Whenever I fix an inconsistency I try to add a quest rule (or similar measure) to preserve old quests, though of course I make mistakes.
Hey Testers
Just my opinion on the inconsistency thing but, if you want true NES play get a NES (or a ROM) if you want true coolness get ZC 😃
Honstely I aggree with freedom if we don't get major game ruining bugs fixed noone will want to play ZC either as a NES clone or a unique creation in and of itself.
I agree with freedom. The stupid inconsistency reports can wait untill 2.5 is released. If nobody has even noticed them untill now, how important can they be?
The problem is, NES consistency was PM's stated goal for the project, from which I do not have the moral authority to deviate. Other projects have tried to be similar to ZC but from a different direction, such as Open Zelda, but unfortunately most of these projects lag behind ZC's capabilities.
Of course if a bug's not reported, I won't fix it, and there comes a point where more accurate emulation is not reasonable given computer hardware and Allegro limitations (see the reports for Heart Beep/Midi Interaction, B Key Doesn't Cancel Registration, etc).
True. Really, at the very least, (As it's been said quite clearly within the last few posts before...) the inconsistencies can wait until it's stable, so people who don't care about the inconsistencies can work in a stable version while those pulling out their hair for perfections' sake can frolic in a similarly stable version while they wait for their own little fixes.
As seen in Catergorized Bug List thread:
INCONSISTENCIES: Graphics or behavior that is based on the original Legend of Zelda (LoZ) or another Zelda game, but isn't completely authentic. Inconsistencies with LoZ should be considered a high priority.
Developers, edit this. Freedom was right. They became low priority for in the alphas. Please ignore inconsistencys in the first 5 pages. Get to beta 18 first or to release candidates by fixing all but inconsistencys in these 5 pages now.
DarkDragon wrote:The problem is, NES consistency was PM's stated goal for the project, from which I do not have the moral authority to deviate. Other projects have tried to be similar to ZC but from a different direction, such as Open Zelda, but unfortunately most of these projects lag behind ZC's capabilities.Of course if a bug's not reported, I won't fix it, and there comes a point where more accurate emulation is not reasonable given computer hardware and Allegro limitations (see the reports for Heart Beep/Midi Interaction, B Key Doesn't Cancel Registration, etc).
I guess I can understand that well enough, but it seems they have just taken the place of features being added, and we are still no closer to seeing a stable release than before.
Whatever. :shrug:
Kind of like when you get a tax break from the government, they give you 10% off on your Federal tax and jack your state tax up 22% to make up for it.
Freedom, you and the dev's have different idea's on stability... as pointed out, fixing inconsistency issues increases the engines ability to replicate the original games behavior.
the primary goal that PM left the dev's with, (yes i've been aware of this goal for ages now) means that a stable build MUST replicate the games original behavior, otherwise i would agree with you fully.
if i didnt know this goal then i would never have helped with the reporting of a few inconsistency issues that were reported before.
Franpa,
163, 183/84, 2.10 were all released as "stable" without these consistency issues that are being brought up now, why is it different now?
Why is it that something always has to get in the way of just releasing a stable version?
Ok... back in to retirement for me and I'll check back again in a few months.
For the older builds, I don't know what to say, other than that those issues were overlooked then, and are being reported now (though FCF fixed quite a few of the inconsistencies that were brought up during his time).
Your definition of "stable" conflicts with PM's, I guess. Like I said, there's nothing at all I can do, as the instructions passed down from previous developers on this point have been very clear. The people to talk to would be DN or PM himself, though tracking down the latter could be difficult.
There's no point in me bugging anyone about it, when the inconsistencies are all worked out to everyones satisfaction and the focus then is the truly going to be on fine tuning it into a stable release then someone can email me or contact me on Elise's board, and I'll be glad to back and help wherever I can.
I don't want to get into that whole month after month thing like happened last year again, and I don't want to get everyone bitching and raising hell at one another again.
