mg version, and once you have a website people will also try the GAE version. That's the other best option out there, which has been available for a long time.That would NOT work, since Constellus uses even more GAE features than Military (for now) and is incredibly dependent on it. MG... would just not be the same.
All of you do know, that this was the plan...right? :| This was, basically, the plan. What do you think the plan was, Omega? ...I thought that was what the plan was at first, but I must be wrong, seeing they didn't even TRY it. Giving up without even trying is an extreme letdown. :thumbdown:
I honestly doubt GAE will ever stabilize or implement multiplayer themselves any time soon. I hope they would "stabilize" GAE in general first anyways, after 4.0. That means making sure every single feature in GAE works correctly with no bugs or glitches, or almost every single one. And maybe documenting all the features too. When my resolution bug is fixed, I'll try to help test what I can myself. Although this will be limited as since GAE is more of an engine than a game, a lot of it's features is revolved around modding. That'll probably be the real area where testing will be needed.If there was a merge, it would have stable multiplayer ;D. And in the stable (not git-master) releases, there's usually no more bugs than most MegaGlest releases, and I try and document the features, though, it's no worse off than MG's documentation (come on, make some more wiki pages!).
I thought that was what the plan was at first, but I must be wrong, seeing they didn't even TRY it. Giving up without even trying is an extreme letdown.All the merge discussion and "trying" was available and done at IRC, basically. :| I think tomreyn has lots of logs...
If there was a merge, it would have stable multiplayer ;D. And in the stable (not git-master) releases, there's usually no more bugs than most MegaGlest releases, and I try and document the features, though, it's no worse off than MG's documentation (come on, make some more wiki pages!).I know, I'm just talking about the forks themselves. And for testers, while that is true we still wouldn't have enough. We had more last year, actually.
Also, if there was only one engine, it'd be easier to get testers because we'd have the testers of both MG and GAE, since there is only one option.
Constellus is crushed by this. Constellus revolves around GAE, a port to MG would require a total re-working. We were counting on the merge to bring stable multiplayer for Constellus. The AI doesn't use the mod well at all, but a human would have great fun. Constellus was going to be a large scale mod that would be completely revolutionary in gameplay. So much for that. :PFull agreement here. Not to mention Project Red, Military, and Malevolent Rising, which all would benefit from improved multiplayer. And the MegaPack would benefit greatly from some of GAE's features.
I would test a merged engine. But I just don't see a point in these two forks, they're making a huge rift in the community and making modding a lot less fun.
I think I'm gonna give up on Glest modding and sorta retire, I caught the end of the "glory days".
I don't really care if the devs are pushed or not, they got the merge on the road, then pushed it off. It's like offering someone something they really want, telling them you'll get it for them in a month, then kicking them in the balls, and telling them you're just messing.
I think the pooch just got screwed. Obviously I'm not a programmer and I haven't stuck my head into the code, but I can't help but feel you're giving up a massive long-term benefit because of a short(ish)-term challenge.:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Yes, Am just as disappointed but it can't be helped. Hopefully MG will be able to implement/port some of the GAE features.Other way around.
Give up on MegaGlest and focus on giving GAE a stable multiplayer, moving all development to it, as all MG mods work on GAE, but not vice versa. Yes, that was blunt, I don't mean to criticize the hard work of the devs, but it was done for the wrong engineit's not going to help. Statements like those leads to the opposite of progress of anything.
If we're not going to merge, we're obviously not going to port. Not GAE or MG...I admit, I was a little harsh, but what do you expect? Pretty much everyone really wanted this merge above anything else, and...well, I'll just requote John for this one, because his words of wisdom do wonders.
Just appreciate what you got. Besides, when you say things like this:QuoteGive up on MegaGlest and focus on giving GAE a stable multiplayer, moving all development to it, as all MG mods work on GAE, but not vice versa. Yes, that was blunt, I don't mean to criticize the hard work of the devs, but it was done for the wrong engineit's not going to help. Statements like those leads to the opposite of progress of anything.
I think the pooch just got screwed. Obviously I'm not a programmer and I haven't stuck my head into the code, but I can't help but feel you're giving up a massive long-term benefit because of a short(ish)-term challenge.
Statements like those leads to the opposite of progress of anything.I don't think they leave us any worse off. Various developers have shown that they have little to no interest in cooperating across the aisle; it's just that now the façade has finally come down and we can stop hoping and pretending. Come to think of it, wasn't the entire MG project founded because somebody didn't want to work with GAE? :|
I think the pooch just got screwed. Obviously I'm not a programmer and I haven't stuck my head into the code, but I can't help but feel you're giving up a massive long-term benefit because of a short(ish)-term challenge.How would it be short(ish)? Kinda the opposite...
I admit, I was a little harsh, but what do you expect? Pretty much everyone really wanted this merge above anything else, and...well, I'll just requote John for this one, because his words of wisdom do wonders.I don't expect much...just no insulting.
