almost bug free?

[Shoelace]

Well then, screw it, I would be more than willing to start on a rewrite, but only if people would absolutely be satisfied with a new version of ZC that's missing 90% of its intended functionality but without random crashes and quest corruption bugs. I'd have to convince myself to do things that way.

I'd be satisfied. But here is my 2 cents about it:

We really just want a release, that is stable as possible. There has been a lot of things added since 2.5. Some of course, still hasn't been added yet. So why don't we do what you are saying, make a new version of ZC with some of its intended functionality not working, but do get rid of the crashes and big bugs. Release that, and then finish the 10% functionality for another release. Because we all know that 100% intended functionality isn't coming for a long time. So why not split them up into 2 releases? It is just it has been 6, 7 years between a release. I don't think people would be mad about 2 releases as 1.92 183, 184, and 2.10 were pretty close to each other.

I just want there to be a good release so we can start uploading games like on PureZC, get some fresh games on there. I will help test it out to make sure the bugs are minimal if that is what we are aiming for. It is just, at this point, when I know things are still going to get added, it is hard to bug test for a stable release when additions are changing things. that's just me though.

[rocksfan13]

I second what Shoelace implies.

He's right. People are looking for stability. Let them have it and take it from there. I can't imagine that it was this bad during the 193, 183, 182 era. Before 2.10.
By taking an insane amount of time to send one out, you risk losing the fanbase and spark new interest.

[Freedom]

I second what Shoelace implies.

He's right. People are looking for stability. Let them have it and take it from there. I can't imagine that it was this bad during the 193, 183, 182 era. Before 2.10.
By taking an insane amount of time to send one out, you risk losing the fanbase and spark new interest.

^^^ I 3rd it... BIG CAT DADDY knows where he speaks
;O)

[Nicholas Steel]

There are very few quests designed for the ZC beta's, you won't be affecting much by removing backwards support as there is already 2.10 for 2.10 quests, 1.92b183/4 and 1.90 etc. for there quests.

If anything, stability under modern O/S's is where the problem lies for legacy quests but for 1.90 there is always DOSBox.

Bah thats what I get for posting late at night. I mean you could have 2 programs, one aimed at running/making legacy quests and the other aimed at whatever the hell you want. Both independent from each other.

edit: anyways that likely wont happen at all or any time soon so for now, I 4th Shoelace's idea.


edit: What I meant was to develop a program that aims to play quests from 2.10, 1.92 beta 184, 1.92 beta 183 and 1.90 reliably using the latest version of Allegro or whatever. The editor would have presets (like we have rule sets now) where you choose what version your quest is to be made for and the appropriate restrictions will be made, the outputted QST file will be 100% compatible with the original player as well as the new unified player.

The Editor can sport new things like Dungeon Carving and the large interface etc. and also fix the stuck midi note bug for 2.10 quests without destroying quest compatibility.


Then once that is done, develop a separate project aimed at being a generic game maker with scripting and other advanced features etc. and no compatibility with old quest files.

[Christian]

I 5th Shoelace's idea also. We don't care about features that are waiting to be added. All we want is a fresh stable release. My quest is temporarily on hold because i just became a bit lazy at keeping up with the changes, updating every beta, and rewrite certain scripts that broke due to certain changes in ZScript. Right now, 2.5 has features that are great and doesn't need any improvement for now. I'll gladly help beta test the program also as long as we know that we aren't doing it in vain. I'd say finish whatever's going to be added at the moment, release the builds, and us testers will give out reports on any bugs we encounter to smash most of the bugs in 2.5.


Just my 2 cents on it.

[Nimono]

Here's my opinions on the matter:


-I'm still a bit sick of the bickering about the lack of a stable release, but I can understand where you all are coming from. I'm pretty sure the devs have a good reason for moving slowly, though...well, most of them.
-I'm getting sick of all this "YOU report the bugs, THEN we fix them". Aren't the devs suppose to look for the bugs THEMSELVES before releasing? I know these are all just builds, not big releases, but it still makes no sense to me at all. I would NEVER release something to people that had a glaring bug in it without trying to find if it's even in there, or even FIXING it. It does not. make. sense!
-Enough with the new ZScript commands! Don't we have everything we could possibly need in it RIGHT NOW?
-Finish up just the things that are unfinished, and add just one final thing: Sideview ladders. Oh yeah, sure, we have a script for it, but think of it this way: Does it really make sense to force us to script what should LOGICALLY already be built-in? Sideview isn't exactly good enough for the most part because it has no built-in ladders to climb up and stand on. (That's one problem I have with the script- you can't climb on top of the ladder and stand on it.) Doesn't that, then, make sideview incomplete? Just my opinion on it. (Besides, how hard could it be to add that kind of combo in?)

So yeah. I haven't given up ZC yet, but I'm going to have to agree that this has gone on long enough. We've got just about everything we need, why add much more past that sideview ladder? (And I still refuse to accept that we HAVE to use the sideview ladder script. That's just being lazy on your part, devs.)

[pkmnfrk]

-I'm getting sick of all this "YOU report the bugs, THEN we fix them". Aren't the devs suppose to look for the bugs THEMSELVES before releasing? I know these are all just builds, not big releases, but it still makes no sense to me at all. I would NEVER release something to people that had a glaring bug in it without trying to find if it's even in there, or even FIXING it. It does not. make. sense!

Let's play the Imagine If game! Imagine if the developers had to test every single feature in Zelda Classic before releasing a build, including the ones that shouldn't have been affected by whatever they were touching. Make a bugfix to Link's sprites? Got to check DMaps, dungeon doors, BS Sprites, Midi playing, Quest Templates, Old-style warp detection and combo cycling. Add a new enemy to the default template? Test Sidewarps, walkable water, sideview, palette cycling, raft branches, boss roars and dungeon maps.

Etc, etc.

It's not feasible to examine every aspect of the engine every time you do something. It would be like playing through your entire quest every time you fix a combo problem in Level 6. That would be madness! Fortunately, there's a lot more people using the program than developers, so the idea is that the masses, in their wild and varying use of the program, can test every aspect of it. If not every build, than every few builds.

THAT is how bugs are found.

[jman2050]

More to the point, I am a terrible tester. At least 90% of the bugs on the forum are found performing activities that I never would think of trying out on my own. Furthermore, at least half the bugs I personally find are by accident.

Just because we're developers doesn't mean we're particularly good at bug testing.

[Pineconn]

Gah.. let's not get into a role debate. The betas were publicly released for ZCers to test. Simple as that. The most important task at hand is the lack of direction or a goal in general, which needs to be addressed now.

[Freedom]

with all of that in mind then I think you all understand how I got to feel testing, you'd find a bug, report it, it was fixed, then back again a few releases later