If I run across any bugs in the mean time I'll stop by and report them.
Freedom wrote:Franpa,
163, 183/84, 2.10 were all released as "stable" without these consistency issues that are being brought up now, why is it different now?
Why is it that something always has to get in the way of just releasing a stable version?
Ok... back in to retirement for me and I'll check back again in a few months.
i wasn't around when they where released, but i hazard a guess at no one back then caring about it? (well, except the developers) the developers fixed any inconsistency that was reported, but perhaps the community never bothered checking for them back then?
While we are talking about inconsistencies, here's one.
These flags are now checked in my quest in ALL my dmaps.
Every time I make a new dmap I have to go in and uncheck them.
X Use caves Instead of item cellars
X Allow 3 stait warp
X allow whistle whirlwinds
X special rooms and guys are in caves only
X View overworld map
Since there are no "cave" dmaps anymore then how do we interpret "special rooms and guys are in caves only"?
How about "Use caves Instead of item cellars"?
I thought "Caves" no longer existed and are now "interior rooms"
If cave dmaps are going to be called "interior" now, after what... 7 years of being cave, then shouldn't they be called interior rooms instead of cave?
😉
If you're editing an older quest, those flags are checked for compatibility. New quests based off of the new template should have most of those flags unchecked (except 3 stair warp and view map, I believe).
It's the quest I've been bringing up right along with the betas. 😉
It's just one of those things that the correction of inconsistencies screwed up. 😉
EDIT;
Here it is, remember this?
http://www.armageddongames.net/forums//thread/98155/
One of those flag stops message strings from showing up.
Right. If you start a brand-new quest (File->New) the dmaps will have the right flags.
The other flags are turned on by default, for dmaps with level 0 in quests created pre-b18 builds, because they have to be to avoid breaking 2.10 quests.
Though the intervening betas are not specifically supported, if you think the cut-off point where the flags should be unchecked instead of checked by default is not b18 builds, but a different beta, please do investigate, since such a thing is easy enough to fix. Note that it's too late to fix the flags in your quest, unfortunately, as you've saved it in a recent beta.
I guess I'm just screwed then, because my tileset is now basically a 2.11b10b tileset because I moved it up to that when I thought a stable version was coming, and since then I've added tons of tiles and cycling combos.
SO.....
Once this quest is done, providing there is ever a stable release to finish it in, then I will have to build a new tileset.
Such is life, I can live with that.
BUT I still go back to what I said above, if inconsistencies are going to continue to dominate the day, then this quest and tileset will probably end up further screwed up, right?
So we are back to where we were before suggestions got cut off and additions were stopped, damned if you do and damned if you don't.
So I don't know what else to do at this point but to just sit it out and wait, because I'd really hate to see happen to this quest what happened to my Robinhood quest.
DarkDragon, you're doing an awesome job of killing those bugs, but I think what happened to Jman is going to happen again, all of it is going to be in vain.
I'll check back in. 😉
? What does the tileset have to do with the dmaps?
Export the tileset, start a new quest, import the tileset, and the dmap flags should be fixed.
If you're still updating an old quest, then yes, for each new dmap you edit, you'll need to uncheck the flags, but that hardly seems a backbreaking chore.
It's not a back breaking chore.
When the time comes I'll try the import export thing.
Thanks.
EDIT;
You know what DarkDragon, I sensed you were starting to get a little irritated so I was just going to let that above slide.
But irritated or not here it is.
Importing Exporting has NEVER worked right in Zelda Classic.
In all my years of farting with this I've managed only ONCE to import anything without it corrupting.
YOu yourself posted only yesterday or day before about a graphics pack that wouldn't import for you, and only last week I reported to you that I exported my subscreen and imported right back into the exact same quest and it corrupted.
BUT LOZ inconsistencies are more important than these problems.
So be it.
If you have a specific quest, dmap # range, and flags you want cleared, I could modify a copy of ZQ to programmatically clear the flags for you (like I did for the template) if you'd like.