And I think most of you guys don't really appreciate megaglest, unless it's merged with GAE. This isn't really a reason of why MG is not going to be merged with GAE, but if you guys did there probably would have been a better chance of a merge. Or a merge even earlier... :|I gave it a fair chance -- several in fact. I really wanted to like MG because that's what everybody plays in multiplayer, and I wanted to get in on that. The limited gameplay is just not impressive at all to me. The options of what a unit can do, have not been improved at all since... what, 3.2.3.? GAE may be lacking in multiplayer, but MG is lacking in a lot more than that.
How would it be short(ish)? Kinda the opposite...It's short(ish) when compared to potentially many years of vastly improved development. More new features, faster bug fixing, united publicity and multiplayer community, mods that work for everybody instead of one subset of players... I could go on. All of that is being thrown out because it's too hard. Who ever said game development (or programming in general) was easy? :|
Quote from: ultifd on Today at 20:32:03
And I think most of you guys don't really appreciate megaglest, unless it's merged with GAE. This isn't really a reason of why MG is not going to be merged with GAE, but if you guys did there probably would have been a better chance of a merge. Or a merge even earlier... No Opinion
I gave it a fair chance -- several in fact. I really wanted to like MG because that's what everybody plays in multiplayer, and I wanted to get in on that. The limited gameplay is just not impressive at all to me. The options of what a unit can do, have not been improved at all since... what, 3.2.3.? GAE may be lacking in multiplayer, but MG is lacking in a lot more than that.
I stopped playing (couldn't decide, there were no real information about both for the normal player - only the forums).Check the wiki. https://docs.megaglest.org/Engines
the other fork that misses a huge player base (the players from the dead fork that don't switch over to the other).
I think people are giving MG less credit than the devs deserve. Getting multiplayer to work is one of the most difficult tasks in game development (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_programmer#Network_programmer)). Any feature used in multiplayer (which means most if not all of the single player features) could potentially break it. GAE has had the luxury of not having to worry about that. GAE has also focused more on getting features out rather than worrying about producing the best gaming experience. Like multiplayer, it is a difficult task and the MG team has worked really hard to make both single player and multiplayer a fun experience (regardless of anyone's subjective opinion).
I can understand the frustration of having two programs that appear to serve the same purpose. This is the nature of open source (more specifically GPL software). Another fork could appear tomorrow and that would be ok. If this were not possible then there might not be a stable multiplayer at all. When it comes down to it the people that do the work get the say. This was stated from the beginning of discussing the merge.
A possible compromise is to only promote GAE for modding and treat MG as a stand-alone game for the MegaPack and treat any other compatible mods for MG as secondary. This will allow MG to expand into other areas without worrying about the modding community (ie they can break compatability to make a better experience) and (almost) remove the choice that modders are having trouble deciding. I think both can exist together but they need to be treated as separate projects with separate goals and audiences, not two forks that can be mashed up to make one.
I started my modding using GAE but do most in MG now. From a modders perspective, and I've nodded other games too, I much prefer working with MG, it's more stable. No offense to GAE devs, but MG features have never crashed on me, whereas trying to use GAE ones did.Having had both engines crash multiple times before in different occasions, I'd hardly consider either to be perfectly stable. For an open source freeware game, it's much better than some, though both have their limitations. Generally, both engines are rather unstable/buggy with new features, and that's to be expected when neither one has a large testing team nor the time to spend testing it. It's the price to pay for using cutting edge features.
Between the two, MegaGlest is usually slightly stabler, though GAE is more optimized for performance. While GAE's multiplayer may not match MegaGlest's (for now), it still has the vast upperhand in features and above all: customizability, something I consider very important in Glest.
Of course, I would love to see both in one engine: GAE's countless improvements combined with stable multiplayer.
A modest proposal:They do that to some degree already, but a more concerted effort in that direction would be appreciated, especially when it comes to the modding side. For example, MG now has attack boosting properties but they are implemented in a very different way from GAE's emanations, so a modder who wants to release for both engines would have to maintain two different XML sets for that same feature. Perhaps it could even make a future merge more feasible if they grew close enough. Maybe not, but we can dream.
a real merge of MG and GAE would be impossible. But what about "converging" in multiple steps, taking one non common feature of each fork, and including at each release of the other fork? For example, in its next release MG could contain GAE's "patrol" command, and GAE would contain MG's multiple animations per action. And so on...
Obviously, some common features with different implementations, like pathfinder, should be selected between the two available (choosing the best one).
A modest proposal:Except we can't keep adding different features to BOTH engines. We need to stop, cease, and desist on engine, as we'd need as many people as possible to help.
a real merge of MG and GAE would be impossible. But what about "converging" in multiple steps, taking one non common feature of each fork, and including at each release of the other fork? For example, in its next release MG could contain GAE's "patrol" command, and GAE would contain MG's multiple animations per action. And so on...
Obviously, some common features with different implementations, like pathfinder, should be selected between the two available (choosing the best one).
Except we can't keep adding different features to BOTH engines.Yes we can.
There's not a single modder or player who opposes the merge,a) Modders and Players aren't Devs