As for import/export, yes, because of the way it's implemented, it's strewn with landmines (though regarding the subscreen, it's not clear the bug is in export/import, rather than in the subscreen code itself). Just keep reporting the problems (with examples if possible) and hopefully the mines will be defused one by one.
Also, just to be clear, I'm not giving inconsistencies preferentially treatment - I'm fixing bugs roughly from oldest to newest, occasionally sniping page 1 bugs when they look to be easy to fix or critically important.
Thanks for that offer, but for this one quest, it's just not that important to me.
My reason for bringing it up was because it's taking us down the same old path of a stable version being further and further away.
If the focus is going to be on that, then a stable version just isn't coming any time soon.
That's just not up to you or me, I know you're doing all you can.
It's just the way things are.
perhaps hold off on the inconsistencies due to them being bizarre and hard to emulate with an allegro engine?
maybe wait till work on a new engine (rewrite from ground up) is done before implementing anymore inconsistencies?
This is getting heavy now...
It's like saying to a group of children "who want's ice cream!" "I do, I do" and then letting them eat untill they are laying on the ground in a pool of their own vomit. Spoiling their appetite.
Whereas eating vegetables every meal would lead to very unhappy children.
But what about the old "no desert untill you've finished your dinner." I'm sure we've all heard that before. But you know what?...It worked didn't it?
Yea, I know, I'm kinda putting people on the spot for an answer that they can't give me.
The thing is, if I thought a stable release was forthcoming then I'd invest the time to help in any way I can, but if it's going to drag out again, then I have other things I need to be doing.
Too many things like this going on in my life right now, and I'm trying to just get them all resolved.
Like my house, it's been on the market since March, and I'm getting tired of no results, so I told the realtor to just start dropping the price until it sells period.
If I lose $30,000 then screw it, I'll be on the road.
Sometimes I guess you just got to bend over and take it I guess.
Yes, I think we are all looking for that stable release in life and in ZC. Kinda hard to accept that one might not come in either. I play video games because they're fun, but when you start playing a game like "Bug quest 2: feature bureaucracy" it's not so fun anymore. I alway's wanted to make a game myself, and untill recently i've just been too busy. I tried in the past with 2.10 or rpg maker, but there wasn't enough to get it how I envisioned it. 2.5 However is a godsend for me. There is just one problem...the bugs. I myself have given in to a few workarounds due to bugs, but then I am unhappy with that, and you shouldn't have to. I have been banging my head against some of them more this week than ever...but I digress.
From what I have read in this topic, and correct me if i'm wrong, we are 100% unanomous on temporarily postponing non-bugs, and new features untill b18. Maybe if you plead the case to DN, he will sympathize with the current situation.
-N
well if the inconsistencies waited for the new engine then most likely they can be dealt with much quicker due to a better more flexible code base.
Heh. I'm all for a complete redesign, as quickly as possible, but I'm not holding my breath. 2.50 is a reasonable goal to look towards for now.
yes yes, but hold off on the complex stuff till a stable 2.50 is made then do a rewrite from the ground up and work on the complex bugs.
Well, since my names was brought up for an executive decision, here it is: any inconsistencies that have been around this long can wait until 2.6. They are important, but I believe getting a stable version out soon should have priority. Stable means not crashing, not getting you stuck in a quest because of a program bug, and generally doing what you expect it to do (not necessarily what the NES expected it to do). PM believed compatibility to be high on the priority list but I'm sure that given the choice between 100% compatibility and a timely release, he would have chosen the latter.
^^^ Yee Haw ^^^
I read that to mean...
"yea guys and gals, concentrate on the things that are important and can cause the engine not to be able to be used for it's designed purpose, like building and releasing quests.
This needs to be done fast and a stable release put out, cause this FREEDOM GUY is becoming a pain in the A$$ and we need to shut him the $&^#* up before I track him down and put a bullet in his brain pan."
YES! that will work for me.
😉